Posted by Unless you follow Oregon Court of Appeals opinions on a regular basis, you’d have no idea that in a matter of days the Oregon Supreme Court will distribute an opinion that could drastically alter the way police prove that a driver is under the influence.
The expected ruling is related to a 2005 auto accident in Portland that resulted in a DUII arrest. Thomas Muchuca was drunk when he wrecked his car and caused injury to himself, that’s not the issue. Muchuca’s luck may have turned later that night in the hospital, though he didn’t know it at the time. An officer told Mr. Machuca of the severe penalties for not giving a blood sample to test blood alcohol levels and then proceeded to ask Mr. Machuca for his consent. Machuca agreed but now says he was coerced. Were his constitutional rights violated?
The state argues that agreeing to the terms of a drivers license means you imply consent for things like breathalyzer and blood tests. Sure, you can still refuse but the consequences for refusing are often worse than if you consent. It could be argued that this decades old way of doing things has created a sort of “guilty until proven innocent” climate.
In the trial courts, Mr. Machuca was found to have given his blood voluntarily but it was also noted that the police did not meet the burden of proof to bypass the need for a warrant. In other words, the trial court says that consent is not implied.
On to the Court of Appeals the case went and in a 6-4 decision, the court ruled in favor of the defendant, Thomas Machuca. Attorney General John Kroger disagrees and asked the Oregon Supreme Court to have a look. Arguments were given to the court on Dec. 19th, 2009 and a ruling is expected by the end of January 2010.
So what does this mean to you and me? Well, if the Oregon Supreme Court agrees with the Court of Appeals and the Trial Court, police may have to get a warrant to obtain a breath or blood sample. It could also mean district attorneys across the state will be dropping charges they have against people that refused or were unable to give a breath/blood test. It could also mean appeals of settled cases that would lead to retrials or even clearing the records of some prior DUII convictions.
What do you think, Oregon? Is the current system lawful or does it violate the constitution?
The current system is clearly unconstitutional, especially since they can get you if they make up some reason for pulling you over, like "your tail light is out".
I am being currently being prosecuted for DUII in Eugene Where I was on foot and the police could not find my vehcile but since I had a previous arrest pending trial at the time(It was dropped) and that I had keys on me, that It constitutes intent to drive having the keys, which constituted implied consent to beathalize, which means in Eugene If you have had a previous arrest (I have never been convicted) and you are walking home rather than driving drunk they are still going to charge you with DUII if you have keys on you on the belief If you drove drunk once your going to do any time you get the chance again.
Driving is a privilege, not a right. The language and contracts one signs need to be more strongly worded, when one obtains a driver's license. As a paramedic and firefighter, with decades of experience, I am appalled that we allow so much leeway in this arena.
While I feel for H.S. above, as this certainly diminishes the incentive to park the car, walk, and not drive – I do think that we voluntarily submit to these tests. We should probably install breathalysers on all cars. This $50 item would save thousands of lives and millions of dollars – and wouldn't be a violation of anyone's constitutional rights.
Reversed by the Supreme Court – 2/11/10
http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S057910.h...
Thanks GF!
[...] Oregon Supreme Court Ruling Could Drastically Alter DUII Landscape … [...]