Pubdate: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 Source: Macon Telegraph (GA) Copyright: 2003 The Macon Telegraph Publishing Company Contact: http://www.macontelegraph.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/667 HIGH COURT'S DUI LAW RULING RIGHTS A WRONG The Georgia Supreme Court this week overturned a state law used to help convict drunk drivers that allowed accident investigators at the scene of automobile accidents to ignore basic rights guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment. The ruling, overturning the "implied consent" law, says police must now have probable cause that alcohol or drugs were involved in the collision before they can require drivers, involved in an accident with injuries, to submit to blood or breath tests. The existing law had ignored the probable cause test and punished drivers who refused to take the test with loss of driving privileges for up to one year. It's a good ruling that most legal experts agree will have little negative impact on getting drunk and drug-impaired drivers off the highways. And it's a gratifying personal rights development in light of the erosion of many of those rights under the guise of the greater good that is occurring at the federal level, most notably in some of the Patriot Act provisions. Georgia's "implied consent" law allowing investigating officers to require the sobriety tests - or have your refusal to do so used in court against you - when there was no evidence of such causal impairment was a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, most prosecutors and defendants' attorneys agreed. What is at issue is whether those individual's rights against unreasonable searches without cause should override the public safety concerns in obtaining convictions of impaired drivers. Most prosecutors agree that there will be little effect from the ruling in their ability to deal with drunk driving cases, although a few Atlanta prosecutors have expressed high concerns that DUI charges brought in some high profile cases already in the court system may be thrown out because of this ruling. There is no special need to depart from the constitutionally guaranteed probable cause test in injury cases. Police investigating an accident will now have to document reasons for requiring the test, but the circumstances of the crash, the behavior, smell and even physical evidence (such as liquor or beer bottles) on the scene should provide ample cause for testing those drivers who need it and eliminate the threat of punitive action against those who don't but object to the assumption of guilt. - --- MAP posted-by: Larry Stevens