Special License For Dui Suspects Ruled Not Double Jeopardy

The state does not violate a person’s constitutional rights when it issues a “probationary license” to a motorist accused of drunken driving and then prosecutes the person for the crime, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that the state law permitting the two-stage action against accused drunken drivers does not violate the constitutional prohibition against “double jeopardy” - prosecuting a person twice for the same crime.

In dissent, four justices said defendants in the case “have been unconstitutionally placed in jeopardy of punishment twice for the same conduct” in violation of the constitution.

Under the disputed law, the state Department of Licensing can issue a five-year probationary license to any person who is stopped and is found to have a blood-alcohol level of .10 or above. Then local authorities can prosecute the motorist on a criminal charge of drunken driving.

Whitman County District Court Commissioner David Frazier granted the motions of eight accused drunken drivers to have criminal charges against them dismissed on grounds they already had been issued probationary licenses. Frazier agreed that the licenses were a form of punishment.

The high court reversed and remanded the cases back to the county for trial.

The eight people accused of drunken driving were identified as Doy Lee McClendon, Gil Crosby, Sally Parrish, Frank Sayre, Richard Triquart, Stephen Stark, Brian Hayton, and Mark Booth.

In an opinion written by Justice Charles Smith, the majority said the probationary licenses are not punishment but merely help protect society from drunken drivers.

“The sanction is rationally related to the government’s goal of protecting the public. Probationary licenses may carry the sting of punishment, but that does not necessarily characterize them as punishment for double jeopardy purposes,” the court says.