Sober or slammer
South Carolina law enforcement has begun their latest DUI campaign, kicking off operation "sober or slammer" last Friday.
Troopers say no matter if you're a teacher or a preacher, or anyone else, if you're caught drinking and driving you're going to jail.
The Highway Patrol says they are going to triple the number of officers on the road through September 1st, and will use the extra manpower to set up roadblocks as well. On Friday morning law enforcement held a news conference at Mount Hope cemetery in Florence, complete with anti-DUI banners and pictures of a DUI victim to announce the crackdown.
It is undeniable that drinking and driving can have tragic results. However, I predict that in the next few months what we will see are an increase in persons who were not legally under the influence who were arrested and taken to jail to bump law enforcement's numbers. If there is an increase in arrests, the operation will be a success. Of course, if there is no increase in arrests, the operation will be a success, because the decrease will be due to less people drinking and driving as a result of the campaign.
I believe one (intended?) effect of these marketing blitzes by the Highway Patrol is large-scale jury tampering. I have had officers testify on the stand that one drink before driving is illegal, and there are many people who believe that any amount of alcohol before driving is against the law. That's what the commercials are saying, right? Zero tolerance. Sober or slammer. You drink and drive, you lose. But that is not what the law is, nor is that what the law should be - the law says that DUI is impairment by alcohol or drugs to the extent that it affects your ability to drive, and only when you blow greater than a .08 on the datamaster is the jury instructed that there may be a rebuttable inference of intoxication.
When trying a DUI, the first thing that I tell the jury in opening statement is that it is not against the law to drink and then drive. I ask for an instruction from the judge that zero tolerance is not the law in South Carolina, and given the saturation of the "zero tolerance" advertising it is a necessary instruction to attempt to dispel the jury's confusion on the issue. I hope that operation sober or slammer does some good for someone somewhere in the state, but the violation of Fourth Amendment rights at roadblocks and the arrests of persons who were not legally drunk is too high a price to pay.
Comments
So, you have to be completely sober to drive? There's no gray area between sober and intoxicated? That seems like a complete misstatement of the law.
Like these "Buzzed Driving is Drunk Driving" ads that we had a few years ago:
http://blondejustice.blogspot.com/2005/12/buzzed-driving-is-legal.html
Posted by: Blonde Justice | August 19, 2008 5:55 PM
Of course it is a misstatement of the law. We also have "buzzed driving is drunk driving" ads and billboards, and "zero tolerance" is the most misleading one.
"So, why is this ad campaign driving me nuts? What's so untrue about it? It's a real under-exaggeration of the legal standard for intoxication."
Because they believe that one drink is too many and, despite law to the contrary, they want the public (potential jurors included) to believe the same.
What if I buy a TV ad saying that all cops are liars and murder is legal if the dead guy deserved it? It's not a true statement and I would probably lose my law license - why is it ok for state law enforcement agencies to purposefully misstate the law in ad campaigns?
Posted by: bfrederick | August 19, 2008 6:17 PM