New York DWI/DWAI Law Blog

The National Transportation Safety Board has just released a new recommendation that states should lower the blood alcohol content allowed in drivers before they can be charged with drunk driving. The current allowable level, .08 percent, was passed state by state in the 1970s and 1980s from a previous level of .10. Now, the NTSB wants to lower that even more to .05 percent.

The proposal is not without its detractors, of course. The American Beverage Institute, a lobbying group for the food and beverage industry, called it "ludicrous." But Mothers Against Drunk Driving is withholding support, as well.

"Moving from .08 to .05 would criminalize perfectly responsible behavior," said a spokesperson for the American Beverage Institute after the announcement. "Further restriction of moderate consumption of alcohol by responsible adults prior to driving does nothing to stop hard-core drunk drivers from getting behind the wheel."

The City of Baltimore has been forced to dismiss as many as 6,000 tickets sent after drivers were allegedly caught running red lights or speeding by traffic cameras in August or September of last year. The reason? The evidence prosecutors need to prove the traffic violations was apparently lost during the city's transition to a new vendor.

That vendor, Xerox State and Local Solutions, does have a current contract with New York City, although it is unclear whether that contract is for the management of the traffic cameras.

Xerox lost its contract with Baltimore as of Dec. 31 but was kept on for 90 days "to facilitate a smooth transition." Previously, representatives for the company had routinely appeared in court to give evidence, but that ended earlier this month -- leaving prosecutors without what they need to prove their cases. The city says the vendor hasn't provided that evidence to prosecutors directly, while the vendor says it did. Apparently, the city and Xerox are also involved in a payment dispute, although both sides claim that is unrelated.

"If the city is unable to move forward with a case absent information from a vendor, I think it raises the question of who is actually overseeing or running that program," observed a spokesperson for AAA Mid-Atlantic.

This week, in a decision that could have a major impact on those suspected of driving drunk or under the influence of drugs, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police cannot compel suspects to undergo blood tests without a warrant. While a DWI blood test refusal, like a breath test refusal, could still result in the loss of your driver's license, the new ruling means that police cannot force you to submit to the test.

The case arose after a Missouri man was pulled over on suspicion of DWI. He refused a Breathalyzer test, but failed several field sobriety tests and was arrested. The highway patrol trooper drove the suspect to a hospital, where the man was forced, handcuffed, to submit to having his blood drawn.

Although the officer might have been able to get a warrant to draw the man's blood, he did not do so. The blood test revealed a blood alcohol content of 0.154 percent, nearly twice the legal limit.

The Missouri courts, however, ruled that the compulsory, warrantless blood draw was a violation of the defendant's Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure by the government. Since the evidence was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights, the government was not allowed to use it to convict him, and his case was overturned. That result was upheld by the Missouri Supreme Court, so the State of Missouri appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Although 592 communities across the nation have them, traffic cameras are increasingly coming under fire from critics -- and not just the ones caught by them. The cameras were first used to send tickets to cars they observed running red lights, but many are now used to monitor drivers for speeding and other traffic violations.

This year so far, 66 bills have been proposed around the U.S. to regulate the use of traffic cameras, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. As we mentioned in March, there's currently a traffic camera bill under consideration that would allow them on Staten Island.

Not all of those 66 bills are meant to spread the use of photo enforcement systems, however. There are proposals in several states that would prohibit camera-enforcement for traffic violations like speeding, and some would ban them even at red lights. Twelve states have already banned speed cameras and 9 prohibit the use of cameras for either purpose.