In 1999 we reported a news story about South Carolina's effort to become the 49th state to pass a so-called DUI "legal per se" law, which would automatically find drunk drivers guilty if they have a blood-alcohol content level of .10 or higher.
The passage of the bill was being blocked in the South Carolina Senate with the use of an old political ploy, the filibuster. Opponents of the bill had control of the Senate floor and were stalling a vote by extending the debate on the issue.
Basic Constitutional Right
When I first read that news article, being a resident of South Carolina, my reaction was, "Yep, the good ol' boy system is still alive and well in the Palmetto State." But then I read a news release from opponents of the bill, that brought to focus the reason the proposal was being so strongly opposed.The news release from the South Carolina Libertarian Party, the folks who are not terribly fond of a lot of the laws on the books today, said the party opposes the DUI Per Se bill for one simple but very important reason: it is unconstitutional.
Although 48 states have passed the "legal per se" law, at the urging of Mothers Against Drunk Driving and other activist groups, those laws all have in common one factor -- they eliminate trial by jury, a basic Constitutional right. This would seem to leave those laws wide open for challenge on appeal, if the right defendant comes along with the assets to pursue relief in higher courts.
The Greater Good
Therefore, the South Carolina Senate must decide is what serves the greater good -- cracking down on drunk drivers or protecting the basic freedoms of its citizens. Hopefully, those Senators will consider the true issues rather than taking the course that is most likely to get them re-elected.Here is more insight into the issue, from the South Carolina Libertarian Party news release:
The Constitutions of both South Carolina and the United States guarantee the right to a trial by jury. Nowhere is it stated that a criminal conviction may be attained solely through mechanical, chemical, statistical, or spectral analytic means.
Other Alternatives Available
The two core arguments for the DUI Per Se bill are specious. The first argument is purely emotional. It plays upon the familial agony suffered at the hands of drunken drivers to compel passage of an unconstitutional bill. The second argument is a thinly disguised "bandwagon" argument. Boiled down to its essence, it says that since 48 other states have instituted a DUI Per Se law in some form, South Carolina is obligated to follow suit. The SCLP opposes both arguments.The SCLP extends its greatest sympathies to families who have lost loved ones through the criminal acts of intoxicated drivers. However, the possibility that a DUI Per Se law might prevent an alcohol related death does not justify the outright killing of a basic tenet of our Constitutions. Furthermore, uniformity in unconstitutionality among the various states is not a compelling reason to abrogate the liberties guaranteed to South Carolina's citizens.
The SCLP urges the South Carolina legislature consider alternative actions that preserve the Constitutional right to trial by jury. For instance, a DUI driver convicted of causing death, personal damage, or property damage should suffer severe criminal penalties consistent with other forms of assault or homicide and should be required to make full restitution to victims or to their families.
No matter how abhorrent the crime, every person deserves the Constitutionally guaranteed right to a public trial by an impartial jury, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to be allowed to obtain witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
