If you think Arizona’s drunk-driving laws are already among the toughest in the nation, wait till you see the array of proposals that could end up in the books next year.
The bills reflect a trend in recent years that has had Arizona handing out stiffer penalties against intoxicated drivers.
One proposal would allow a police officer to serve an order of suspension of a driver’s license pending results of an alcohol test — or if the results indicate intoxication of a person involved in a vehicular accident that resulted in death or serious physical injury.
In short, the bill seeks to penalize a person in advance of a conviction. It would require an immediate surrender of the driver’s license on suspicion, gathered after an initial alcohol test, of drunk driving.
But Sen. Jim Waring, R-7, said driving is not a right but a privilege.
“This isn’t a right. This isn’t the right to bear arms. This isn’t free speech. This is a privilege, and I would say under those circumstances, would society’s best judgment be to let the person just drive away≠ I would argue no,” said Waring, author of the measure, S1008.
“If there is a suspicion that alcohol is involved, we want to have the ability to take their license on the spot,” he said.
State law specifies ways that a person can lose a driver’s license, such as when convicted of drunk driving. Also, a refusal to take an alcohol test is grounds for license suspension for 15 days. Under this section of law, an officer can ask for a driver’s license and upon surrender, issue a temporary driving permit valid for 15 days.
Waring’s bill would take the law further, since under it a driver’s license can be seized pending results of the alcohol test. However, the bill also allows a driver to challenge the suspension in a hearing that that has to occur within 15 days after a formal request is received.
Concerns have been raised and Waring could tweak the bill in response, but the goal would remain the same: to keep drunk drivers from getting behind the wheel immediately after an accident that has caused death or serious physical injury.
Indeed, lawmakers have incrementally increased the penalties against drunk driving through the years.
In pushing for tougher measures, they point to car crash figures: In 2005, 233 people died in alcohol-related crashes. The year before, 256 people were killed. And since 2001, about a quarter of all fatal crashes were alcohol-related, a troubling fact in one of the nation’s fastest growing states.
There is positive news: The percentage of alcohol-related crashes has been dropping, from 6.15 percent in 2001 to 5.49 percent in 2005.
But the economic cost of alcohol-related crashes was staggering — about $430 million in 2005, according to a state report.
This past session, lawmakers created a new category for the most intoxicated drivers. Those who have more 2.5 times the legal limit in their blood — 0.20 — will have to spend 45 consecutive days in jail and pay a minimum of $500 in fines, excluding assessments, which would bring the total charges to more than $2,500, even when convicted for the first time.
They will also have to install an ignition-interlock device for 18 months.
The state already requires the interlock on first time DUI offenders, regardless of the degree of their intoxication. Until recently, the only other state to mandate interlock on first-time offenders is New Mexico.
“We are going to make them (laws) stronger,” declared Waring, who has sponsored several other DUI bills.
They include S1033, which requires a person, whose driver’s license has been revoked because of drunk driving and who has been ordered to perform community service to provide proof from the court that community service has been completed in order to get a new driver’s license.
Two other measures make sure that a person convicted of DUI actually spends time in jail. Under S1005, provisions in the statute governing home-detention programs authorized by municipalities and counties for persons convicted of DUI offenses would be deleted. It states that a person convicted of a DUI offense is ineligible for home detention.
Under S1007, a person convicted of an aggravated DUI offense or extreme DUI while required to have an ignition interlock is not eligible for probation, pardon, commutation or suspension of a sentence until he or she has served at least four months in prison.
Supporters of tougher DUI laws argued that drunk driving should not be tolerated and that drunk drivers belong in jail. The Legislature last session took away judges’ discretion to suspend a portion of a jail sentence for a first-time, extreme DUI offense. Before, a judge was allowed to suspend all but 10 days of a 30-day jail sentence if the person completed a court-ordered alcohol-treatment program.
Now, the offender must spend all 30 days in jail.
On the other side of the debate is the view that rehabilitation must remain an option for heavy drinkers, triggered by an argument that the number of accidents caused by drunk driving remains substantial even though the state has incrementally increased the penalty for DUI offenses.
Another Waring bill, S1004, will harmonize a discrepancy in statute that resulted from differing versions of two measures signed by Gov. Janet Napolitano last session. Another bill by Sen. Linda Gray, R-10, would have fixed the inconsistency, but the senator had decided to let her bill die near the end of session rather than risk watering down the ignition-interlock provision of a measure already signed by the governor.
Under S1008, a police officer shall serve an order of suspension if the results of blood, breath or urine tests “were not immediately available” or if the results indicate that a driver has a 0.08 blood-alcohol level — the legal limit — or more, or has a 0.04 alcohol level or more in a case of a person driving a commercial vehicle.
In short, if a person were drunk and had killed someone in an accident, his or her driver’s license can be taken away on the spot.
“I don’t think the public thinks — I don’t think anybody thinks it is reasonable to just give that person their license back and say, go ahead, drive to your heart’s content,” Waring said.
There is one additional way to retrieve a license that has been suspended. The license can be reinstated if the Motor Vehicle Division determines before the requested hearing that the driver did not have at least a 0.08 blood-alcohol level.