DUI Breath Tests May be Unconstitutional

A DUI law passed last year in Washington made the results of a breath-test immediately admissible in cases of driving while intoxicated.  Hundreds of DUI cases have been thrown out because lawyers are successfully arguing that the new law is unconstitutional and that the results cannot be immediately available to the prosecution.

The law, also passed in several other states, has many legal officials around the country concerned about the possibility of having several thousand DUI cases thrown out on the grounds of the unconstitutionality of the evidence presented.

A case involving Seattle Sonics basketball player Rashard Lewis recently highlighted the new laws’ fallibility.  On Oct. 1, 2005 Lewis was stopped and had his breath-test reading that showed his blood alcohol level to be 0.13, significantly over the 0.08 legal limit.  His lawyers argued that the breath test admissibility was unconstitutional, however, and the case’s outcome is still uncertain.  Lewis has entered a plea of not guilty. 

Many judges throughout Washington have already ruled that the admissibility laws are unconstitutional and therefore any breath-test result may not be used in a DUI case.  Police and other witnesses and evidence may still be used in such cases, however.

Before the law was passed a judge would hear both sides argue their case before seeing or admitting any breath-test results as evidence.

Another facet of Washington DUI law is that if a person’s blood alcohol levels are tested and show at least 0.08 then the person is immediately guilty of a DUI.  These laws fly in the face of due process, which says that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. 

The outcome of the breath-test laws is being looked at in all states around the country.  Admissibility issues may mean sweeping reform to the way in which DWI cases are handled in every state from now on.