Alaska: Supreme Court Allows Science in DUI Cases

The Newspaper
by The Newspaper

On Friday, Alaska’s Supreme Court upheld the right of defendants to present scientific evidence at trial in cases involving driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). In 2004, the state legislature sought to muzzle defense attorneys who cited medical evidence on alcohol absorption rates in a way that would have undermined conviction rates. The case in question . . .

Douglas Valentine had challenged his own June 18, 2005 DUI arrest. Fairbanks Police Sergeant Dan Welborn initially pulled Valentine over that night for speeding but upon noticing his bloodshot eyes and a “moderate” odor of alcohol, Valentine was given a field sobriety test and brought in to the station for a breathalyzer reading. At 9:20pm, he blew a 0.099 on the machine. Twenty-five minutes later, the reading increased by 0.020 to 0.119.

Valentine argued that he had two beers before getting behind the wheel and that neither the field sobriety test nor his driving that night showed any evidence of impairment. Alaska Statute 28.35.030(s) prohibited Valentine from making the medical argument that at the time he was behind the wheel, the alcohol had not been absorbed into his bloodstream and his blood alcohol content (BAC) was under the legal limit of 0.08. The high court summarized the scientific evidence.

“Typically within an hour after a person has stopped drinking, the person’s body has absorbed much of the alcohol consumed and is eliminating alcohol from the bloodstream faster than it is absorbing it — that is, the point of ‘peak’ blood alcohol level has passed,” Chief Justice Dana Fabe wrote for the court. “But in some people this ‘peak’ point may not be reached for up to four hours after drinking because the rate at which the body absorbs alcohol depends on a variety of factors, including consumption of food, having an upset stomach, and the type of alcohol consumed. Therefore, it is possible that a person’s blood alcohol at the time of driving was lower than at the time the person took a post-arrest chemical test.”

The legislature specifically outlawed the delayed absorption defense in response to a 2002 court of appeals opinion, Conrad v. Alaska, where the argument had been successful. The high court on Friday found that this law undermined the constitutional right of a driver accused of DUI to defend himself.

“Under the United States and Alaska Constitutions, a defendant has the right to present relevant exculpatory evidence in a criminal trial,” Fabe wrote. “A defendant’s due process rights are denied when a legislative enactment substantially limits the right to present a defense.”

The Alaska Supreme Court, however, did approve another 2004 legislative change that has the effect of allowing automatic DUI convictions in nearly all cases. A separate provision of law allows anyone accused of having a blood alcohol level of 0.08 up to four hours after driving to be automatically convicted of DUI, regardless of whether he was sober while behind the wheel. This redefinition of the crime creates what California DUI Attorney Lawrence Taylor calls the “DUI exception to the Constitution.” In such cases, using science to prove sobriety can be excluded on grounds of irrelevance.

Because the lower court in Valentine’s case did not explicitly cite this exception, the supreme court overturned the conviction and ordered Valentine to stand for retrial.

A copy of the supreme court ruling is available in a 160k PDF file a the source link below.

Source: Valentine v. Alaska (Supreme Court of Alaska, 8/28/2009)

The Newspaper
The Newspaper

More by The Newspaper

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 22 comments
  • FreedMike FreedMike on Sep 02, 2009

    @Kurt: If you REALLY believe that cops pulling over drunks is nannyism, then you live in some kind of utopian fantasyland. Second, someone with .8 blood alcohol is DRUNK, whether he's a heavy drinker or a light drinker.

  • Anonymous Anonymous on Nov 27, 2009

    [...] Alaska: Supreme Court Allows Science In Dui Cases [...]

  • Leonard Ostrander We own a 2017 Buick Envision built in China. It has been very reliable and meets our needs perfectly. Of course Henry Ford was a fervent anti-semite and staunch nazi sympathizer so that rules out Ford products.
  • Ravenuer I would not.
  • V8fairy Absolutely no, for the same reasons I would not have bought a German car in the late 1930's, and I am glad to see a number of other posters here share my moral scruples. Like EBFlex I try to avoid Chinese made goods as much as possible. The quality may also be iffy, but that is not my primary concern
  • Tsarcasm No, Japan only. Life costs by Rank:#1 - House (150k+)#2 - Education (30k+)#3 - Automobile (30k+) why waste hard earned money in inferior crap => Korean, Chinese, and American cars are trash. a toyota or honda will last twice as long.
  • Tassos In the 90s we hired a former PhD student and friend of mine, who 'worked' at GM "Research" labs, to come work for us as a 'temp' lecturer and get paid extra. He had no objection from GM, came during the day (around 2 PM), two hours drive round trip, plus the 1.5 hour lecture, twice weekly. (basically he goofed off two entire afternoons out of the five) He told me they gave him a different model new car every month, everything (even gas) paid. Instead of him paying parking, I told him to give me the cars and I drove them for those 90 mins, did my shopping etc. Almost ALL sucked, except the Eldo coupe with the Northstar. That was a nice engine with plenty of power (by 90s standards). One time they gave him the accursed Caddy Catera, which was as fun driving as having sex with a fish, AND to make it worse, the driver's door handle broke and my friend told me GM had to pay an arm and a leg to fix it, needed to replace almost the whole damned door!
Next