Drunk driving, implied consent, and self-incrimination

Kehinde A. Ogundipe, Kenneth J. Weiss

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The effects of drunk driving are a significant risk to public health and safety. Accordingly, the federal government and the states have enacted laws that permit law enforcement to identify offenders and to apply various levels of sanctions. There is no constitutional requirement that evidence of drunkenness be permitted in defense of criminal behavior. In practice, citizens who undertake to operate motor vehicles under the influence of alcohol are considered reckless per se and have no right to obstruct law enforcement in determining their condition. Indeed, refusal of roadside sobriety tests, including the Breathalyzer, may be considered a separate offense. The issuing of Miranda-type warnings by police officers has been ruled on recently in New Jersey. In a superior court appellate decision, State v. Spell, the court outlined the necessary procedures, concluding that, although motorists have no right to refuse testing, police officers have an obligation to issue sufficient warnings before the motorist decides how to proceed. In the Spell matter, the defendant incriminated himself by refusing the testing, even though he was acquitted on the drunk-driving charge. The authors discuss the role of expert testimony in these matters.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)386-391
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
Volume37
Issue number3
StatePublished - 2009

Fingerprint

Law Enforcement
Police
Alcoholic Intoxication
Federal Government
Breath Tests
Expert Testimony
Jurisprudence
Motor Vehicles
Public Health
Alcohols
Safety
Driving Under the Influence
Criminal Behavior

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine

Cite this

Drunk driving, implied consent, and self-incrimination. / Ogundipe, Kehinde A.; Weiss, Kenneth J.

In: Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Vol. 37, No. 3, 2009, p. 386-391.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{44d0b03721d145819237adaa5137d952,
title = "Drunk driving, implied consent, and self-incrimination",
abstract = "The effects of drunk driving are a significant risk to public health and safety. Accordingly, the federal government and the states have enacted laws that permit law enforcement to identify offenders and to apply various levels of sanctions. There is no constitutional requirement that evidence of drunkenness be permitted in defense of criminal behavior. In practice, citizens who undertake to operate motor vehicles under the influence of alcohol are considered reckless per se and have no right to obstruct law enforcement in determining their condition. Indeed, refusal of roadside sobriety tests, including the Breathalyzer, may be considered a separate offense. The issuing of Miranda-type warnings by police officers has been ruled on recently in New Jersey. In a superior court appellate decision, State v. Spell, the court outlined the necessary procedures, concluding that, although motorists have no right to refuse testing, police officers have an obligation to issue sufficient warnings before the motorist decides how to proceed. In the Spell matter, the defendant incriminated himself by refusing the testing, even though he was acquitted on the drunk-driving charge. The authors discuss the role of expert testimony in these matters.",
author = "Ogundipe, {Kehinde A.} and Weiss, {Kenneth J.}",
year = "2009",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "37",
pages = "386--391",
journal = "Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law",
issn = "1093-6793",
publisher = "American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Drunk driving, implied consent, and self-incrimination

AU - Ogundipe, Kehinde A.

AU - Weiss, Kenneth J.

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - The effects of drunk driving are a significant risk to public health and safety. Accordingly, the federal government and the states have enacted laws that permit law enforcement to identify offenders and to apply various levels of sanctions. There is no constitutional requirement that evidence of drunkenness be permitted in defense of criminal behavior. In practice, citizens who undertake to operate motor vehicles under the influence of alcohol are considered reckless per se and have no right to obstruct law enforcement in determining their condition. Indeed, refusal of roadside sobriety tests, including the Breathalyzer, may be considered a separate offense. The issuing of Miranda-type warnings by police officers has been ruled on recently in New Jersey. In a superior court appellate decision, State v. Spell, the court outlined the necessary procedures, concluding that, although motorists have no right to refuse testing, police officers have an obligation to issue sufficient warnings before the motorist decides how to proceed. In the Spell matter, the defendant incriminated himself by refusing the testing, even though he was acquitted on the drunk-driving charge. The authors discuss the role of expert testimony in these matters.

AB - The effects of drunk driving are a significant risk to public health and safety. Accordingly, the federal government and the states have enacted laws that permit law enforcement to identify offenders and to apply various levels of sanctions. There is no constitutional requirement that evidence of drunkenness be permitted in defense of criminal behavior. In practice, citizens who undertake to operate motor vehicles under the influence of alcohol are considered reckless per se and have no right to obstruct law enforcement in determining their condition. Indeed, refusal of roadside sobriety tests, including the Breathalyzer, may be considered a separate offense. The issuing of Miranda-type warnings by police officers has been ruled on recently in New Jersey. In a superior court appellate decision, State v. Spell, the court outlined the necessary procedures, concluding that, although motorists have no right to refuse testing, police officers have an obligation to issue sufficient warnings before the motorist decides how to proceed. In the Spell matter, the defendant incriminated himself by refusing the testing, even though he was acquitted on the drunk-driving charge. The authors discuss the role of expert testimony in these matters.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=70350516447&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=70350516447&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 19767505

AN - SCOPUS:70350516447

VL - 37

SP - 386

EP - 391

JO - Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

JF - Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

SN - 1093-6793

IS - 3

ER -