Facebook

Twitter

LinkedIn

 

Fourteenth Amendment Tag

Impaired Driving Elimination Act Violates Due Process, Court Says

Impaired Driving Elimination Act Violates Due Process, Court Says

The Oklahoma Supreme Court has declared that the newly enacted Impaired Driving Elimination Act is unconstitutional. Due to go into effect on November 1, 2017, the Act would have virtually eliminated the administrative hearing process for revocation of driver’s licenses, would have made refusal of a breath test illegal, and would have expanded use of ignition interlock devices. A group of Oklahoma attorneys challenged the Act in court last summer, and the court halted implementation of the Act while the legal challenge was pending. Just recently, the Oklahoma Supreme Court issued its ruling declaring that the Act violates due process and...

Continue reading

The Driver’s License: A Privilege or a Right?

The Driver's License: A Privilege or a Right?

Holding a driver’s license has been called both a privilege and a right. The Supreme Court weighed in on driver’s license revocation hearings and related issues in two cases from the 1970s. In the case of Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 (1971), the Supreme Court determined that an administrative driver’s license revocation must involve a determination of whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the driver will be found liable for the offense. In other words, a long-term (not temporary) license revocation because a driver might have committed a crime cannot be automatic. If it is truly automatic and does...

Continue reading

Do I Have the Right to Assistance at Trial by an Expert Witness?

Do I Have the Right to Assistance at Trial by an Expert Witness?

Criminal defendants who cannot afford to pay for an expert witness but need one to mount a defense may wonder if the Constitution grants them the right to expert witness assistance at trial. The Supreme Court has determined – twice – that at a minimum, there is a right to assistance of a mental health expert to evaluate the defendant in death penalty cases. Whether there is a right to expert witness assistance in non-death penalty cases, or whether there is a right to assistance by other types of experts, are open questions. In Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985),...

Continue reading

Exclusion of Identification Evidence at Trial

Exclusion of Identification Evidence at Trial

Exclusion of identification evidence at trial can be a turning point for a criminal case. Getting the judge to agree that alleged eyewitnesses should not testify that they saw the defendant at the scene of the crime requires an evaluation of all the circumstances of the identification. In a 1977 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States explained the test for excluding identification evidence. The decision, Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977), confirmed earlier case law in explaining why a police officer viewing a single photograph and then making an in-court identification did not violate the Due Process Clause...

Continue reading

Double Jeopardy and Drunk Driving Offenses

Double Jeopardy and Drunk Driving Offenses

The Double Jeopardy clause in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents defendants from being tried twice for the same crime on the same facts after a conviction or acquittal. The Supreme Court has never addressed whether charging DUI defendants with multiple criminal and civil offenses for the same incident violates the Double Jeopardy clause of the Constitution. Multiple Supreme Court decisions regarding other crimes indicate that making this argument has at least some merit. In Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969), a defendant was tried for burglary and larceny. After he was convicted of burglary but acquitted...

Continue reading