The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is proposing a lower limit on motorists’ blood alcohol content in the wake of a monumental Supreme Court decision that ruled law enforcement officers do not have the right to administer warrantless blood tests on alleged drunk drivers.
While the Supreme Court decision was seen as a blow to hardline groups opposed to drunk driving, the new NTSB proposal is viewed by the alcohol industry as a step backwards.
“If implemented, the recommendation would effectively criminalize the activities of law-abiding social drinkers who, by wide majority, are responsible consumers,” American Beverage Licensees (ABL) Executive Director John Bodnovich said in a statement.
Bruce Bereano, a lobbyist for the alcohol industry, echoed that statement, telling the Baltimore Sun that such policies would take the U.S. “back to the Prohibition era.”
The new recommendations would lower the limit to 0.05, down from 0.08. For an average woman, this could lead to a DWI charge after consuming one alcoholic beverage. For a man, it would take just two drinks.
According to the American Beverage Institute (ABI), less than 1 percent of the 32,000 traffic fatalities that occurred in 2011 were caused by drivers who blew between 0.05 and 0.08.
“This is the latest attempt by the traffic safety activist groups to expand the definition of ‘drunk,’” ABI Managing Director Sarah Longwell said in a statement.
At the crux of the NTSB recommendation is the argument that lowering the legal limit will help save lives, claiming that a driver’s impairment is limited from the onset of alcohol consumption.
“Our goal is to get zero deaths because each alcohol-impaired death is preventable,” NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman said. “Alcohol-impaired deaths are not accidents, they are crimes. They can and should be prevented. The tools exist. What is needed is the will.”
That will doesn’t seem to exist beyond the walls of the NTSB, though.
Seeking support
The NTSB has support from its board, but it’s failing to reach the anti-drunk driving advocate organizations, including Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), the nation’s largest driver sobriety group.
“We want to save as many lives as possible as soon as possible,” MADD President Jan Withers told the Baltimore Sun. “We respect the NTSB and its research, but it will take 15 to 20 years to change the laws in each state. We’re already moving forward on our campaign, and it will happen sooner than what the NTSB can accomplish.”
The MADD campaign is focused instead on “high-visibility” law enforcement and the use of technology with ignition locks that would prevent repeat offenders from hitting the road. It also is proposing “passive technology” that would measure blood alcohol content.
MADD’s announcement follows a monumental Supreme Court decision that allowed a driver who was over the legal limit to go free after a blood test was administered without a warrant.
MADD had issued a statement to the court prior to its ruling, standing on the side of law enforcement.
“The law has long established that driving is a privilege and not a right,” MADD Director of Communications Anna Duerr told Mint Press News. “State Implied Consent laws clearly state that refusal to submit voluntarily to a breathalyzer test will lead to the immediate revocation of an offender’s driver’s license.”
Supreme Court decision
At the center of the decision was the Missouri v. McNeely case, in which law enforcement drew the blood of a man alleged to be driving under the influence.
Tyler McNeely was pulled over by a Missouri police officer around 2 a.m. after the officer noticed a vehicle consistently weaving across the centerline. When McNeely was pulled over, the officer noted slurred speech and the smell of alcohol. McNeely admitted to consuming a “couple” of beers.
McNeely refused to take a breathalyzer, prompting the officer to take him to a nearby hospital, where a lab technician drew his blood. The blood test revealed McNeely was over the legal limit, and he was charged for driving while intoxicated (DWI).
The responding officer did not obtain a search warrant or attempt to do so.
McNeely argued that taking his blood without a search warrant violated his Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. In response, the officer argued that obtaining a warrant would lengthen the time between McNeely’s arrest and blood test, providing time for McNeely’s body to metabolize the alcohol and “damage” evidence.
That was a claim backed up by MADD, which argued that the evidence could be altered with time.
The trial court didn’t buy it — and neither did the Supreme Court.
The majority in the 5-4 decision was an uncommon coalition of liberal and conservative Supreme Court justices who stated that the blood test had violated McNeely’s Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
“That principle applies to the type of search at issue in this case, which involved a compelled physical intrusion beneath McNeely’s skin and into his veins to obtain a sample of his blood for use as evidence in a criminal investigation,” the Supreme Court opinion states. “Such an invasion of bodily integrity implicates an individual’s ‘most personal and deep-rooted expectations of privacy.’”