Yank driver licenses for repeat offenders on drug/alcohol basis.

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Can a judge require a person accused of drunken driving to surrender a driver's license even before a trial is held to determine whether the person is in fact guilty?

Yep.

It's done regularly. In Northampton County, Judge Leonard Zito yanked the license of an alleged repeat offender, saying, in effect, "If you want to stay out on bail, you're not going to drive."

That is not treating the defendant as innocent until presumed guilty.

But in this instance, the defendant ought not to be treated that way.

We all have a right to freedom of speech. That right is not unlimited. But it is a right, and cannot be taken away without due process of law.

Driving, however, is not a right. People with active epilepsy may not drive. Neither can people who cannot pass a test.

We think that after a first conviction, the law ought to require the surrender of a driver's license upon subsequent arrest if the blood alcohol testing level comes back as higher than 0.10 percent - higher than the current 0.08 percent threshold for proving drunk driving, but a clear indicator of a habitual offense that can result in homicide or de facto suicide.

And we think that people arrested for driving during suspension ought to be held in jail for 10 days ... right now.

A motor vehicle can be a deadly weapon.

We think Pennsylvania law ought to recognize that habitual DUI offenders pose a clear and present danger to public health and safety, the threshold for imposing preventive measures to restrict individual behavior in a variety of situations in order to protect the common good.

Put another way: The Second Amendment gives us a clear right to bear arms. However, if someone walks down the street randomly firing a handgun, we expect and demand police to confiscate the weapon immediately, without waiting even for a judge's order.

We think the Pennsylvania Legislature ought to give statutory authority to the common-good practice of revoking the driver's license of accused repeat DUI offenders immediately. That limitation on individual behavior is more than justified by reduction of the risk that a driver who has demonstrated an inability to remain sober while driving poses to the lives of others.

The right to bear arms does not convey a license to threaten others' lives, absent a clear need for self-defense.

The privilege of driving a motor vehicle does not convey a license to repeatedly threaten the lives of others by mixing alcohol with driving.

- Denny Bonavita