THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, September 14, 1996 TAG: 9609140269
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B2 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: ASSOCIATED PRESS
DATELINE: RICHMOND LENGTH: 56 lines
The Virginia Supreme Court said Friday that the double suspension of someone's driver's license for refusal to submit to a blood or breath test does not violate the constitutional bar against double jeopardy.
The state's drunken driving law allows judicial suspension of driving privileges for a year even when someone has already received a seven-day administrative suspension for the same refusal.
The Fifth Amendment bars multiple punishments for the same offense, but Virginia's highest court said the state law involves two separate and distinct proceedings, one criminal and the other administrative.
The high court ruled in the 1995 Richmond case of George Brame, who was arrested for allegedly driving under the influence of alcohol. He refused to take a blood or breath test, and his license was immediately suspended for a week.
The Supreme Court said the purpose of Virginia's seven-day administrative suspension - to immediately remove a drunken driver from the highway - is so clear and compelling that it overrides any incidental punitive effect it may have.
``Accordingly, we have no difficulty in holding Brame's rights under the double jeopardy clause were not violated by the subsequent judicial suspension of his license for a year,'' the court ruled.
Brame was convicted in General District Court of the drunken driving and refusal charges, and his license was suspended for a year for refusing to take the tests.
He appealed to Circuit Court, where he was acquitted of the DUI charge but convicted on the refusal charge. Again, his license was suspended for a year.
The Supreme Court said any motorist in Virginia ``shall be deemed, as a condition of such operation, to have consented to'' a blood or breath test if arrested for drunken driving.
``Like the provision for implied consent, the . . . one-year license suspension is a measure flowing from the police power of the state designed to protect other users of state highways.
``Hence, we think that the one-year license suspension . . . has a clear, overriding remedial purpose and that the same may be said for the seven-day administrative suspension,'' the court said in its unanimous ruling.
The 1994 law ran into trouble last year when a Farmville judge said it was unconstitutional. He ordered police not to enforce it.
A Roanoke County judge threw out drunken driving cases because he said the law violated the prohibition against double jeopardy, while another Roanoke County judge rejected the double jeopardy argument in drunken driving cases. ILLUSTRATION: THE RULING
The Supreme Court said the purpose of Virginia's seven-day
administrative suspension - to immediately remove a drunken driver
from the highway - is so clear and compelling that it overrides any
incidental punitive effect it may have.
KEYWORDS: VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT DRUNKEN DRIVING LAW by CNB