Individual Liberty — Individual Responsibility 

Ignorance of the law is no excuse... but inadequate warning in the law is?

Probably the majority of my readers are adults over the age of 21. I know that a couple of my readers are younger, but I'd say they're fairly bright.

It's a well known bit of information that if you've been drinking and then get behind the wheel of a car and drive off that you are violating the law. It's also pretty much common knowledge that if you have a blood alcohol test that shows more than .08% of alcohol you are considered to be legally intoxicated.

Many states have a statement on their drivers licenses that you have to sign (you have to sign the drivers license anyway) that gives consent to a chemical sobriety test if you are suspected of driving drunk.

It's also a well known fact that it is against the law for minors, and in most cases adults under the age of 21, to consume alcohol.

Can we all accept this as common knowledge? Can we further agree that responsible adults ought to know that there are consequences for violating laws, such as those against driving under the influence of alcohol?

So, tell me, what does the following passage imply?

"The officer shall warn the driver, in substantially the following language, that:

(a) If the driver refuses to take the test, the driver's license, permit, or privilege to drive will be revoked or denied for at least one year; and

(b) If the driver refuses to take the test, the driver's refusal to take the test may be used in a criminal trial; and

(c) If the driver submits to the test and the test is administered, the driver's license, permit or privilege to drive will be suspended, revoked, or denied for at least ninety days if the driver is twenty-one or over and the test indicates the alcohol concentration of the driver's breath is 0.08 or more, or if the driver is under age twenty-one and the test indicates the alcohol concentration of the driver's breath or blood is 0.02 or more, or if the driver is under age twenty-one and the driver is in violation of RCW 46.61.502 or 46.61.504."

What does "substantially the following language" mean?

What does "If the driver refuses to take the test, the driver's license, permit, or privilege to drive will be revoked or denied for at least one year" mean?

What does "If the driver submits to the test and the test is administered, the driver's license, permit or privilege to drive will be suspended, revoked, or denied for at least ninety days if the driver is twenty-one or over and the test indicates the alcohol concentration of the driver's breath is 0.08 or more" mean?

To me, and to most intelligent adults that means that if you drive drunk and get caught, you have to submit to a sobriety test or lose your license for a year. It also means that if you drive drunk and get caught, and take the test and the test proves you're legally intoxicated, you lose your license for at least 90 days.

BUT what if you're a government official? And what if you don't understand the meaning of the word "or"? This isn't really that farfetched an idea, after all a few years back the President of the United States was confused over the meaning of the word "is".

Apparently if you're a County Councilwoman and you've been drinking enough so that your blood alcohol concentration is 0.135 to 0.141 on multiple tests (that's well over 0.08 for the mathematically challenged people in government) you can have the results of the test suppressed in court, at least if the word "or" confuses you. That's what a Judge has ruled according to a recent article in the Seattle Times:

The results of a breath test obtained from King County Councilwoman Jane Hague after she was pulled over for suspected drunken driving cannot be used in court because she was not properly warned of the implications of consenting to the test, a judge ruled Wednesday.

…

The portion of the warning that Nault found to be lacking pertains to what drivers are told can result once they submit to a blood or breath test. The warning indicates that drivers who are under 21 could lose their driving privileges if they are found to be in violation of two state laws pertaining to drunken driving but fails to provide the same specific warning for drivers 21 and older.

Give me a break! Aren't we all told that ignorance of the law is no excuse? Jane Hague violated the law. According to the law failing to submit to the test means she loses her license to drive for a year. According to the law, testing positive means she loses her license to drive for three months. Sure, there are consequences for violating the other two laws, but really…

This is just another example of a politician getting away with breaking the law and blaming it all on imbecility.

This linkfest is for the 29th of November, 2007.

If you have something interesting you'd like to share, feel free to link it here and leave a trackback.

Just remember the trackback policy.

For the best exposure, go to the blogger's oasis and use the linkfest chooser to choose the posts you'd like to hook up with.