Washington Courts: Judicial News Report Detail

Sending a message: Drunk Driving Laws and Sentencing

In the last 30 years, public outrage, legislative action, and judicial response have combined to convey a strong, societal message about drinking and driving: don’t do it.

But has the message been heeded?

Statistics from the 1994 Report of the Courts of Washington show filings for driving under the influence (DUI) slid more than eight percent since 1993. In court, stiffer sentences are also being handed down. The report shows that 88 percent of all DUI cases tried in Washington resulted in heavy fines, jail time, loss of bail money or freedom-restricting conditions imposed as a condition of deferred prosecution.

Alcohol-related traffic fatalities declined 12 percent between 1990-94, though a harsh reality still remains, according to the state Traffic Safety Commission: more than 42 percent of all 1994 auto deaths were connected to alcohol consumption. The battle to reduce DUI-produced tragedies is yet to be won.

Changes in the law

The continuing struggle to curb drunk-driving offenses has led to a myriad of changes in DUI law over the past three decades. Each year, judges are required to digest yet another set of DUI sentencing guidelines, as handed down by the state Legislature.

At a recent, state-level DUI workshop, Kitsap County District Court Judge W. Daniel Phillips helped fellow district and municipal court judges wade through the latest crop of changes in DUI law. As part of that process, he presented a 20-year historical look at Washington’s DUI laws.

Phillips made it clear that, though legislators have frequently changed their approach, DUI laws are moving in the right direction. "It seems to me that the Legislature has responded to citizens who are asking for tighter laws--sanctions that work," Phillips told Judicial News.

In addition to increased penalties, mandatory license suspensions, and easier-to-apply laws, Phillips cited Initiative 242 as one of the earliest, major changes in DUI law. Passed in the ‘60’s, the new law said drunk drivers had to take a breathalyzer test or lose their driver’s license.

More recently, a "probationary license" procedure was created that causes those who score a ".10" on a breathalyzer exam, to lose their permanent driver’s license. To drive again, a defendant must re-apply to the Department of Licensing for a new "probationary" license.

"These changes are attempts by the Legislature to find new ways to say to people who choose to drink alcohol then drive, ‘There are going to be a variety of actions against you affecting your ability to drive.’"

Sanctions can be effective deterrents, but Phillips doubts whether non-incarceration techniques convince repeat offenders to stop offending. "We are uncertain how much jail time it takes to get people to stop. There is no way for us to know what the optimum sentence is."

Public perceptions

Despite the declining filings and harsher penalties, the public continues to see alcohol as a serious, societal problem.

In a recent public opinion survey conducted by the Washington Traffic Safety Commission, drunk and drugged driving was listed as the number one traffic concern of Washingtonians. The survey, intended to give policy-makers an idea of what Washington residents believe regarding certain traffic safety issues, also indicated that 52 percent of the 800-plus respondents favor lowering the breathalyzer limit to .08.

To many, this public concern has a positive effect on the problem. "These steps [from the Legislature and the courts]...are ways to keep the public’s attention that they need to look out for their spouses, co-workers, sons and daughters when it comes to drinking and driving," said Phillips. "I think that awareness is much greater now than it was 10 to 20 years in the past."

Judicial response

In addition to utilizing sentencing changes promulgated by the Legislature, many courts of limited jurisdiction are trying other, innovative solutions to the repeat offender problem.

One of the most successful--the DUI victims panel--was first created in 1984 by Washington’s own Northeast District Court Judge David S. Admire. Similar programs, where sentenced offenders are required to hear the stories of those who were injured or who lost loved ones to drunk driving incidents, have since spread nationwide. The program serves two purposes--it offers a perspective of the crime which may be difficult to convey in the courtroom, and it helps break down the denial of guilt by offenders.

"I think a DUI victims panel is [an excellent tool]...and courts that do not have one should work with a nearby court to establish one," Phillips said. "They would find it is unusually helpful for young drivers, every DUI [offender], as well as other alcohol-drug related arrests--which are frankly three quarters, if not 90%, of the people in our jails."

Increased information

In an effort to give the public an entire picture of DUI sentencing information, new DUI disposition and sentencing reports were created by the Office of the Administrator for the Courts, following guidelines set by district/municipal court judges.

The reports show how DUI charges were disposed, including deferred prosecution, average jail sentences and fines imposed, and common reasons for dismissal of charges.

The future

The courts, Legislature and various non-profit interest groups are doing their best to discourage the public from driving under the influence, but it is clear that more changes in the law and harsher penalties can be expected in the future.

"When a DUI [offender] is sentenced, it may take a variety of requirements, including jail time, paying fines, losing your ability to drive, a requirement of going to a DUI victims panel, a requirement to show up in court in six months with a drug/alcohol evaluation, or treatment," Phillips said.

"Each person is different. The victims panel may have impressed them a lot. For the next person it might be the jail time, it could be the loss of the license that affected them and their family, maybe having to show up in court. Maybe it takes a combination of things to get a person to change their drinking and driving habits."

Some facts and figures in this article came from a recent report by Ross Williamson, court specialist with the Office of the Administrator for the Courts, entitled "DUI Sentencing Requirements as Dictated by Statute and Law."