Articles Posted in Drunk Driving

Two former Portland-area prosecutors made headlines in The Oregonian this week with their advocacy of marijuana legalization. According to the newspaper Norm Frink and Mark McDonnell both believe that legalization is inevitable and, as a result, are trying to focus public attention on getting the details right.

“This is just a political fact in Oregon, even if some people don’t want to admit it,” the newspaper quoted Frink saying. “As a result,” the paper went on to note, “Frink and McDonnell, who headed the district attorney’s drug unit before retiring, on Tuesday announced that they wanted legislators to refer a marijuana legalization measure to voters in November.” The key to their idea is combining a voter referendum with legislative action. Oregonians would be asked to approve marijuana for personal use, but would charge the legislature with working out the details before the new law went into effect. “The two want to put off allowing legal possession of marijuana until after the legislature figures out how to set up a regulatory system,” The Oregonian reports.

The experience of Washington and Colorado would appear to validate this idea. When the two states became the first to make the possession and use of marijuana legal for personal recreational use the result was an immediate legal conundrum. At the most basic level, legalization puts state law in conflict with the federal government, but there are a number of equally serious – and in some ways more immediate – issues. Take drunk driving, for example. It ought to be relatively easy to agree that impaired driving brought on by pot use is just as dangerous as driving while drunk. Any state legalizing marijuana, however, will need to figure out ways to measure and assess the drug as part of a drunk driving arrest: what level of marijuana impairment crosses a safety line? What is the best and most efficiently to measure it? How should the use of marijuana and alcohol together be treated (presumably the two in combination could cross an impairment threshold at a point when neither, by itself, does so)?

It’s a cliché: safety is everyone’s responsibility. It is also, however, true, and that fact was reinforced last week by Washington State’s Supreme Court. According to an Associated Press dispatch, republished by The Oregonian, the court held that “cities, counties and utility companies can be liable when faulty road design leads to injuries in car crashes – even when the driver is drunk.”

According to the news agency the case focused on a crash near Anacortes. “Two people who had been drinking were injured when their car ran off the road and struck a utility pole that was reportedly closer to the roadway than guidelines dictated.” In overturning a lower court ruling the state Supreme Court held that “government entities owe a duty to ensure roads are reasonably safe for public travel, no matter whether the driver is at fault,” according to the AP.

Obviously this is not, and ought not to be taken as, an excuse of or license for drunk driving. Indeed, in legal terms it is important to remember that DUI is a crime regardless of whether one gets involved in an accident or not. In this instance, however, the court was addressing a bigger issue: whether a driver’s physical condition at the time of a particular accident can be used as an excuse by government or a utility company to escape responsibility for its own negligence. The court held that government and public utilities both have a broader responsibility to provide a safe environment for all users of public roadways. The bad behavior of individual drivers does not absolve the city or county from their responsibility to provide a roadway that is safe for everyone – regardless of the irresponsible behavior of some individual drivers.

A New York Times report this weekend about a terrible multi-vehicle crash in Nevada is a reminder of the importance of issues Portland’s own mayor has spent the last few weeks spotlighting.

A Reuters news agency dispatch, republished by the Times, cites local law enforcement, reporting that “five members of a California family were killed in Nevada when their van was struck from behind by a teenage driver who was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence.” The 18-year-old driver suffered minor injuries in the crash which reportedly happened when he rear-ended the van. In addition to the five people who died two other members of the same family were also riding in the van and were treated in area hospitals following the DUII accident. The crash took place on Interstate-15 about 80 miles north of Las Vegas.

The accident comes as Portland mayor Charlie Hales has worked to spotlight an increase in DUII incidents in our city. As a recent report in The Oregonian noted, “five of the 11 people killed in Portland traffic crashes since Jan. 1 involved people driving under the influence.” Hales has sought to use the media to publicize a situation he views with “alarm” and to remind Oregonians: “Drive sober to save lives. Doing otherwise is illegal and reckless,” the paper notes, adding that the current pace of DUII-related fatalities in Portland is well ahead of last year’s.