Changing blood alcohol standards may be wrong
Posted Online 4/3/01
The Minnesota Legislature is likely to amend the State's DWI Laws by reducing the "per se" driving while intoxicated level from .10 to .08.
This is virtually certain to pass because the U.S. Congress is holding an economic bludgeon over the states. Although driving laws are within the province of the states, those that fail to follow the dictates of the federal government stand to lose millions of highway dollars.
While it is understandable that our legislators may feel compelled to support this measure, we are unconvinced that reducing the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) level from .10 to .08 is good public policy.
We applaud the cultural shift that has occurred over the past couple decades. Attitudes regarding drinking and driving have improved dramatically. Tougher laws and public education efforts have positively affected drinking and driving behavior. Nationwide alcohol-related fatalities decreased by one-third between 1988 and 1998 alone.
We agree that more needs to be done. Statistical data still show that among all drivers involved in fatal crashes over 20% had been drinking.
Particularly infuriating are those individuals who are showing up in the judicial system many, many times over. There are too many news accounts of tragic events involving alcohol-impaired drivers with more than a few prior convictions. We urge the Legislature to address the problem of the multiple DWI offender.
There is a common misperception about what the current law provides. Many think that the .10 standard means that if a driver's blood alcohol concentration level tests .10 or greater the driver is guilty of driving while impaired, and if he tests less than .10 he is not in violation of the DWI Law. Not true. There are effectively two separate and distinct laws.
One is driving under the influence of alcohol. The second, known as the DWI per se law, is driving with a blood alcohol concentration level of .10 or greater. In other words, under current law one is guilty of DWI if one's driving is impaired due to alcohol at any concentration level OR if one is driving with a BAC level of .10 or greater without regard to how well one is driving. It is only the "per se" law that would be affected by reducing the .10 to .08.
While we share a common goal with the proponents of the .08 legislation who argue that it will further reduce drunk driving by changing public attitudes, we are concerned that it will result in a misallocation of limited law enforcement resources. In its review of this issue the U.S.
General Accounting Office (GAO) reported, "Overall, the evidence does not conclusively establish that .08 BAC laws, by themselves, result in reductions in the number or severity of alcohol-related crashes."
Law enforcement personnel tell us that every time a DWI arrest is made it takes the arresting officer off the road for one and one-half to two hours. While we do not believe that anyone should be driving with a BAC level of .08, we question whether law enforcement resources are better allocated to arresting drivers whose driving is not noticeably impaired rather than allocating those same resources to enable officers to be on the road apprehending the multiple offenders who seem to be causing so much of our DWI problem.
Editor’s note: This editorial was a product of the ECM Editorial Board.
