Court OKs Jail if Drunk Drivers Won’t Take Test

SAN FRANCISCO —  A state appellate court on Tuesday approved a tough new penalty for convicted drunk drivers who do not submit to sobriety tests upon their arrest, ruling they can be jailed for at least 48 hours for refusing to take the test.

The three-judge panel of the state Court of Appeal unanimously rejected a constitutional challenge to a 1985 state law--believed by officials to be the first of its kind in the nation--mandating confinement for such drivers in addition to suspension of their licenses.

The court said the Legislature, in adopting the law, could fairly consider drivers who refuse the tests more dangerous than those who do comply.

Legal Green Light

The ruling, the first by an appellate court on the issue, gives trial courts throughout the state a legal green light to enforce the law unless the state Supreme Court later rules otherwise. Attorneys said an appeal to the high court is possible.

The 1985 statute, known as the La Follette-Katz Chemical Test Enhancement Act, was passed out of concern that drunk-driving laws were not fully effective. An estimated 30,000 motorists a year were refusing to take breath, blood or urine tests and were facing only an automatic six-month license suspension for such refusal.

According to the Department of Motor Vehicles, 314,000 motorists were convicted in 1986 of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Over 26,000 arrested motorists were reported to have refused tests during the year.

Incentive for Drivers

State prosecutors hailed Tuesday’s decision, saying it would likely provide new encouragement to motorists to submit to sobriety tests or face certain confinement upon conviction. Such tests, authorities point out, provide the best evidence in drunk-driving cases.

“Under the old law, there were quite a number who refused tests, figuring that even if they lost their licenses for a while they still had a chance to beat a conviction in court,” said state Deputy Atty. Gen. Morris Beatus. “Now if they refuse, they do so at the peril of going to jail for at least 48 hours. The ante has been upped considerably.”

Under the 1985 law, a motorist who refuses a test and is convicted of drunk driving for the first time faces mandatory confinement in county jail for 48 hours. Repeat offenders face longer periods of confinement, ranging up to 18 days for a fourth conviction or more.

For a drunk-driving conviction itself, first offenders face two days in jail or a 90-day license suspension, and a $500 maximum fine.

The new law was contested by Raymond Quintana, who had been charged in Hayward with driving under the influence of alcohol.

Quintana argued that the statute was unconstitutional on several grounds. Among other things, he contended that the measure violated his right to equal protection because it allowed a convicted driver who refused the test to be punished more severely than a convicted driver who consented to testing.

The state Court of Appeal rejected Quintana’s claims in an opinion written by Appellate Justice William R. Channell, joined by Appellate Justices Carl West Anderson and Marc Poche.

The court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court over 30 years ago upheld the right of states to obtain physical evidence of intoxication even without consent. In 1982, the high court ruled in a South Dakota case that the privilege against self-incrimination was not violated when a driver’s refusal to take a test was used as evidence against him.

“California has made the choice (of consenting to a test) more difficult, but we do not believe it has reached a level of improper coercion,” Channell wrote for the appellate court.

“The arrestee still has his choice--a safe, painless and commonplace test or license suspension plus the use of the fact of refusal against him, now including a sentence enhancement should he be convicted of driving under the influence.”

The law tries to detect and prevent drunk driving and its purpose is “obviously thwarted” by refusal to take the test, the justices said.

Such a driver, Channell wrote, “has forced the police officers to risk the possible violence of a forcible test or to forgo the best evidence of intoxication. He has thus proven to be more dangerous to the public than the inebriated driver who has consented to a test.”