A Fairfax country judge has been dismissing DUI/DWI cases because he believes that the DUI/DWI laws unfairly presume guilt, and the US Constitution makes clear that people are "innocent until proved guilty" and the Burden of proof is on the Government.
Article HereA Fairfax County judge who believes Virginia's drunken driving laws are unconstitutional has begun dismissing cases, including five DWI cases in a week, and has threatened to throw a veteran prosecutor in jail for arguing with him.
Of course, he has legal supporters
Ronald J. Bacigal, a criminal law professor at the University of Richmond, said of O'Flaherty: "I think he's exactly right. There are U.S. Supreme Court cases saying you can't relieve the government of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is what a presumption does."
But the article offers more criticism than praise
Critics say O'Flaherty, a General District Court judge, is endangering public safety by returning drunk drivers -- some with alcohol levels of twice the legal limit -- to the roads. But some legal experts are sympathetic, saying the judge might be making a valid argument and protecting the constitutional rights of all motorists.
I got a DUI/DWI about 7 years ago on New Years Eve. I refused the breathalyzer because I suspected that I would blow over the legal limit, but to this day I will tell you that I was in no way driving impaired. I don't drink and drive anymore, ever, and don't want to in anyway condone driving when impaired, but I think this is a good thing, because I don't think think that alcohol affects everyone the same, and I think that the states and the feds have overstepped their authority. I realize that this POV makes it harder to police impaired drivers because it takes away a quantitative measurable parameter for which officers use to make decisions. The effect is that it gives police officers more discretion and makes their observations and judgment and decisions much more subjective. What does everybody else think?