×
X logo

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox.

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)

You may opt-out anytime by clicking "unsubscribe" from the newsletter or from your account.

Column on DUI Law Draws Response

Editor, News-Register:

Your publication deserves commendation for your editorial about the provisions of Senate Bill 212, not so much for its factual content, which is not accurate, but rather for alerting your readers to the existence of pending legislation to hamper enforcement of West Virginia’s DUI laws.

As a former employee of the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV), I will be the first to admit that the current system is far from perfect, but the solution offered by SB 212 is extreme, and will result in more drunk and drugged drivers on our roads. The bill eliminates incentives for the DUI offender to get enrolled in the Interlock program. This bill should be an interim study for its impact on our law enforcement officers who risk their lives keeping us safe from these irresponsible drivers who choose to drink and drive, its impact on driver rehabilitation and recidivism and fatalities caused by drunk drivers, its impact on the court system and its effect on our insurance rates. So, thank you for this opportunity to clarify a few of the points raised in this editorial from an admittedly biased perspective.

1. West Virginia law mandates that DMV revoke the driving privileges based on an arresting law enforcement officer’s affidavit that the driver was operating a motor vehicle under the influence. This is a non-discretionary duty. The Legislature eliminated the requirement that a driver be convicted by a court before DMV action to revoke the driver’s license. Senate Bill 212 would roll back our laws to what they were before the early 1980s. Driver license revocations would be tied to only convictions.

2. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) is not part of DMV. It is a separate agency with a director appointed by the governor for a fixed term. The head of this agency does not report to the DMV commissioner, and in fact, the agencies have a legally mandated adversarial relationship. The Office of Administrative Hearings was created in 2010 to handle appeals of DUI revocation orders which are based on the arresting law enforcement officer’s affidavit which in most cases is accompanied by a blood alcohol test result, or statement of refusal to take the test which is also a violation of law.

3. Senate Bill 212 does not increase the penalty for persons convicted of DUI, who under present law, face automatic revocation without a right to a hearing before the OAH, nor does it shorten the length of time appeals are pending.

4. Innocent drivers are not losing their licenses under the present process. A driver can be found not guilty of the criminal charge of DUI (a higher burden of proof) yet lose his or her driver’s license based on the arresting officer’s affidavit and likely BAC readings. This is what present law requires, and in fact what the law, while much debated over the past 35 years intends to accomplish … that of getting drunk drivers off the road.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your editorial.

Steven O. Dale

Former DMV Commissioner

South Charleston

NEWSLETTER

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *

COMMENTS

[vivafbcomment]

Starting at $4.73/week.

Subscribe Today