Bill would take license away on the spot if arrested for DUI

By KATE HOWARD Staff Writer

Anyone arrested for DUI in Tennessee could lose their license on the spot if they fail - or refuse ? a chemical breath test, under a proposed law.

Tennessee is one of nine states that allow drivers charged with driving under the influence to keep their licenses through the criminal court process. Safety advocates say the law would keep dangerous drivers off the streets and serve as a deterrent to others because of the immediate consequence of losing a license.

Opponents contend it's punishment without a conviction and that it would unfairly affect poor defendants.

But Corrine Steller hopes the legislature passes the bill if it will spare even one person the pain her family has suffered. Her sister, Stephanie Steller-Sharp, was newly married when a drunken driver struck her head-on, killing her instantly. She was driving on Clarksville Pike to her in-laws' house, and her husband heard the crash and found her.

Steller-Sharp, 26, was five months pregnant. The driver, Ricky Chastain, who had several drunken-driving arrests on his record, was convicted in the deaths of Steller-Sharp and her unborn child.

"I'm for anything that would help in taking people who have a problem with responsibility, a problem with alcoholism, off the road," Steller said. "Maybe they'd learn a lesson, maybe not. Maybe someone's life would be saved."

Advocates point to stats

According to the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration, late-night fatal crashes involving alcohol dropped by about 9 percent in states that take licenses immediately after an arrest. Supporters of the proposal point to that statistic as proof that it works.

Passage of the bill also could affect the federal funding the state receives.

States must maintain at least four of the federal government's priority drunken driving laws to keep millions in DUI-specific funding for marketing and enforcement grants, and Tennessee has the minimum of four, said Kendell Poole, executive director of the Governor's Highway Safety Office. By next year, Poole said, changing requirements will mandate five of those laws.

Under the existing system, it can take 45 days before a DUI suspect appears in court, and that can easily be postponed further, said Alexanderia Honeycutt, senior development officer with MADD Tennessee.

"That whole time, those people are still out driving," Honeycutt said. "What this does is offer consequences right then and there, on the spot. ? Tennessee is really behind the curve on this law."

Civil liberties advocates and defense attorneys argue that the immediate loss of driving privilege amounts to a violation of due process, since guilt has not been proven.

"If you're arrested for a DUI, you're not necessarily convicted of a DUI," said Vanessa Bryan, public defender for Williamson, Hickman, Perry and Lewis counties. "Once you have your driver's license revoked, there are other consequences as far as getting to work and insurance rates. One day they can't go on the job could mean my folks are put out of their homes or don't eat that night."

Bill contains protections

There are some protections built into the bill. According to the bill, a temporary permit would be issued to drivers until official revocation, which wouldn't happen until they've had enough time to request a hearing before an administrative judge.

An attorney general's opinion issued this week said the bill as proposed would not violate constitutional due process rights because a prompt hearing is available.

Tennessee's implied consent law allows the state, after a conviction, to revoke the licenses of drivers who refused a breath test. Those convicted of a first DUI offense can lose their licenses for almost a year. So there's a significant incentive to postpone that court appearance as long as possible, said Torry Johnson, Davidson County district attorney general.

"This gets in the system quicker and the case is resolved more quickly, since it's not uncommon for people to be arrested on two or three DUIs before the first one has been adjudicated," Johnson said.

And the well-regulated act of driving on public roads, Johnson said, is a privilege, not a constitutional right that can be violated.