Posted by duijim in on January 17, 2023
There are a lot of misconceptions out there regarding DUI and the meaning of “less safe” in Georgia. For example, you may think that it isn’t a crime, because it’s not “per se.” However, this simply isn’t the case. Here’s why.
DUI is not a crime in Georgia
When someone says DUI is not a crime in Georgia, they may be referring to the laws for driving under the influence of alcohol. However, there are other offenses that are criminalized. These include driving under the influence of a controlled substance, public drunkenness, and reckless driving.
For a first DUI in Georgia, you will likely be charged with a misdemeanor. You will be required to pay a fine of up to $1,000. If you are convicted, you will be subject to jail time. Depending on the severity of the offense, you could spend up to one year in jail.
In addition to jail, you could also face a suspension of your license. The length of the suspension will depend on the type of offense, your age, your blood alcohol content (BAC), and your criminal history.
If you are convicted of a DUI for the first time, you will be required to complete 40 hours of community service. This can be avoided if you hire an experienced attorney.
A second DUI within five years of the first will result in the surrender of your license plates and a license revocation of up to one year. For a third DUI, you will be subject to a mandatory 15-day jail sentence.
In addition to jail, you may be subject to fines, probation, and alcohol or drug abuse classes. If you are charged with a felony DUI, you may be sentenced to up to five years in prison.
DUI is not considered “less safe” or “per se”
The law in Georgia is no stranger to the DUI (driving under the influence) category. Unlike many other states, Georgia does not have a per se or less safe DUI statute. In fact, in the State of Georgia, you can be convicted of a less safe DUI with no special penalty.
The law requires the state to prove that you were impaired in some way while driving. There are a few ways to do that. One way is to show that you were in a physical control of a moving vehicle. Another is to demonstrate that you were under the influence of intoxicating liquor. However, these are all less important than the more basic requirement of proving that you were impaired while driving.
A more interesting and technically savvy way to do this is to administer a state-administered breath test. If you fail this test, you can be convicted of a “less safe” DUI, though in Georgia, the standard of impairment is the same as that required by the O.C.G.A. SS 40-6-391(a) and (b).
The “less safe” DUI requirement does not require the officer to have an opinion about the validity of the results. And, unlike in other jurisdictions, the “less safe” rule does not mean that the police officer can’t give you an honest opinion.
DUI roadblocks continue to be of questionable validity
The question of whether DUI roadblocks are constitutional remains a debatable subject. However, a recent United States Supreme Court decision, City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, held that the roadblock was not unconstitutional.
The test of validity is determining whether a DUI roadblock is more than a fad. That is, is it something that the state is willing to invest time and money into?
There are two main ways to determine this. One is to study the case law. Specifically, how do the rights of the suspects be interpreted after a DUI Implied Consent Notice?
Secondly, are these checks of a driver’s license the logical and obvious step in the state’s ongoing efforts to reduce the rate of drunk driving? In other words, is the state’s interest in preventing drunk driving sufficient to justify suspicionless stops?
The most important part of this equation is to identify the state’s interest. Among other things, it needs to be sufficient to abrogate constitutional protections against suspicionless stops.
Although the state’s interest is not always clear, there is some evidence to suggest that the state may have a legitimate reason to check drivers’ licenses. Its interest is a matter of public safety, particularly in the wake of a recent vehicular homicide.
Finally, it is interesting to note that a large majority of the court of criminal appeals and the intermediate court ruled in favor of the appellant. However, the dissenting opinion suggested that the test of validity was a little more convoluted than it first appears.