davewalker.org Blog

Here’s a scenario for you:

You’ve had a few drinks at a bar – two or three at most. You get in your car, begin to drive home, but soon you start to feel woozy and it occurs to you the drinks might be kicking in. Not wanting to be on the road while impaired, you pull in to a parking lot, turn off the keys, put them in your pocket (or purse, if you’re a woman), and call someone to come pick you up.

While you’re waiting for your knight in shining armor, a police officer pulls up, makes you get out of the car, does a field sobriety test, and arrests you. Surely, you think to yourself, I’m not being arrested for DWI, am I?

Nope.

What you’re being charged with is being in “actual physical control of a motor vehicle” while under the influence of alcohol, pursuant to 47 O.S. §11-902(A).

But does it make sense to penalize a person who has been responsible enough to get themselves off the road? I don’t think it does. In fact, I think it creates an incentive for people to stay on the road while intoxicated, which is clearly not in anyone’s interest.

Can it really be the policy of the State of Oklahoma to encourage people to drive drunk?

Probably not. Then why have legislators and law enforcement officials created this incentive? Rarely do legislators think about the unintended consequences and reverse incentives of the legislation they create. More likely, the goal was to look good to voters; legislators especially love to be seen as “tough on crime”. Who can blame them? It’s good politics. But if the result is more drunk drivers on the road, isn’t it time to re-think this?

In short, if the legislative intent was to keep drunk drivers off the road, why punish citizens who are acting in unison with that intent?

This entry was posted on Thursday, August 9th, 2007 at 10:12 pm and is filed under Law. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.