When the driver was arrested three days later, he was drunk (again? still?) and driving on a suspended license. He has now pleaded not guilty to vehicular homicide, and – since he didn’t hang around to show his driver’s license and take a Breathalyzer at the time – it may not be possible to convict him. There should be physical evidence to show that it was his car that struck the victims, but how will the prosecution prove he was driving it? Or that he was drunk at the time?
Demonstrating, once again, the utter futility of telling drunk drivers not to drive. The only workable approach is telling them not to drink, and enforcing that rule, after the fashion of South Dakota’s 24/7 Sobriety program (“If you fail, you go to jail”).
Swift and certain. Swift and certain. Swift and certain. Why is this hard?
Footnote And can we hear some more about how it’s only the dumb drug laws that convert the purely personal, medical problem of drug abuse into a criminal-justice problem?