DRUGGED DRIVING MEANS JAIL

Court Rules Drug-Treatment Law Doesn't Apply To DUI

SAN FRANCISCO - In a decision that could have a substantial impact on
California's Proposition 36, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that
people convicted of driving under the influence of drugs must go to jail
and not into treatment programs.

Citing the danger to the public from drugged drivers, among other reasons,
the justices unanimously interpreted the initiative -- which prescribes
treatment and forbids incarceration for first- and second-time nonviolent
offenses "related to the use of drugs" -- to exclude DUI.

The court didn't list the crimes that would qualify for leniency under the
initiative but said DUI wasn't among them. It suggested the line would be
drawn at offenses relating to "the individual offender's own private
involvement with drugs."

Tens of thousands of drug defendants have been diverted to treatment
programs since Proposition 36 took effect almost three years ago.

Yet the full scope of the law has been unclear. Several cases involving DUI
and other misdemeanors to which drug use is integral -- such as stealing
drugs for personal use -- had made their way to the state's highest court.

Most were DUI cases in which lower courts had ruled against defendants. The
DUI law prescribes jail for all offenders and long terms of incarceration
for repeaters.

The Supreme Court's approval of the trend came in the case of Michelle
Elaine Canty, who was stopped by police three years ago while driving in
Tehama County. She admitted ingesting methamphetamine, and tests later
confirmed it.

A trial judge and then the Court of Appeal said Proposition 36 didn't cover
DUI. Canty was sentenced to six months in jail for DUI and 90 days for
transporting drugs.

On Thursday, Chief Justice Ronald George wrote that the DUI law emphasizes
public protection -- "the driver's activity as it actually or potentially
affects other persons" -- while Proposition 36 focuses on private drug
involvement.

The opinion said that requiring diversion for drugged drivers would afford
them more lenient treatment than drunken drivers.

Bradley Bristow, who represented Canty in the appeal, said the decision "at
first blush" seemed to apply only to DUI. He said it was hard to know how
other crimes would be dealt with.

Supervising Deputy Attorney General Marc Nolan said the Attorney General's
office would argue the ruling applies to "any offense where it goes beyond
the person's mere use of drugs, into endangering others' safety, taking
property, injuring somebody, really the vast majority of crimes, regardless
of whether they're done on drugs or with a motivation to acquire drugs."