State v. Drews, C-27521
| Decision Date | 09 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. C-27521,C-27521 |
| Parties | , 51 O.O.2d 395, 52 O.O.2d 391 STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff, v. William DREWS, Defendant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Common Pleas |
The defendant has challenged Ohio Revised Code Section 4511.19 which is commonly referred to as the drunken driving statute. The defendant claims this section is unconstitutional as being an unreasonable interference with the private rights of the individual and having no reasonable relationship to the health, welfare and safety of the general public. He takes this position because he says this is a section dealing with a traffic matter; that the section as it currently reads prohibits the act of operation of the vehicle anywhere in the State be it public or private property if under the influence of alcohol and that this restriction is unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious. He argues that this section could be modified to prohibit the act on highways and streets and that it would then be a reasonable restraint on the individual's rights.
A comprehensive review of the question involved in this case can be found in 29 A.L.R.3d 938 captioned 'Applicability to Operation of Motor Vehicle on Private Property, of Legislation Making Drunken Driving a Criminal Offense.' However, there appears to be no reported case in Ohio dealing specifically with the issue raised in this demurrer since the effective date of the current section, which is January 1, 1968. In reviewing the history of the statute dealing with drunken driving, it becomes clear to the Court that the legislature knew perfectly well the scope of the current section when it was passed. The various modifications of this section have undoubtedly been influenced by a combination of court decisions and changing problems dealing with the use of the automobile.
Laws are a codification of the mores of the times. They should and do reflect the manner, mode and customs of society at a given period as well as the desires of society to accomplish peaceful, orderly changes to meet changing needs.
The section in question has been modified and amended numerous times until currently it prohibits the operation of a motor vehicle anywhere in the State while the individual is under the influence of alcohol.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Boucher
...Vehicles, supra, 170 Conn. at 140, 365 A.2d 403; State v. Gillespie, 100 N.J.Super. 71, 75, 241 A.2d 239 (1968); State v. Drews, 23 Ohio Misc. 370, 372, 261 N.E.2d 357 (1970); State v. Day, 27 Wash.App. 854, 857, 620 P.2d 1023 (1980), rev'd on other grounds, 96 Wash.2d 646, 638 P.2d 546 (19......
-
Lynch v. Com.
...not be permitted to operate an automobile anywhere because of the potential dangers of such instrumentalities. State v. Drews, 23 Ohio Misc. 370, 261 N.E.2d 357 (1970). Our decision may not be regarded as sanctioning an unwarranted invasion of a person's private property for an ostensible p......
-
State v. Frank
...that confronts both the intoxicated motorist and those persons who may unavoidably be caught in his path. See State v. Drews (M.C.1970), 23 Ohio Misc. 370, 261 N.E.2d 357 . The state's interest does not subside when the intoxicated motorist ventures away from a public street or highway. The......
-
State v. Carlos Alva
... ... intoxicated motorist and those persons who may unavoidably be ... caught in his path. See State v. Drews (M.C.1970), ... 23 Ohio Misc. 370 [51 O.O.2d 395]. The state's interest ... does not subside when the intoxicated motorist ventures away ... ...