I got what I thought was a really good question from law enforcement this morning--or maybe it just stumped me, so I would like to think it's complicated!! Please help...

For the DWLI changes, the summary information from different sources all states that DWLIs for "intoxication related offenses" is still a Class B. But, the language of the statute doesn't really say that in such simple terms:

521.457 (f) says DWLI is class B if there is a previous conviction and (f)(1) says DWLI is a class B if "the license of the person has been previously suspendedas the result of an offense involving the operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated."

It sounds like (f)(1) is saying that once a driver's license has ever been suspended for refusal, high blow, (or conviction--but that would fall under (f) anyway), any subsequent offense is a Class B. BUT it doesn't sound like that has to be the reason the license was suspended at the time of the current offense?

SO.....someone's license is suspended for refusal, and that is lifted. Later, the license is suspended for no insurance and they are pulled over and charged with DWLI--Class B under (f)(1) with a previous suspension, or Class C because current suspension is not "alcohol-related?"

I have no reason to believe that the legislature intended to create a rule that said if your DL has ever been suspended for a DWI-related offense, then all your subsequent DWLIs are going to be Class Bs; however, that does appear to be the meaning of a literal reading of the new statute.

There are several questions about "the fine print" of HB 1623, and no concrete answers -- since the DWLI changes were a late amendment onto that bill, there isn't much in the way of legislative history that I am aware of.

For instance, you might need to back up one step further: some (including me) questioned whether a suspension for an "intoxication related offense" includes a suspension for a refusal or a high BAC, since those are not actual "offenses." Others have convinced me that those would still count, since a person doesn't submit/refuse until after they are under arrest for an intoxication-related crime, but don't be surprised if that gets litigated.

All that being said, the change still got rounds of applause at several of our legislative updates this summer, so I think people generally consider it a step in the right direction.

Shannon,

Any clue whether DUI-Minor or Minor in Consumption/Poessession suspensions would count as a intoxication related offense?

The text of the new Class B language for first offenders is:

"(f-1) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the license of the person has previously been suspended as the result of an offense involving the operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated, the offense is a Class B misdemeanor."

Melissa, I'm not sure either of those Class Cs qualifies as "operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated," but it going to have to be left up to the court to decide.

Melissa, since the charges you asked about do not require the person to be intoxicated I do not think they would qualify.

We have been discussing the DWLI statue. I looked to the forum for answers. I found this thread from a year ago. This is our question, but it does not seem to have been answered.

The question from the opening post that seems to go unanswered is:

SO.....someone's license is suspended for refusal, and that is lifted. Later, the license is suspended for no insurance and they are pulled over and charged with DWLI--Class B under (f)(1) with a previous suspension, or Class C because current suspension is not "alcohol-related?"

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

The statute could not be written any clearer in my opinion. If the idea was to require the person be currently suspended for an alcohol related incident than wouldn't the section read:

(f-1) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the license of the person is currently suspended as the result of an offense involving the operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated, the offense is a Class B misdemeanor."

I think as written, it must mean that any DL suspension for DWI ever in your driving history means that any DWLI will automatically be at least a class B. It that was not the intent than it is a drafting error and would need to be amended, in my opinion.

But to answer your question, I am pretty sure that in the year since the law was amended there have been no new cases that have challenged this issue so there is still no definitive answer.

When this law was changed in 2007 I had to update the DWLI class that I teach for LE and consulted with DPS legal on the meaning of section (f1). I was advised and we operate under the premise that any suspension placed on the DL, related to the operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated, regardless of a conviction for DWI or DUI-Minor is ALWAYS a Class B Misdemeanor. In other words, an entry on the DL like...Suspended-Surcharge Due-Intoxication or Mandatory Suspension - Conviction-DWI or even DWI Education Program Required, because they all relate to operation while intoxicated are Class B's.

One of the things that I remind officers of when they are dealing with DWLI's is that a conviction for DWI may not always show up because it is possible to have a plea bargain to Reckless Driving and have DWI conditions (DWI Education Program, etc.) attached as part of the plea bargain. I also advise them to check both the DL history AND the criminal history for prior conviction because, strangely enough, convictions may show up on one but not the other.

I have a simple Excel chart that we use to determine which entries apply to the intoxication offenses if anyone wants it.

[This message was edited by MScheffler on 09-10-08 at .]

I'd like that chart.

And that's very good advice as well. I always get both on such stops for that very reason.