 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cacavas v. Bowen3/19/1991
nal right is inhibited by the statute here under consideration. Even if we assume that a right to drive is fundamental when one can meet the qualifications set by the legislature, and assume that one of suitable age has a "right" to drink in a state which licenses and permits the sale of alcoholic beverages, the statute does not affect these rights. It does not prohibit driving. It does not prohibit drinking. It prohibits drinking and driving. We know of no constitutional right to drink and drive; we recognize no right to ingest a substantial amount of alcohol and then drive. If therefore, this statute inhibits and "chills" the mixture of alcohol and gasoline, it will fulfill the precise objective sought by the legislature. We think such a goal is salutary, and that it is permitted by the constitution.
(Emphasis in original.) 139 Ariz. at 597, 680 P.2d at 128. See also State v. Marble, supra.
We conclude that A.R.S. 28-692(B) withstands constitutional scrutiny and, therefore, affirm the trial court's denial of petitioners' motions to dismiss.
|