 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Moman v. City of Leeds6/18/1999
Lester Moman, Jr., appeals his conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol, a violation of § 32-5A-191(a), Ala. Code 1975. Pursuant to § 32-5A-300, Ala. Code 1975, the director of the Department of Public Safety, an administrative agency, suspended Moman's driver's license for one year. Subsequently, a circuit court convicted Moman of driving under the influence of alcohol. The trial court sentenced Moman to two days in jail, fined him $1,100, and ordered him to pay court costs.
I.
Moman argues that his conviction and sentence by the trial court and the suspension of his driver's license by the Department of Public Safety constitutes double jeopardy because, he says, he was punished twice for the same incident. We disagree.
Double jeopardy prohibits a person from being punished twice for the same offense.
"The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 9 of the Alabama Constitution provide that no person can twice be placed in jeopardy for the same offense. The double jeopardy provisions confer three separate guarantees: (1) protection against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; (2) protection against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and (3) protection against multiple punishments for the same offense." Ex parte Wright, 477 So.2d 492, 493 (Ala. 1985), citing North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 2076, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969).
Here, Moman was not subjected to double jeopardy. His driver's license was suspended by an administrative agency, not by a court empowered to punish. See R.T.M. v. State, 677 So.2d 801 (Ala.Cr.App. 1995). Double jeopardy applies strictly to criminal prosecutions, not administrative proceedings.
"'It is a basic principle that the doctrine of double jeopardy, in either its constitutional or its common law sense, has a strict application to criminal prosecutions only .... It has been stated that the rule of double jeopardy is applicable only when the first prosecution involves a trial before a criminal court, or at least a court empowered to impose punishment by way of fine, imprisonment, or otherwise, as a deterrent to the commission of a crime; but it also has been stated that the protection against double jeopardy applies to all proceedings irrespective of whether they are denominated civil or criminal, if the outcome may be the deprivation of a person of his liberty.'" Moore v. State, 481 So.2d 914, 916 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985), quoting 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 240 (1961); see also Colburn v. Tuscaloosa County Board of Education, 688 So.2d 881 (Ala.Civ.App. 1997) (constitutional protection against double jeopardy does not apply to civil proceedings).
This court further explained in Moore that double jeopardy traditionally refers to acts of criminal punishment intended to vindicate public Justice. Id. "A criminal prosecution is defined as ' n action or proceeding instituted in a proper court on behalf of the public, for the purpose of securing the conviction and punishment of one accused of crime.'" Id., quoting Black's Law Dictionary, 337 (rev. 5th ed. 1979).
The suspension of Moman's driver's license was not a punishment. The purpose behind suspending the driver's license of an intoxicated driver pursuant to § 32-5A-300, Ala. Code 1975, is public safety. This court has held that the underlying reason for removing from the road, a driver who was found driving under the influence of alcohol, "is not to punish the driver but to protect the public." Mechur v. State, 446 So.2d 48, 51 (Ala.Civ.App. 1984).
Chief Justice Keith, writing for the Minnesota Supreme Court in State v. Hanson,
Page 1 2 3 Alabama DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|