BURLINGTON, VT – During an arraignment this week in Burlington Court, a man facing a second DUI charge was denied the ability to use an ignition interlock device to regain limited driving privileges, even though he might lose his job because of the ruling.
Despite arguments from private criminal defense attorney Jordan Handy that a full driving ban would effectively render his client unemployed, the court upheld the restriction.
The accused, charged with a second DUI, had his driving privileges revoked as part of the arrest conditions. Law Clerk Addison Culupa assisted in court while Handy provided remote counsel via WebX.
Culupa requested that the court amend the condition, permitting his client to operate a vehicle as long as he held a valid driver’s license and had an ignition interlock device installed.
Deputy District Attorney Jacqueline M. Whitman argued to maintain the condition. She stated the use of an interlock alone would not be sufficient and maintained that a full suspension of vehicle operation was necessary.
DDA Whitman cited the accused’s “quite high” blood alcohol content (BAC) at the time of arrest as evidence that he posed a public safety risk. She argued that even with an ignition interlock, he should not be permitted to drive.
Private attorney Handy argued the use of an interlock would prevent the accused from operating a vehicle while under the influence, and would thus be sufficient to address the public safety concern.
Judge Timothy C. Doherty agreed with DDA Whitman, stating that “the court finds at this point this is a reasonable and rational” condition.
Handy responded, insisting the condition imposed would “essentially force (the accused) to be unemployed,” because his client’s work opportunities were a 20-minute drive away.
Handy also argued conditions imposed by the court are “supposed to be the least restrictive as possible,” and that this condition was “not the standard.”
Despite the defense statements about the accused’s employment concerns, Judge Doherty ultimately upheld the condition to fully restrict vehicle operation, and stated the defense could file a motion to amend it after the installation of an interlock was documented.
