FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History
Abstract
This Note argues that revocation of a driver\u27s license under ALS proceedings is not a bar to subsequent criminal prosecution by the state. It discusses the potential double jeopardy implications surrounding ALS that is followed by criminal proceedings, as well as the reasoning employed by a majority of the courts that hold that an ALS is remedial and, therefore, not punishment for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause. It argues that with regard to determining whether an ALS is punitive, the appropriate test should balance the effect of the statute on the driver against the state\u27s interest in protecting the public safety. This Note concludes that the punitive effects on drunken drivers by the imposition of a 90-day driver\u27s license suspension and a moderate reinstatement fee is not disproportionate to the perceived risk drunken drivers pose to society while they await trial, and thus the presumption that the government is acting in a non-punishing capacity is not rebutted. Thus, the typical 90-day ALS is not punitive and may be accompanied by subsequent criminal prosecution
