Editorial: Making mockery of DUI law

Wednesday, Oct. 13, 1999 | 9:18 a.m.

It is an understatement to say that Las Vegas defense attorney John Watkins is using a novel approach in defending his clients who have been charged with drunken driving. As the Sun's Cy Ryan reported last week, Watkins has been able to get drunken driving charges dropped, arguing that other charges against his client -- failure to yield the right of way, speeding and failure to use due care -- are redundant under the law because they arise from the same offense and incident.

What is disturbing is how successful Watkins has been so far using this defense, getting DUI charges dropped at least six times. In one case, as Ryan reported, Timothy Hedlund was arrested in May 1997 for driving under the influence. By the time this case went to court, Clark County prosecutors added a charge of failing to maintain the traffic lane. But when he appeared in court, Hedlund pled guilty to failure to maintain his traffic lane and was fined $100. The judge dismissed the more serious DUI charge -- which could have resulted in jail time -- because it arose from the same offense.

Prosecutors understandably are flabbergasted and are challenging the use of this defense. On Monday the Nevada Supreme Court heard oral arguments from both sides. Prosecutors have said that the Legislature never intended to give drunken drivers a free pass to break other traffic laws while driving under the influence. In addition, they challenged Watkins' reasoning, appropriately noting the flaws in his logic. Under Watkins' theory, someone who walks into a grocery store to steal from the cash register -- and beats up a clerk in the process -- could only be charged with robbery since the assault occurred during the commission of a crime. Or even worse, as Clark County Deputy District Attorney Bruce Nelson argued on Monday before the Supreme Court, what if an assailant robs an individual and then kills the victim? In Watkins' world, separate charges couldn' t be filed, but Nelson said existing law obviously allows a suspect to be convicted of each crime.

The public frequently is dismayed when defendants in criminal trials escape conviction when their attorneys are able to use what many would regard as technicalities. Often, however, there are valid constitutional principles at stake and what may seem to be a technicality in fact is an important civil liberties protection. This is not an instance, however, meeting that lofty standard. This is a situation where an attorney is misapplying the law and allowing his clients to escape punishment. Justice Cliff Young, who presided over Monday's hearing, voiced his reservations about Watkins' contention. "That doesn't totally make much sense," Young said. The Nevada Supreme Court should reject Watkins' arguments and send a clear signal that those who break a DUI law can't escape justice.