Driving under the influence is a widespread type of offense. There are different definitions of driving under the influence, but the general one describes this offense as “driving a motor vehicle on a road or highway while under the influence of alcohol” (Elements of DUI Offense, n.d., para. 2). The case is rather controversial because the judge was arrested for drunk driving. Judges are expected to behave in the proper way, be examples to follow. This aspect of the offense will be discussed later.
Initially, it is necessary to define the elements of the crime under consideration. Five distinctive features usually characterize the driving under the influence. First, the individual drives in the unusual or strange manner. Second, the driver’s physical appearance or conduct are also far from being usual and normal. Driver’s behavior during the field sobriety test is another evidence that is taken into consideration. The fourth element concerns record of driving under the influence. Statements of the driver can be used for incriminating purposes as well.
Any individual who enters criminal justice system has the particular Constitutional rights. In the case under consideration, the police arrested the judge. It means that the judge has entered the criminal justice system. The right to remain silence is the first Constitutional right. It is a part of the Miranda warning. The right to be represented by the attorney is another part of the Miranda Rights. Any individual who enters criminal justice system has the right to trial. The presumption of innocence is another Constitutional right that presupposes that the accused person cannot be considered to be guilty unless the guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt (Samaha, 2013).
The fact that Miranda Rights have not been read to the judge is crucial in the case under consideration. Miranda Rights are Constitutional rights, and it means that every individual should be provided with that right. The only exception to the rule is public safety. Thus, police officers may not tell Miranda warning in case there is a threat to the public safety. This exception does not concern the case under evaluation. Consequently, the police violated the Constitutional rights of the judge. According to Edelson (2014), “if a police officer obtains in violation of the suspect’s Constitutional rights a judge should exclude the evidence” (p. 225). Thus, the attorney can use this evidence to protect the arrested judge.
As it has been already mentioned, one aspect makes this case rather controversial — the defendant is a judge. There is a controversy about the way judges should be treated in courts. On the one hand, they are people too with their strong and weak sides. On the other hand, judges are representatives of justice and the rule of law. As a result, judges should be held to a higher standard because of the role and significance of their profession. Pollock (2011) supports the idea that legal “professionals are expected to uphold a higher standard of behavior than the general public” (p. 241). Judges and other law enforcement representatives should adhere to the peculiarities of their profession. They should behave in the proper way and avoid any violations of the rule of law.
In my opinion, the attorney’s position is right as far as all legal procedures should be followed exactly. Police officers had to tell the arrested person Miranda warning despite the fact that he was a judge. Still, the defendant’s behavior should be judged on the basis of the higher standard of conduct.
References
Edelson, D. (2014). United States Law: An Introduction for International Students. New York City, NY: Daniel Edelson.
Elements of DUI Offense. (n.d.). Web.
Pollock, J. (2011). Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Samaha, J. (2013). Criminal Law. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.