Bill Description: Senate Bill 1099 would impose harsher penalties and mandatory minimums when a death occurs in a motor vehicle accident caused by an impaired driver.

Rating: -1

NOTE: Senate Bill 1099 is related to Senate Bill 1369, introduced in the 2024 legislative session. 

Does it directly or indirectly create or increase penalties for victimless crimes or non-restorative penalties for nonviolent crimes? Conversely, does it eliminate or decrease penalties for victimless crimes or non-restorative penalties for non-violent crimes?

Senate Bill 1099 would amend Section 18-4007, Idaho Code, which defines and lays out penalties for vehicular manslaughter.

The current penalty for vehicular manslaughter that is caused by a driver who is driving "under the influence of alcohol, drugs or any other intoxicating substances" is a fine of up to $15,000 and/or incarceration for up to 15 years. 

Senate Bill 1099 would add a new provision that applies to a person who has a previous conviction — at any point in his or her life — for driving under the influence or for "any substantially conforming foreign criminal violation." The provision requires any penalty to have a "mandatory minimum fixed term of imprisonment of five (5) years, not to exceed twenty-five (25) years" and a fine of up to $20,000.

An additional new provision would provide that if a person has had two or more such convictions, the "mandatory minimum fixed term of imprisonment" would increase to 10 years. 

There are two significant problems that must be addressed in this bill. The first problem, which applies to all mandatory minimums, is that it is always possible for extenuating circumstances in a specific case to make a mandatory minimum sentence manifestly unjust. This means that mandatory minimum sentencing laws fundamentally subvert the notion of justice, which requires broad judicial discretion regarding sentencing.

The second problem regards the trigger for the enhanced penalty. Most laws that create enhanced penalties for a second or subsequent offense include a time frame during which the repeat offense had occurred, such as 3 or 5 years. The idea behind such laws is that repeated offenses show a stubborn or flagrant disregard for the law, justifying enhanced penalties.

This bill does not contain such a time frame. So a prior conviction for driving under the influence at any point in a person's life, even decades earlier, would trigger the mandatory minimum periods of imprisonment required by this bill. 

Another factor to consider is that the crime of driving "under the influence of alcohol, drugs or any other intoxicating substances" includes legal prescription drugs, which means that an elderly man on certain prescription medications who causes a fatal accident could face a mandatory minimum sentence of a decade in prison if he also had a couple of DUIs when he was in his 20s. 

These mandatory minimum incarceration periods lack the normal nexus and logic required to justify an enhanced penalty. Whatever the appropriate penalty for vehicular manslaughter, a prior conviction for driving under the influence many years ago (particularly in a case where no one was harmed) does not warrant an automatic penalty enhancement, especially one that includes a severe mandatory minimum sentence.

(-1)