Do Texas’s DWI Laws Discriminate Against Heavy Drinkers?

A Texan charged with a DWI recently raised a novel defense: the state’s law that criminalizes driving with a blood-alcohol content (BAC) of 0.08 or higher is unlawfully discriminatory toward alcoholics, who tend to be able to function at higher BACs than non-alcoholics.

Although this defense didn’t pass legal muster in Austin, it’s possible it may be tried elsewhere, especially in states with BAC limits that are lower than the nationwide standard. Although this was a rather intriguing defense, in the end the Texas Third Court of Appeals determined the state’s DWI laws weren’t unconstitutionally discriminatory.

A Higher BAC Limit for Alcoholics?

When criminal defendant Ralph Friesenhahn was charged with driving under the influence for the fourth time, he was facing a hefty sentence due to his habitual offender status. While DWI is a misdemeanor in most states, including Texas, having a history of DWI convictions will escalate this misdemeanor to a felony DWI, and Friesenhahn was ultimately sentenced to four years in prison, one year for each DWI. You can see the penalties for a Texas DWI conviction here:

Mr. Friesenhahn argued that his prosecution was barred by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which mandates that those with disabilities be treated equally under the law. By setting the legal limit for vehicular drunkenness at 0.08, Friesenhahn argued, Texas law unlawfully discriminates against those with the disease of alcoholism, many of whom have built up a high enough alcohol tolerance over the years to function rather well at a high BAC. While a BAC of 0.08 may be enough to incapacitate a light drinker, alcoholics are usually able to maintain a steady mental function even at a much higher BAC.

No Evidence to Support a Change in the Law

The ADA requires equal treatment under the law, and that’s just what Texas DWI laws provide, wrote the Texas Third Court of Appeals when denying Friesenhahn’s appeal of his criminal conviction. In fact, wrote the court, adopting Friesenhahn’s argument would actually result in unfair treatment of alcoholics by carving out a special exception that would allow them to escape the penalties for drunk driving.

One of the reasons this case was rejected was likely due to the lack of evidence or scientific studies presented to the trial court. Although Friesenhahn argued that alcoholism was a disease, therefore making alcoholics a protected class under the ADA, he presented no studies or evidence in support of this theory, giving the trial court nothing to use to provide the relief he sought.

Around the country, states are lowering their BAC limits in an attempt to reduce alcohol-related traffic fatalities. Utah is the first state to adopt a limit of 0.05, effective at the end of 2018. Although these state-by-state decreases in BAC limits is supported by the National Transportation Safety Board and other traffic safety organizations, if a criminal defendant is able to show credible evidence that his or her alcoholism is a disease, it’s still possible these lower limits could be struck down by the courts.

their BAC limits in an attempt to reduce alcohol-related traff