17 Oct driving under the influence

Driving while intoxicated represents one of the most relevant cases in the field of crimes related to road traffic, due to the particular dangerousness of the conduct and the significant consequences that may arise from it on a criminal level, administrative and personal. The Italian legal system has progressively strengthened the tools for preventing and repressing the phenomenon, through a discipline that distinguishes administrative violations from criminally relevant cases based on the ascertained blood alcohol level, providing graduated sanctions and further ancillary measures affecting the possibility of continuing to drive. The reference regulatory framework is mainly made up of art. 186 of the legislative decree 30 April 1992, n. 285, containing the Highway Code, integrated by the art. 186-bis for certain categories of drivers and by the provisions of the penal code applicable when further consequences arise from the conduct, such as personal injury or the death of others. A significant evolution of the discipline was introduced by law 25 November 2024, n. 177, came into force on 14 December 2024, which changed various aspects of road regulations, also intervening on the consequences of driving while intoxicated and introducing specific driving limitations for drivers convicted in the most serious cases. The matter must be examined taking into account not only the blood alcohol limits and the sanctions established by law, but also the methods by which the assessment is carried out, of the guarantees recognized to the interested party, of the criteria for evaluating evidence and the deflationary tools that can be relevant in criminal proceedings. L’art. 186 of the Highway Code establishes, in the first paragraph, the prohibition of driving while intoxicated following the consumption of alcoholic beverages. The provision pursues the aim of protecting the safety of traffic and the safety of people, considering that alcohol intake can impair reflexes, the ability to evaluate distances, coordination of movements and prompt reaction to unexpected events. The legislator has identified a general reference threshold equal to 0,5 grams of alcohol per liter of blood, above which the conduct becomes relevant pursuant to art. 186, without prejudice to the more rigorous discipline provided for certain categories of drivers. Exceeding this limit does not result in, however, identical consequences in every situation, since the law distinguishes three blood alcohol levels, to which different sanctioning regimes correspond. The first hypothesis, provided for by art. 186, comma 2, letter to), concerns the driver for whom a blood alcohol level greater than has been ascertained 0,5 and not greater than 0,8 grams per liter. In this case the conduct constitutes an administrative offense, punished with a financial penalty by 543 a 2.170 euro, in addition to the suspension of the driving license for three to six months. The second hypothesis, contemplated by letter b), occurs when the blood alcohol level is higher than 0,8 and not greater than 1,5 grams per liter. In this situation the violation takes on a criminal nature and is punishable by a fine 800 a 3.200 euros and imprisonment for up to six months, resulting in the suspension of the driving license from six months to one year. The third and most serious case, provided for by letter c), occurs when the blood alcohol level exceeds 1,5 grams per liter. In this case the fine is expected from 1.500 a 6.000 euros and the penalty of imprisonment from six months to one year, in addition to the suspension of the driving license for one to two years. When the vehicle belongs to a person unrelated to the crime, the duration of the suspension is doubled; in case of repeat offenses within the two-year period, the license will be revoked, while the confiscation of the vehicle is ordered with the conviction or application of the sentence upon request of the parties, unless the vehicle belongs to a person unrelated to the crime. The amounts and measures indicated must be considered in light of any regulatory changes and updates applicable at the time of the event. The distinction between the three alcohol levels takes on particular importance because it determines the transition from the administrative offense to the crime and directly affects the defensive strategy, on the sanctioning consequences and on the possibility of resorting to the institutions provided for by the penal code and the criminal procedure code. From the point of view of the legal structure, the crime of driving while intoxicated is traditionally classified as dangerous crimes, since its configuration does not necessarily require that an accident has occurred or that a person has been injured. The rationale of the rule is in fact to anticipate the protection of road safety, repressing a conduct that, for the psychophysical conditions of the driver, is potentially dangerous for the community. It follows that the absence of harmful consequences does not exclude liability when the constituent elements of the case are ascertained. Likewise, the fact that the driver believes he is able to control the vehicle is not sufficient to exclude the violation, since the legal judgment depends on the parameters established by law and on the evidence acquired. Particular attention deserves the discipline applicable to drivers for whom the legislator has established a zero tolerance regime. L’art. 186-bis of the Highway Code, in fact, prohibits drivers under the age of twenty-one from driving after having consumed alcoholic beverages and under their influence., to those who have obtained their B license less than three years ago and to certain categories of professional drivers, including those who carry out transport activities for people or goods and drivers of specific heavy vehicles or vehicles intended for collective transport. For such subjects, a blood alcohol level greater than zero and not greater than 0,5 grams per liter entails an administrative fine from 168 a 672 euro, doubled in the event of an accident. If the thresholds established by art. are exceeded. 186, the applicable sanctions are increased as established by the art. 186-to, with increases that can vary from a third to a half in criminally relevant cases. The regulation highlights how the driver's position must be evaluated not only in relation to the blood alcohol level found, but also to the subjective category to which they belong and any aggravating circumstances. One of the most delicate aspects of the matter concerns the methods of ascertaining the state of intoxication. L’art. 186, paragraphs 3 e 4, gives traffic police bodies the power to carry out preliminary quality checks and, when the conditions established by law apply, to proceed with the instrumental assessment using a breathalyzer. Preliminary checks can be carried out using portable devices and are useful for identifying situations that justify further checks. The instrumental assessment must instead be carried out with tools and procedures compliant with the regulatory framework, in compliance with the guarantees provided by the law. When the driver is involved in a road accident and undergoes medical treatment, the blood alcohol level check can be carried out at the health facility, at the request of the police authorities, according to the methods established by the art. 186, comma 5. Scientific evidence normally constitutes the central element for determining the blood alcohol level, but its value must be assessed in light of the regularity of the operations, the reliability of the instrument and the documentation relating to the assessment. Legitimacy jurisprudence has repeatedly underlined the importance of respecting procedural rules and defensive guarantees, without, however, transforming every formal irregularity into an automatic cause of the result being unusable. In this context the art. 114 of the provisions implementing the criminal procedure code, which provides for the notification to the person undergoing assessment of the right to be assisted by a trusted lawyer in the cases covered by the law. The Court of Cassation, with sentence no. 12178 of the 2024, reiterated that this notice must be given when the procedure for instrumental blood alcohol testing is started, but it is not required for purely exploratory preliminary checks. The Court also clarified that the judicial police are not required to wait for the arrival of the defender before carrying out an urgent and non-deferrable investigation, in consideration of the need to prevent the passage of time from irreparably compromising the result of the verification. The defensive question cannot therefore be addressed through generic formulas, but it requires a concrete examination of the sequence of acts, of the warnings actually given and of any violations likely to produce procedural consequences. A further profile of interest concerns the assessment of the state of intoxication in the absence of a usable instrumental result. The lack of a valid breathalyzer result does not necessarily make it impossible to ascertain the crime, so long as, under certain circumstances, the judge can evaluate symptomatic elements such as vinous breath, disjointed speech, the unstable gait, coordination difficulties and overall driver behavior. Such elements, however, they must be considered with particular rigor and cannot be used automatically to assign the interested party a specific blood alcohol level. The evaluation must be supported by a coherent rationale, based on concrete elements capable of proving liability beyond any reasonable doubt. The jurisprudence has also recognized that the impossibility of validly carrying out the alcohol test, when it is attributable to the psychophysical conditions of the subject or to an obstructive conduct, does not necessarily determine the requalification of the fact in the administrative case alone, the state of intoxication being able to be demonstrated through a serious circumstantial framework, accurate and consistent, provided that it is adequately evaluated by the judge. It is therefore necessary to distinguish the absence of an instrumental measurement from the absolute lack of proof of the state of intoxication, as these are legally different situations. The position of the driver who refuses to undergo the investigation requested by the police is different. L’art. 186, comma 7, in fact, it provides that the refusal of the checks regulated by the law constitutes an autonomous crime, punished with the sanctions provided for the most serious case of driving while intoxicated, in addition to the additional consequences established by law. Refusal therefore does not represent a neutral conduct nor a means to escape the consequences of a control, but it constitutes an autonomous case which must be distinguished from the actual verification of whether the alcohol thresholds have been exceeded. Also in this case, however, it is necessary to verify the legitimacy of the request made by the agents, the existence of the regulatory prerequisites to proceed with the investigation and the concrete ways in which the conduct of the interested party manifested itself. The analysis of the individual episode must therefore take into account the circumstances of the control and the documentation collected, avoiding confusing non-cooperation with automatic proof of a certain blood alcohol level. Discipline becomes more severe when drunk driving has caused a road accident. Pursuant to art. 186, comma 2-times, the sanctions provided for in the second paragraph are doubled when the driver while intoxicated causes an accident. The provision entails an aggravation of the legal consequences, based on the connection between the driving behavior and the event that occurred. The evaluation of the aggravating circumstance therefore requires ascertaining not only the condition of intoxication, but also the relationship between the driver's conduct and the accident, according to the criteria applicable to the specific case. If the accident results in personal injury or the death of other people, the cases provided for by the articles may also come into play. 589-bis and 590-bis of the penal code, respectively in matters of vehicular homicide and serious or very serious vehicular personal injury, when the conditions are met. In such cases the legal evaluation extends to the reconstruction of the dynamics of the accident, to the identification of precautionary violations, to the causal link and to the further circumstances provided for by law. Driving while intoxicated can also lead to particularly significant administrative consequences, even regardless of the penalty eventually applied. The suspension of the driving license directly affects personal and work mobility, while the revocation and confiscation of the vehicle, in the foreseen cases, can lead to significant financial effects. Confiscation requires an examination of the applicable regulations and ownership of the vehicle, since the law protects the position of the owner unrelated to the crime within the expressly established limits. Added to this are any effects on insurance coverage and relationships with the insurance company, to be evaluated in light of the contractual conditions and the circumstances of the accident. Criminal responsibility, indeed, does not necessarily exhaust all the consequences arising from the conduct, especially when damage has been caused to people or things. A further innovation introduced by law no. 177 of the 2024 it's about alcohol lock, device intended to prevent the vehicle from starting when the driver has an alcohol concentration higher than the limits allowed by the system. The new paragraph 9-ter of the art. 186 predicts, against drivers convicted of the crimes covered by the paragraph 2, easier b) e c), the affixing of EU codes on the driving license which indicate the prohibition of drinking alcohol and the limitation on driving vehicles equipped with a device compliant with the relevant technical legislation. The limitation period remains for a minimum period of two years in the case provided for in letter b) and three years in the case provided for by letter c), starting from the return of the license after the conviction, except for any longer duration established by the competent medical commission. The regulation also provides for the obligation to review the license to allow the adaptation of the driving qualification to the new requirements and establishes specific sanction increases for drivers subject to these limitations, with further consequences in the event of alteration or tampering with the device or its seals. The concrete scope of these provisions must also be assessed in light of the applicable technical standards and implementing provisions, as well as the individual position of the driver. The introduction of the alcohol lock highlights a change in the legislative approach, which combines the punitive function with a prevention measure aimed at reducing the risk of repetition of the conduct. The system, indeed, it does not limit itself to sanctioning behavior already carried out, but aims to influence the methods of use of the vehicle for the period established by law. From a procedural point of view, in proceedings for driving under the influence of alcohol, various institutions may be relevant which affect the outcome of the proceedings and the consequences of the conviction. These include the public utility work provided for by the art. 186, comma 9-times, of the Highway Code, that, in the cases and under the conditions established by the provision, can be ordered in lieu of imprisonment and fines. The institute is not applicable indiscriminately to all situations, since the rule excludes specific hypotheses, including those aggravated by the commission of the crime as a result of a road accident. When admitted and positively concluded, public utility work can determine the favorable effects expressly provided for by law, included, in the cases contemplated, the extinction of the crime, the reduction of the license suspension and the revocation of any confiscation ordered. Its application, however, requires a prior evaluation of the regulatory prerequisites, of the procedural situation and the methods of carrying out the substitute activity. They may also come into consideration, meeting the requirements, the oblation in cases where it is legally permitted, the conditional suspension of the sentence and the other instruments provided for by the law. The choice of the most appropriate procedural solution cannot be made in the abstract, but must take into account the contested alcohol level, of the possible presence of aggravating factors, of the interested party's background, of the documentation relating to the assessment and the effects that each institution produces on the sentence and additional sanctions. In this perspective, the defense in drunk driving cases requires an overall examination of the documents, which does not end with verifying the value reported by the breathalyzer. The regularity of operations must be assessed, the available technical documentation, the correct identification of the disputed case, the possible existence of aggravating circumstances and the legitimacy of the measures adopted in relation to the license and the vehicle. Any consequences resulting from an accident must also be considered, by the presence of injured people and by the further complaints formulated by the investigating bodies. The defensive evaluation must also distinguish the issues that affect the establishment of the fact from those relating to the sanctioning treatment, since even when the responsibility is supported by significant evidential elements, there may remain margins for evaluation regarding the legal qualification, to the application of the circumstances and the tools provided by law. Legitimacy jurisprudence plays a fundamental role in this area, helping to define the evaluation criteria of the test, the relationship between scientific assessment and symptomatic elements, the defensive guarantees and the conditions for the application of accessory consequences. The principle that emerges from regulatory and jurisprudential evolution is that of a system that, while pursuing rigorous protection of road safety, requires that all liability be ascertained in compliance with substantive and procedural rules. The preventive purpose of the regulation does not eliminate the need to verify the existence of the elements constituting the offense and to guarantee treatment compliant with the principles of legality, proportionality and personality of criminal responsibility. In conclusion, Driving while intoxicated is a case that can produce particularly serious consequences, from administrative sanctions to criminal convictions, from license suspension to vehicle confiscation, up to the most serious liabilities deriving from accidents with injuries or deaths. The changes introduced by law no. 177 of the 2024 they further strengthened discipline, introducing new driving restrictions and prevention tools aimed at reducing the risk of reoffending. In this context, the correct understanding of the legislation and the timely examination of the documentation relating to the assessment assume decisive importance. Each proceeding has specific characteristics that must be assessed in light of the applicable provisions and relevant jurisprudential guidelines, in order to identify the actually relevant issues and any solutions permitted by the law. A professional approach to the matter therefore requires combining knowledge of the substantive discipline with the analysis of procedural guarantees and administrative consequences, in the awareness that the protection of the rights of the interested party must take place in compliance with the safety needs of the community and the fundamental principles of the legal system.