Oklahoma DUI Defendant Is Challenging a New Law Requiring a Return to Prison

Legislatures frequently increase the consequences associated with DUI offenses, particularly when serious bodily injuries result. Applying new laws to people whose offenses and sentences predate those laws, however, can raise significant constitutional questions. A lawsuit recently filed in Oklahoma challenges a new law that could require a person convicted of a serious DUI offense to return to prison after previously being transferred to GPS monitoring. The dispute illustrates the importance of constitutional protections against retroactively increasing criminal punishment, protections that also apply to criminal defendants in Illinois. If you are facing a DUI charge in Illinois, an experienced DUI defense attorney can assess both the charges against you and the laws governing the penalties that may be imposed.

DUI Offender Is Challenging a New Law Requiring a Return to Prison

It is reported that an Oklahoma DUI offender filed a federal lawsuit seeking to avoid being returned to prison under a recently enacted state law. The offender reportedly served 73 days in custody following a DUI crash that seriously injured another person before being transferred to a GPS monitoring program. According to the article, the offender received a 15-year sentence, although prior reporting concerning the case has described the custodial portion of the sentence differently. The new law could now require the offender to leave the GPS monitoring program and return to incarceration.

Allegedly, the controversy surrounding the case prompted Oklahoma lawmakers to change state law. The offender’s early transfer to GPS monitoring attracted statewide attention, including allegations that political influence played a role in the decision. After the controversy emerged, lawmakers enacted legislation making people convicted of DUI involving great bodily injury ineligible for the GPS monitoring program. The law further provides that people who lose their eligibility must be removed from the program. The state Attorney General’s Office reportedly characterized the legislation as closing a loophole in existing law.

It is reported that the offender’s federal lawsuit asserts several constitutional challenges to application of the new law. The lawsuit reportedly alleges that applying the legislation to the offender constitutes an ex post facto law, amounts to a bill of attainder, and violates due process. The offender’s attorneys contend that returning the offender to prison would effectively increase the punishment imposed for conduct that occurred before the new legislation took effect. The state, in contrast, may argue that the offender remains in Department of Corrections custody and that changing the offender’s placement from GPS monitoring to incarceration constitutes an administrative decision rather than additional punishment.

Reportedly, the offender’s attorneys contend that the legislation was drafted in direct response to the offender’s case. A legal expert interviewed for the article acknowledged that the legislation appeared to target the circumstances surrounding that case but explained that this fact alone would not necessarily render the statute unconstitutional. The law applies generally to people convicted of DUI involving great bodily injury who otherwise fall within its terms, including future offenders. The constitutional dispute therefore may turn in significant part on whether removing the offender from GPS monitoring and returning the offender to prison is properly characterized as increased punishment or merely a change in the administration of an existing sentence.

Illinois Law Prohibits Ex Post Facto Criminal Punishment

Defendants in Illinois are also protected against ex post facto laws. Article I, Section 16 of the Illinois Constitution expressly prohibits ex post facto laws, while the United States Constitution provides a separate federal protection. The Illinois Supreme Court has explained that retroactively applying a law that inflicts greater punishment than the law in effect when the crime occurred violates the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. Illinois courts have traditionally interpreted the state constitutional protection consistently with the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the federal prohibition.

Further, a law implicates the ex post facto prohibition when it operates retroactively and disadvantages the defendant in a constitutionally significant way. This can occur when a new law criminalizes conduct that was lawful when committed, increases the punishment for an offense after it was committed, or changes evidentiary rules in a manner that makes obtaining a conviction easier. The prohibition serves important principles of notice and fairness by preventing legislatures from subsequently imposing greater criminal consequences than those applicable when the defendant acted.

Meet With an Experienced Illinois DUI Defense Attorney