State V Ravotto Continued

State V Ravotto Continued

The case of State v. Ravotto has been an interesting one to follow. This case started when Michael Ravotto was arrested for drunk driving back in 2015. But the case didn’t end there – oh no, this thing has dragged on with appeal after appeal from both sides. I’m no lawyer, but as an interested observer, I gotta say this case seems like a real mess.

So first, let’s recap what happened. Ravotto was pulled over by police and arrested for DUI. He refused to take a breathalyzer test, which under our state’s implied consent laws meant he’d face penalties. Specifically, his license was revoked for a year and he was ordered to get an ignition interlock device installed in his car.

Ravotto appealed this, arguing that the penalties for refusing the breath test were unconstitutional. His argument was that it violated his 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. The trial court disagreed and upheld the penalties.

But then Ravotto took it to the Court of Appeals, and they actually agreed with him! In a 2-1 decision, the judges ruled that the penalties for refusing the breathalyzer were unconstitutional. Their reasoning was that it forced Ravotto to consent to a warrantless search, and that violated his rights.

Well, the state wasn’t having any of that. They took it all the way up to the state Supreme Court. And in 2018, the Supremes reversed the Court of Appeals in a 5-2 decision. They said the implied consent laws were constitutional because driving is a privilege, not a right. And the penalties were reasonable for refusing to consent to testing.

But even that wasn’t the end! Because then in 2019, Ravotto appealed again, this time arguing that the law was unconstitutionally vague. He said the law didn’t make it clear that refusing the breath test would make his license automatically revoked.

The trial court disagreed again and said the law was clear enough. But the Court of Appeals actually agreed with Ravotto again! In another 2-1 decision, they ruled that the law was too vague and people weren’t properly notified of the consequences.

So once again, the state appealed to the Supreme Court. And once again, the Supremes overturned the Court of Appeals. In a 4-3 decision in 2020, they affirmed that the law was clear and not unconstitutionally vague.

And that brings us to today. Ravotto’s attorney just filed yet another appeal last month, arguing that the law violates the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions. Basically, they’re saying that the state can’t force someone to give up their constitutional rights (in this case, 4th Amendment rights) in exchange for a privilege like driving.

Man, this case is like watching a ping pong match! Back and forth, back and forth between the courts. As a casual observer, I gotta say the legal arguments are interesting on both sides. I can see decent points from each perspective.

On one hand, I get Ravotto’s argument that implied consent laws kinda force you into a tough spot. Do you refuse the test and lose your license? Or consent to a search you don’t really wanna do? It’s a rock and a hard place.

But then again, I see the state’s point too. Driving is a privilege, and you take on certain conditions to get that privilege. Is it really unconstitutional to say you gotta consent to a breath test too? I dunno, reasonable minds can differ.

One thing’s for sure, this case has dragged on for a long time now. It’s been nearly 10 years since Ravotto’s arrest! I’m sure he’s gotten tired of appealing over and over. And I bet the state is tired of defending the law over and over too.

Part of me wonders why Ravotto keeps appealing. Is it just on principle at this point? Does he really think he still has a shot? Or is he just trying to stall out until he can put this whole mess behind him?

If I had to guess, I’d say there’s a good chance the Supreme Court will knock down this latest appeal too. Their last decision was pretty definitive, saying the law was clear and constitutional. For them to suddenly change course would be a big surprise.

But hey, you never know! The Court does have some new justices since the last time they ruled on this. So maybe they’ll see things differently now. Appellate courts seem to flip back and forth on this case like a light switch, so I guess anything is possible.

At the end of the day, State v. Ravotto raises some really interesting issues about the balance between public safety and individual rights. How far can the law go to deter drunk driving, before it goes too far? It’s a tough question with reasonable arguments on both sides.

Will the state Supreme Court change its mind this time around? Will Ravotto finally be vindicated? Or will this ping pong match drag on even longer? I guess we’ll have to wait and see! I know I’ll be watching closely when they hand down their next decision.

In the meantime, my advice is don’t drink and drive, folks. Save yourself the hassle. But if you do get pulled over after a few too many drinks, know your rights. The law is still developing here. And as we’ve seen with Ravotto, today’s settled precedent could be overturned tomorrow. So stay vigilant and know the implications before you consent to anything. But also don’t be a jerk to the cops! Be polite, cooperate as much as you can, but stand firm if you really don’t want that breathalyzer. This area of law is still a big gray zone.