Driving Under the Influence (DUI) is one of the most commonly prosecuted criminal offenses in the United States. These laws aim to protect public safety by discouraging individuals from operating vehicles while impaired by alcohol or drugs. Although commonly referred to as DUI, terms like Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) or Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) are used in some jurisdictions. The legal framework governing impaired driving is complex and varies by state, balancing constitutional rights with the need to reduce dangerous behavior on the roads.

National Overview

In general, DUI laws prohibit operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol, drugs, or both. All U.S. states maintain a per se legal limit of 0.08% blood alcohol concentration (BAC) for drivers aged 21 and over. Stricter limits apply to commercial drivers (0.04%) pursuant to federal law.[1] All states enforce zero-tolerance laws for drivers under 21, which prohibit any measurable BAC.[2]

A DUI charge typically requires two elements: (1) the operation or actual physical control of a motor vehicle, and (2) impairment or intoxication. States differ on what constitutes "operation"; some include being asleep in a parked car with the keys in the ignition.[3] Impairment can be demonstrated through field sobriety tests, officer observations, and chemical testing (breath, blood, or urine).

Constitutional Considerations

DUI enforcement implicates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, requiring that traffic stops be based on reasonable suspicion. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990),[4] although several states, including Alaska, prohibit such checkpoints under state law.[5]

Chemical testing also presents constitutional issues. Breath tests, which are less invasive and can be conducted quickly at the scene, are generally treated differently than blood tests, which involve a physical intrusion and often require medical personnel. In Birchfield v. North Dakota (2016), the Court held that warrantless breath tests are permissible incident to arrest, but warrantless blood draws typically require a warrant unless exigent circumstances exist.[6]

Under the Fifth Amendment, individuals have the right against self-incrimination. However, implied consent laws—enacted in all 50 states—allow states to penalize refusal to submit to chemical testing, usually through administrative sanctions such as license suspension.[7] Criminal penalties for refusal, particularly when invasive tests are involved, have faced constitutional scrutiny.[8]

Penalties and Consequences

DUI penalties typically include both criminal and administrative consequences. Criminal sanctions can consist of jail time, fines, probation, community service, and mandatory education programs. Administrative penalties often include license suspension or revocation, and many jurisdictions now require ignition interlock devices (IIDs) for some or all DUI offenders, even for a first offense.[9]

Beyond the courtroom, a DUI conviction can carry significant collateral consequences, such as increased insurance premiums, employment difficulties, and immigration ramifications for non-citizens.[10]

Defenses

Legal defenses in DUI cases vary but commonly include challenging the legality of the traffic stop, questioning the accuracy of chemical testing devices, and introducing medical explanations for observed impairment. Some defendants raise the “rising BAC” defense, arguing that their BAC was below the legal limit while driving but increased before testing.[11] Courts evaluate this defense based on the timing of alcohol consumption, expert testimony on alcohol absorption rates, and the delay between driving and testing. While the defense can be persuasive in certain circumstances, it requires strong supporting evidence to demonstrate that the BAC rose after the time of driving and not before.

Evolving Trends

One growing issue is drug-impaired driving, especially as more states legalize marijuana. Unlike alcohol, drug impairment lacks a universally accepted measurement like BAC. Many jurisdictions now rely on specially trained officers, called Drug Recognition Experts (DREs), to assess impairment.[12]

Technology is also influencing DUI law. Several states are piloting or requiring continuous alcohol monitoring devices, smartphone-based remote testing, and automated reporting tools. Additionally, DUI courts—specialized problem-solving courts focusing on treatment and rehabilitation—are expanding nationwide as a response to repeat offenses and underlying substance use disorders.[13]

DUI Laws in Alaska: A Closer Look

Alaska’s DUI laws are some of the strictest in the country and reflect its unique geographic and transportation conditions. Under Alaska Stat. § 28.35.030, it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft with a BAC of 0.08% or more or while under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances to a degree that impairs the person's ability to operate safely.[14]

A first DUI offense in Alaska is a Class A misdemeanor. It carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 72 hours in jail, a $1,500 fine, a 90-day license revocation, mandatory participation in an alcohol safety action program, and installation of an ignition interlock device (IID) for a minimum of six months.[15]

Repeat offenses escalate quickly. A second DUI within 10 years results in at least 20 days in jail, a $3,000 fine, and a one-year license revocation. A fourth DUI offense within 10 years is a Class C felony, punishable by at least 360 days of incarceration and permanent license revocation under certain circumstances.[16]

Alaska enforces a zero-tolerance policy for drivers under 21 under Alaska Stat. § 28.35.280, prohibiting any consumption of alcohol and operating a vehicle. Commercial drivers are subject to the 0.04% BAC standard, consistent with federal law.[17]

Refusal to submit to chemical testing results in administrative license revocation, even if the driver is not ultimately convicted, under Alaska’s implied consent law (Alaska Stat. § 28.35.032).[18]

Due to Alaska’s vast rural areas and limited road systems, DUI enforcement poses logistical challenges. To address this, the state has invested in mobile law enforcement resources, including patrol units equipped with breath testing tools, communication systems, and temporary holding capabilities. These units enable officers to enforce DUI laws even in remote areas where access to centralized facilities is limited. Additionally, therapeutic courts such as the Anchorage Wellness Court provide structured treatment options for nonviolent repeat offenders.[19]

Conclusion

DUI law remains a complex and evolving area of criminal and administrative law, intersecting with constitutional rights, emerging substances, and new technologies. Key challenges include the subjectivity of drug impairment assessments, limitations of chemical testing accuracy, and ensuring due process during enforcement. Innovations such as Drug Recognition Experts, ignition interlock devices, continuous monitoring technology, and DUI courts represent promising efforts to improve outcomes. Alaska’s approach demonstrates a balance between deterrence and rehabilitation, while national trends show a shift toward individualized, treatment-focused responses. As DUI laws continue to evolve, they will remain a vital component of public safety and criminal justice policy.

Works Cited

[1] 49 C.F.R. § 392.5.

[2] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), State Alcohol Laws: Zero Tolerance Laws, 2021.

[3] State v. Zavala, 136 P.3d 1175 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006); see also State v. Mercado, 527 N.W.2d 506 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995).

[4] Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990).

[5] Alaska Const. art. I, § 14; see State v. Moran, 667 P.2d 734 (Alaska Ct. App. 1983).

[6] Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (2016).

[7] NHTSA, Implied Consent Laws, Traffic Safety Facts, 2020.

[8] Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013).

[9] National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), Ignition Interlock Device Laws, 2023.

[10] American Bar Association, Collateral Consequences of Criminal Convictions, 2022.

[11] People v. Bransford, 884 P.2d 70 (Cal. 1994).

[12] NHTSA, Drug Evaluation and Classification Program (DECP), 2021.

[13] National Center for DWI Courts, DUI Court Effectiveness Studies, 2022.

[14] Alaska Stat. § 28.35.030.

[15] Alaska Stat. § 28.35.030(b)(1).

[16] Alaska Stat. § 28.35.030(n); Alaska Stat. § 28.35.030(o).

[17] Alaska Stat. § 28.33.030(b); 49 C.F.R. § 392.5.

[18] Alaska Stat. § 28.35.032(a).

[19] Alaska Court System, Anchorage Wellness Court, accessed 2025.