In litigation related to driving under the influence, one of the most delicate aspects concerns the consequences tied to the blood alcohol level recorded and, above all, the handling of the seizure and confiscation of the vehicle. In a case I handled personally, I assisted M., who had been stopped during a roadside check and subjected to a breathalyser test, which returned a reading above 1.5 g/l.
Following the check, the administrative seizure of the vehicle was ordered and, subsequently, a lengthy suspension of his driving licence was imposed, together with the obligation to undergo medical examinations. Although the medical assessments returned a fully favourable outcome, my client nonetheless found himself in a difficult situation: forced to bear substantial costs for the recovery and custody of the car and without any clear visibility on the timing of resolution.
Not every scenario has been decriminalised
One of the central points of the defence was to clarify a fundamental aspect that is often misunderstood: not every case of driving under the influence has been decriminalised. Only cases with a blood alcohol level between 0.5 and 0.8 g/l now fall within the scope of an administrative offence. When, however, the value exceeds 1.5 g/l, as in M.'s case, an actual criminal offence is established, with significant consequences both in terms of sanctions and ancillary measures.
The defence strategy: evidence and management of the vehicle
We therefore structured the defence starting from the analysis of the evidence: the results of the breathalyser, which must be properly documented and forwarded to the judicial authority, represent the central element of the assessment. In parallel, we managed the position concerning the vehicle, highlighting how, with the evolution of the legislation, confiscation has taken on an administrative nature, while still remaining linked to criminal proceedings.
In practice, this means that, even though the management of the confiscation is entrusted to the Prefect, the final decision depends on the outcome of the criminal trial. In the meantime, in order to avoid an excessive build-up of custody costs, we activated the procedure to obtain custody of the vehicle by the driver, allowing my client to regain possession of it, while still bearing the costs accrued.
Outcome and conclusions
The most important phase was the final one: we followed the entire proceeding through to its conclusion, working on the most effective line of defence based on the elements available. At the conclusion of the case, we succeeded in obtaining a favourable outcome that avoided the most burdensome consequences, allowing M. to recover the use of the vehicle and significantly reduce the overall impact of the matter.