Reduced Charges and "Wet Reckless" in a DUI Case

The license side of a DUI and the criminal charge can be separate matters, each governed by its own state law. Pennsylvania illustrates how the license side can run on its own track. The PennDOT Driver’s Manual, Chapter 4: Pennsylvania’s Point System, which is agency guidance rather than a statute, explains that when a driving privilege is going to be suspended, revoked or disqualified, a written notice is mailed listing the date the sanction will begin. The license must be returned to the Bureau of Driver Licensing by that effective date, or the state police and local police will be notified to pick it up.

The same guidance states that a sanction starts on the effective date listed in the notice regardless of when the license is surrendered, and that surrendering it early does not start the sanction early. It describes an appeal of the sanction in the Court of Common Pleas (Civil Division) in the county of residence, which must be filed within a period measured from the mailing date of the Department's notice. It adds that, in addition to serving the sanction, all restoration requirements must be satisfied before the driving privilege is restored.

A lawyer in Pennsylvania can explain how a particular notice fits that process.

A reduced charge can come with a license consequence written into its own statute. Ohio Rev. Code § 4510.15 provides that when a person is found guilty under Ohio law, or under an ordinance of an Ohio political subdivision, of operating a motor vehicle in violation of a law relating to reckless operation, the trial court of any court of record may impose a suspension of the offender's driver's or commercial driver's license or permit or nonresident operating privilege. The length comes from a range set by cross-reference to another section of the Revised Code. The statute says this suspension may be imposed in addition to or independent of all other penalties provided by law.

In that Ohio provision, the suspension is imposed by the trial court rather than by an agency. The same section addresses commercial licenses. A suspension of a commercial driver's license under it runs concurrently with certain disqualification periods named in other sections. It also provides that a person whose commercial driver's license is suspended under the section is not to be issued a driver's license during the suspension, and it sets a similar bar for a person disqualified for life from holding a commercial driver's license under a cross-referenced section.

A reduced charge is its own offense, with its own elements. Reckless driving is one offense people discuss in this context, and its definition comes from each state's code. New York's statute, N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 1212, defines reckless driving as driving or using a motor vehicle, motorcycle or other vehicle propelled by power other than muscular power in a manner that unreasonably interferes with the free and proper use of the public highway or a parking lot, or unreasonably endangers users of the public highway or a parking lot. It makes a violation a misdemeanor, defines "parking lot" in detail, and excludes certain private residential property.

North Carolina's statute, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-140, describes reckless driving in two ways: driving carelessly and heedlessly in willful or wanton disregard of the rights or safety of others, or driving without due caution and circumspection at a speed or in a manner that endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property. It classifies reckless driving as a misdemeanor, with higher misdemeanor classes when the reckless driving causes serious injury or serious bodily injury.

Neither definition mentions alcohol. The phrase "wet reckless" does not appear in any statute discussed here.

A statute can itself identify one offense as included within another. North Carolina's aggressive-driving statute, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-141.6, provides that reckless driving under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-140 is a lesser-included offense of aggressive driving. As that statute defines it, aggressive driving requires a violation of either of two other named sections together with careless and heedless driving in willful or wanton disregard of the rights or safety of others. To prove the careless-and-heedless element, the State must show that the person committed more than one of the listed offenses, which include running a red light or a stop sign, illegal passing, failing to yield right-of-way, and following too closely. The statute classifies aggressive driving as a misdemeanor.

That provision concerns aggressive driving, not impaired driving. It shows what it looks like when a legislature writes the relationship between a greater and a lesser offense into the code. On its own terms, it says nothing about DUI cases or about reducing an impaired-driving charge.

Whether any lesser offense is available in a particular impaired-driving case, and how that offense is defined, is a question a lawyer licensed in that state can address.

Whether an earlier conviction counts as a prior turns on the wording of the state's prior-conviction provisions. Arizona's statutes, for example, are specific about what they list. A.R.S. § 28-1381 provides that the state shall allege, for classification and sentencing, all prior convictions of violating that section and the other impaired-driving sections it names, including A.R.S. § 28-1382, within a lookback period the statute sets, unless there is an insufficient legal or factual basis to do so. Its repeat-offense provision reaches a person previously convicted under those named sections or of "an act in another jurisdiction that if committed in this state would be a violation" of them. A.R.S. § 28-1382 uses the same structure for its extreme-influence offense.

A.R.S. § 28-1387 adds procedural rules. The court shall allow the allegation of a prior conviction or other pending charge under those sections, or a comparable out-of-state act, if it is filed by a set time before the case is actually tried, and may allow a later filing if the state gives the defendant a copy of the information it obtained about the prior. It also provides that, for that article, a juvenile court order adjudicating a person delinquent is equivalent to a conviction.

For out-of-state matters, Arizona's test is framed around the act and whether it would be a violation if committed in Arizona.

Arizona's statutes also address the order in which offenses occur. A.R.S. § 28-1381 and A.R.S. § 28-1382 each provide that, in applying their repeat-offense lookback, the dates of the commission of the offenses are the determining factor, irrespective of the sequence in which the offenses were committed. A.R.S. § 28-1387 states that any conviction may be used to enhance another conviction irrespective of the dates on which the offenses occurred within that lookback provision.

A.R.S. § 28-1381 and A.R.S. § 28-1382 also each provide that a repeat violation for which a conviction occurs shall not include a conviction for an offense arising out of the same series of acts. These provisions therefore distinguish between a separate earlier event and a conviction arising from the same series of acts.

Reading these provisions against a particular history, including any out-of-state matter or juvenile adjudication, is work for a lawyer licensed in Arizona. The way Arizona frames these questions is specific to its own statutes and does not describe what any other state provides.

Because a reduced charge is defined by a single state's law, the useful questions are specific ones about that state's statutes and agencies. A lawyer licensed where the case is pending can explain what offenses exist in that state's code, how each is defined, and how a conviction under each is recorded. The lawyer can also explain how the license side is handled there, including which body acts on the license, what notice starts that process, and where any review takes place.

Questions about priors are just as state-specific. The same lawyer can explain which earlier convictions the state's prior-conviction provisions list, how out-of-state matters are treated, and how any lookback period is measured.

• Does this state's code contain an offense that an impaired-driving charge can be reduced to, and how is it defined?
• Does a conviction for that offense carry its own license consequence, and who imposes it?
• Is the license matter handled separately from the court case, and where is it reviewed?
• Which earlier convictions does this state's prior-conviction provision list?
• How does this state treat a conviction from another state?

Deadlines, limits and penalty ranges are set by each state’s statutes, so this page does not state them. Each state page shows them with the official source and the date they were verified — or says plainly that a figure has not been confirmed yet.