This is the first in what will be a special series of blogs on regulation from the CPAC Foundation's Center for Regulatory Freedom. Written by one of our legal fellows, Karan Gupta, this piece is more in the style of a law review article than it is a traditional "blog"--and it will be something we will be encouraging our legal fellows to do more of.

Constitutional Challenges of the Advanced Impaired Driving Prevention Technology Regulation: A Critical Analysis of 49 CFR Part 571

by Karan Gupta

The “49 CFR Part 571 [Docket No. NHTSA–2022–0079] RIN 2127–AM50 Advanced Impaired Driving Prevention Technology” regulation calls for a system that “passively monitor(s) the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired.” After that the rule says that the technology must “prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected.”

According to the rule “Impaired can mean anything that diminishes a person’s ability to perform driving tasks and increases the likelihood of a crash. Considering this, driver impairment would include drunk and drugged driving, but it could also include drowsy driving, distracted driving, driving while experiencing an incapacitating medical emergency or condition, or any other factor that would diminish driver performance…This document also presents three regulatory options for how the agency might mitigate driver impairment: blood alcohol content detection, impairment-detection (driver monitoring), or a combination of the two.

This regulation violates the 4th amendment, 5th amendment and 9th amendment...Continue reading at https://t.co/KtWvIDXBAb.