By Jeffrey Herman

Now that spring is here, almost every weekend brings another news story about teenaged drivers wrecking cars. Frequently these accidents are fatal. These accidents often occur late at night, with teen drivers carrying teen passengers, after the teen drivers have been drinking or doing drugs. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in 2004 drunk drivers killed 16,654 people across the country.

Washington State is following the nationwide trend of issuing limited drivers’ licenses to drivers under age eighteen. The basic statute is RCW 46.20.075. It provides that a driver over sixteen but under eighteen must obtain an intermediate license.

To get an intermediate license, the driver must have had a valid “instruction permit” (learner’s permit) for at least six months. The driver must then pass driver’s education class, and must pass the driver’s licensing examination administered by the Department of Licensing. The driver also must present certification from a parent, guardian, or employer that the applicant has had at least fifty hours of driving experience, ten of which were at night, while the driver was supervised by a passenger over twenty-one, who’s been a licensed driver for three years. Most important, the applicant also cannot have committed any traffic infraction within the past six months, and cannot have been found guilty of a crime involving alcohol or drugs within the past six months.

National studies have found that drivers under eighteen present several unique risks. They are more likely to drink and drive. They are more likely to crash if they have teen passengers. They are also more likely to crash if they are driving late at night.

The new intermediate licensing law addresses all of these concerns. Intermediate licensed drivers cannot carry passengers under twenty who are not immediate family members, until they are eighteen or have had an intermediate license for six months, whichever comes first. RCW 46.20.075 (2). For the remainder of the time the intermediate license is in effect, the driver cannot carry more than three passengers under twenty who are not immediate family members. RCW 46.20.075 (2).

These drivers also may not drive between 1:00 and 5:00 AM unless accompanied by a parent, guardian, or a licensed driver who is twenty-five or older. RCW 46.20.075 (3). It is a traffic infraction for an intermediate license holder to violate the statute. RCW 46.20.075 (4). However, the section may be enforced only after the driver has been detained for some other offense. RCW 46.20.075 (5).

The law has two notable exceptions. First, a gaping hole regarding “agricultural purposes.” A driver with an intermediate license may drive at any hour, with any number of passengers who are not family members, “if necessary for agricultural purposes.” RCW 46.20.075 (6). Let’s hope inventive teens don’t just load up the trunk with seeds and claim they’re rushing home for spring planting.

Also, drivers with an intermediate license will be freed from the restrictions if they go twelve months without being in an accident or committing a traffic offense in the traffic code, RCW 46.61. Oddly enough, this means a driver with an intermediate license cannot escape the restrictions if he or she commits a traffic infraction, such as running a red light or DUI, but can escape the restrictions if he or she commits a non-vehicular felony as defined in RCW 9A.

Adults have exposure if they allow “unauthorized” minors to drive, under RCW 46.20.024. This clearly prohibits adults from allowing unlicensed minors to drive. It is unclear whether adults are also prohibited from allowing minors to drive in violation of their intermediate license. The statute says “unauthorized minors,” not “unlicensed minors,” so adults will have risk if they allow their kids to violate the terms of the intermediate license.

These restrictions have not resulted in any reported appellate opinions, but if they are, driver’s license requirements have generally been upheld. For example, in State v. Clifford, members of a religious community protested that obtaining a driver’s license would put the state on an equal footing with God, and that paying licensing fees would violate their beliefs by funding abortion. The court held that the State had a compelling interest in furthering safe highways, and the licensing requirement was the least restrictive means to further the interest. State v. Clifford, 57 Wn.App. 127, 787 P.2d 571, (Div. 3 1990).

Driver’s licensing requirements have also been challenged due to the constitutional right to travel, which is a liberty interest protected by the due process clause. See City of Spokane v. Port, 43 Wn. App. 273, 716 P.2d 945 (1986). In Port, the defendant argued that she had a right to drive on public highways and streets without a driver’s license, since she was not driving for commercial purposes. The court said “Freedom of movement is at the heart of our scheme of values, for it may be as keen an interest of the individual as the choice of what he reads, says, eats or wears.” However, it held that nobody has a constitutional right to a particular form of travel.

So if you have drivers under eighteen in your household, be aware of the unique risks and restrictions that apply to them. Make sure they don’t violate the new intermediate licensing law. Because you want to see them safe at breakfast, the morning after the prom. n