Montana Judge Gets DUI Slap on the Wrist

An October, 2005 editorial in The Missoulian of Missoula, Montana, criticizes the state supreme court for planning to issue a public reprimand to a district court judge for DUI. Critics charge that the court, by issuing jail alternatives, which the editorial described as a “slap on the wrist,” instead of more severe punishment, is missing an opportunity to strike at the heart of the drinking and driving atmosphere that pervades the state, as well as hold the perpetrator up to a standard befitting a judge.

District Court Judge Jeffrey Langton had been convicted of DUI the previous winter, then was later discovered passed out in public. The latter offense violated a court order, which had directed him to refrain from alcohol consumption while on probation for the former. For this violation, he was given a suspended jail sentence and had an ignition interlock device installed in his car, a move the editorial described as “not exactly a measure reflecting trustworthiness.”

While the editorial allowed for the imperfections of all persons, it stated that some human flaws were of such a severe nature that anyone suffering from them were unfit for the bench. “The moral high ground certainly will be hard to find in his courtroom,” the editorial read. “The integrity and credibility of the judiciary are more important to preserve than Langton’s feelings, self-esteem and current livelihood.”

The position of the editors was that the state’s highest court lost a chance to make a high-profile example of a DUI convict, thus sending a message against the apparent social acceptability of drinking and driving. In spite of the fact that the state legislature has tightened drinking and driving laws in recent years—banning open containers in vehicles, lowering the legal blood-alcohol content (BAC) limit, zero-tolerance for persons under 21—Montana continues to rank among the highest in the nation for the rate of alcohol-related road deaths. People’s attitudes, the editorial charges, need to change, and that won’t happen when a state judge can drink and drive with apparent impunity.

However, some citizens are striking back. They are attempting a recall campaign against the judge. The editors hope that the citizen effort will communicate a message that the state supreme court cannot or will not: drinking and driving is not socially acceptable.