An increasing number of police officers are using pre-written arrest reports in drunk driving cases. In other words, they are writing out a batch of phony reports — including driving symptoms, slurred speech, failed field sobriety tests, admissions of drinking — and then just filling in the names, dates, etc., when they actually make an arrest. 

Saves a lot of time. In this computer age, however, this practice is commonly abbreviated even further by using computer templates: word processing forms which have all of the “facts” already entered, with blanks to fill in for name, date, etc.   Following is an example of this time-saving approach to DUI law enforcement:

DUI Suspects May Go Free Due to Questionable Arrest Reports

Orlando, FL  November 16 — Channel 9 Investigates has uncovered dozens of DUI suspects that may go free because sheriff’s deputies appear to be using pre-written arrest reports.

There are some experts who believe this may even amount to perjury. When a deputy makes a DUI bust, the officer writes an arrest report. It’s the official record of what the deputy says happened. But Eyewitness News has uncovered dozens of Orange County DUI arrest reports that apparently have come from pre-written templates.

One report, for instance, says the suspect “stumbled slightly when walking and swayed moderately … with a three inch to five inch orbital rotation/sway.” At least ten reports, written by the same deputy over a six-month period, use the exact same phrase. Even reports written by other deputies contain that exact phrase.

In many reports, the deputy noticed the “strong odor of an alcoholic beverage within my interior cab.” That exact phrase appears in report after report. And it’s there whether the suspect’s blood alcohol content was anywhere from .03 to .16.  9 Investigates found 11 other reports, written by a different deputy, that use those exact words, again, no matter how much the suspect had to drink.

“It just doesn’t smell right,” said DUI defense attorney Stu Hyman. “It’s a sad state of affairs when somebody hasn’t even committed the offense yet, but the report has already been written.”

9 Investigates found one deputy whose suspects always do an “orbital rotation” and always “counter-clockwise.” Five deputies always leave their suspects in the car for exactly five minutes before smelling alcohol. In one case, a suspect was described as “he/she.”

It all leads Hyman to believe the reports were pre-written.

“Why is it that everyone is swaying three to five inches? Why isn’t it two to eight? Why not one to seven inches?” questioned Hyman….

9 Investigates found court testimony where a deputy indicated the sheriff’s office has computer DUI templates. The deputy testified, “I’ve been told people use them. I just choose not to.”

None of this comes as any surprise to experienced DUI attorneys, who are used to seeing what I have called in my book and lectures “xeroxed symptoms”. This has been going on for a long time. (Years ago, I used to get a court order for copies of an arresting officer’s DUI reports for the previous 30 days; when the reports became an embarrassment, the Orange County (California) D.A.’s office finally appealed and stopped the judges from issuing the orders — but never prosecuted a single officer for perjury or filing a false report.)

The debate over the minimum drinking age has continued for decades, with the recent focus being on whether it makes sense to send American youth to fight and perhaps die in foreign countries – but not to drink alcohol.  Our generals have expressed strong views on the subject.  See  MADD vs USMC.  Mothers Against Drunk Driving, ever vigilant in its Prohibitionist goals (see MADD and the New Prohibition), has fought hard (and successfully) against exposing our troops to the evils of alcohol. 

A second front, long simmering, has now errupted: the drinking age for college students.  MADD, whose  "Mission Statement" was amended a few years ago from preventing drunk driving to including preventing underage drinking, is adamantly against lowering the age to 18.  But, as with their run-in with our military leaders, this powerful group has suddenly been confronted with a another formidable enemy.

College Presidents Seek Debate on Drinking Age

Associated Press, Aug. 18  - College presidents from about 100 of the nation’s best-known universities, including Duke, Dartmouth and Ohio State, are calling on lawmakers to consider lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18, saying current laws actually encourage dangerous binge drinking on campus.

The movement called the Amethyst Initiative began quietly recruiting presidents more than a year ago to provoke national debate about the drinking age.

"This is a law that is routinely evaded," said John McCardell, former president of Middlebury College in Vermont who started the organization. "It is a law that the people at whom it is directed believe is unjust and unfair and discriminatory."

But even before the presidents begin the public phase of their efforts, which may include publishing newspaper ads in the coming weeks, they are already facing sharp criticism.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving says lowering the drinking age would lead to more fatal car crashes. It accuses the presidents of misrepresenting science and looking for an easy way out of an inconvenient problem. MADD officials are even urging parents to think carefully about the safety of colleges whose presidents have signed on.

"It’s very clear the 21-year-old drinking age will not be enforced at those campuses," said Laura Dean-Mooney, national president of MADD…

 The statement the presidents have signed avoids calling explicitly for a younger drinking age. Rather, it seeks "an informed and dispassionate debate" over the issue and the federal highway law that made 21 the de facto national drinking age by denying money to any state that bucks the trend.

But the statement makes clear the signers think the current law isn’t working, citing a "culture of dangerous, clandestine binge-drinking," and noting that while adults under 21 can vote and enlist in the military, they "are told they are not mature enough to have a beer." Furthermore, "by choosing to use fake IDs, students make ethical compromises that erode respect for the law."..

Duke President Richard Brodhead declined an interview request. But he wrote in a statement on the Amethyst Initiative’s Web site that the 21-year-old drinking age "pushes drinking into hiding, heightening its risks." It also prevents school officials "from addressing drinking with students as an issue of responsible choice."

(Chuck) Hurley, (CEO) of MADD, has a different take on the presidents.

"They’re waving the white flag," he said.

(Thanks to Susan Sullivan and Lance Maxon.)

I’ve railed in past posts about the ineffectiveness of ignition interlock devices (IIDs).  See The Truth About Ignition Interlock Devices.  This latest sure-fire weapon, which MADD loudly claims will "eliminate drunk driving once and for all", is currently sweeping the country.

We know what the Mothers think.  What about the prosecutors in the trenches?

Prosecutors Express Doubt About New DUI Law

Jacksonville, IL.  Aug. 2  - While mandatory ignition locks equipped with a breathalyzer are suppose to prevent convicted first-time, drunken drivers from driving illegally, several area prosecutors doubt they will accomplish that purpose.

The new mandate won’t take effect until Jan. 1, but prosecutors for Morgan, Scott and Greene counties are skeptical about how the offenders will be able to afford the costly monitoring device and pay their DUI fines, which the counties already find difficult to collect…

He and other prosecutors see holes in the system. “It’s a step in the right direction,” said Scott County State’s Attorney David Cherry. “And, yet, it’s a costly device and doesn’t guarantee 100 percent that they won’t drive when they shouldn’t. That’s a problem.”

“If you have a crazy drunk who is going to drink and drive, this doesn’t necessarily stop them from driving,” Mr. Bonjean noted. “It only stops them from driving the vehicle that they put the (breathalyzer) device in.

“That doesn’t mean they can’t go get in their friend’s vehicle or their kid’s vehicle or get in their wife’s vehicle, which would be a violation, and drive that,” Mr. Bonjean said.

Greene County State’s Attorney Matt Goetten echoed the two prosecutors’ concerns, adding, “What’s to prevent them from having someone not drinking blow into it and start the car up?”..

Mothers Against Drunk Driving called the new law one of the most important pieces of DUI legislation passed in Illinois in several years, because ignition interlocks stop vehicles from being driven by those who are drunk, Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White said in a press release he issued last month.

Those on the front lines are skeptical. “I personally don’t think it will have much, if any, effect on DUI offenders,” Mr. Bonjean said. “The only thing I think it is going to do is create a larger market for the (breathalyzer) devices, themselves.

“I think whoever owns stock in these (breathalyzer) companies is probably going to do fairly well, because this opens up a new (sales) avenue for them,” he said.

 
Exactly.  See my earlier post, Ignition Interlock Devices: Dangerous But Profitable.

So what do you do with someone who has the genetic disease of alcoholism – and continues to drink and drive?  Get him treatment for his disease?  Or maybe you throw him in prison for the rest of his life….

Wichita County Man Gets Life Sentence for 10th DWI

Wichita Falls, TX.  Aug. 8  -    A man with nine previous drunken driving convictions was sentenced to life in prison.

 Kenneth Chris Oneal, 58, received the maximum sentence Thursday after jurors convicted him of driving while intoxicated-repetition, his 10th drunken-driving related offense…

Well, you say, he may be an alcoholic, but he didnt have to choose to drive.  But that’s a Catch-22, isn’t it?  I mean, part of the legal definition of driving while intoxicated is impaired judgment – the inability to make rational and intelligent choices.

This sentence is far from an aberration.  See, for example, Third DUI = Life in Prison and 99 Years for Drunk Driving. 

For 15 years now, the DUI fatality rate has remained fairly stable (see MADDness and  Latest Figures in MADD’s War on Drunk Driving).   In view of the fact that most fatalities are caused by recidivists — usually alcoholics — isn’t it time to consider alternatives to MADD’s hysterical vengeance/prohibition approach?  Read Time for a Change .

(Thanks to Tom Termini)

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects American citizens from being subjected to police intrusions without "probable cause".  The Michigan Supreme Court held that DUI roadblocks violated this constitutional protection.  On appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, however, that decision was reversed. 

In a 5-4 decision, the Court found a "DUI exception" to the Fourth Amendment.  Although admittedly a violation of the Fourth Amendment, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, the "minimal intrusions" into citizens’ privacy was  "outweighed" by the governmental interest in apprehending drunk drivers.  Sitz v. Michigan

I’ve often reminded readers of this blog that we are a nation of legal precedent:  once a legal doctrine is adopted by the courts in a specific situation, it is thereafter applied in a broader context.  The danger of the Sitz decision goes far beyond the DUI roadblock situation:  if  police can stop you without reason for possible drunk driving today, then they can stop you for any reason tommorrow.  (See Sobriety Checkpoints: The Slippery Slope.)  

Community Declares War on Crime

Mayor issues curfew order

Helena, Ark.  Aug. 7  -  Mayor James Valley Thursday issued an executive order declaring an emergency curfew in certain sections of Helena-West Helena effective immediately.

In his order, Valley states the city has the duty to provide protection for its citizens and visitors and that certain areas of the city have been “under siege” with repeated gunfire, loitering, drug dealing and other general mayhem.

Valley has ordered H–WH officers to treat the “curfew zone” as a “zero tolerance zone”, which means that no loitering, “hanging out” will be permitted. All foot traffic, bicycle, horseback, moped, motorcycle, riding mower, golf cart or other mode of transportation will be subject to stop and investigation. (Emphasis added)
 

And this is how it starts….

(Thanks to David O’Shea)

For those of you unfamiliar with the logic of The War on Drunk Driving, consider the following story from yesterday’s news…

Recent DUI Checkpoint A Success

Pittsburgh, PA.  Aug. 6  -  The final statistics have been assessed from a recent sobriety checkpoint conducted by the West Hills Task Force in Stowe Township.

 Police checked 275 vehicles that went through the Route 51, Island Avenue checkpoint on Friday night.  Of the cars that were stopped, there were six DUI arrests, three drug arrests and three citations for underage drinking.

Now consider this story from last week, mentioned in my previous post:

No Arrests Make Stops a Success

DUI checkpoints are working, police say

Lewisberg, PA  July 31  -  Police officers say a checkpoint that catches no drunken drivers should not be considered a failure.  

"It’s a deterrence program," said Douglas Lauver, alcohol enforcement coordinator and co-coordinator of the North Central Highway Safety Network’s Regional DUI Enforcement Group. "Ideally, the goal is not to make any arrests for DUI." 

(Sgt. Scott) Hahn agreed, saying by making the scene a spectacle with lights, trucks and cars, the checkpoints make an impression on motorists going through them and prompt them to talk about the stops with others…

Get it?  If there are a bunch of DUI arrests, the roadblock is a success.  But if there are no arrests at all, then the roadblock is, well…a success.

A few years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court found yet another “DUI Exception the Constitution” in permitting police to set up roadblocks — even though they admittedly violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against stopping citizens without probable cause.  See my earlier post DUI Sobriety Checkpoints: Unconstitutional?  The Court, of course, was careful to restrict the use of such roadblocks to apprehension of drunk drivers exclusively.

Sure. 

I predicted that this pathetic Rehnquist decision would prove yet another tool for police to circumvent the Constitution in non-DUI situations — resulting in a continuing erosion of that great document through a growing list of exceptions and word games.  And this has repeatedly proven to be the case.  From yesterday’s news:

Police At DUI Checkpoints Find More Than Drunk Drivers

Johnson County, KY   Dec. 3  — Police at DUI checkpoints in one eastern Kentucky county find more than drunk drivers.

Police say they found marijuana and prescription pills in three un-related cases.  Five suspects are in jail after sheriff deputies say they caught them red-handed with drugs, but some of the suspects put up a fight and tried to escape.

Johnson County Sheriff deputies say they noticed more traffic than usual on Highway 11-07 in Thelma.

After complaints from neighbors, deputies set up a DUI checkpoint to find out what was going on…

Officers call the checkpoint a success, “Nine bags of marijuana were taken off the streets and that means there’s nine bags of marijuana that won’t go into the hands of children in the Thelma area or Johnson County,” Sgt. Wyatt said 

“…deputies set up a DUI checkpoint to find out what was going on”.  And the reporter didn’t even notice anything wrong with that.

A few years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court found yet another “DUI Exception the Constitution” in permitting police to set up roadblocks — even though they admittedly violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against stopping citizens without probable cause.  See my earlier post DUI Sobriety Checkpoints: Unconstitutional?  The Court, of course, was careful to restrict the use of such roadblocks to apprehension of drunk drivers exclusively.

Sure. 

I predicted that this pathetic Rehnquist decision would prove yet another tool for police to circumvent the Constitution in non-DUI situations — resulting in a continuing erosion of that great document through a growing list of exceptions and word games.  And this has repeatedly proven to be the case.  From yesterday’s news:

Police At DUI Checkpoints Find More Than Drunk Drivers

Johnson County, KY   Dec. 3  — Police at DUI checkpoints in one eastern Kentucky county find more than drunk drivers.

Police say they found marijuana and prescription pills in three un-related cases.  Five suspects are in jail after sheriff deputies say they caught them red-handed with drugs, but some of the suspects put up a fight and tried to escape.

Johnson County Sheriff deputies say they noticed more traffic than usual on Highway 11-07 in Thelma.

After complaints from neighbors, deputies set up a DUI checkpoint to find out what was going on…

Officers call the checkpoint a success, “Nine bags of marijuana were taken off the streets and that means there’s nine bags of marijuana that won’t go into the hands of children in the Thelma area or Johnson County,” Sgt. Wyatt said 

“…deputies set up a DUI checkpoint to find out what was going on”.  And the reporter didn’t even notice anything wrong with that.

A few years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court found yet another “DUI Exception the Constitution” in permitting police to set up roadblocks — even though they admittedly violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against stopping citizens without probable cause.  See my earlier post DUI Sobriety Checkpoints: Unconstitutional?  The Court, of course, was careful to restrict the use of such roadblocks to apprehension of drunk drivers exclusively.

Sure. 

I predicted that this pathetic Rehnquist decision would prove yet another tool for police to circumvent the Constitution in non-DUI situations — resulting in a continuing erosion of that great document through a growing list of exceptions and word games.  And this has repeatedly proven to be the case.  From yesterday’s news:

Police At DUI Checkpoints Find More Than Drunk Drivers

Johnson County, KY   Dec. 3  — Police at DUI checkpoints in one eastern Kentucky county find more than drunk drivers.

Police say they found marijuana and prescription pills in three un-related cases.  Five suspects are in jail after sheriff deputies say they caught them red-handed with drugs, but some of the suspects put up a fight and tried to escape.

Johnson County Sheriff deputies say they noticed more traffic than usual on Highway 11-07 in Thelma.

After complaints from neighbors, deputies set up a DUI checkpoint to find out what was going on…

Officers call the checkpoint a success, “Nine bags of marijuana were taken off the streets and that means there’s nine bags of marijuana that won’t go into the hands of children in the Thelma area or Johnson County,” Sgt. Wyatt said 

“…deputies set up a DUI checkpoint to find out what was going on”.  And the reporter didn’t even notice anything wrong with that.

DECEMBER 18, 2007

Study Says DUI Checkpoints Ineffective

Phoenix, AZ, Dec. 14  –  Drunken driving checkpoints are costly and do little to prevent DUI-related traffic deaths, according to new data from the American Beverage Institute.

“The states that use roving patrols have an average of 7 percent fewer alcohol-related fatalities than those states that use checkpoints,” said Sarah Longwell of the Institute, which compiled the numbers with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

She said some states “really see the value in increasing roving patrols over sobriety checkpoints, while others defend the practice, saying it’s a deterrent mechanism.”

Mesa Police have used mostly roving patrols in recent years, but checkpoints aren’t out of the picture, said Detective Steve Berry.

“We do use them, we don’t necessarily use them all the time, we just consider them another tool that we have in our bag,” said Berry. “The last one that we did here in Mesa was on Sept. 3 of this year, but prior to that, we had not done one in three to four years.”

Longwell said the checkpoints are costly and ineffective and issued a challenge to police looking for drunken drivers.  

An interesting law enforcement concept:  If they don’t work, don’t use them…..Unless they raise a lot of money for local government from unrelated license, registration and equipment citations, or are used illegally as deterrence or for stopping citizens for unauthorized reasons.

 Gregoire Calls for Sobriety Checkpoints

Olympia, WA.  Jan. 8  –  Gov. Christine Gregoire wants the state Legislature to authorize police to set up sobriety spot checks, a practice unseen in Washington since the state Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in 1988…

The national and Pacific Northwest MADD organizations are targeting sobriety checkpoints and stricter laws for ignition interlocks as legislative priorities this year.

“Sobriety checkpoints work. The Centers for Disease Control says that in states where they have sobriety checkpoints, impaired driving crashes are usually 20 percent less than in states where they don’t,” said Judy Eakin, executive director of MADD’s Northwest region.

As I’ve indicated in previous posts (e.g., ”Lies, Damned Lies and MADD Statistics”), MADD is very fond of playing games with numbers.  Let’s take a closer look at the statistics connecting roadblocks to reductions of accidents….

According to MADD’s own website, 40 states have checkpoints and 10 do not. Well, it would be interesting to compare the states with the highest percentage of alcohol-related fatalities with the list of states not using checkpoints: If MADD is correct, the states with the highest fatality rates will be the no-roadblock states. Fortunately, another section of MADD’s website provides such statistics for each of the states. The 5 states with the highest alcohol-related fatality rates:

Hawaii
Nevada
North Dakota
Rhode Island
South Carolina

According to MADD, all 5 states should be non-checkpoint states. In fact, however, 4 of these states use checkpoints; only Rhode Island does not. Well, what about the 5 states with the lowest fatality percentages? They are:

Georgia
Kentucky
Indiana
Iowa
New York

If MADD is correct about the effectiveness of checkpoints, these should all be checkpoint states. But as with the previous list, only 4 of the states permit the use of sobriety checkpoints; Iowa does not. As with the previous list, the percentage is what one would expect from pure random incidence: 20% of the states (10 of 50) do not have checkpoints — and 20% of the states on each list (1 of 5) do not use checkpoints. There appears to be no correlation between fatality rates and the use of checkpoints.

Let’s take a look at another set of statistics: the effect of the proliferation of checkpoints on the national rate of alcohol-related fatalities. If checkpoints are effective, we would expect to find that alcohol-related fatalities will have declined since their widespread acceptance in recent years .

Again, the statistics do not support this. To use MADD’s own numbers: Since 1982, the number of fatalities nationwide from alcohol-related crashes has declined every year — until about 1993, when it dropped to 17,908. Perhaps coincidentally, this was the year after the United States Supreme Court ruled that sobriety checkpoints were not unconstitutional. In the 10 years since then, sobriety checkpoints have gained widespead acceptance — but the number of fatalities have levelled off, vacilating between 17,908 and 17,013. Far from supporting MADD’s position, one could even argue that this proves sobriety checkpoints have actually halted the steady decline in alcohol-related deaths. This would probably be incorrect — but indicative of how statistics can be used to serve a desired objective.

I’ve railed in the past about the unconstitutionality of DUI roadblacks, aka “sobriety checkpoints”, as well as their ineffectiveness.  Increasingly, they are being used as revenue generators and illegal subterfuges to stop innocent citizens for unrelated matters.   Despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that the interests of the government in ensuring safety on the highways outweighs the […]

Subscribe to this feed • Digg This! • Add to del.icio.us • Add a comment • Email this

No Comments »

Backlash?

Posted by Lawrence Taylor on January 8th, 2008

Is the tide finally turning?  For years I’ve expected to see a backlash from the citizens of this country as politicians and judges continue to bow to MADD’s hysterical crusade against drinking (and, secondarily, drunk driving) and whittle away at the Bill of Rights and basic concepts of justice and fairness.  Recently, however, there seems to be an increasing number of isolated voices of reason arising from the wilderness.  In yesterday’s media….

A Better Way to Go After Drunk Drivers

KOMO-TV News, Seattle.  Jan. 7  –   So now the governor wants to get tough on drunk driving…

The governor’s idea is to set up sobriety checkpoints so that police can arbitrarily stop anyone out driving on a particular stretch of road at a particular time.

In other words, it’s about showmanship over substance.

I don’t like sobriety checkpoints.  Not because I have any interest in protecting drunk drivers, but because I’m not too keen on giving up another piece of our constitutional rights.

Call me simplistic, but I’m kind of partial to those 4th amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

So while I’m all for Governor Gregoire getting tough on drunk driving, I’d prefer something more direct, like actually going after drunk drivers while leaving the rest of us sober folks alone.

Obviously an unpatriotic, wife-beating, alcohol-abusing radical.

Instant Suspension of DUI Suspect Licenses

Crosses Line

Phoenix Tribune.  Jan. 7  –  Sen. Jim Waring, R-Phoenix, has decided to continue a reckless vendetta against drunken driving and he seems willing to sacrifice our civil liberties and every bit of common sense in his rush to save just one more life.

A set of new DUI laws recognized as among the toughest in the country, including the mandated use of ignition interlock devices for a year on a person’s first misdemeanor conviction, has been in effect for less than three months. We have no idea if more jail time, higher fines and a physical barrier to driving after drinking will be wildly successful, an abject failure or fall somewhere in between…

State law already requires police to physically take away the driver’s license of DUI suspects. But they receive a temporary permit in return, giving the motorists an opportunity to challenge a license suspension at a state administrative hearing. As driving is considered a privilege, not a right, the standard in such cases is lower than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” DUI suspects can lose their driver’s license for 90 days even if they eventually defeat the criminal charges.

But at least a truly innocent person has a chance to appeal to an authority not beholden to the police before they lose access to a daily part of most people’s lives that often is critical to keeping a job and caring for a family.

Waring’s bill would deny even this minimal version of the due process of law. A DUI suspect anywhere in the state instantly would be powerless to drive, even if the police don’t yet have any physical evidence of intoxication (such as breath or blood test results)…

SB1008 completely disregards the American notion of “innocent until proven guilty” and would push Arizona much closer toward a police state in which judges and other independent arbiters of justice are irrelevant relics.

Obviously another rabble-rousing, child-molesting, communist pervert.

Is the tide finally turning?  For years I’ve expected to see a backlash from the citizens of this country as politicians and judges continue to bow to MADD’s hysterical crusade against drinking (and, secondarily, drunk driving) and whittle away at the Bill of Rights and basic concepts of justice and fairness.  Recently, however, there seems to […]

">

Subscribe to this feed • Digg This! • Add to del.icio.us • Add a comment • Email this

No Comments »

What Does a DUI Cost?

Posted by Lawrence Taylor on January 5th, 2008

Did you ever wonder how much it could cost you today if you’re arrested for drunk driving?  Not necessarily guilty of drunk driving, just suspected of it?  Maybe $500?  Or $1000?…

Drunk Driving Could Cost $20,000

CNBC News.  Dec. 14  –  Twenty thousand dollars sounds like a lot to pay for a drink at a holiday party, but if that last cocktail puts you over the legal limit, that “one for the road” could easily cost you that or more.

One drink too many puts you at risk for not only an arrest, but also for fees, fines and costs that can run you thousands of dollars. While a DUI or DWI may be a misdemeanor charge in a number of jurisdictions, it’s a matter that most judges and district attorneys take very seriously. The financial toll of a conviction will play out for years to come, and in many states that can add up to $20,000 before everything is over. This includes bail, fines, legal fees, increased auto insurance premiums, loss of work income, court-ordered alcohol education programs and more.

Of course, if you get fired from your job as a result of the arrest, that dollar figure would skyrocket…

The Texas Department of Transportation says a June 2006 survey in that state showed the total costs of a DWI arrest and conviction — for a first time offender with no accident involved — would range from $9,000 to $24,000. 

In many states today, you’re better off committing a felony burglary, for example, than a misdemeanor DUI.  The difference between .07% and .08% alcohol in your blood could be the difference between a brief detention and a nightmare in the legal system with a $20,000 price tag. 

‘Ever wonder why?

Did you ever wonder how much it could cost you today if you’re arrested for drunk driving?  Not necessarily guilty of drunk driving, just suspected of it?  Maybe $500?  Or $1000?…

Drunk Driving Could Cost $20,000 CNBC News.  Dec. 14  –  Twenty thousand dollars sounds like a lot to pay for a drink at a holiday party, but […]

">

Subscribe to this feed • Digg This! • Add to del.icio.us • Add a comment • Email this

No Comments »

TV’s DUI SuperCops in Action

Posted by Lawrence Taylor on January 2nd, 2008

I’ve commented in the past about the emerging phenomenon of “DUI SuperCops”, and a few days ago about a new TV series starring the heroic DUI warriors of the Fresno Police Department.  Let’s look in on our new media stars….

Dozens Arrested In Fresno DUI Crackdown

Fresno, CA.  Jan. 1  –  Fresno police say despite heavy publicity about their crackdown on drinking and driving, more than 2 dozen arrests were made by police and CHP officers this New Year’s holiday…

Eric Eide, Fresno Police Department, says “The 16 DUI’s that we did arrest, people were snockered. They were passed out drunk in front of their cars; they were combative when we were taking blood from some of them. Lots of them were banged up from fighting with other people.” 

Forgive the cynicism born of many years in this business, but permit me to interpret this summary from TV’s new DUI SuperCops:

1.  “They were passed out drunk in front of their cars.”  News flash for SuperCops: The crime of drunk driving requires driving — not sleeping it off to avoid drunk driving.

2.  “They were combative when we were taking blood from some of them.”  What would you be if you were pinned to the ground by two cops while needles were jammed into you, digging around painfully for a vein?

3.  “Lots of them were banged up from fighting with other people.”  Official explanation for “lots of” arrestees’ cuts. bruises and assorted injuries.  

Look for announcements of MADD awards to Fresno P.D. in the very near future.

I’ve commented in the past about the emerging phenomenon of “DUI SuperCops”, and a few days ago about a new TV series starring the heroic DUI warriors of the Fresno Police Department.  Let’s look in on our new media stars….

Dozens Arrested In Fresno DUI Crackdown Fresno, CA.  Jan. 1  –  Fresno police say despite heavy publicity about their […]

">

Subscribe to this feed • Digg This! • Add to del.icio.us • Add a comment • Email this

No Comments »

The Next Step: Arrest the Passengers

Posted by Lawrence Taylor on December 31st, 2007

As I’ve pointed out in previous posts, the harsh penalties, convoluted laws and unconstitutional procedures have not lowered the alcohol-related fatality rate.  And MADD is unwilling to consider rational solutions to the problem.  So where does it go from here?

Roadshow: Where DUI Enforcement is Tougher

San Jose Mercury News, Dec. 31 –  The drunken-driving laws just changed in Japan. Now, if there is a drunken-driving incident, all passengers in the car are liable because they should be sharing the responsibility for having a sober driver. The first fine is $5,000, three years in jail and demerit points on one’s license that pretty much make you lose the license for two years or more. The arrest rate is now down 43 percent as a result…

Now that is a tough, but needed, law – here. California’s alcohol-involved traffic death toll rose from 1,072 deaths in 1998 to nearly 1,600 last year, an increase of nearly 50 percent during a period when the state’s population grew about 12 percent.  

Let’s hope MADD doesn’t hear about this “solution”. 

(Note: the arrest rate is down in Japan; interestingly, there is no mention of the fatality rate.  Could it be that Japanese police are reluctant to arrest innocent passengers?  And how could there be meaningful statistics if the “drunken driving laws in Japan just changed”?  It takes the feds here over a year to accumulate the numbers.)

As I’ve pointed out in previous posts, the harsh penalties, convoluted laws and unconstitutional procedures have not lowered the alcohol-related fatality rate.  And MADD is unwilling to consider rational solutions to the problem.  So where does it go from here?

Roadshow: Where DUI Enforcement is Tougher San Jose Mercury News, Dec. 31 –  The drunken-driving laws just changed […]

">

Subscribe to this feed • Digg This! (3 Diggs) • Add to del.icio.us • Add a comment • Email this

2 Comments »

Forced Blood Draws by Cops Spreading