RID partners with LegiCrawler on DWI Bills

Remove Intoxicated Drivers has signed on with LegiCrawler to receive updates and current status on all DWI related bills on a real-time basis in Florida, Kentucky, New York and Tennessee. LegiCrawler, an on-line service provider of federal and state legislative bills will allow RID to monitor and participate in the process of passing laws which are consistent with our mission statement of making the roads and highways safer for everyone.

RID will have be sent an E-mail alert when any DWI-related bill is introduced in the mentioned four states. Whenever there is any action taken on these bills, RID will be notified as it happens. The entire text of the bill as well as the bill’s sponsors are provided to help RID and its members in those state to determine which bills should be given priority to help assist in its passing into law.

Within the first week of working with LegiCrawler, RID received 20 bills related to DWI issues in FL,KY, NY & TN, including their past history. The bills are graded with a heat index which indicates their progress moving forward or if they are stagnant.

One bill that is of particular interest to RID is Assembly Bill 04369 which lowers the BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) level from .08 to .06.  also lowers the aggravated DWI threshold from a BAC of .18 to .14. The bill’s sponsor is Assemblyman Felix Ortiz of Brooklyn. RID has been advocating the lowering the BAC level for a long time. The National Traffic Safety Board conducted a comprehensive study which concluded that 800 lives could be saved annually by lowering the current BAC status. RID plans to actively support the passage of Assemblyman Ortiz’s bill. We are pleased that we now have a mechanism in place that keeps us up to speed on the legislative process and allows RID to engage our members with their elected officials who are trying to do the right thing.

 

RID Supports NTSB’s View on .05 BAC

The recent announcement that the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) supports the lowering of the legal BAC level from .08 to .05 is a critical step toward reducing DUI fatalities and injuries and not a moment to soon. Europe and Australia have already lowered their legal levels to .05 or less resulting in diminished fatalities.

Back in 1982, Surgeon General Koop held a three day public conference in Washington DC seeking the best way to reduce the DWI deaths and injuries in the US. He published the results of the conference experts in a widely distributed report calling for the lowering of the legal BAC to .04. Dr. Koop also recommended unannounced regular safety traffic stops to instill the fear to the drunk driver that they might get caught. None of Dr. Koop’s suggestions  have been put into effect to this day.

Research shows that a driver begins to lose their peripheral vision at the .04 BAC level which accounts for many deaths and injuries of innocent pedestrians and bicyclists. RID supports the NTBS in launching a reduction of the legal BAC limit from .08 to .05, increasing unannounced checkpoints and in mandating license suspensions for drunken drivers.

 

Now your in trouble. What to expect if you get a DUI

 

This may come as a surprise to you if you’ve been frozen in a block of ice for the past century, but law enforcement tends to take a negative view on driving while intoxicated. But while operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol won’t get you pulled out of your car and beaten (probably), you’ll still be in for a world of trouble should the police catch your intoxicated butt. Here’s what you can expect if you decide to get hammered in your hummer.

 

First and foremost, lets get something straight: the legal drinking age in the United States is 21. It’s not 20 and 364 days. It’s not 16 “but my dad said I could have a swig of his beer.” Its 21. That means that if you’re younger than 21 and you’re found to have any detectable amount of alcohol in your system, then you are so screwed. You see, if you’re between 17 and 21, you may not be old enough to drink, but you are old enough to be tried as an adult. And if you’re under 17, don’t think that you’re off the hook. The rules may be different, but the outcome is the same: If you drink and drive, you’re going to pay for it.

 

If you’re older than 21, then congratulations! You are allowed to have a very small amount of alcohol in your system. To be specific, if a policeman pulls you over and finds that you have a blood alcohol content (BAC) of less than .08, then no DUI for you. Of course, if you were driving badly enough to get pulled over in the first place, then the officer will probably still cite you for reckless driving. I mean, come on. This isn’t a game; if you’re dangerous behind the wheel, it’s the cop’s job to keep you away from it.

 

If, on the other hand, you have more than the legal limit (and it doesn’t take much to reach that limit), clear your calendar for a while. They’ll cuff you, put you into the back of the cruiser, and drop you off in a holding cell. See, the beautiful part is that it doesn’t matter how lucid or sober you might appear, because under the per se laws, having more than the legal BAC is all it takes to be charged with DUI. And if you think that you can schmooze the judge into letting you off the hook, you are so wrong. You may be innocent until proven guilty, but the thing is, you were proven guilty the moment you failed your BAC test. That evidence is all that the judge needs.

 

So you get to appear in court (and pay all of the court expenses, we might add) even though there’s no way that you can get out of being convicted. After that, you’ll be slapped with a fine, lose your license, and possibly get to spend some time in prison (unless this is your second DUI, in which case the whole prison thing becomes a lot more certain). You’ll also get to pay higher insurance bills, because insurance providers will see you as a risky investment. But then, you’ll only have to worry about that if you can get your license back, and that isn’t easy either.

 

To have your license reissued, you’ll need to meet with a counselor who will determine whether or not you have an alcohol problem. If it is decided that you do, then they will make some recommendations such as having you attend Alcoholics Anonymous or even rehab. But don’t worry, any suggestions that the counselor makes are strictly voluntary. Of course, you’ll never get your license back if you don’t follow the recommendations, but the choice is still yours.

 

You’ll also have to attend DUI school and possibly take a <a href=“http://www.defensivedriving.com”>defensive driving course</a>

 

 

If it looks like you’ve got a serious problem, then the judge can even go so far as to order the installation of a special ignition interlock system in your car. These ingenious devices essentially require you to pass a breath-test before you can start your engine. Of course, they also mean that you need to put you mouth around part of your car every time you want to go somewhere, but whatever. Oh, and the judge might also put you on probation.

 

Naturally, individual states will have different specific laws. But whether you chose to endanger lives in Alabama or Wyoming, New York or California, the consequences of your actions are going to be expensive, time consuming, and justifiably harsh. So do everybody—including yourself—a favor and be responsible. Otherwise, you might find yourself wishing that you’d choked on the olive in your martini.

 

John Carver is a freelance writer for DefensiveDriving.com. He spends his free time working on his cars and coming up with new ways to pester his wife.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Drunk-driving quota

Drunk-driving quota case may lead to similar efforts elsewhere

Prosecutors look at possible appeal as defense lawyers suspect issue may affect other cases

January 06, 2012|By Andrea F. Siegel, The Baltimore Sun
Even as prosecutors weigh an appeal of a Howard County judge’s decision to throw out drunken-driving charges and rule that they were tied to illegal citation quotas, defense lawyers are considering whether the same defense might apply to past or current cases.District Court Judge Sue-Ellen Hantman’s ruling in a case against an Ellicott City woman has raised questions on both sides — as well as eyebrows around the legal community.

Leonard Stamm, a Prince George’s County lawyer who wrote a legal handbook called “Maryland DUI Law,” said the case puts lawyers who defend people charged with drunken driving on notice for a potential avenue for defense.Though as a District Court ruling it has no bearing on other cases, defendants coming before other judges can bring it up. “Now that it’s out there, it’s something you have to look for,” Stamm said.

Hantman said the charges against Katie Majorie Quackenbush, 22, were linked to an illegal quota — a ruling based on a memorandum that police have said was intended to describe the requirements of a federal grant that paid overtime for officers to target drunken and aggressive drivers through “saturation patrols.”

“I find any evidence in this case to be inadmissible,” she said, according to a recording of her Thursday ruling, and that ended the prosecution. Nevertheless, the judge indicated that “I don’t think saturation patrols are in and of themselves illegal, merely the quotas.”

Howard County Deputy State’s Attorney Mary V. Murphy said she doubted there were more than a fewunresolved drunken-driving cases stemming from the saturation patrols that were tied to the internal memo. Her office is looking into appeal options.

Still, she said any new potential defense sparks a flurry of activity from the defense bar. Quotas are illegal in Maryland, Murphy said, as is judging officers’ work by whether they have met them

Scott Athen, an attorney who does a lot of drunken-driving defense work in Howard, said he hadn’t heard of the issue before Thursday’s case. He said he expects attorneys will look for this as a possible defense not only in the county but probably beyond, because other areas receive grant money to fund similar drunken-driving patrols.

“I’m actually considering going back and looking through my files and seeing if there’s anything I can do to possibly reopen some cases,” he said.

This is the first time lawyers and police can recall that a judge threw out a criminal case based on such a document. The driver’s attorney, Mark Muffoletto, subpoenaed the police memos that became the linchpin of his case.

“I have at least two other cases that stem from the same email and citations and saturation patrol,” he said.

He said the woman’s blood-alcohol content registered 0.17 percent, more than twice the legal limit. More information about the grant-funded saturation patrols was not immediately available from county police Friday.

The officer was working on overtime funded by a federal grant to target drunken and aggressive drivers, he said.The police chief said a memo to officers that called for two to four citations per hour contained, “in retrospect, not the best wording,” and conceded that he “could see how it could be misinterpreted.” He said the department does not use quotas and had revised the memo.

The memo also told the officers on the drunken-driving and aggressive-driving saturation patrols that they usually produce “at or above these amounts.”

The federal funds come from the National Traffic Safety Administration to the state, according to Buel Young, a spokesman for the state Motor Vehicle Administration. Jurisdictions can apply for them.

“We stand side by side with Chief McMahon and Howard County police in verifying that there are no quotas associated with or are prerequisites for the use of NHTSA highway safety funding,” Young said.

andrea.siegel@baltsun.com