Overhaul needed in DWI law & enforcement?

Great Debates
1

I’m starting to think that there’s some revision needed in DWI laws and the enforcement of those laws.

Within the past 3 years, I’ve had two friends pulled over for DWI in Collin County, TX.

One got some inordinate amount of community service and a year’s probation, with a court order of NO alcohol for the same time frame, whether or not it was in her house or elsewhere. This for bumping another car’s bumper in a private parking lot. Apparently cops came to the car and manhandled her in a very intimidating and frightening way. (do 4 cops really need to rough up a 5’8" cute blonde girl?)

The other was required to have one of those breathalyzer gizmos installed in his car at his own expense BEFORE trial, after being pulled over for driving too fast.

Both of these were first-time offenders (I looked 'em up on the county sites where they’ve lived and/or gone partying).

On top of the disproportionate response to a first offense, the laws are set up, at least in Texas to be strangely punitive. DWI is the only offense in Texas that by statute, allows no bail, in spite of being a Class A misdemeanor. This means that murderers can have bail set if a judge allows it, but a drunk driver cannot.

In addition to that, there’s some seriously shady shit going down (IMO) with this business of having district court judges on call to grant warrants to draw blood for DWI tests. That just seems fucked up to me for them to actually violate your body to try and prove one way or the other that you’re drunk.

On top of that, the legal fine is only up to $2000 for a DWI, but the Texas DPS tacks on a $1000 per year fine for three years for your driver’s license if you get convicted.
What this amounts to is that the max effective fine for a first drunk driving offense ($2000 + 3000 worth of DPS fees) is higher than if you went off and beat someone into a bloody pulp (aggravated assault, $4000 max fine), shoplifted $1000 worth of stuff ($4000 max fine), got caught with 3 oz of pot ($4000 max fine), or vandalized stuff to the tune of $1000 ($4000 max fine - criminal mischief).

Does this seem right or proportionate? Especially considering that in many communities, public transit isn’t really an option, and taxicabs are extortionate (from my friend’s house to the bar he was at was like 20 miles away, because he lives in the boonies. It’s 10 from my house, and I’m considered to live “close”.) Combine that with the fact that drinking and driving is one of those things people probably wouldn’t do if they were in their right mind, so to speak.

Add to all that the ambush tactics that most police departments practice- sitting in parking lots waiting on people to leave the bar, then radioing the cars to cops on the road, or just nabbing them when they go to start the engine, or mandatory checkpoints on roads.

If cities and counties were serious about stopping this, and not just being punitive and sanctimonious about this, they’d have a van with a portable breathalyzer, a bunch of lawn chairs, and a big-ass coffeepot, and they’d go around to various night spots (areas with lots of bars, or a big bar) and give free preventative breathalyzer tests and make the drunks sit it out or call a cab for them instead of just screwing them when they go to leave.

They must have some interest in fucking people instead of trying to educate and prevent- I have no idea what a .08 BAC feels like, but I’ve been out drinking plenty. If we had access to that kind of thing, people might actually be able to gauge how drunk they are relative to the legal limit, instead of having to play this horrible game of chance.

So, anyone agree? Anyone think differently? Let’s hear it!

2

It is about revenue. They disguise it as enforcement, but you can see active enforcement and huge fines have eliminated the problem. Some jurisdictions pay for their police force on DUI . There is a small town near me that has the second largest drunk driving arrests in Michigan. They only trail Detroit which is 50 times bigger.

3

Simple idea. Why not a bar bus?

We have a bus that goes around St. Joe county as a service of the county transit authority and gives people rides. $4 gets you anywhere in the county and $4 gets you back again.

It’d save a lot of lives and not be too expensive.

4

Personally, I think we need a standard set of national laws on something like this…and, IMHO they should follow the 3 strikes and you are out rule. First offense you pay a fine and go to a class (where they tell you about the next two steps in frightening detail). Second strike you pay a lot bigger fee, do community service and your license is on probation. Third offense…well, you REALLY don’t want to have a third offense. You lose your license, at a minimum. Forever.

And I think the offenses should cross state lines. If you drink and drive in New Mexico, but are caught in California for your second offense, then it’s the same punishment.

Essentially I’m death on drunk driving, so I’m not even remotely sympathetic. Don’t drink and drive…how hard is that?

-XT

5

I don’t know that it’s about revenue per se. DUI, to me, is a particularly difficult “bad act” to remove from society. There is a total lack of public/taxi transportation in a lot of places in the country, our society generally embraces consumption of alcohol as a valid social lubricant, and the effects of alcohol intoxication aren’t exactly perfectly connected to the danger you are exposing society to (i.e. you don’t know and/or don’t feel that you’re too drunk to drive)

However, its a serious offense in the sense that you’re putting someone behind the wheel of a heavy piece of metal that has great momentum and velocity who is a slip up away from killing another motorist or pedestrian.

And, to round out the triangle, there is enough of this activity in society that you can’t get too punitive about it. You can’t go and ruin someone’s entire life with an incarceration term for this kind of stuff, as it’s probably not going to displace the primacy that alcohol has in society and it will have a really really bad impact on the individual offender.

So, short of imprisoning them, I don’t know how else you deter the behavior without making it a very expensive proposition.

6

Another idea. Require a driver to turn in their car keys to the bar tender and take a breathalyzer to get them back.

The ones that fail don’t get their keys back but do get a cot in the backroom to sleep it off.

7

I think that it is very telling that you are more upset over the police actions in catching DUI offenders than at your friends for driving drunk in the first place. And until shoplifting, marijuana possession, and criminal damage directly results in over ten thousand deaths a year, I think your argument that the financial penalties for DUI are disproportionate is utter tripe. Finally, I think that the excuses you’ve come up that DUI penalties should be lowered (waaaaaahh no public transport, waaaaaaaahhh the police are actively trying to stop DUI, waaaaaah people aren’t educated enough to know they shouldn’t drive when impaired) are inane.

8

I can think of a number of reasons why bar owners would hate that idea.

9

I gotta throw in with Hamlet.

**gonzomax’s **claim that the problem is “Eliminated” is ludicrous. Drunken driving in the USA kills more Americans in four months than have died in the Iraq War from its beginning to today; the number of Americans killed by drunk driving since I was born in 1971 is greater than the number of Americans killed in World War I, World War II, the Vietnam War and Korea combined. It is the most destructive type of criminal act in North America; it’s even surpassed murder, if I am not mistaken. They were neck and neck for awhile.

Frankly I’ve no sympathy for people who drink and drive. If you have a bunch of drinks, don’t drive. If no bus is available, don’t fucking drink. How hard is that? People do it not because they don’t realize they’re drunk - that’s bullshit - but because they think they can get away with it, and the sad thing is they usually can, because there aren’t enough cops. Severe penalties are pretty much the last line of defense in trying to stop this plague.

10

Boy, they really are showing bad judgement, aren’t they…

11

No doubt.

12

Michigan too. Don’t think they only test for your BAC either. If you smoked pot within the last month or so, that shows up too. If they draw blood you could be looking at multiple charges.

13

In my opinion, drunk driving is an admission that you simply don’t give a fuck if you kill people. And people who believe that should be kept off the roads.

Everyone knows that drunk driving kills innocent people. But nobody thinks they will be the ones that do it. Since apparently the prospect of killing people (like my one of my good childhood friends, killed along with all her brothers and a school friend at eight years old by her drunk ass dad) isn’t enough to keep people from doing it, we have to make laws. If people don’t follow those laws, we make them stricter. Why? Because none of us want us or our family killed by a drunk driver.

Not driving drunk is the easiest thing in the world to do. If you can’t find a safe way home, don’t drink. Easy as pie. You are an adult. You are responsible for your choices. Own up to it.

14

Isn’t Dallas the city that had cops waiting to pounce on people at a hotel bar and arrest them as they went to their room? Seems to be a bit of a texas disconnect in the time utilization department.

IMO, the more people see the laws as unjust the more likely they will exhibit resistence in the form of high speed chases.

15

Yes, but by putting themselves in that position, they’re showing bad judgement before they have the excuse of intoxication.

16

When the issue of drunk driving became a serious enforcement issue, it seems like it went two ways - lowering the amount of intoxication required to be considered legally unable to drive, and massively jacking up the punishment. I feel like the latter was a good way to go, but not the former. Combined, they create punishments way too harsh for people who aren’t really intoxicated.

There are plenty of people who are barely above .08 (and IIRC, .06 in some places), are fine to drive, get pulled over for some non-driving reason (busted tail light or something) and then face massive fines, jail time, DUI plates, restrictions, etc. We’re overzealous in our prosecution of borderline cases.

As far as I’m aware, and please correct me if I’m wrong, but the crime is generally equal no matter how much about the legal limit you are. The guy who’s had 2 beers is equally punished to the guy who can barely walk to his car.

I think there should be a gradient of punishment. Barely at the legal limit shouldn’t be punished too harshly, especially if the person was caught for some reason other than bad driving - a checkpoint, a cop pulling them over out of a bar parking lot, a busted tail light, etc. If the person was pulled over because they were swerving then that deserves more punishment.

Dangerously drunk should definitely be punished very harshly.

DUI checkpoints are pure bullshit in pretty much every aspect.

17

At least in Arizona, there are 4 different levels of DWI, but even at the lowest one you’re totally fucked. Five to 10 thousand minimum in lawyer and court fees, minimum one day in jail mandatory, license automatically suspended for 30 days upon arrest, before you’ve even been to court, and then for another 6 months once you are convicted, and you will be convicted. Again, this is the lowest level. The people who had a couple beers with dinner.

I am totally, 100% against drunk driving (to the point that I can get pretty confrontational with someone I think is about to do it) but I think Arizona has lowered the legal limit too low and gotten overly punitive instead of preventative. The legal limit here is technically .08 but if you blow .05 you are getting a DWI. I don’t understand that one. I’ve had multiple people try to explain it to me including police officers but it just doesn’t make sense.

One of the problems I have with it is that I’ve seen studies that suggest things like eating, talking on a phone, being over a certain age, having rowdy passengers, etc, are equivalent to BACs of up to like .11, but all those things are perfectly legal, while other people are getting bent over and cornholed for blowing less than half that.

There is a problem, and I don’t know what the answer is, but I don’t think this is it.

18

Here in British Columbia, if you blow 0.10 on the roadside you will get a criminal conviction for exceeding 0.08. Federal law. At least you can attempt to defend against it. You get a court ordered fine and a licence suspension.

If you blow 0.05 to 0.10, you get an automatic 24 hour roadside suspension involving an inflated towing and storage fee (provincially mandated).

Do that twice and you can add a 16 hour course for which you pay over $1000, lose your licence indefinitely and pay $150 to get a new licence. There is no avenue for defense because there is no conviction.

But what galls me most is that very few British Columbians are aware that the “legal limit” here is 0.05 bac. If the provincial government were serious about reducing the effects of drinking and driving you’d think they’d be educating us on the tv.

There are too many people who still live in the past, assuming you’ve got to stumble to the vehicle in order to be determined drunk.

19

I disagree. DUI should be classed as a felony and you do hard time for it. If you are stupid enough to do it a second time, you get locked away forever. If you injure someone while DUI, you get locked away forever. If you kill someone while DUI, you get the needle.

DUI arrests are not about revenue. They are about removing drivers from the road that are out there trying to kill others. DUI is serious and we, as a nation, are moving much too slowly in doing something about it.

20

Unless you are made God King of the US you would never, ever get such a program through. Especially not at the Federal level. Heck, realistically no one would be able to get my much more modest (and less draconian) program through.

-XT