# Overhaul needed in DWI law & enforcement? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 2, 2009, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435 "2009-06-02T01:11:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Jettboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@Jettboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jettboy)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435/21 "2009-06-02T14:23:39Z")
Am I supposed to feel sympathetic towards these drunken pals? The OP mentions that these poor saps are “first-time offenders” as if that should get them a free pass to climb behind the wheel and potentially kill a few people…as long as it’s _just this one time_. They should be thanking the Juju Gods they didn’t get any jail time out of it. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435/22 "2009-06-02T14:41:29Z")
> [@bump](#): > > (do 4 cops really need to rough up a 5’8" cute blonde girl?) Well they don’t need to rough up an ugly girl either. Or a man, whatever his looks. Not sure why she shoudl get favorable treatment from the cops because she is pretty. > [@bump](#): > > 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? Seems pretty proportionate to me. Other than the aggravated assault situation, which I am guessing carries jail time too, and more often, it doesn’t seem wrong that shoptlifting is considered less serious than a DWI, or owning weed, or vandalism. Could be because nobody shoplifting, owning weed or vandalizing things T-boned me at 50 mph. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435/23 "2009-06-02T14:44:17Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > 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. This is a common complaint about a lot of things. The reason is that it’s easier to enforce things that are measurable. OT: ISTM that drunk drivers kill a lot of other people but are rarely seriously injured or killed themselves. Does this jibe with other people’s observations and if so, what could account for it? (Possibly my observation is an error based on dead drivers not being tested for alcohol.) ---
**Author:** ![Furious\_Marmot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/dfb087/32.png) [@Furious\_Marmot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Furious_Marmot)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435/24 "2009-06-02T14:57:31Z")
Anybody have statistics for how many accidents/deaths are caused by the very intoxicated vs. merely intoxicated? Alcoholics? How about people who’ve already lost their license for DWI? My gut feeling is that the big threat is from habitual drunks and those who don’t give a shit about the law (like driving w/o a license), is there anything to back this up? My problem with the current systems, as I’ve seen them in use, is that they don’t discourage drinking and driving. I’ve never seen a checkpoint that locals didn’t know about in advance, and know how to avoid. Obviously, the police can’t be everywhere, but one would think that a single cop in the parking lot of any large bar could probably do more to cause people to take a cab (or arrest those too stupid to take the hint) than the nebulous fear of being pulled over for a busted taillight or somesuch. I’m not sure that the typical combination of low chance of being caught + highly variable penalties is the optimal solution. ---
**Author:** ![joebuck20](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/74df32/32.png) [@joebuck20](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joebuck20)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435/25 "2009-06-02T15:06:24Z")
I agree with some of the posters here that drunk driving is an especially egregious offense. And Texas doesn’t mess around when it comes to stuff like this. But as Gonzomax said, it’s also largely about getting revenue. The Piney Woods of East Texas are notorious for this sort of thing - not just DUI, but hassling drivers for all manner of minor infractions like going a few miles over the speed limit, getting too close to the center line, having a burnt out taillight, etc. Other than the lumber industry and a few poultry plants, there’s nothing there, so I’m guessing the tax base isn’t too large. The local governments there need to raise money somehow and fleecing motorists is a pretty easy way of doing that. If you ever have to drive through those parts with out-of-state plates, be reeaall careful. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435/26 "2009-06-02T15:10:03Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > 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. Huge expense and jail are being done. Has it solved the problem?" Has it diminished it? We love to think there are solutions to any problems. TV commercials with beautiful people having big fun drinking sink into the sub conscience of the youth. You have to drink to be cool. More and tougher enforcement = more revenue. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435/27 "2009-06-02T15:11:34Z")
> [@Furious\_Marmot](#): > > Anybody have statistics for how many accidents/deaths are caused by the very intoxicated vs. merely intoxicated? Alcoholics? How about people who’ve already lost their license for DWI? My gut feeling is that the big threat is from habitual drunks and those who don’t give a shit about the law (like driving w/o a license), is there anything to back this up? > > My problem with the current systems, as I’ve seen them in use, is that they don’t discourage drinking and driving. I’ve never seen a checkpoint that locals didn’t know about in advance, and know how to avoid. Obviously, the police can’t be everywhere, but one would think that a single cop in the parking lot of any large bar could probably do more to cause people to take a cab (or arrest those too stupid to take the hint) than the nebulous fear of being pulled over for a busted taillight or somesuch. > > I’m not sure that the typical combination of low chance of being caught + highly variable penalties is the optimal solution. It is not they don’t give a shit. Some people are addicted. It is tough to stop addiction. It is good heavy enforcement cured the drug problem in America. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435/28 "2009-06-02T15:14:37Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > It is not they don’t give a shit. Some people are addicted. It is tough to stop addiction. It is good heavy enforcement cured the drug problem in America. I can buy an addiction to alcohol. But drinking alcohol isn’t illegal. Even if the alcoholic is somehow addicted to drinking in bars rather than at home, then get a fracking cab. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435/29 "2009-06-02T15:41:05Z")
> [@bump](#): > > 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. You’re missing “while driving with a blood alcohol over the legal limit.” > [@](#): > > 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?) Roughing up, no. But often people do need to be manhandled by the police whether or not it frightens them…even “cute” ones. > [@](#): > > 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. What do you find “shady” about it? > [@](#): > > 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. The financial cost of getting caught drinking and driving is expensive everywhere. As it should be. > [@](#): > > 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). And drinking and driving just once can cause the death of several other innocent people. > [@](#): > > 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”). Oh, well since you put it that way, drinking and driving doesn’t seem so bad. :rolleyes:. > [@](#): > > 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. You don’t know what’s going to happen to you when you go to a bar 10 miles from your house to drink alcohol…with your vehicle? > [@](#): > > 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. Okay? Checkpoints shouldn’t be by bars because…it’s just not fair to those drinking and driving? > [@](#): > > 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. Wow! > [@](#): > > 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. You don’t have to play a game of chance. Drinking at a bar with your own vehicle and no designated driver is not something you’re forced to do. Attempting to drink enough to stay just under the legal limit is still playing a game of chance. Besides, if you’re a little over, you’re not in the “right mind” to make the right decision, remember? ---
**Author:** ![Furious\_Marmot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/dfb087/32.png) [@Furious\_Marmot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Furious_Marmot)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435/30 "2009-06-02T15:41:29Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > It is not they don’t give a shit. Some people are addicted. It is tough to stop addiction. It is good heavy enforcement cured the drug problem in America. I was not saying that all alcoholics disregard the law. I was saying that alcoholics (addicted, to use your construction) are a separate, though overlapping, group from those who don’t give a shit. More importantly, I was asking if anybody had any data to help determine if the the main groups of DWI offenders are: 1. Alcoholics 2. The extemely intoxicated 3. People who disregard driving laws, as evidenced by their driving on a suspended license or without one 4. Casual drinkers 5. Some combination of these 6. Something else entirely If we can correlate probability of accidents/deaths with a particular group, that is a step to designing more effective techniques to reduce the number of such accidents/deaths. ---
**Author:** ![horhay\_achoa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ccd318/32.png) [@horhay\_achoa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/horhay_achoa)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435/31 "2009-06-02T15:53:28Z")
I think stiff penalties for DUI are a good thing, but I think roadblocks should not be allowed. Stopping a car for no reason should not be allowed under any circumstance. Not to mention i have read conflicting reports about whether or not roadblocks actually catch more DUIs than roving patrols looking for erratic driving or other violations. ---
**Author:** ![MysteryFellow63427](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e4f/32.png) [@MysteryFellow63427](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MysteryFellow63427)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435/32 "2009-06-02T16:13:44Z")
> [@horhay\_achoa](#): > > I think stiff penalties for DUI are a good thing, but I think roadblocks should not be allowed. Stopping a car for no reason should not be allowed under any circumstance. Not to mention i have read conflicting reports about whether or not roadblocks actually catch more DUIs than roving patrols looking for erratic driving or other violations. Roadblocks are an invitation for harassment and abuse of police powers. DUI is a serious problem, but not all offenders should be treated the same. The people who are hardcore repeat offenders do a disproportionate harm. They should be focused on, as it is they who need to do serious jail time. Like, 3rd DUI should be a minimum time served offense of 3 years in prison. A fifth DUI should get you 8 years time served. Similarly, I suspect that someone who is at 0.09 BAC (completely legal not that many years ago) does not pose NEARLY the threat to the public that someone who is at 0.25 does. How about having gradations between (a) 0.08 to 0.14, (b) 0.15 to 0.20 and (c) 0.21 and above? It just seems stupid to allow the law to treat the person who had one (1) beer too many at a picnic the same as the person who is blacked out and drunk driving all over the road at 3am. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435/33 "2009-06-02T16:23:52Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Huge expense and jail are being done. Has it solved the problem?" Has it diminished it? We love to think there are solutions to any problems. > TV commercials with beautiful people having big fun drinking sink into the sub conscience of the youth. You have to drink to be cool. More and tougher enforcement = more revenue. Some data from [here.](http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html) > [@](#): > > In 2006, there were 13,470 fatalities in crashes involving an alcohol-impaired driver (BAC of .08 or higher) – 32 percent of total traffic fatalities for the year. > > 16,005 people were killed in the United States in alcohol-related\* motor vehicle traffic crashes (BAC of .01 or higher). > > In 2006, 1,794 children age 14 and younger were killed in motor vehicle crashes. Of those 1,794 fatalities, 306 (17%) occurred in alcohol-impaired driving crashes. Children riding in vehicles with drivers who had a BAC level of .08 or higher accounted for half (153) of these deaths. > > The 13,470 alcohol-impaired-driving fatalities in 2006 were almost the same as compared to 13,451 alcohol-impaired-driving fatalities reported in 1996. Ten years of progress. That the number has not increased over 10 years certainly shows some progress, given the increased number of drivers over this period. I don’t have data for even further back, but drunk driving is considered a lot more serious now than when I was just beginning to drive, and that is good. I’ll just add here that I’m not too impressed by the “first offense” argument. This may be the first time these people got caught, but I suspect it is not the first time they drove drunk. A cop in the parking lot is excellent, in that it helps to get the drunks off the road faster, which reduces the chance that they’ll kill someone. Good for Texas. ---
**Author:** ![horhay\_achoa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ccd318/32.png) [@horhay\_achoa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/horhay_achoa)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435/34 "2009-06-02T16:29:10Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > A cop in the parking lot is excellent, in that it helps to get the drunks off the road faster, which reduces the chance that they’ll kill someone. Good for Texas. If i owned a bar I would not want a cop sitting in my parking lot all night. I assume the owner must give permission for this? Basically, i think DUI should only be enforceable as secondary offense…just like not wearing a seat belt and talking on a cell phone, although those are starting to become primary offenses in some places. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435/35 "2009-06-02T16:37:19Z")
Let’s add in the people driving on heroin, weed and oxycotin, and see how many impaired people are tooling along. Toss in cell phone users and texters and the roads are dangerous places to be. We also have speed demons who just love to drive fast and cut in lane to lane. We are very good at dealing with symptoms. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435/36 "2009-06-02T17:13:15Z")
Nobody is in favor of DWI/DUIs and everyone would like to see laws that reduce them, but the problem with increasing penalties is the law of unforseen consequences. The Texas DWI surcharge in the OP is one example; it doesn’t seem to have served any intended deterrent effect so far, and has had the unintended effect of causing huge headache for district attorney’s offices and county sheriffs in prosecuting and jailing the huge numbers of people who just can’t afford the $3000 it takes to get back and keep their driver’s license. There are now so many ways to lose your license now that prosecutors are having to add a docket that takes up an entire day just to keep up with the driving while license invalid offenders. Instead of decreasing DWI offenders and rasing revenue, they’ve increased their own costs and created a new class of criminal, the perpetual DWLI offender. When I mentioned to one of our local prosecutors that sombody suggested to me that first time DWI offenders should lose their license forever, he literally groaned. It sounds like a good idea on paper, but enforcement would be a nightmare. Take Clothahump’s suggestion: if you make a first time DWI offense a felony with mandatory prison time, you’re creating a huge headache for district attorneys. Every single DWI in his jurisdiction is now going to be a jury trial because prosecutors can’t make offers, and the conviction rate plummets because juries are less likely to send an 18 year old honor student who drank five beers on prom night to do hard time in prison. In order to free up overloaded felony ADA’s and unclog the courts, local district attorneys start offering pretrial diversion programs where the defendant reports to their investigator, and get their charges dismissed if they sucessfully discharge from the program (which is actually happening already). So by dramatically increasing the penalties, making mandatory hard time and doing away with probation, you’ve actually decreased the penalties people are actually serving and decreased actual convictions. “Lock the bastards up for good!” may be a viscerally satisfying battle cry, but in actual implementation dramatically increasing penalties for any crime is something that has to be very carefully thought out. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435/37 "2009-06-02T17:15:16Z")
> [@bump](#): > > 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. Would you mind pointing me to this statute? And by the way, it’s not the only such offense; family violence cases can also be denied bail in certain circumstances. One more correction: first-time DWI in Texas is a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $2000, 180 days in jail, or both. Most folks, of course, do probation and pay out their fine over that term. A second DWI would be a Class A (one year jail/$4000 fine), and DWI #3 becomes a third degree felony, two to ten. But hey, if you try hard enough you can kill someone on your very first outing, so what the hell, go have fun. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435/38 "2009-06-02T17:19:42Z")
I’ve spoken at length about this topic in the past. I think that DUI as a crime could be totally eradicated if society actually wanted to do so. There are a few things I can think of off of the top of my head, but as I’m not a constitutional lawyer I do not know if these ideas would pass muster: 1. I’ve been made aware of a feature available in some new cars that can measure a person’s BAC through skin contact on the steering wheel. It could simply be mandated that this is a standard safety device to be installed on all new automobiles manufactured or sold in the United States after X date; and it would be a serious offense (mandatory license revocation) if this device was discovered to have been disabled by the owner of the vehicle. I actually imagine this could become law because we are not talking about a criminal statute but simply a license revocation as punishment and since driving is seen by the courts as a privilege and not a right it is less protected. For example the administrative hearings you go to if you have been accused of DUI have much fewer protections of your rights than the actual criminal court you go to for the criminal charge of DUI. Obviously there would be other ways around this “safety feature” like perhaps the driver wearing gloves. No system will be perfect but I am willing to bet this device would cut drunk driving drastically and save lives. For a lot of people I think the mechanical warning that you are registered as “too drunk” would deter them from continuing on in their car. 1. As an earlier poster said, make it mandatory that if you serve alcohol you must take a patron’s keys, and that you cannot release them if the patron does not submit to a voluntary breath test or provides a person willing to take the keys and drive for them who themselves is willing to submit to a voluntary breath test. Additionally make it the onus of the proprietor of the establishment to report any incident in which they feel a patron is attempting to drive while impaired (for example if they are seen to have had a second key or such hidden somewhere.) This one may have some constitutional issues with it–I’m genuinely unsure. There is also the argument that “a bar owner would hate this” or “it would be bad for business.” As for the bar owner hating it–I wouldn’t care too much, they need to look at it as a layer of regulation they need to submit to in order to own a bar. As for it being bad for business, if this was a law it would apply to all such establishments so people would have the choice of drinking at home or drinking under these stipulations, given that no bars would be exempt I think most bar patrons would continue to visit their local establishments. I also feel that DUI should be punished harshly, especially on a first offense. Some of the most dangerous DUI offenders are the repeat offenders who are serious, chronic alcoholics. Nothing will ever dissuade them from drinking or driving and they often are perpetually far more impaired than some average drinkers ever get in their entire lives. To address this any person convicted of a first offense DUI should be subjected to a much harsher treatment program than is currently seen in most states. No simple 18-24 hours of alcohol education, but a vigorous assessment by a mental health professional and any determination by said professional that the offender has a drinking problem would mandate a lengthy treatment process and no driving privileges until said professional feels that person is in full recovery. All that being said, I also feel that DUI is handled in a way that is not consistent with constitutional ideals in this country. DUI defendants in many ways do not seem to have the same rights as other misdemeanants. For example it is not supposed to be the case that you can be compelled to witness against yourself, but people arrested for DUI in many states can be all but forced to submit either a breath or blood sample. The breathalyzer as a device is, in my opinion, subject to serious technical problems and is strictly inferior to a blood draw. I feel that for the purposes of convicting someone of a criminal offense breathalyzer results should be _inadmissible_. I’m fine with the use of a breathalyzer for other purposes (such as making a _preliminary_ determination on the road side), but feel that a blood draw should be the only acceptable evidence in court. With a blood draw the person is either over the per se limit or they aren’t, and there is virtually no room for error as long as the lab does not confuse one person’s sample with that of another. I also have some issue with the concept of a per se limit because I feel that what society really has a problem with is “driving while too impaired to drive safely.” By setting the per se limit (which has only gone down over the years) we’ve basically given the police and prosecutors a very easy crime to prove and convict on–but from a philosophical stand point I’m not sure how I feel about using such a strict line as the means of conviction. I think we should have to demonstrate that someone is actually impaired. Which means someone who is pulled over for a broken tail light but who is not driving in any other noticeably irregular way, and who passes a field sobriety test, should probably not be considered impaired even if later tests show they are right at .08 or some other arbitrary number. A final problem of course is most police reports written up for a DUI offense always read that the police officer observed the driver “driving irregularly” that they had “watery eyes” “the smell of alcohol” and other such “signs” of intoxication that a police officer is trained to put in an incident report. These are all things that can be put in a report and for which there is no way to ever prove or disprove they actually happen–so in a great number of cases it is guaranteed a police officer will put these in a report if they “feel” that someone is drunk, whether those indicators are actually there or not. The field sobriety test when administered correctly is a good test for impairment, however it is a very subjective test since the police officer can simply say you failed based on any reason or no reason at all. In fact I’m not aware of very many people who have ever “passed” a field sobriety test, even people who later have BACs well below the legal limit and who beat their criminal charges. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435/39 "2009-06-02T18:19:03Z")
Bar owners should not be expected to do police work,for which they have no training . That would open the doors for abuse and law suits. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435/40 "2009-06-02T18:29:36Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > 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. That’s just garage talk and not thought through at all. > [@Clothahump](#): > > 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. I don’t think fining people their life savings or more is the most effective way to get them not to drink and drive. If you can prove that it is, I’m willing to listen. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435.md?page=3)