Some changes in drunk driving laws are being considered. Some harsher measures are contemplated, and some repeals of other DD laws is contemplated.

Article follows:

The Associated Press

AUSTIN, Texas — The Texas Legislature should consider changing laws intended to stem drunken driving to include sobriety checkpoints, lawmakers were told at a hearing.

"We need a consistent DWI policy across the state of Texas," said Sen. John Whitmire of Houston, chairman of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee.

Texas had 1,269 deaths in alcohol-related traffic accidents in 2009, according to state figures.

Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo testified Thursday in favor of temporary sobriety checkpoints and mandatory blood tests for alleged violators. About half of Austin's traffic fatalities each year are alcohol-related, according to Acevedo.

"We are waiting way too long to intervene," said Acevedo. "If we can't intervene in people's lives, we can't change their behavior. It has to start with the first arrest."

Bill Lewis, with Mothers Against Drunk Driving, said innocent citizens already are subjected to random searches, such as when they enter the airport and, more recently at the Texas Capitol.

"I've never tried to sneak a gun through the Capitol or an airport, but I have to go through a checkpoint," said Lewis.

Legislators discussed redoing a DWI program that automatically suspends a driver's license, possibly repealing a surcharge that fines convicted drunken drivers thousands of dollars and creating new treatment programs for first-time offenders.

Lawmakers should consider repealing the Driver Responsibility Program, whose surcharges include a fee of $1,000 annually for three years for first-time driving-while-intoxicated offenders, said Whitmire.

The Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee, chaired by Sen. John Carona of Dallas, will review the program. The Texas Department of Public Safety is working on new rules for the program to ease the surcharges for lower-income drivers, said Carona aide Steven Polunsky.

DPS earlier this year said that Texas had sent out bills for more than $1.7 billion in surcharges through last November, but just $672 million had been collected.



Read more: http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/07/09/...z0tDOym7UJ

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the discussion of repealing some of the laws illustrates the Law of Unintended Consequences. Just trying to make things harsher does not seem to be having much of an impact, and it does seem to cause problems in other ways sometimes.

I know that random stops and checkpoints have been Ok'd by the courts. I really don't understand the legal logic there, but I do understand that it is legal. I just wonder if people would be OK with the same measures to check for illegal aliens. If not, why not? It would seem to solve the question of racial profiling if everyone on the highway is pulled over. Maybe when the officer asks to see your license, he could do both at once. Come to think of it, why does he need to see yor license at all? If the point is to look for drunk drivers, he just needs to smell your breath.

In Georgia there are "checkpoints" all over the place on Holiday Weekends.

But you can decline a Breathalizer, and the Police won't draw blood.

Its just a matter of time before MADD forces the US DOT and Congress to impose "uniform" DWI laws upon States in exchange for Federal Highway Funding.

(07-09-2010 02:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Legislators discussed redoing a DWI program that automatically suspends a driver's license, possibly repealing a surcharge that fines convicted drunken drivers thousands of dollars and creating new treatment programs for first-time offenders.

Lawmakers should consider repealing the Driver Responsibility Program, whose surcharges include a fee of $1,000 annually for three years for first-time driving-while-intoxicated offenders, said Whitmire.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the discussion of repealing some of the laws illustrates the Law of Unintended Consequences. Just trying to make things harsher does not seem to be having much of an impact, and it does seem to cause problems in other ways sometimes.

The surcharges are contributing to court backlogs. I tried a DWI a couple of weeks ago where the deciding factor for why the case went to trial was the surcharge cost. If you're going to lose $3K on top of everything else (DL suspension, etc) you're more willing to roll the dice.

I do know that involvement with the courts on DWI has changed my behavior. I will never again have more than one drink/beer/glass of wine if I plan to drive in the next few hours. The "DWI - You Can't Afford It" signs are true.

(07-09-2010 05:04 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  In Georgia there are "checkpoints" all over the place on Holiday Weekends.

But you can decline a Breathalizer, and the Police won't draw blood.

Its just a matter of time before MADD forces the US DOT and Congress to impose "uniform" DWI laws upon States in exchange for Federal Highway Funding.

Interestingly, this past week a Federal judge in Massachusetts held that it is a violation of tht Tenth Amendment for the Feds to use funding conditions in order to dictate state policies in areas that are traditionally left up to the states.
Of course, the law this judge ruled against was the Defense of Marriage Act, which is already politically unpopular in Massachusetts. I'm not sure any judge would have the courage to make the same ruling against a Federal traffic-law policy; after all, blocking DWI laws (however misguided they may be) doesn't really score points with the left or the right.
Also, the ruling is counter to tons of precedent, and several law professors have said there is virtually no chance it will survive appeal.

(07-10-2010 07:48 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Also, the ruling is counter to tons of precedent, and several law professors have said there is virtually no chance it will survive appeal.

I agree. I can't cite precedent off the top of my head, but it's been litigated at much higher courts. I believe the 55 mph speed limit was the last time this went through the courts.

I agree with OS, up to a point the harsher laws succeed in modifying behavior, which IMO is the proper purpose of such laws. Some of them do have deterrent value, especially for first-time offenders and lawyers.

MADD, however, has become a lobbying group, and as such must always show more, more, more, even if the changes advocated don't result in any significant additional behavioral modification but do result in unintended consequences. Can't anyone look past the first domino?

I believe that MADD will never be satified until we effectively have Prohibition back. Look at OS - he is one drink away now. There will be a push for .06, then .04, and the pregame tailgate at HRS will become a thing of the past. Or at least the adult beverages will be.

I remember checkpoints - I won't designate them as "sobriety checkpoints" as they check for far more than "sobriety". The first thing they want to see is your DL (papieren, bitte) and I would assume now the insurance would be requested also. Warrants are checked for and anything suspicious can be the trigger for a search. I wonder why I haven't seen them in years. Was there a legal challenge that eliminated them, and if so, how is that being circumvented now?

OO - Here in Virginia, we've had sobriety checkpoints for a long time. Back in my younger days, I would occasionally head out with friends for late nights of fun, with occasional drinking. I have been caught in a couple of sobriety checkpoints, but was never drunk. (Never that stupid - we had either designated drivers for those planning more drinking, or was a couple hours removed from the few drinks I did have.) The only thing the cops were actually looking for was a DL and checking your sobriety. Their challenge, usually, is that they've got to keep things moving along for most of those who weren't drunk, but driving home from a late night. They cannot hold things up to do all of the checks they might do if they stop somebody they're following and suspect for DUI. It would cause a huge traffic jam to do all of the lookups for everyone. (They do them on roads where people are likely to take home, not remote areas.)

However, if you do get stopped for suspicion (they might ask you to do a blow in your car), they will probably run you through other checks while you get processed and possibly put on the bus (for those they'll be taking into jail for formal processing). It's been over a dozen years since I've seen one of these, but that's how I've seen it done here.

(07-10-2010 07:48 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-09-2010 05:04 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  In Georgia there are "checkpoints" all over the place on Holiday Weekends.

But you can decline a Breathalizer, and the Police won't draw blood.

Its just a matter of time before MADD forces the US DOT and Congress to impose "uniform" DWI laws upon States in exchange for Federal Highway Funding.

Interestingly, this past week a Federal judge in Massachusetts held that it is a violation of tht Tenth Amendment for the Feds to use funding conditions in order to dictate state policies in areas that are traditionally left up to the states.
Of course, the law this judge ruled against was the Defense of Marriage Act, which is already politically unpopular in Massachusetts. I'm not sure any judge would have the courage to make the same ruling against a Federal traffic-law policy; after all, blocking DWI laws (however misguided they may be) doesn't really score points with the left or the right.
Also, the ruling is counter to tons of precedent, and several law professors have said there is virtually no chance it will survive appeal.

Interesting, I had not seen that case in that light (pertaining to laws outside marriage)... it was the pressure of federal road funding that got Louisiana to (at least nominally) raise the drinking age to 21.


I don't like the idea of random checkpoints. I would, however, like to see something like breathalyzers at bars (most bars already offer free cab rides home) - optional of course. I know I would certainly check myself if it were available.

One thing which isn't talked about but is the fact that the 0.08 cutoff is really low for some people. I'm not arguing against it, but I'm certain we've given DWI's to people who were not actually dangerous (one reason I'm always afraid of being rear-ended, etc, if I've been drinking anything). I know I have a high tolerance and if it's a long night out and I haven't been counting everything (or, I'm at a friend's where there might not be easily counted "servings") I often get paranoid about being over the limit when I feel absolutely FINE, just because I don't exactly have a BAC meter plugged into my arm.

Ultimately, I think anything short of extremely draconian measures (literally screening everyone) will fail to make much of a dent in alcohol-related fatalities, for two reasons, neither of which we can change easily:

1) Our attitude toward alcohol.
2) Lack of decent public transportation in the average American city.

I seriously doubt that whatever percentage increase we manage to squeeze out of any law changes will not be the most dangerous, repeat drunk drivers.

I've worked in a lot of bars, and one of the scariest things that happened to me was when I was the hotel bartender over at the Galleria Shereton. A man walked in, I wasn't particularly busy, I saw him sit down. I walked over to see what he wanted, and he said in perfectly understandable English, and with a smile, that he would like a bud light. Ok. He got a bud light. A few minutes later, he gets up and starts fiddling with the big screen TV. Weird. Later he came up to the bar and it hit me: this guy is totally wasted. And I had served him. The only thing which tipped him off was that it was really weird what he was doing, and if I looked closely, I could see subtle clues but he hid it well. He did subsequently get very belligerent when I refused service, tried to come behind the bar and serve himself, and then tried to punch the hotel security, topped off by calling the cops on himself (brilliant). But he could just as easily had his bud light and driven home.

It's a really tough job for bartenders, even good ones, to detect these people. Not sure what the answer is.

gsloth - I remember checkpoints from my youth but don't remember seeing one in 35-40 years. I think back then they were called license checks.

In any case, if it is JUST for sobriety, they don't need to see my license. They could satisfy my nit-pickiness by either expanding the name to include all the functions or reducing the name to just "checkpoints".

I guess that in Texas, they will ask for your license AND proof of insurance (POI) since that is what they ask for in a traffic stop. Ironically, given the other active thread here, IIRC the law about insurance and POI was passed in part at least because of the huge numbers of illegals driving without insurance and costing citizens of Texas lots of $$$. In fact, I have been hit by an illegal without insurance, and he drove away scot free. (He didn't leave the scene of the accident - he waited and took his three tickets, then drove away. I am sure all three tickets hit the pavement within three blocks. My insurance company tried to find him - fake name, fake address.) I carried uninsured motorist coverage, as I am sure most upper class liberals do also, but I was still out the $500 deductible and my insurance company was out thousands, which I guess was reflected in their future rates.

Emmie, I'm pretty much in agreement with you. My former wife, half my size, could match me drink for drink and be much more sober at the end of an evening. The law enforcement standard went from subjective measures to independently verifiable measures like BAC to make convictions easier. IIRC, it started at .15, then went to .12, .10, and .08, one reason I expect MADD to push for even lower levels eventually. Now that they are professional lobbyists, they cannot say "That's enough". What is now called "twice the legal llimit: on newscasts used to borderline drunk.

My niece tended bar too, and I always worried about her.

(07-11-2010 12:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  gsloth - I remember checkpoints from my youth but don't remember seeing one in 35-40 years. I think back then they were called license checks.

In any case, if it is JUST for sobriety, they don't need to see my license. They could satisfy my nit-pickiness by either expanding the name to include all the functions or reducing the name to just "checkpoints".

I guess that in Texas, they will ask for your license AND proof of insurance (POI) since that is what they ask for in a traffic stop. Ironically, given the other active thread here, IIRC the law about insurance and POI was passed in part at least because of the huge numbers of illegals driving without insurance and costing citizens of Texas lots of $$$. In fact, I have been hit by an illegal without insurance, and he drove away scot free. (He didn't leave the scene of the accident - he waited and took his three tickets, then drove away. I am sure all three tickets hit the pavement within three blocks. My insurance company tried to find him - fake name, fake address.) I carried uninsured motorist coverage, as I am sure most upper class liberals do also, but I was still out the $500 deductible and my insurance company was out thousands, which I guess was reflected in their future rates.

Emmie, I'm pretty much in agreement with you. My former wife, half my size, could match me drink for drink and be much more sober at the end of an evening. The law enforcement standard went from subjective measures to independently verifiable measures like BAC to make convictions easier. IIRC, it started at .15, then went to .12, .10, and .08, one reason I expect MADD to push for even lower levels eventually. Now that they are professional lobbyists, they cannot say "That's enough". What is now called "twice the legal llimit: on newscasts used to borderline drunk.

My niece tended bar too, and I always worried about her.

In the UK they are considering going to .05 as the legal limit.

As far as the "Free Ride Home" or "Call you a cab and the Bar will pay" offered by Bars.. in many cases that is a requirement of their Liquor Liability or "Dram Shop" Insurance Policy (at least in Georgia).

(07-11-2010 09:49 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  I don't like the idea of random checkpoints. I would, however, like to see something like breathalyzers at bars (most bars already offer free cab rides home) - optional of course. I know I would certainly check myself if it were available.

One thing which isn't talked about but is the fact that the 0.08 cutoff is really low for some people. I'm not arguing against it, but I'm certain we've given DWI's to people who were not actually dangerous (one reason I'm always afraid of being rear-ended, etc, if I've been drinking anything). I know I have a high tolerance and if it's a long night out and I haven't been counting everything (or, I'm at a friend's where there might not be easily counted "servings") I often get paranoid about being over the limit when I feel absolutely FINE, just because I don't exactly have a BAC meter plugged into my arm.

I seriously doubt that whatever percentage increase we manage to squeeze out of any law changes will not be the most dangerous, repeat drunk drivers.

(07-11-2010 12:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The law enforcement standard went from subjective measures to independently verifiable measures like BAC to make convictions easier. IIRC, it started at .15, then went to .12, .10, and .08, one reason I expect MADD to push for even lower levels eventually. Now that they are professional lobbyists, they cannot say "That's enough". What is now called "twice the legal llimit: on newscasts used to borderline drunk.

Hey, watch out. The law in Texas isn't BAC of .08 or more. It's a BAC of .08 or not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body.

If the cop thinks you're intoxicated you may be charged with DWI even if you blow under .08. You'll be arrested and in the back of a patrol car long before you have a chance to blow. All the arguments defense lawyers use to attack a BAC >.08 can be used by prosecutors to explain a BAC <.08 (e.g., inaccuracies in test procedures, timing - how you extrapolate from an intoxalyzer done 90 minutes after the stop to what it was when driving...).

(07-12-2010 12:46 PM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

(07-11-2010 09:49 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  I don't like the idea of random checkpoints. I would, however, like to see something like breathalyzers at bars (most bars already offer free cab rides home) - optional of course. I know I would certainly check myself if it were available.

One thing which isn't talked about but is the fact that the 0.08 cutoff is really low for some people. I'm not arguing against it, but I'm certain we've given DWI's to people who were not actually dangerous (one reason I'm always afraid of being rear-ended, etc, if I've been drinking anything). I know I have a high tolerance and if it's a long night out and I haven't been counting everything (or, I'm at a friend's where there might not be easily counted "servings") I often get paranoid about being over the limit when I feel absolutely FINE, just because I don't exactly have a BAC meter plugged into my arm.

I seriously doubt that whatever percentage increase we manage to squeeze out of any law changes will not be the most dangerous, repeat drunk drivers.

(07-11-2010 12:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The law enforcement standard went from subjective measures to independently verifiable measures like BAC to make convictions easier. IIRC, it started at .15, then went to .12, .10, and .08, one reason I expect MADD to push for even lower levels eventually. Now that they are professional lobbyists, they cannot say "That's enough". What is now called "twice the legal llimit: on newscasts used to borderline drunk.

Hey, watch out. The law in Texas isn't BAC of .08 or more. It's a BAC of .08 or not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body.

If the cop thinks you're intoxicated you may be charged with DWI even if you blow under .08. You'll be arrested and in the back of a patrol car long before you have a chance to blow. All the arguments defense lawyers use to attack a BAC >.08 can be used by prosecutors to explain a BAC <.08 (e.g., inaccuracies in test procedures, timing - how you extrapolate from an intoxalyzer done 90 minutes after the stop to what it was when driving...).

Thanks for clarifying that. Seems so lawyer-like to argue either possiblity according to how victory is defined.

So what is the definition of "not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties"? I know people who, IMO, qualify as not having normal use of their mental faculties while 100%, .00, stone cold sober. And they do drive.

And would "any other substance" include sugar for diabetics? Can I, as a diabetic, get a DUI for driving under the influence of a Twinkie? If so, can I use the Twinkie defense?

Whatever happened to the "It's my body, I can do whatever i want with it" argument?

Inquiring minds want to know.

(07-12-2010 03:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-12-2010 12:46 PM)Old Sammy Wrote:  Hey, watch out. The law in Texas isn't BAC of .08 or more. It's a BAC of .08 or not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body.

If the cop thinks you're intoxicated you may be charged with DWI even if you blow under .08. You'll be arrested and in the back of a patrol car long before you have a chance to blow. All the arguments defense lawyers use to attack a BAC >.08 can be used by prosecutors to explain a BAC <.08 (e.g., inaccuracies in test procedures, timing - how you extrapolate from an intoxalyzer done 90 minutes after the stop to what it was when driving...).

Thanks for clarifying that. Seems so lawyer-like to argue either possiblity according to how victory is defined.

So what is the definition of "not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties"? I know people who, IMO, qualify as not having normal use of their mental faculties while 100%, .00, stone cold sober. And they do drive.

And would "any other substance" include sugar for diabetics? Can I, as a diabetic, get a DUI for driving under the influence of a Twinkie? If so, can I use the Twinkie defense?

Whatever happened to the "It's my body, I can do whatever i want with it" argument?

Inquiring minds want to know.

The definition of not having normal...? Whatever the jury says it is. There's a running point of contention about what's normal. Prosecutors say it's a hypothetical normal person. [Reasoning - it's nearly impossible to tell and prove what's normal for a particular individual.] Defense lawyers say it should be whatever is normal for that defendant. [Reasoning - plain language, plus anything else puts the burden of proof on the defense, which is unconstitutional.] Prosecutors usually win this. The next line of defense is "by reason of the introduction" - "Ladies and gentlemen, my client is loopy all the time, the alcohol didn't cause this."

Theoretically, any other substance could include a diabetic's sugar though I've never heard of that being prosecuted. It does include prescription drugs and there are prosecutions for that.

"It's my body" has always been a theoretical argument only.

(07-12-2010 04:32 PM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

(07-12-2010 03:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-12-2010 12:46 PM)Old Sammy Wrote:  Hey, watch out. The law in Texas isn't BAC of .08 or more. It's a BAC of .08 or not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body.

If the cop thinks you're intoxicated you may be charged with DWI even if you blow under .08. You'll be arrested and in the back of a patrol car long before you have a chance to blow. All the arguments defense lawyers use to attack a BAC >.08 can be used by prosecutors to explain a BAC <.08 (e.g., inaccuracies in test procedures, timing - how you extrapolate from an intoxalyzer done 90 minutes after the stop to what it was when driving...).

Thanks for clarifying that. Seems so lawyer-like to argue either possiblity according to how victory is defined.

So what is the definition of "not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties"? I know people who, IMO, qualify as not having normal use of their mental faculties while 100%, .00, stone cold sober. And they do drive.

And would "any other substance" include sugar for diabetics? Can I, as a diabetic, get a DUI for driving under the influence of a Twinkie? If so, can I use the Twinkie defense?

Whatever happened to the "It's my body, I can do whatever i want with it" argument?

Inquiring minds want to know.

The definition of not having normal...? Whatever the jury says it is. There's a running point of contention about what's normal. Prosecutors say it's a hypothetical normal person. [Reasoning - it's nearly impossible to tell and prove what's normal for a particular individual.] Defense lawyers say it should be whatever is normal for that defendant. [Reasoning - plain language, plus anything else puts the burden of proof on the defense, which is unconstitutional.] Prosecutors usually win this. The next line of defense is "by reason of the introduction" - "Ladies and gentlemen, my client is loopy all the time, the alcohol didn't cause this."

Theoretically, any other substance could include a diabetic's sugar though I've never heard of that being prosecuted. It does include prescription drugs and there are prosecutions for that.

"It's my body" has always been a theoretical argument only.

Thanks.

I have heard of and seen diabetics with extremely low blood sugar having symptoms that mimic drunkeness and then in some cases patrolmen thinking they were drunk. That could be an example of a person exhibiting slurred speech and slowed responses but having a BAC of .00.

I threw in the "it's my body" thing more or less as a joke, as it obviously is not an excuse for drunkenness or drugs, although some people seem to think it is the trump card in discussions on abortion rights (on which I am officially neutral).