An Oklahoma legislator is proposing a state bill to prohibit drivers facing DUI charges from purchasing or consuming alcohol.
The bill, written by Sen. Patrick Anderson (R), would permit courts to legally ban a person from drinking alcohol for an amount of time determined by the court.
Drivers convicted of a DUI would be given a replacement identification card, classifying the person as “Alcohol Restricted.” The proposed law would also make it illegal for others to provide alcohol to those under alcohol restriction—up to a $1,000 fine or a year in prison.
Critics have begun voicing their concerns on the proposed alcohol restriction bill, questioning how the law would be enforced.
Former federal prosecutor Doug Burns says the law could land a person in court for unassuming acts, such as purchasing wine for a family dinner. Burns is quoted by Fox 25 Oklahoma City as calling the alcohol restriction bill “crazy.”
Defense Attorney David Slane also questions the infringement on certain rights posed by alcohol restriction.
“The law does not have a catch all provision that would allow for circumstances if it’s in the food,” Slane cautioned. “In cases where people have religious right to take communion where there may be alcohol in the wine does it allow for that?”
Other critics wonder if Oklahoma legislators could implement such severe actions when the state faces large budget deficits, such as understaffed police departments and 911 response centers.
Last year, Oklahoma passed an extreme law that allows prosecutors to impound the automobile of a person facing drunken driving charges once their case goes to court.
New Mexico debated a similar law in 2013, making it temporarily illegal for a person convicted of a DUI to consume alcohol. However, there has been no recent movement on such a proposal.
The 16th DUI charge of a Colorado man has provoked state legislators to reconsider drunken driving laws.
In November, a Colorado grand jury indicted Denny Lovern, 57, on several charges related with his latest DUI-related accident. Lovern himself admitted he “had a lot to drink and should not have been driving.”
The grand jury indicted Lovern on nine charges, including attempted first-degree assault and attempted manslaughter.
According to 18th Judicial District Attorney George Brauchler, Lovern’s case is the first time his office has pursued a chronic DUI offender with a grand jury indictment.
Colorado is one of five states, plus Washington D.C., does not have a felony DUI law. In Colorado, the greatest penalty for a DUI charge is one year in the county jail. The other states without a DUI felony law are Maine, Maryland, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Under particular circumstances, Colorado prosecutors bring felony DUI charges against an alleged offender if the charge is joined with a habitual traffic offender indictment. Even if a DUI charge is combined with an HTO charge, an offender can receive up to one and a half years in prison.
In Lovern’s case, he was not charged with an HTO because he had reinstated his license with the DMV.
Colorado Representative Mark Waller has twice proposed a felony DUI law, only to have the bill fail. Some legislators feel there is not enough data to support a felony DUI law making Colorado streets safer.
“It’s something we absolutely need in this state and we need it in this state because we have these guys who are on their fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth DUI, and treatment is no longer an incentive in any way for them,” Waller said. “It’s not getting the job done. You have to have other options to handle this very serious public safety issue.”
A new felony DUI bill is slated to be introduced in the Colorado Senate in January.
Prosecutors in Colorado have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse a ruling that an officer needed a warrant to obtain a blood sample from a suspected drunk driver.
When Jack Schaufele caused a traffic accident in spring of 2012 in Greenwood Village, Colorado, his blood alcohol level was close to three times the legal limit. However, this evidence may be withheld from a jury.
A Colorado Supreme Court judge threw out records of Schaufele’s blood alcohol level, stating the arresting officer did not attempt to obtain a warrant before ordering a blood draw, thus nullifying the legality of presenting such information as evidence.
Thirteen other states have filed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.
If the U.S. Supreme Court decides to consider the case, the results will have national consequences. If they rule on the side of prosecutors, it will be easier for authorities to obtain blood samples without a judge’s consent in DUI cases.
Without a change in the law, blood tests taken without a warrant will continue to be excluded from trials—even if the tests reveal the driver was above the legal blood alcohol limit.
On May 20, 2012, Schaufele’s Ford SUV crashed into a Honda Accord, injuring the other driver. Responding officers were unsure if Schaufele’s disorientation was due to alcohol intoxication or a result of an airbag deployment.
When Schaufele arrived at the hospital, a different officer—the fourth person to interact with him—smelled alcohol on his breath and ordered a blood draw. She attempted to alert him to the procedure, but was unable as he was unconscious or asleep. The officer never attempted to obtain a warrant.
In April 2013, the Supreme Court found that authorities need to consider several factors and be able to explain their rationale before ordering a blood draw.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that in suspected DUI cases, because alcohol levels are continuously decreasing in a person’s bloodstream, there should be an exception to the April ruling.
The Supreme Court could announce its decision to hear this case in January.
Schaufele is faces four counts, included driving under the influence of alcohol and vehicular assault.
The Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that the state’s medical marijuana law does not give drivers protection from laws about driving under the influence.
In 2011, Travis Darrah, a medical marijuana user, was pulled over and charged with two counts of DUI. A test taken following his arrest showed the presence of marijuana in his body.
While a jury acquitted Darrah of the first count, driving while impaired, they did not clear him of the second charge of having a prohibited drug of its metabolite in his system. Darrah argued that his medical license to use marijuana gave him immunity from DUI laws.
Due to his conviction, Darrah now faces a day in jail, up to $1,500 in fines, required substance abuse help and a one-year suspension of his driver’s license.
Darrah appealed his case to the state’s Court of Appeals; on Tuesday they ruled that voter-approved state medical marijuana laws have no exemptions regarding DUI laws.
Arizona’s state legislature regarding medical marijuana has numerous safeguards for licensed users, such as workplace and tenant protections. There is nothing regarding DUIs and driving when it comes to medical marijuana exemptions.
“If Arizona voters had intended to completely bar the state from prosecuting authorized marijuana users under (this section of the law), they could have easily done so by using specific language to that effect,” Appellate Judge Michael Brown wrote.
Attorney John Tatz acknowledges that the law does not make it legal for a cardholder to operate a vehicle while under the influence, but that the law also says a user cannot be considered under the influence if traces of marijuana metabolites are found in a driver’s system.
“You could have a small amount of active metabolite in the system and not be impaired,” Tatz said.
Tatz is considering appealing Brown’s decision to the Supreme Court.
By Mary Ann Pekara
The National Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB) Safety Report entitled “Reaching Zero: Actions to Eliminate Alcohol-Impaired Driving” was adopted today.
The report contains several recommendations from the NTSB but the most prominent is the recommendation of a lower Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) limit, in hopes of cutting down on alcohol related crashes.
The NTSB is recommending that states lower their BAC limits, which currently sit at 0.08, to 0.05 or lower.
The NTSB itself can only make recommendations, not regulations, and the BAC regulations themselves are set at the state level; therefore, they have recommended that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have the authority to provide incentive grants for states implementing this recommendation.
The current 0.08 BAC threshold is nationwide and has been for over a decade, but it was not easy getting there.
In the early 1980’s many states had a BAC threshold of 0.15 and it took 24 years to get all 50 states down to the 0.08 limit. The statistics show the difference:
Alcohol Related Highway Fatalities
Statistics show that the 0.05 BAC limit has the potential to save 500-800 lives per year.
Although that may be the most drastic of the NTSB’s recommendations in this Safety Report, it is not the only one.
A recommendation that many states have already implemented is the confiscation of the driver’s license at the time of arrest for people who exceed a certain BAC or refuse BAC testing.
The NTSB would also like to see ignition interlock devices being required for all first-time offenders. These devices prompt the driver to blow into them, checking their BAC, before they are able to start their car.
During accident scene responses, sobriety checkpoints and traffic stops, just to name a few, the NTSB recommends the use of passive alcohol sensors that would essentially “sniff” the presence of alcohol at the scene.
Although technology like this could not be used to arrest someone, it would assist in prompting additional field sobriety and BAC testing.
The overall goal of the National Transportation Safety Board is to bring our country’s substance-impaired driving statistics down as close to zero as possible.
By John Clark
The Colorado House passed a bill that sets a legal limit for marijuana in drivers’ systems, and the Senate is expected to vote on it soon, according to a report from the Huffington Post.
The issue became more pressing last November, when Colorado passed a law allowing a limited amount of marijuana use for recreational purposes, mirroring a similar effort in Washington, according to sources.
At the same time, however, Washington passed a law that set the legal limit of THC, marijuana’s psychoactive ingredient, at five nanograms. In contrast, Colorado did not address the legal level of marijuana last year.
Under the proposed bill, Colorado drivers would also have a limit of five nanograms of THC. If drivers are caught with more than 5 nanograms of THC in their blood, they will be driving under the influence of marijuana, and treated like other DUI offenders.
According to the sponsor of the bill, Rep. Rhonda Fields, a Democrat from Aurora, the bill is about “traffic safety” and sends “a very strong message that no longer can you get behind the wheel after smoking marijuana,” the Denver Post reports.
Sources note that this is the fourth time in the last three years that the Colorado House has pushed a bill addressing marijuana DUI laws, but each of the previous efforts has been thwarted by the Colorado Senate.
This year, however, supporters of the bill believe it has a higher chance of passing because of Amendment 64, the new state law that legalized recreational marijuana use.
Still, the bill has its opponents, many of whom worry that five nanograms is too low a standard, and will likely lead to the arrest of people who are not impaired.
But supporters of the bill claim that even drivers who have five nanograms of THC in their bloodstreams will be allowed to offer proof that they were able to drive safely, according to sources.
In the words of Rep. Mark Waller, a Republican from Colorado Springs, if “you did not exhibit poor driving, you can put that on as evidence to say, ‘Look my driving was not poor, I’m not unsafe to operate a motor vehicle,'” sources report.
Waller notes this bill is much different from previous versions of the marijuana DUI law that would have criminalized every driver whose blood THC levels were above the legal limit, regardless of his or her relative degree of impairment.
By John Clark
An Arizona court has upheld a decision that allows the state to prosecute Arizona drivers for driving under the influence of marijuana even if there is no evidence that they have been smoking pot, according to a report from the Arizona Republic.
Sources say the ruling, which was issued by the state’s Court of Appeals, addressed a complicated issue relating to the chemical compounds in marijuana.
When drivers are subjected to blood and urine tests after an arrest, two different pieces of evidence related to marijuana use emerge.
The first chemical compound provides evidence that the driver is actually impaired, while the other chemical compound is something that remains in a smoker’s system for weeks after he or she has smoked marijuana, but it doesn’t impair the average person’s driving ability.
Common sense would suggest that police officers should only use the first compound as evidence of intoxicated driving, but to the dismay of some state DUI attorneys, the Arizona court decided otherwise.
According to sources, the court claimed that both compounds apply to drivers under Arizona DUI laws. So if drivers have any evidence of marijuana in their system, they can be arrested for a DUI, even if they are in a perfectly suitable driving condition.
The court said the state’s legislature created the state’s DUI laws to “protect public safety,” so the court claimed it had a responsibility to interpret the statute “broadly,” and thus include both inactive and active chemical compounds found in marijuana.
The case initially arose from a traffic stop in Maricopa County that took place in 2010. During that incident, the arrested driver’s blood test only showed trace amounts of the chemical compound that is usually found well after marijuana is inhaled, according to sources.
According to one expert who testified in the case, the particular compound found in the driver’s blood doesn’t impair driving skills, and it may remain in the bloodstream for up to four weeks.
The driver’s DUI attorney said that only the chemical compound that impairs drivers’ ability to safely navigate roads is illegal, but the appellate court disagreed with this argument.
Despite the court’s decision, the original driver’s attorney is planning to file an appeal. He believes that the testing issue should be resolved because several surrounding states have legalized marijuana.
His concern is that residents of Washington and Colorado, where marijuana will soon be legal, will have to avoid driving through Arizona in order to avoid the state’s bizarre laws, which could have a negative impact on the state’s economy.
By John Clark
Despite the modern trend against drunk driving, a rogue county in southwest Ireland has passed a law that will allow some rural drivers to drive while intoxicated, according to a report from the Huffington Post.
Sources say the Kerry County Council voted this week to pass a measure that would let rural drivers apply for special permits allowing them to drive while drunk.
Five council members voted to support the controversial measure, while only three council members voted against it, according to local sources.
According to Danny Healy-Rae, the council member who promoted the resolution, rural Irish drivers have “never killed anyone” because the areas through which they drive are so sparsely populated.
In addition to the safety argument, Healy-Rae also peddled a mental health argument, although it may not be what one would expect. Sources say the councilman claimed the law would help keep a lot of rural drinkers “from falling into depression.”
Elaborating on his bizarre claim, Healy-Rae said people in isolated rural areas have no public transportation options, and new DUI laws have kept them “at home looking at the four walls, night in and night out, because they don’t want to take the risk of losing their license.”
Of course, while Healy-Rae may have legitimate concerns about the social lives of rural folks in Kerry County, he is also the owner of a local pub, and thus may have a conflict of interest.
The plan, which would allow rural residents to drive after having two or three drinks, according to the law’s proponents, has also drawn criticism from Noel Brett, the chief executive of Ireland’s Road Safety Authority.
According to Brett, it is “unthinkable” that Ireland would reverse its course on drunk driving after making “substantial progress in Ireland in reducing deaths and injuries on our roads, particularly in rural areas which are hardest hit by road fatalities and injuries.”
The proposal has also drawn sharp criticism from Alcohol Action Ireland, a nonprofit organization that has warned Kerry County officials that almost one in three automobile deaths in Ireland are related to alcohol.
Conor Cullen, a spokesman for Alcohol Action Ireland, also questioned Healy-Rae’s appeals to the mental health of rural residents, claiming such a view is far from the truth.
In Cullen’s words, “the link between alcohol use and suicide has been well established and alcohol will exacerbate” the depression experienced by the residents of Kerry County, not reduce it.
By John Clark
The Supreme Court agreed this week to review the constitutionality of a DUI law that allows police officers to draw the blood of drunk driving suspects without a search warrant, according to a report from the San Francisco Chronicle.
The law being challenged originated in Missouri, which followed the lead of several other states a few years ago by passing a law that allowed police officers to give blood tests to DUI suspects who refused to submit to a breathalyzer.
Sources indicate, however, that the Supreme Court will decide during its fall session whether police officers must obtain a search warrant before administering a non-voluntary blood test.
According to the state of Missouri, the U.S. Constitution does not require law enforcement officials to run to a judge to get approval to perform a blood test because time is of the essence with all DUI blood tests.
Under Missouri’s argument, if police had to seek judicial approval every time they gave a blood test, the blood alcohol level in a suspect’s system would have more than enough time to fall by a substantial margin.
Thus, in the interest of accuracy and efficiency, Missouri claims that its police officers must be able to gather the “best, most probative evidence” by administering blood tests as quickly as possible, so as not to destroy key evidence.
Several lower courts in other states have ruled on this question, but they remain split, which is why the Supreme Court has stepped in to resolve the matter.
Sources note that, in the United States, more than 1.4 million people are arrested each year for driving under the influence.
As a result, the Court’s decision will have a huge impact on the everyday lives of many Americans. Sources indicate, however, that 27 states have laws barring mandatory blood tests without a search warrant, so citizens of a slim majority of U.S. states will not be affected by the decision.
Still, the Supreme Court decision will be very important. The dispute before the Court stems from the 2010 arrest of a Missouri resident who was forced to take a blood test after an arrest despite his repeated objections.
According to the man who filed the lawsuit against Missouri, “not every case will involve a risk of losing evidence of intoxication before a search,” so the state’s primary argument falls short of proving that warrantless blood tests should always be allowed.
By John Clark
Most counties across the United States impose fines, jail sentences, or other punitive measures to penalize drunk drivers. But Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, has a unique program that proponents believe is far more successful than traditional methods of DUI punishment.
The county recently implemented its DUI Alternative Jail Program, which is known by most state officials as “DUI Hotel,” according to a report from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
Under the terms of the unique DUI laws, DUI offenders spend three days and three nights at two participating hotels, where the convicted drunk drivers attend treatment sessions, undergo mandatory evaluations, and visit alcohol education programs.
Supporters of the law say it only applies to relatively minor offenders, which allows jails to free up space for criminals who commit more serious crimes.
According to Allegheny County officials, 550 people completed the program successfully in 2011, and 295 people completed the program in the first half of this year.
The program is only available to first-time offenders with 72-hour jail sentences who have limited or empty criminal records, proponents are quick to note.
Allegheny County is the only county in Pennsylvania to have such a program, but the projects’ modest success has prompted officials in Westmoreland County to consider passing similar legislation.
Of course, not everyone believes the program is a good idea. Critics of DUI Hotel say that it does not help prevent offenders from driving while intoxicated again.
In addition, the program is not available to everyone. Only those who can afford to pay to stay at the hotel for three nights are allowed to do the program. Offenders who cannot afford the hotel stay must go to jail instead.
According to George E. Saurman, a former state representative who loathes the law, allowing DUI offenders to “serve out their time in a hotel, rather than having the punishment imposed, is absolutely insane.”
Saurman also told sources that he couldn’t see “any motivation or justification for modifying the penalty” and claimed that sending DUI offenders to a three-day stay in a hotel is “inexcusable.”
Program participants, quite naturally, have a different view. Josh Lewis, a 22-year-old man who was about to start his hotel stay, told sources that the program can be “a little boring, but it beats jail.”
In addition, Ronald Seyko, the deputy director of the program, claims that the program allows drunk drivers to “meet their mandatory requirements and get their treatment education and reduce the burden on the system.”
By John Clark
The Washington state legislature enacted a new law this month that allows doctors to draw blood from people suspected of driving under the influence without their consent, according to a CBS News report.
The law has already started to face criticism from several groups, including those who believe the rule violates basic civil rights.
Before the new law was enacted, suspected drunk drivers in the state of Washington could choose whether they had a breathalyzer test or a blood test.
As might be expected, most drivers opted for the breath test because it’s less invasive than the blood test. For the breathalyzer test, DUI offenders only have to blow into a device. A blood test, on the other hand, involves a needle.
Now, however, some Washington drivers who are suspected of driving under the influence will be forced to take a blood test, because this exam is believed by many experts to be more reliable than its less invasive alternative.
Drivers who will be forced to take a blood test include those who are potentially facing felony DUI charges, and those who have previously been convicted of vehicular homicide or vehicular assault, sources say.
The law, understandably, has widespread support from local law enforcement officials. Sergeant Mike Eggleston recently described the procedure as a necessary tool to secure “special evidence” in certain extreme cases.
According to Eggleston, if someone is being charged with a felony DUI in Washington, it often means it will be his or her fifth DUI in the last decade, which he believes gives police the right to test the driver’s blood without his her permission.
Some local attorneys, however, believe the law could be the first in a series of overzealous laws that reduce the rights drivers have when they are arrested for a suspected DUI.
One attorney, for example, expressed concern that the law treats someone who has a DUI without an accident and someone who drives drunk and commits vehicular homicide as equals.
Another critic claims that it’s only a matter of time before the state legislature extends involuntary blood tests to all suspected drunk drivers, regardless of their criminal histories.
But while these critics have valid concerns, the Washington law as it currently stands, only applies to people who either have a chronic DUI problem or have committed a terrible crime.
With those restrictions in place, it seems that the benefits to public safety may outweigh the potential cost to civil rights, at least in the eyes of law enforcement officials.
By John Clark
Starting last week, Washington, D.C., rolled out a series of new DUI laws that are intended to reduce the alarming rates of drunk driving in Virginia and Maryland, according to a report from CBS News.
The District’s efforts to crack down on drunk driving mirror initiatives in many other states, as state legislatures have started to increase their focus on DUI prevention.
The first change to the capital’s DUI regulations is a shift in the legal blood alcohol limit for commercial drivers from .08 to .04 percent. This regulation, which also applies to taxi drivers, is very unique by national standards.
Representatives from the commercial driving industry have criticized the decision, claiming that if a blood alcohol limit of .04 is dangerous for commercial drivers, it should be dangerous for others drivers, as well.
Commercial drivers, however, typically have large loads of cargo, or are transferring passengers, so their legal responsibilities are much higher than average drivers, and the law should be adjusted to reflect this difference.
In addition to the reduction in the legal blood alcohol limit for some drivers, Washington, D.C., also strengthened its potential punishments for first time DUI offenders.
Sources say that people who are convicted for their first DUI offense are now eligible for a $1,000 fine and a 180-day stint in jail. Before the change, first time offenders were only eligible for a maximum $300 fine and 90-day jail sentence.
Of course, every drunk driver won’t receive this severe a punishment, but having such a large possible penalty could dissuade people who have had too much to drink from getting into their cars.
And, in addition to the possible deterrent effect, prosecutors will also be able to use the stiffer penalties as an incentive to get drunk drivers to plead guilty to lesser charges.
Another interesting change to the District’s DUI laws involves a shift in DUI procedure. This week, officers will once again be allowed to use breathalyzers during traffic stops.
D.C. police had been banned from using the tools for two years after an investigation discovered faulty calibrations in some of the DUI testing devices.
A final change to the capital’s DUI laws was a regulation that will add a mandatory week-long jail sentence for any person who is convicted of a DUI with a child in the vehicle.
Similar rules are becoming more popular in other states, as car safety advocates have highlighted the shockingly high number of children involved in DUI arrests.
Drunk drivers in Tennessee will now face a harsher penalty if they are arrested for a DUI with children in tow, thanks to a new DUI law that will become effective in a few weeks.
Under the new rule, DUI offenders who have children under the age of 18 in their car will be subject to a minimum 30-day sentence on top of their other charges, according to a report from The Expositor, a newspaper in Sparta, Tennessee.
The additional 30-day sentence will be automatically added to other drunk driving charges, such as a DUI, vehicular homicide, or vehicular assault.
The new law adds a substantial penalty to a crime that is already punished very seriously under Tennessee state law. And while DUI laws vary by state, Tennessee’s treatment of DUIs is very similar to other states across the country.
In the Volunteer State, for example, first-time DUI offenders face a fine up to $1,500, a suspended license for a year, 24 hours of jail time, and up to a year of probation.
Of course, not every offender will face the maximum penalties, but judges are allowed to level punishments this severe against people who are convicted for a DUI for the first time.
And second-time drunk drivers are treated much more harshly. For a second DUI arrest, offenders could face a $3,500 fine, a jail sentence of up to a year, and a license revocation lasting two years.
In addition, if drivers are arrested for their second DUI in five years, they have to install an ignition interlock device in their cars for six months. This devise measures drivers’ blood alcohol levels, and if they are too drunk to drive, the ignition interlock will prevent the car from starting.
So, since the maximum penalties for DUI offenses in Tennessee carry relatively short jail sentences, the addition of an extra month-long sentence is a significant change to the state’s DUI laws.
The law represents the state’s second effort this year to strengthen its DUI prevention laws. In May, state legislators passed a law allowing officers to draw blood from suspected drunk drivers, even if they refuse to submit to a blood alcohol test.
This law was met with heavy opposition from civil rights groups, but state lawmakers eventually passed the new rule despite these objections.
And as statistics continue to show an alarming number of annual deaths due to drunk drivers, states will continue to level more aggressive penalties against drunk drivers.
By John Clark
Several states have taken active measures to increase the severity of DUI laws in the past few years, but a proposed series of new regulations in New Jersey establish a new precedent for tough DUI enforcement, according to a report from the Newark Star-Ledger.
This week, the New Jersey Legislature will vote on a bill that would require all drivers convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol to install an ignition interlock device that would keep their cars from starting if they have been drinking.
In years past, these tools have only been used for people who have been convicted of multiple DUI offenses, but many states are now turning to ignition interlock systems for first-time DUI offenders, as well.
In New Jersey, for example, current DUI laws only require the installation of the Breathalyzer-like devices for people who have multiple DUI convictions, or for drivers who were arrested with a blood alcohol level at more than twice the legal limit.
While this law has been in place, roughly 2,500 ignition devices were installed, but if the new law is passed, this number could double in just 12 months, according to Frank Harris, a lobbyist for Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
In defense of the proposed law, Harris also said that “[r]equiring ignition interlocks for all convicted drunk drivers provides multiple benefits to society (by) teaching offenders to drive sober which helps prevent repeat offenses and in turn saves lives.”
Harris also noted that the threat of a fine or license suspension does not deter drivers from driving intoxicated again.
In response, some critics of the bill claim that ignition interlock devices aren’t worth the expense, given that they typically cost drivers several hundred dollars, which can be a significant financial burden for many drivers.
John Bowman, a spokesman for the National Motorists Association, also told reporters that these devices don’t really help to deter first-time offenders because most of these drivers learn their lesson and refrain from driving drunk again.
But despite reservations from groups like the National Motorists Association, the national trend seems to be leaning towards the installation of ignition interlock systems for every convicted drunk driver, regardless of the nature of their offense.
In the last few years, sixteen states have enacted laws requiring these systems for all drunk drivers, and Missouri will soon become the seventeenth, according to sources. So the momentum seems to be swinging in favor of the proposed New Jersey bill.
Advocates of legalized marijuana use in Colorado found support from a surprising source last week after a conservative lawmaker voted against a proposed bill that would expand the list of DUI offenses to include the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana.
According to a report from The Colorado Statesman, Sen. Tim Neville, a Republican legislator from Littleton, Colorado, surprised observers when he was the only member of the Senate State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee to vote against the bill.
The DUI bill, Senate Bill 117, was ultimately passed by the committee after a marathon seven-hour debate. The bill will now begin making its way around the Colorado legislature, but it has already spurred heated debate in Colorado.
Under the terms of the proposed bill, Neville claims that legal medical marijuana users could face DUI prosecution even if they are not under the influence of marijuana at the time of their encounter with the police.
The bill suggests that marijuana users could be arrested for a DUI if they have a certain amount of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in their blood. Critics of the proposed law, however, observe that it can take longer than four weeks for THC to completely remove itself from a user’s system.
Thus, since a law passed in 2000 allowed some patients to use marijuana for medical purposes, critics of the bill claim that some legal marijuana users could be unfairly arrested for a DUI, even if it has been weeks since they last smoked pot.
In Neville’s words, he voted against the bill because “it puts a number of law-abiding people, in my opinion, in harm’s way.” He also told The Colorado Statesmen that, from his perspective, the bill “makes them potential criminals for doing activities that are totally legal.”
Supporters of the bill, however, do not buy this argument. They observe that prosecutors could only charge drivers with a DUI if they have a blood content of 5 nanograms per millimeter or more of THC at the time of their arrest.
This level of marijuana, they argue, is more than a simple trace amount that could remain for weeks after smoking marijuana.
This argument, though, has no convinced the critics of the bill, many of whom lined up outside the Capital chambers last week to testify against the proposed legislation.
They claim that the science behind the bill is woefully inaccurate, and that the bill would pose a serious threat to the civil freedoms of legal marijuana users. These critics, though, face an uphill climb in their battle to change the legislature’s position on the bill.