By Erin K
Questions about personal responsibility are prevalent in discussions about DUI arrests and offenses, especially in reference to bars and restaurants serving alcohol to customers who are later arrested for DUI.
Should an establishment that serves alcohol be legally responsible for the actions of someone consuming alcohol at that bar? State DUI laws vary, and Connecticut is one state in which police follow-up investigation of alcohol-serving bars and restaurants is available as a legal option.
Recent reports, however, indicate that following a crackdown on DUIs, police in Connecticut may not have followed up with the establishments where DUI suspects claimed to have been drinking.
In Connecticut, the state Liquor Control Commission has the authority to fine or suspend the liquor license of bars and restaurants based on their connection to DUI suspects. In the course of a DUI arrest, law enforcement officials often record the bar or restaurant that served those arrested for suspicion of a DUI offense.
Recently, journalists in Connecticut investigated the follow-up of these bars and restaurants, finding that police did not submit a single establishments’ information to the Liquor Control Commission in the several months of a crackdown and for weeks afterward.
The crackdown came after a rash of DUI-related accidents and deaths in Northeast Connecticut, as police increased patrols along the interstate highway, in an effort to catch more drunk drivers and to decrease alcohol-related accidents, injuries and fatalities.
Extra patrols dedicated to weekend DUI coverage, in addition to those regularly scheduled, led to more than 80 arrests. As a part of the arrest process, officers routinely asked DUI suspects where they had consumed alcoholic beverages and noted it in a standard form.
Following the crackdown, which occurred in the spring of this year, the investigation revealed that officers were not following up with the establishments in question after making an arrest, even as they gathered the necessary information to do so.
After a DUI arrest, wherein the driver tells the police where he or she drank the alcohol, police can forward that information on to the liquor commission, along with a police report.
In a response to the assertion that police weren’t pursuing this option, a police spokesperson claimed that police do follow up with the restaurants or bars that arise during the course of the arrest, noting that the context and particular details of a given incident determine the implementation and nature of the investigation.
Whatever your opinion about the responsibility of bars and restaurants in DUI cases, it would appear based on these investigations that the police in Northeast Connecticut are not taking that route. Why that may be is another question.
By Erin K
The economy has caused many of us to make cuts not only personally but also in business, and the government is no exception.
They need to make cutbacks just like the rest of us. In order to save money they have begun using advanced technologies to monitor people with DUI convictions.
Many states closed down prisons in the past couple years making it expensive and uneconomical to fill them especially for lesser crimes such as drunk drivers. So some states have adopted electrical monitoring devices for people convicted of DUI.
Included in this development of technology is Virginia. It only costs $12 for offenders to wear this ankle monitor 24 hours a day. This is the cheaper option compared to the $150.00 it costs to keep a minor offender in the Loudon County Jail. Plus the convicted driver is the one who pays the cost to wear the anklet.
Bari Lynn Williams is learning the hard way that this ankle bracelet can cause you to think twice about drinking and driving.
Back in April 2007, Williams was pulled over by the Loudon sheriff’s deputies. She had been at a golf outing earlier that day and had partaken in a few adult beverages.
The deputies pulled her over on suspicion of drinking and driving when they found baggies with drug residue.
She pleaded guilty to drunken driving and drug possession. She got two years probation. The judge told Williams he would dismiss the charges if she followed a court program of probation, therapy, attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous and periodic checks for substance abuse.
She had no problems until recently when a deputy stopped by her house for a check and her BAC content was a 0.09, a smidge over the legal limit in Virginia which is 0.08.
Williams faced up to 6 months in jail for violating the terms of her agreement- or she could wear the SCRAM (Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor) anklet. This device has a small fuel cell located in the bracelet that’s sensitive enough to detect even the tiniest amount of alcohol that emerges from a person’s skin after drinking.
SCRAM samples perspiration every 30 minutes thus being able to detect the slightest amount of alcohol on the body. So every time an offender sweats it can sense the alcohol and alert the police.
There are about 15,000 SCRAM anklets being used throughout 46 states.
Williams states she’s thankful to be wearing the bracelet because it keeps her out of jail. Sure there is the slight embarrassment she suffers with her new fashion anklet, but to her it’s worth wearing. It keeps her from drinking and will prevent her from any future charges of drinking under the influence.
By Erin K
In a surprising move, Colorado’s Governor Bill Ritter plans to divert more than $1.3 million intended to fight drunken driving to help fill the state’s budget gap estimated at $318 million.
A recent Denver Post article stated that the $1.3 million, which is raised by a surcharge imposed on everyone convicted of a DUI offense in Colorado, has been used to “pay overtime for cops working the ‘Heat Is On’ crackdowns on long holiday weekends.”
This is particularly relevant as the recent Labor Day Weekend statistics are being tabulated and due to be released shortly.
For Colorado, their planned campaign for Labor Day weekend was to be the last funded by those grants if the legislature approves Ritter’s plan, and as of Tuesday, Sept. 8th, the decision has yet to be made.
As of now, in Colorado everyone convicted of an alcohol- related traffic offense pays a $90 fine, roughly 1/3 of which goes to the Transportation Department to fund grants for DUI enforcement.
The money is then dispersed throughout the local law enforcement agencies. For 2009 a total of $1.4 million was available to 56 police and sheriff’s departments. Nearly $375,000 is expected to be left after the Labor Day enforcement campaign.
This being the money that Ritter reportedly froze in an executive order.
Larimer County sheriff’s Sgt. Gerald Baker, who is the head of the department’s traffic unit was quoted as saying, “It’s going to have an impact on our numbers, and it’s a little too early to say whether it’s going to have an impact on injury accidents or fatalities.”
In 2008, within the state of Colorado, nearly 40% of all DUI related traffic fatalities occurred within a 24 hour window of a holiday; the same time period which is now under jeopardy of losing heightened patrolling.
By Erin K
One of the more heavy handed aspects to the new South Carolina DUI laws is that the state now counts DUIs (or similar convictions) from other states as previous convictions under South Carolina law- as long as they happened within 10 years of the current DUI offense.
Also, under the new South Carolina DUI laws, DUI charges are now determined by a person’s blood alcohol content (BAC). This new provision may seem elementary to others around the country that live in more progressive states that have historical relied on blood alcohol level in determining DUI charges and impose penalties and fines for lesser violations of drunk driving.
With this, the new laws carry higher fines and lengthier jail sentences. In fact judges are now required to impose a mandatory minimum sentence for even first time offenders.
South Carolina law also now requires both first time and subsequent offenders to complete a substance abuse counseling program as part of their sentence.
The program may be an education program, treatment program or combination of both, depending on the individual’s needs. Each DUI offender is required to pay for their own program, which may cost as much as $2500
First DUI Offense
If a person is facing a DUI charge and had a BAC of .08 to .09%, he or she may face up to 30 days in jail or 48 hours of community service. There is also a $400 fine.
For a first DUI offense with a blood alcohol level of .1 to .15%, the offender may face up to 30 days in jail, or 72 hours of community service, and a $500 fine.
If a first DUI offender has a BAC of .16% or higher, he or she will face 30 to 60 days in jail or 30 days of community service. The fine increases to $1000.
Subsequent DUI Offenses
In addition to the following penalties, second and subsequent DUI offenders also may be required to surrender the registration and license plates of any vehicles they own.
A person convicted of their second DUI may be required to spend a minimum of 5 to 30 days in jail, depending on the driver’s BAC. In strengthening DUI penalties, the State’s legislature removed the possibility of substituting community service hours for jail time for subsequent offenders.
Subsequent DUI offenders with a BAC of .08 to .09% will face a mandatory minimum 5 days in jail and may receive up to 1 year in jail. The fine will range between $2100 to $5100.
If the offender has a BAC of .1 to .15% with a subsequent DUI offense, he or she will face a mandatory minimum 30 day jail sentence and may be sentenced up to 2 years in jail. The fine will jump to $2500 to $5500.
With a BAC of .16% or higher, a subsequent DUI offender will be facing a mandatory minimum 90 days in jail and may be sentenced up to 3 years. The fine will increase to in between $3500 and $6500.
Please keep in mind that this list of penalties is for informational purposes only and is by no means all-inclusive. DUI penalties will vary according to the specific situation.
But just this brief glimpse at the many changes to South Carolina DUI laws proves that the state is no longer a refuge for underage drinkers, and those who see a crack in the system allowing for minimum consequences for maximum negligence when it comes to their decision to drink and drive.
Hopefully, this will breed a more responsible era for South Carolina and make the highways and byways safer.
By Erin K
Kansas University will be adding another requirement this year for some students. New students under the age of 22 will be required to take a two hour course on the affects and dangers of alcohol.
The class is part of the initiatives the University is taking after two students died in unrelated alcohol incidents last spring from underage binge drinking.
University officials believe the course is realistic because it assumes that most students do drink, regardless of age. The class teaches students about the affects alcohol consumption has on the body and decision-making abilities.
“It’s not, if you will, a message of abstinence, because, I think we are realistic that telling students not to drink at all probably isn’t as helpful as saying this is how you can be safe,” Marlesa Roney, vice provost for student success, told the press. “By providing detailed information on the effects of alcohol in an easily accessible, interactive format, we hope to help students make wise choices while in school and throughout their lifetimes.”
The University also plans to notify parents about drug and alcohol violations by students 21 or younger. Alcohol amnesty will be offered for students who call for medical assistance concerned about alcohol poisoning whether the incident involves themselves or a friend.
The changes in the University’s policy comes after the deaths of Jason Wren and Dalton Eli Hawkins. Wren, 19, was found dead at his Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity house on March 8. His blood alcohol level was four times the legal limit. In April, Hawkins fell off the roof of a dorm and died after drinking.
Source: Lawrence Journal World and KARE 11
By Erin K
On August 13, New York Governor David Paterson submitted legislation to increase penalties for drivers convicted of DWI with children in the car.
The Child Passenger Protection Act would make drinking and driving a felony if there were passengers under the age of 16 in the car, according to a statement released by the Governor’s office.
Right now, New York DUI law treats the offense as a misdemeanor or traffic infraction. There are 35 states that have child endangerment laws, imposing higher DUI penalties for offenders who put a child at risk while drinking and driving.
The Governor’s proposed legislation is as follows:
- A DUI offender driving with a passenger under the age of 16 who is killed can be charged with aggravated vehicular homicide and receive five to 25 years in prison if convicted. The charge will be considered a Class B violent felony.
- DUI offenders driving with a passenger under the age of 16 who is seriously injured can be charged with aggravated vehicular assault and may receive three and a half to 15 years in prison if convicted. The charge will be considered a Class C violent felony.
- Individuals convicted of DUI with a passenger who is a child under the age of 16 may receive up to four years in prison. The charge is a Class E felony.
- If an individual is charged with DUI, with a blood alcohol level of .08% or more and there is a child passenger under 16, their driver’s license will automatically suspended, pending prosecution.
- A DUI offender convicted of drinking and driving with a child passenger will automatically lose their license for a year after a first DUI offense. If the offender has prior DUI convictions and the subsequent conviction is within 10 years of the first DUI, he or she will automatically lose their driver’s license for 18 months.
The new legislation proposed by the Governor follows a crash in Westchester County where eight people were killed, including four children.
Source: News Channel 34, WNYC
By Erin K
Since 2005, when New Mexico became the first state to pass a law requiring an ignition interlock device for all people with DUI convictions, 10 other states have enacted DUI laws mandating DUI offenders install ignition interlock devices.
The ignition interlock law campaign is gaining momentum. The federal transportation funding bill that will be discussed by Congress this fall requires every state to mandate DUI offenders install ignition interlock devices. It states don’t pass such a law, the state governments may lose federal highway funding.
An ignition interlock device requires a driver blow into a breathalyzer before the car will start. It will stop the engine from starting if alcohol is detected on the driver’s breath.
Currently, 47 states and Washington D.C. require ignition interlock systems for some offenders. Alabama, South Dakota and Vermont are the only states to not have any such law.
Supporters of the law point out that New Mexico was one perennial national leader in alcohol-related crashes, but when the state launched a campaign and passed an ignition interlock law, there was a 35% drop in DUI deaths.
Today, there are 150,000 vehicles that have ignition interlock systems installed. If every driver with a DUI conviction were required to install the divorce, there would be close to 1 million.
Source: USA Today
By Erin K
As of Sept. 1, people in Louisiana who refuse to take a breath test will have their driver’s license suspended for one year. The penalty is twice as long as the current penalty for breathalyzer refusal.
“Now … it’s worse if you refuse the test,” said DWI attorney Robert Fleming.
Under Louisiana DUI law, a driver who refuses a blood alcohol test on a first DUI offense will have his or her driver’s license suspended for six months and 18 months for a second refusal.
The new law that Gov. Bobby Jindal signed on June 1 doubles the first offense penalty and suspends the offender’s license for two years on a subsequent offense.
Supporters of the new DUI law feel that it will give drivers the incentive to cooperate with police during a DUI stop.
Many supporters say that currently the common thought among many DUI offenders in Louisiana is to refuse the breathalyzer test.
“The problem was that drivers were refusing to take the test” on the advice of DUI attorneys, said Jefferson Parish District Attorney Paul Connick Jr.
According to Donna Tate, executive director of the Louisiana chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Louisiana has one of the highest refusal rates in the country. In 2005, 39% of drivers pulled over for drinking and driving refused a breathalyzer, when the national average was 22.4%.
Source: nola.com
By Erin K
Oklahoma State Rep. Harold Wright believes DUI laws need to get tough to cut down on drunken driving deaths. The Republican lawmakers from Weatherford, Okla. wants zero tolerance laws for DUI.
People enjoying glass of wine at dinner or a bottle of beer after work could wind up in jail.
Oklahoma DUI laws currently have the legal blood alcohol limit for driving at .08%. Police also have the right to detain a driver suspected of DUI, no matter what the blood alcohol level.
The proposed legislation will be studied and discussed this fall.
Source: KOCO.com
By Erin K
Recently Gov. Jack A Markell signed two new bills into law to create stricter DUI penalties for people convicted of a DUI offense in Delaware.
House Bill 152: Increased Fines and Jail Time
House Bill 152 increases DUI fines for subsequent offenders, especially drivers with five previous DUI convictions. The bill also called for increased jail time for subsequent DUI offenders and creating a felony DUI for drivers with six and seven DUI convictions.
Last year there were approximately 6,916 DUI arrests, of which 59 people had been previously arrested at least five other times for drunk driving. Since January of this year, 3,213 drivers have been arrested for DUI, with 40 of those people having five or more previous DUI arrests.
House Bill 177: Strict Penalties for First DUI Offense
The second bill signed into law strengthens penalties for a first time DUI offense if the driver has a blood alcohol level of .15% or higher.
If convicted of a DUI with a BAC of .15%, the period of hard revocation for those who are mandated to have an ignition interlock device is increased from 30 to 45 days.
The driver’s license is suspended for six months instead of three, and the ignition interlock device must be used for six months.
The bill limits driving authority of an ignition interlock device licensed driver to work, home, school, alcohol treatment programs and interlock service provider appointments.
Source: Sussex Countian
