By Topher
Starting soon, Ontario will initiate the most strict age restrictions on DUI and drunk driving in Canada.
The new DUI laws will kick in on August 1, according to an article in The Waterloo Region-Record.
Under the new laws, drivers under the age of 22 won’t be able to drink a drop of alcohol, or take a single sip, before they drive a car.
The announcement came down from Transportation Minister Kathleen Wynne. Drivers under 21 won’t be allowed to have any alcohol in their blood while they are driving, regardless of what type of driver’s license they have.
Canada has a graduated series of licenses leading up to the G license, which allows drivers to operate any car, van or small truck and trailer up to a certain size. The G1 license allows a driver to drive in the presence of a fully licensed driver who has at least four years of driving experience.
A G2 license allows a driver to drive without accompaniment, but it comes with other restrictions on the number of passengers and the time of night they can carry passengers.
Even before the new legislation goes into effect, G1 and G2 drivers were not allowed to have any alcohol in their system when they are behind the wheel. With the new laws, only G license holders who are over the age of 21 are allowed to have alcohol in their system that does not exceed the legal blood-alcohol limit of .05 percent.
The legislation is only now taking effect, after having been passed back in 2009.
There was dispute surrounding the legislation, and lawmakers removed a provision that would have limited the number of passengers that a teenage driver could have in the car.
Drivers who are caught violating the new law will have their license immediately suspended for 24 hours, and they will face a future suspension and a possible fine of up to $500 Canadian dollars.
Emna Dhahak, a spokesperson for the Ministry of Transportation, told The Waterloo Region-Record that the legislation is “based on sound research and analysis.”
16-year-old Easton Page agreed with the law. “Mixing alcohol and young drivers doesn’t usually work out,” he said. “If you’re going to be behind the wheel you need to be completely in the right mind and focus on what you’re doing. You can’t have that taken away from you.”
Another young person felt that the law may single out young people. “I think that it’s a really good idea for people who are just learning to drive,” said Meghan Garber. “But I think it’s unfair how they target the younger people.”
Andy Murie, who is CEO of MADD Canada, offered that skeptics should check the numbers.
Those aged 16 to 24 represent 13 percent of the Canadian population, but account for 33 percent of DUI deaths. “They don’t just kill themselves,” said Murie. “They kill passengers, their friends, and they kill innocent people. They don’t get to choose when this is their performance.”
Accord to the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, the peak ages for DUI collisions are between 19 and 21.
By Topher
The State of Wisconsin is working hard to overcome its perceived culture of intoxication by imposing tougher DUI penalties.
Wisconsin leads the nation in binge drinking and drunk driving crashes, according to numbers cited in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.
But a new push has led to a new series of DUI laws that take effect on July 1, 2010. The new laws include stiffer penalties for drunk drivers found with young passengers, a high blood alcohol content and multiple offenses on record.
The new Wisconsin DUI laws include additional penalties for the following offenses:
- First DUI Offense: A person convicted of a first or second DUI offense who has a passenger under the age of sixteen in the car faces a fine of $350-$1100 or jail time ranging from five days to six months. If a first time offender DUI offender has a blood alcohol level of greater than 0.15 then an interlock ignition device will be installed.
- Third DUI Offense: A person convicted of a third DUI offense will receive at least 45 days in prison. The sentence used to be 30 days.
- Fourth DUI Offense: If an offender is convicted a fourth time within five years, it will be considered a felony. There will also be a fine will between $600 and $10,000, and possible jail time will range between six months to six years.
- Seventh, Eighth, or Ninth Offense: A person convicted of this many DUIs will serve at least three years in jail for each offense.
- Tenth Offense: A person committing a tenth offense would receive at least four years of jail time.
- Repeat DUI offenders: Repeat DUI offenders convicted of DUI causing injury would receive up to six years in jail or would be required to pay up to $2,000 in fines. This punishment would be doubled if there was a minor in the car at the time of the offense.
- Offenders with a lower BAC will face the same penalties: Under the old regulations, offenders with a blood alcohol level below .10 but still above the legal limit were subject to lighter penalties, but that is no longer the case.
The bill is expected to cost Wisconsin an extra $12.8 million per year, largely due to the costs required to house inmates. This cost is expected to be offset by the introduction of higher fees to reinstate revoked or suspended licenses, as well as by a program that would allow judges to decrease jail time in return for offenders completing a drug or alcohol abuse course.
Supporters of the bill say that this will not only drive the cost of the bill down, but decrease the rate of repeat offenders, saving Wisconsin money in the long-term.
Polls indicate that the Wisconsin public is firmly behind the change in the drunk driving laws.
Wisconsin Public Radio and St. Norbert College conducted a survey of 400 people, 85 percent of whom support the bill. Fifty-five percent also support using a higher liquor tax to help finance the bill, though that idea was struck down by Wisconsin Assembly Democrats before the bill was passed.
By Topher
Missouri governor Jay Nixon recently signed drunk driving legislation that will attempt to guide DUI offenders into alcohol treatment programs, and to strengthen punishment for repeat offenders, the Columbia Missourian is reporting.
The legislation will take effect on August 28, and according to Nixon it will make roads safer and make the drunk driving laws across the state more uniform. In the final days of legislative session there was little dissent from fellow lawmakers over a bill that will make drastically change Missouri DUI laws.
“This should mean that fewer families will have to answer a knock at the door in the middle of the night and learn that a loved one’s life has been cut short by a drunk driver,” Nixon said of the legislation.
The legislation will require trials for anyone with two or more DUI convictions to go to state trial courts instead of local municipal courts.
It also puts in place the means for law enforcement to standardize reporting DUI offenses to a statewide database. Reporting is already a requirement, but the legislation will require compliance certification to apply for grants.
The bill will also push alcohol treatment for repeat offenders and for those whose blood-alcohol content measures two times the legal limit. Also, trial courts will, under the bill, be able to set up DUI courts that combine supervision, drug testing, monitoring and treatment – all paid for by offenders.
The current legal guidelines for DUI came under scrutiny recently when a report from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch showed that the state was having trouble keeping track of just how many prior offenses DUI-convicted motorists had on the books. There were also a large number of cases in which plea bargains kept cases off the books.
The new DUI legislation was created in response to the outcry that resulted from these reports.
Around 35,000 people were arrested for DUI in Missouri in 2009. There have been 9,000 DUI arrests already this year. Over a quarter of the fatal car accidents in the state in 2008 involved alcohol, as well as 5 percent of all motor vehicle accidents.
“It shows our Missouri citizens that we are moving in the right direction,” said Missouri for Mothers Against Drunk Driving victim services manager Phaedra Olsen of the legislation.
By Topher
A big change could be in store for the DUI laws in Florida if the governor signs a new bill that recently passed the state legislature.
House Bill 971 is on Florida Governor Charlie Crist’s desk this week waiting for his signature or his veto. As the governor weighs the decision, outside groups continue to debate the merits of the law.
The question at hand is really whether HB 971 would make Floridians more safe, or whether it will simply put more intoxicated drivers on the road.
Currently, Florida law permanently revokes the licenses of drivers with four or more DUI convictions. The new bill would allow these drivers to reinstate their license if they passed stringent requirements, including the installation of an ignition interlock system.
An ignition interlock system is a small device that requires a driver to blow into a handheld alcohol sensor connected to the dashboard. The sensor tests the driver’s blood alcohol level. If the driver is under the influence, the device essentially “locks” the car, and will not allow it to start.
There are other conditions for license reinstatement as well:
- No one convicted of DUI manslaughter convicted is eligible for the program
- There is a ten-year waiting period between the previous DUI and the reinstatement of the license
- The driver must not have driven on a suspended or revoked license during the waiting period
- The driver must complete a DUI program within six months of the reinstatement
- For the first year the driver must also drive only to commute to and from work
Critics of the bill have several complaints about the changes to a law they feel currently functions well. First they object to putting multiple DUI offenders back on the road.
Another criticism of the bill is that it could potentially provide big business to the two vendors Florida has chosen to supply interlock ignition systems to the state.
Ignition interlock systems are not cheap, and the full cost must be paid by DUI offender. The Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicle state that total costs come to almost $250 for installation and an additional monthly maintenance fee of $67.50. That’s about $1,000 for one year of service.
Some groups, including Mothers Against Drunk Driving, support the proposed law. With their license already revoked, many drivers with multiple DUIs hit the roads anyway, feeling they have nothing left to lose, proponents of the law say.
The new law will provide an incentive for “good behavior” and, through the use of ignition interlock devices, keep a closer eye on drivers.
In the minds of the bill’s supporters, the close monitoring of former drunk drivers is better than not watching them at all and simply punishing them when they further break the law.
The DUI law changes are only a part of HB 971, which as a whole would impart much-needed changes to the Florida transportation system. The bill is expected to be signed into law.
By Topher
A proposed DUI law working its way through the New York senate and assembly would close a loophole and make it more difficult for drunk drivers to avoid prosecution.
The bill is commonly known as Jack Shea’s law after the Olympic medalist in the skeleton who was killed by a drunk driver in 2002. It has moved through the New York Senate, and now it must pass the assembly to go into effect.
Senator Charles Fuschillo, a supporter of the legislation, told the Legislative Gazette he was confident it would pass the assembly.
The new legislation revolves around Section 1194 of the state’s Vehicle and Traffic Law. This section defines who is allowed and qualified to take a blood sample at the scene of an accident from a person suspected of drunk driving.
In 2002, the driver who killed Jack Shea was able to avoid charges because of a loophole in this section. The argument that got him out of prosecution was that a physician had to directly supervise the drawing of blood samples.
In the Shea case, a police officer had requested that an emergency medical technician take the blood sample without a doctor present. Instead, a registered nurse and physician’s assistant oversaw the drawing of blood.
The blood sample had shown the driver to have a .15 blood-alcohol level at the time of the blood test.
Based on this loophole, however, the court had to dismiss the case, even in appeal.
The new legislation would take away the need for a doctor to be on the scene, and it would broaden the options for those with the authority to draw blood to nurse practitioners, licensed practical nurses and other professionals with a license to draw blood in New York.
When time is essential in many DUI cases, the ability of emergency first responders to draw blood could mean the difference in some situations. As it stands now, the law could discount blood drawn by EMTs and tested for blood-alcohol content.
Also, often in rural parts of the state, a doctor is not available to oversee blood drawing within a sufficient time period.
“This is another measure to strengthen provisions to get DWI drivers prosecuted,” said Fuschillo. He has been working on the bill since 2006.
By Topher
DUI Offenders in Maryland may soon be easy to spot.
Delmarvanow.com, the online arm of the Salisbury Daily Times, is report that state legislators have introduced a bill that would require repeat DUI offenders to place a special license plate on their vehicle.
Maryland delegate Marvin E. Holmes Jr., of Prince George’s County, has introduced the bill each year for the last several years. He has thus far been unsuccessful in getting the bill passed.
The bill proposes that those who have been convicted of three or more DUIs would be required to use a brightly colored license plate on their cars. Currently, repeat DUI offenders are subject to higher insurance rates, jail time and fines. Delegate Holmes, however, would like to see something more publicly visible in place.
Holmes called the proposal “another tool in the toolbox.” He told DelmarvaNow.com that there were several reasons to implement the highly visible license plates. One was the social stigma that would result from it, which would deter potential offenders in a kind of “scarlet letter” effect.
The second effect would be to enable police and fellow drivers to take caution when approaching a vehicle with such a license plate.
According to Caroline Cash, who is executive director of Maryland’s chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, there are more than 25,000 people in the state of Maryland who would qualify for such a license plate.
Wicomico County Sherriff Mike Lewis told Delmarvanow.com that there were hundreds of people in the Lower Shore region of Maryland with three or more DUI offenses that would qualify.
Georgia, Minnesota and Ohio are states that already have such laws in place regarding special license plates as DUI penalties for repeat offenders, said Melissa Savage, program director with the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Such bills have been introduced in other states like Iowa, New York and Virginia, but they did not pass.
Rather than supporting the idea, Mothers Against Drunk Driving are supporting ignition interlock devices that require a breathalyzer before the operator can start a vehicle.
“While we appreciate the idea and efforts of Delegate Holmes, we feel that the ignition interlock is the best way to avoid allowing drunk drivers in Maryland,” Cash said.
Holmes stated that he also supported ignition interlock laws, and that he thought the special license plate would add to the arsenal of deterrents.
By Topher
In 2007, a Minnesota man was arrested after police found him asleep at the wheel of his car, parked in his designated spot in front of his own apartment building. According to the Star Tribune, Daryl Fleck was drunk, and he was subsequently charged with driving under the influence.
Recently, the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld a jury’s drunk driving conviction of Fleck. The court determined that there was enough evidence for the jury to conclude that Fleck was in control of his vehicle when he was arrested.
Fleck’s conviction was his fourth for DUI, and he was sentenced to four years in prison. The conviction had already passed through the state’s Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction and paved the way for the Supreme Court appeal.
G. Tony Atwal, Fleck’s appellate lawyer, did not agree with the court’s decision to uphold the conviction. He told the Star Tribune, “Presumably, if you’re in or about your car, the county attorney could now charge you with a physical control DWI.”
Atwal explained his decision to pursue the various appeals because there was not evidence to suggest that Fleck had actually driven the vehicle that he was found in. According to Atwal, the car’s engine was cold to the touch, and a police officer wasn’t able to start it at all.
Atwall also noted that the fact that the car was parked in a parking lot near Fleck’s home made a great deal of difference. Had it been parked by the side of the road, for example, the situation would change.
According to the Star Tribune, the Supreme Court did not agree. The decision handed down read, “Mere presence in or about a vehicle is insufficient to show physical control; it is the overall situation that is determinative.”
The decision, written by Justice Alan Page, did acknowledge that the circumstances of this situation were not typical of the more common “physical control” drunk driving cases.
The “physical control of a motor vehicle” law is intended to prevent drunk people from getting in a position to operate a motor vehicle, but rather to enter vehicles only as passengers.
By admin
Last year, New York state saw about 12,000 DUI-related deaths, according to local CBS news.
As a result, the state has recently enacted strict new DUI laws to help decrease the number of fatal accidents. State Governor David Patterson signed the Child Passenger Protection Act, which outlines some of the toughest DUI laws in the country – according to the governor.
Patterson hopes it will help provide police officers with the tools they need to better prosecute DUI offenders.
The Child Passenger Protection Act is also referred to as Leandra’s Law, for an 11-year-old girl named Leandra Rosado who was killed as a passenger in a drunk driving accident.
Leandra was in a car with a friend’s drunk mother, Carmen Huertas, behind the wheel. Huertas caused a car accident, causing the car to flip. Leandra was flung from the vehicle, and later died from head and chest injuries. All other passengers survived the accident.
According to a local CBS report, Huertas was charged with manslaughter, vehicular manslaughter, DUI and assault.
Under Leandra’s Law, anyone driving a car while under the influence of drugs or alcohol while a child under 16 is a passenger can be charged with a felony, and may serve up to four years in jail if convicted – even if it is a first DUI offense.
Drunk drivers who cause serious injuries to a child could be charged with a Class C felony – punishable with up to 15 years in prison.
If a child dies as a result of drunk driving, the offender can be charged with a Class B felony and spend up to 25 years in prison.
In addition to increased DUI penalties, parents caught driving under the influence will be reported to the Statewide Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment.
Leandra’s Law also makes it mandatory for any convicted drunk driver to have an ignition interlock device in their car.
Interlock devices require the driver to breathe into them before the vehicle will start. If any alcohol is detected in the breath test, the car will not start.
These new laws are meant to curb all future DUI fatalities – not just those of children. Hopefully drivers will think twice before getting behind the wheel after one too many drinks.
By admin
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 admin
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 admin
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 admin
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 admin
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 admin
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 admin
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