Sobriety checkpoints have existed for years and continue to serve as a deterrent to drunk driving. While it is not the most aggressive approach to alleviating the carnage on the road, it does serve as an important piece of the effort to raise public awareness and education relevant to the dilemma that is drinking and driving. And, even as effective as these checkpoints can be, they can also be as saturated throughout the community as manpower will allow.

Saturation patrols take on another approach as they are a vigorous tactic used by law enforcement agencies to significantly impact an area that is known for a high concentration of alcohol-impaired drivers. Saturation patrols have been used by law enforcement much longer than sobriety checkpoints, sometimes under a different name or without a specific name at all.

The difference in the two approaches is mainly found in teh structure of the saturation patrol. This tactic involves an increased effort on the part of law enforcement to target a specific geographic area in order to identify and arrest impaired drivers.  The area is considerably larger than that selected for the sobriety checkpoint. Selected areas need to have demonstrated a statistically high incidence of DUI crashes or fatalities and take into account the safety of motorists and officers.

The focus within the saturation patrol is on impaired driving behaviors, including left of center, following too closely, driving recklessly, driving aggressively and speeding. This focus tends to be effective within specific areas as repeat offenders become adept at avoiding detection at sobriety checkpoints. To be effective, saturation patrols must be ongoing, receive intense media attention and be supported by persecutors and judges.

Statistics tell a positive story as in the state of Missouri, DUI arrests averaged about five per checkpoint, Ohio averaged less than seven DUI arrests per checkpoint and Tennessee’s aggressive checkpoint program averaged less than one DUI arrest per checkpoint. What is not accounted for is the number of impaired drivers deterred by the operations and the additional number of other enforcement actions taken.

Statistics show that in overall arrests per hour, a dedicated saturation patrol is the most effective method of apprehending offenders. These concentrated efforts also promote a general deterrence of the activities are publicized and become widely known. The success of the program can be determined by variables specific to a particular area and law

A government report shows that 15 percent of adult drivers throughout the nation report driving while under the influence of alcohol in the previous year. Within the state of Wisconsin, the rates are quite a bit higher. Estimates show that more than 25 percent of the state’s adult drivers have driven while under the influence. Following behind Wisconsin are North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska and South Dakota.

On the low side, Utah leads the way with less than 10 percent of its adults reporting they had driven while under the influence. A number of Southern states follow close behind Utah as demonstrating the proper way to approach drinking and driving. Reporting less than 11 percent of adults driving while under the influence are such states as West Virginia, Arkansas, Kentucky and North Carolina.

According to health experts, this data taken from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, which surveyed 127,283 adults and asked whether or not they had driven under the influence in the past year, supports other surveys conducted in the industry. State-by-state breakdowns in other studies show residents in the Northern states are more likely to engage in heavy alcohol consumption.

Dr. H. Westley Clark of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration noted that the findings from these studies are not surprising, but they do highlight the need for these jurisdictions to take the data and think about how they approach education and enforcement.

According to Eric Goplerud, research professor at George Washington University Medical Center, cultural and demographic issues tend to play a role in higher rates of driving under the influence in certain states. Religious affiliations in the Southeast tend to strongly discourage drinking; such affiliations don’t tend to exist in the Upper Midwest.

A RAND Corporation study examined DUI instances in the state of California and found that arrest and conviction rates are higher among the Hispanic population. Among a sample of repeat DUI offenders, less-acculturated members appeared more likely to report a repeat DUI conviction at a two year follow-up than more-acculturated members.

The findings from this study show that education and prevention methods within such cultures need to be designed according to the audience. Measurements taken after a new approach is taken can help to determine proper and effective methods for reducing DUI offenses.

In most states, dram shop liability arises when an establishment sells alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person or minor who then goes and injures a third-party in an alcohol-related incident, such as an auto accident.

Restaurants, bars, clubs and liquor stores must take precautions against incurring dram shop liability when providing alcohol to customers. Shephard’s Beach Resort in Clearwater, Florida has discovered first-hand the danger of failing to inquire about a customer’s level of intoxication prior to serving him alcohol or taking care to ensure that an intoxicated patron does not get behind the wheel. Joshua West, twenty-five, was drinking at the resort in April 2009 and was kicked out of the bar because he had fallen against the wall and collapsed into a drunken heap. Records indicate that West had been served ten Long Island Iced Teas, a highly potent concoction, within a two-hour period. After his collapse, employees of the bar walked West to his car and watched him drive away. He was described as being “grossly” intoxicated.

After driving away from the bar, often at speeds approaching 90 miles per hour, West jumped a sidewalk and hit Andrew Hall while he stood outside his apartment. West fled the scene but was apprehended by Pinellas County Sheriff’s deputies. Three hours after the crash, West’s blood alcohol content (BAC) still measured 0.188, more than twice the legal limit.

Hall spent seven months in a hospital, mending a body that had been literally torn apart. He suffered a severed leg and crushed pelvis. In a cruel twist of fate, the twenty-year-old suffers from cerebral palsy and was only able to walk after years of surgeries and therapies; when he was little, doctors held out little hope that he would ever learn to walk. West was able to unravel all that hard work in just one drunken car ride – Hall is back in his wheelchair. He hopes to, one day, walk again with the aid of a prosthesis.

Although West is currently serving an eight-year prison sentence, Hall is, understandably, seeking financial compensation for his injuries. He has targeted Shephard’s Beach Resort. However, in Florida, lawsuits based on dram-shop liability are not easy to win. In Florida, a victim can only recover under dram shop law if he can show that an establishment willfully served a minor or person “habitually addicted” to alcohol. Although states such as Massachusetts and New Hampshire have lower thresholds of liability that attach if the patron shows “obvious signs of impairment”, Florida has one of the most lenient dram shop laws on the books. The Florida Retail Federation, a trade organization that represents drinking establishments, has vigorously opposed strengthening Florida’s dram shop law and, instead, advocates education to combat overconsumption of alcoholic beverages.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/civil/suit-says-clearwater-beach-bar-responsible-for-severed-leg/1086925
 

Could it just be that I only happen to stumble upon the news articles about recidivist drunk drivers? Or, perhaps the LA Times only reports on this particular type of sensational and frustrating story? I don’t think so. I think recidivist drunk driving in California is the rule, and not the exception.

One-off DUI v. Habitual DUI offender

By any account, California treats first-time drunk drivers with kid gloves. Although this person has exhibited behavior akin to reckless disregard for the safety of others or attempted manslaughter, he or she is likely to get off with a fine, community service, alcohol “education” classes, and unsupervised probation. The driver typically loses his or her license for a relatively short number of months. But, maybe these drivers actually should be treated with leniency. I’m not convinced that each and every person who gets a DUI is an alcoholic and, if this is true, there will be some number of people who learn their lesson the first time and never drive under the influence of alcohol again.

However, this article isn’t about all drunk drivers. I’m particularly interested in those people who don’t seem to “get it” – those who continue to drink and drive even after been arrested for a DUI.

Drunk driving: criminal behavior or consequences of untreated alcoholism?

In 2000, California voters took to the polls and decided that some drug-addicted criminals deserve a chance to clean up their act before incurring a criminal record. The passing of Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (SACPA), created a drug diversion program that offers certain drug addicts the opportunity to attend an intensive drug treatment program in exchange for having their drug charges dismissed. Clearly, the voters realized that crime committed as a direct result of drug addiction will only be stopped if the addiction stops. However, although the same could be said for alcoholic drivers, no similar diversion program currently exists in California for them. Instead of being offered real treatment for their problems, California alcoholics are simply punished for driving while intoxicated.

While drug addicts can find themselves in Court for any number of charges, such as theft, drug dealing, and drug possession, alcoholics usually enter the criminal justice system only when they get behind the wheel of a vehicle. Why are drug addicts offered treatment, but alcoholics aren’t? Perhaps because drug addicts rarely endanger the lives of others; they usually only hurt themselves. Or, maybe the average citizen has learned that drug addiction is an illness, but doesn’t regard alcoholism in the same light.

However, if we aren’t going to offer alcoholics the incentive to get treatment, we must at least make the punishment for drunk driving harsh enough that some may actually stop driving under the influence for fear of what will happen to them if they are caught again. California’s current attitude toward drunk drivers — not offering treatment and imposing weak punishments — is a recipe for disaster. We offer our drunk drivers only ineffective negative consequences for bad acts when positive consequences for effective alcohol treatment would go a lot further at protecting the general public from drunk drivers.

Although successive drunk driving offenses do carry potentially stricter and harsher sentences, an offender can reset the DUI ticker back to zero if enough years (currently ten years) have passed between incidents. This allows a chronic drunk driver to escape harsher punishment for having multiple offenses. Under current California DUI law, a drunk driver faces jail time for up to three drunk driving convictions in ten years. But, unless someone gets hurt, jail time for a first or even second DUI is rare. And it is only after the drunk driver is arrested for a forth DUI that prosecutors can elect to charge the driver with a felony, making him eligible for state prison.

Perhaps a part of the recidivist DUI problem also stems from the fact that very few drunk drivers ever get caught. A rational actor may make a conscious decision to take a chance behind the wheel, given the fact that they are likely to evade detection.
Thus, assuming that California voters are a long way from offering DUI offenders any sort of incentive for intensive treatment of their alcohol abuse issues, any effective solution to the drunk driving problem needs to include both increasing sanctions for driving under the influence as well as increasing the opportunities for detection.

New California DUI law proposed

At least one lawmaker in California thinks that DUI sanctions are not tough enough and is working to change that. Assemblyman Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo) has proposed a bill that would allow judges to permanently revoke a drunk driver’s license after the third DUI conviction, as well as eliminate the ten-year limitation on prior offenses. This means that judges would be able to consider a driver’s lifetime driving record when deciding on the proper sentence.

Hill’s bill has stalled in Committee over complaints that it would cost the state too much money and increase the burden on the already over-burdened prison system. An analysis of the proposal revealed that the bill would cost taxpayers between $11 million and $28 million (provided the prisons need to be expanded). Lawmakers also point out that the federal government has ordered the State of California to reduce its prison population. The elimination of the ten-year “look back” period is the provision of the bill that is the most costly, as it would increase the number of drivers eligible for felony DUI charges; this would result in more people being sentenced to serve actual time in jail.

California was faced with a similar fiscal problem when handling the punishment of drug addicts. The solution lawmakers came up with? Sent them to treatment instead of jail! But, I digress.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and California DUI Lawyers Association have come out against the bill, arguing that substances abusers will be less incentivized to deal with substance abuse issues if there is no chance that they will ever get their driver’s license back. I finally agree with the ACLU about something.

For his part, Assemblyman Hill has indicated that there is no room for compromise on elimination of the ten-year look-back period, but that he is willing to entertain relaxing the part of the bill that allows for permanent revocation of a driver’s license. He has also expressed willingness to consider adding a “second-chance” provision for drunk drivers who have participated in substance abuse treatment and have stayed out of trouble. This would be the first step in recognizing that recidivist DUI offenders should be treated the same as drug addicted criminals – incentivizing them to get treatment in order maintain a clean criminal record. Sounds good as a talking point, but I won’t hold my breath.

Millie Cavanaugh, Esq., is an attorney licensed to practice law in California and Massachusetts.

http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_15010307?nclick_check=1
 

Proposed legislation seeks to authorize the use of ignition interlock devices in vehicles in place of other sanctions. Unanimous approval was granted by the Vermont House of Representatives to a bill that relies on the ignition-interlock technology to lower rates of drunk-driving subsequent offenses.

Those who are backing the bill claim the devices help to make the roads safer as they prevent DUI offenders from repeatedly getting behind the wheel while intoxicated. The impact is possible as the device works like a breathalyzer machine. If the driver uses the device and their blood-alcohol content exceeds .02 percent, the device prevents the car from starting.

There are some who worry that the use of such a device will send the wrong kind of message if it means reducing suspensions. Proponents of the legislation argue it is a reasonable trade off as the use of such devices can reduce recidivism rates by as much as 90 percent in the 47 other states that have already passed laws in favor of ignition-interlock devices.

"The problem with current DUI laws is that, in a rural state particularly, if you take somebody’s license away and that person has a job and has to get to work, they’re going to drive," said Rep. Eldred French, a Shrewsbury Democrat in the Vermont Press Bureau. "As many as 70 percent of people will continue to drive without a driver’s license simply because they have to."

The Douglas administration, the law enforcement community and Mothers Against Drunk Driving are all in support of the bill, which specifies requirements for first-time offenders. For those who drive under the influence, an installation fee of up to $250 will be charged and the 90-day civil suspension is eliminated.

For offenders who are caught the second time, the ignition interlock offers a reduction in the current 18-month suspension to as little as 90 days. Third time offenders could also benefit as the implementation of the device could reduce lifetime suspension could be shortened to as little as one year.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released a report in 2007 that cited a number of different studies that show interlock legislation reduces recidivism rates by as much as 90 percent. A recent New Mexico study showed re-offense rates dropped by 50 percent when convicted DUI drivers had the interlock devices installed on their vehicles.

The new law is not set to go into effect until July 2011, allowing sufficient time for the Department of Motor Vehicles and other state agencies to make rules and study other details. In any situation, a judge does have the discretion to deny the interlock option to any offender.

According to the BoatU.S. Foundation for Boating Safety and Clean Water, half of all boating accidents involve drugs or alcohol. The US Coast Guard estimates that the number of non-fatal boating accidents is approximately 60,000 per year, with property damage estimates in the $240 million range. Further, studies show that a boat operator with a blood alcohol content above .10 is 10 times more likely to be killed in a boating accident than a sober boater.

Boating enhances the dangerous effects of alcohol and drugs

Navigating a boat under the influence of drugs or alcohol may actually be more dangerous that operating a motor vehicle. Studies have shown that four hours of exposure to noise, vibration, sun, glare and wind on the water produces a “boater’s hypnosis” that slows reaction time almost as much as if you were legally drunk. Add actual drugs or alcohol to a body that is already suffering from the effects of boater’s hypnosis, and you dramatically multiply deficits in balance, judgment, and reaction time.

Unlike with driving a car, where the driver sits in a seat for the entirety of the operation, maintaining proper balance while boating is a major safety issue. Incidents of falling overboard and drowning account for twenty-five percent of boating fatalities annually. If balance is already impaired due to drugs or alcohol, the instability of the boat can cause one to fall overboard, bump sensitive equipment, or launch someone else over the side. If an intoxicated individual does happen to fall overboard, the chances of suffering from the effects of cold water increase, as alcohol in the blood hastens the numbing effects of cold temperatures.

Alcohol is not the only substance that can cause problems for boaters. The effects of prescription drugs, even if properly prescribed by a treating physician, can be intensified on the water. Further, if a legally prescribed drug impairs a boater, he or she can still be held liable for injuries or infractions.

While some states may already regulate boating under the influence of drugs or alcohol (BUI), they do so with deference to the federal government. Operating a boat while under the influence of drugs or alcohol is a federal offense and is subject to a fine; the federal legal blood alcohol content (BAC) limit is currently .08. States typically have lower blood alcohol content thresholds, with .05 being a common limit.

BUI tragedy in New Hampshire

Erica Blizzard, a thirty-eight year old Laconia New Hampshire boater was recently found guilty of negligent homicide for driving her thirty-seven foot Formula boat into Diamond Island on Lake Winnipesaukee in 2008. The collision killed her best friend; Stephanie Beaudoin, 34, of Meredith, NH died from multiple traumatic injuries.

The Boston University business graduate was found guilty of failing to keep proper lookout. While technically an operating under the influence case, defense witnesses argued that the .15 blood alcohol content (BAC) reading introduced into evidence at trial was skewed by Blizzard’s severe blood loss. A reduction in blood volume could have artificially increased the alcohol to blood ratio; the real reading could have been well under the legal limit. The jury deadlocked as to whether she was driving under the influence and it could not reach a verdict on an aggravated DWI charge. Sentencing is scheduled for late April; a negligent homicide conviction in New Hampshire carries a maximum sentence of 3 to 7 years in prison.

Connecticut BUI incident causes movement for change in BUI law

In 2007, a fifty-three year old Connecticut woman was killed when a twenty-foot powerboat crashed into her fourteen-foot sailboat off the coast of Old Saybrook. Gregory Siege was arrested and charged with one count of first-degree reckless operation of a vessel while intoxicated.

Police alleged that no one was at the wheel of the powerboat at the time of the crash, as Siege had already fallen overboard. The boat proceeded on without him after he fell, turning in a clockwise circle. After a few turns, the powerboat collided with the sailboat. The three other people on the sailboat were also injured; one had his arm severed. Siege was rescued from the water by another boater.

When Siege arrived on shore almost an hour after the accident, police officers were waiting for him at the dock. He failed field sobriety tests, and officers noted that he smelled of alcohol and had slurred speech and blood shot eyes. Siege was then arrested and brought to the police station, where he admitted to drinking whiskey before the incident. He was also asked to give a urine sample to test for the presence of alcohol. Two samples were collected, approximately 30 minutes apart.

The results of the lab tests showed blood alcohol content (BAC) of .17 and .15, respectively — twice the legal limit in Connecticut. However, because the first test was not administered until two hours and ten minutes after the incident, the results were not admissible; current Connecticut law requires BAC tests for boating cases to be administered within two hours. As a result of this case, the Connecticut legislature is considering a bill that would eliminate the two-hour restriction in BUI cases.

California BUI Law

California Department of Boating and Waterways had long estimated that one quarter of all deaths on California waterways were due to boating under the influence of drugs or alcohol (BUI). However, 2007’s fifty-five boating fatalities doubled that percentage to roughly half.

In the summer of 2009, a California state lawmaker proposed making penalties for boating under the influence similar to penalties for DUI. Senate Bill 154 would require suspension of an individual’s automobile driver’s license if the person were convicted of boating under the influence (BUI).

Senator John Benoit, who represents citizens in the Lake Havasu recreation area, proposed the law after noticing an alarming increase in the number of alcohol-related boating injuries that occurred in his district. Over the past eight years, Havasu area law enforcement officers have made over 1000 alcohol-related arrests.

Suspending the driver’s licenses of boating under the influence offenders is not a new concept. In the mid-1990’s, California’s department of motor vehicles (DMV) would suspend a driver’s license if he or she had been convicted of boating under the influence (BUI). However, in 2008, a California Court of Appeals stopped the practice, ruling that the DMV lacked statutory authority to make the suspensions. Benoit’s bill is currently stalled in the appropriations committee of the California state legislature.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Blizzard+guilty+of+negligent+homicide%2C+jury+deadlocks+on+other+charges&articleId=7d8e6c08-184b-4deb-b78b-18e16a22276c

http://www.boatus.com/foundation/

http://articles.courant.com/2010-03-30/news/hc-sexting-penalty-judiciary-0330_1_sexting-death-penalty-cases-sex-offender

http://www.havasunews.com/articles/2009/06/29/news/doc4a4840bdc07e4390121359.txt

Millie Anne Cavanaugh is an attorney licensed to practice law in California & Massachusetts and is a former insurance defense lawyer. The information contained herein is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as a solicitation for your business or as legal advice on any subject matter. You should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of this information without seeking independent legal advice.

Now, we are bombarded with stories about Massachusetts’s drivers getting in trouble for driving under the influence. Either the Boston media’s reporting of DUI incidents has increased dramatically since I was little, the overall enforcement of Massachusetts DUI laws has improved, or more Massachusetts’s drivers are driving drunk than ever before. I suspect the rise in alcohol and drug-related operating under the influence arrests is a result of all three. Here are some recent examples of Massachusetts DUI arrests that I find particularly disturbing.

Massachusetts DUI Offenders who keep going, and going…

On March 9 of this year, a Maine man (ok, so he’s not technically from Massachusetts) was arrested at 6 o’clock in the morning with an open container of alcohol in his car. The driver, Richard Hall, was charged with drunk driving and leaving the scene of a personal-injury accident after causing a two-car crash on I-93. The accident occurred when Hall’s truck hit a guardrail, veered across the highway, and hit a Honda Civic. Two people were injured. Did this first collision give Hall pause, either literally or figuratively? Apparently not. Instead, Hall continued on his way, later losing control, going off the highway and hitting a tree in the median before rolling over. He was airlifted to a Boston trauma center with serious injuries. One would hope that Mr. Hall was released from the hospital directly into an addiction treatment center; anyone who drives with an open container of alcohol so early in the morning needs to be evaluated for alcohol addiction.

Not to be outdone, Sharon Faulkner, 63, of Marblehead blew a .14 on the Breathalyzer, almost twice the legal limit, and failed field sobriety tests after police detained her in front of her grandson’s school. Police allege that Faulkner crashed her car into a tree with the 9-year-old boy in the car, but then continued driving him to school; this was her third DUI offense. The boy was treated for minor injuries and a bump on his head; not surprisingly, child welfare authorities are investigating. Ms. Faulkner was charged with a third-offense operating under the influence of alcohol. Registry of Motor Vehicle records revealed that her license has been suspended for thirty days. She previously lost her license for a year back in 1999 for a DUI conviction in Maine and was charged with drunken driving in 1984.

Sadly, repeat drunk driving arrests are no longer the exception; they are the rule. When someone has been arrested three times for driving under the influence, it would be helpful if the judicial system recognized that this person has substance abuse issues and order addiction treatment, instead of ordering the person to jail. Although a stint in jail may take away an alcoholic’s ability to obtain alcohol, it does not acknowledge that alcohol addiction causes people to make bad choices, such as driving with a child in the car, which would likely not be made in the absence of alcoholism.

Sandra Bullock Massachusetts DUI Connection

Given the recent media insanity surrounding Sandra Bullock and her allegedly philandering husband, Jesse James, I thought it appropriate to include their bizarre Massachusetts DUI tale in this compilation.

Bullock was in Massachusetts back in the spring of 2008 to film scenes for The Proposal. The actress and her husband, being chauffeured in an SUV back to their hotel after a day of filming, were hit head on by a drunk driver who had crossed the center line. Luckily, the vehicles were traveling only 15 to 20 miles per hour.

The incident occurred on a Friday night in Gloucester. The drunk driver, Lucille Gatchell, registered a blood-alcohol content (BAC) of .20, more than twice Massachusetts’s DUI limit. Both Gatchell’s and Bullock’s vehicles were totaled in the incident but, thankfully, no one was injured. Gatchell initially entered a plea of not guilty to a charge of driving under the influence, but later changed her plea to guilty. She was placed on probation for a year and was ordered to complete an alcohol safety education program.

Perhaps Gatchell would not have won the title of “that drunk driver from Gloucester who hit Sandra Bullock” had she embraced the concept of lining up a designated driver that fateful Friday night. Historically, the term “designated driver” (DD) is used to describe the member of a drinking party that has taken responsibility for driving everybody home and, theoretically, promises to drink only alcohol-free beverages during the outing. Unfortunately, this person does not always remain sober enough to drive and the people under the designated driver’s charge may not always realize that they are actually entrusting their lives to a drunk driver.

Until our judicial system evolves to the point where crimes related to drug addiction and alcoholism are treated for what they are – manifestations of an underlying substance addiction – we will have to settle for making the streets safer for potential victims of drunk drivers. Boston drinkers now have a new lifeline when it comes to making sure they get home in one piece, and without a DUI. Boston’s Designated Driver is a service that provides rides home for people (and their cars) who are too drunk to drive. In order to use the service, a drinker calls a local number and indicates their location and desired pick-up time. The service sends two drivers; one to drive the customer’s car home and one to retrieve that driver from the customer’s house.

Not only does it eliminate the risk of death, injury or criminal charges for driving under the influence, it also means that the car will be in the driveway when the customer wakes up in the morning. While use of a service like Boston’s DD is the responsible thing to do when planning for a special night out in Boston, those who find themselves using such a service every weekend probably needs to evaluate their alcohol intake and determine whether it is negatively affecting other areas of their lives, such as family, work or school.

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20100310man_faces_dui_rap_in_i-93_crash/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/19/entertainment/main4029179.shtml
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/22963326/detail.html

http://www.bostonsdd.com/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=21

Millie Cavanaugh, Esq., is an immigration attorney and former insurance defense attorney licensed to practice law in Massachusetts and California.

Coming up on MADD’s 30th anniversary in November 2010, there’s good news and bad news in where the organization stands today – and not all of it can be found by looking in their press kits.

How it all Began

MADD’s origin was very simple, the result of a tragic accident in 1980 in which a hit-and—run drunk driver killed Lightner’s 13-year old daughter, Cari. Four days after the accident and a day after Cari’s funeral, Lightner founded MADD. She originally called it Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, but was later persuaded by a consulting firm to change the name to Mothers Against

Drunk Driving.

Her goal in creating the organization was to raise public awareness about the serious nature of drunk driving and to promote tough legislation against it. In the ensuing years, Lightner is credited with doing just that. She changed public opinion, in great measure because she put a human face on the victims of drunk drivers. These were real people, and they died needlessly. These innocent victims were no longer just statistics. Lightner’s constant presence – including media appearances on Good Morning America and Nightline – speaking before Congress, and addressing professional and business groups – led to a dramatic change in public perception. Drunk driving was no longer considered socially acceptable. This shift in public attitudes represented a far cry from the dismissive way intoxicated driving was perceived before Lightner began her tireless work.

As a result of Lightner’s efforts, President Reagan appointed a Blue Ribbon Commission on Drunk and Drugged Driving in 1982. Across the country, more than 400 drunk driving laws were enacted. Lighter served on several commissions: National Commission on Drunk Driving, National Highway Safety Commission, National Partnership for Drug Free Use, and the Presidential Commission on Drunk and Drugged Driving.

MADD Changed its Focus

According to ActivistCash.com, for the first 15 years MADD’s strategy of helping to reduce drunk-driving traffic fatalities by educating the public about the dangers of drunk driving paid off. The successful public relations’ campaigns led to MADD’s achieving their goal for the year 2000 of reducing alcohol-related traffic deaths by 20 percent in 1997. After this point, according to several hard-hitting stories on MADD, the organization’s focus began to shift. At the time, with a $46 million organization, and with problem of drunk driving reduced to what MADD’s then-president Katherine Prescott said was “a hard core of alcoholics who do not respond to public appeal.” Instead of going after this hard-core group, however, MADD revised its goals to go after anyone who drinks and drives.

Their slogans changed from “Don’t Drive Drunk” to “Don’t Drink and Drive.” This neo-prohibitionist ideology is what caused Lightner to break ranks with the organization she founded. In the latest iteration of MADD, the onus is on anyone who has anything to drink (even a glass of wine with dinner) and then gets behind the wheel. There is no room in their belief set for responsible drinking. It’s all anti-alcohol.

Similarly, they don’t seek to have the courts go after repeat offenders and those who are too drunk to drive. What they do endorse is higher taxes on alcoholic beverages, increased roadblocks by police, and lowering drunk driving arrest thresholds even further.

In an example of reaching too far, in 2004 MADD called for a “mandatory provision in every separation agreement and divorce decree that prohibits either parent from drinking and driving…with minor children in the vehicle.” Violations, asserted MADD, should result in severe penalties, including license suspension, jail, and even “termination of parental rights.”

Apparently, the storm of criticism such statement caused resulted in MADD’s softening its stance and in refining their goals to again concentrate on drunk drivers. In 2010, MADD’s new focus is the Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving. The campaign seeks to abolish drunk driving through four pillars:

• Increased driving under the influence (DUI) enforcement
• Use of alcohol ignition interlock technologies to reduce repeat offenses
• Exploration and development of advanced vehicle-based technology
• Public support

MADD encourages concerned citizens to take the pledge to eliminate drunk driving. Their literature states that 12,000 people are killed every year by drunk drivers with an illegal alcohol level of .08 BAC or above. It goes on to say, “Every month, more than 1,000 families must live with the tragic consequences of drunk driving.” What is the reasoning behind the campaign? According to the organization’s literature, “Since MADD was founded in 1980, alcohol-related fatalities have declined by more than 40 percent, but progress has stalled in recent years.”

Some Important Statistics

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), there were 11,773 alcohol-impaired driving fatalities in 2008, down 10 percent from 13,041 in 2007. NHTSA defines an alcohol impaired driving crash as one involving at least one driver or motorcycle rider (operator) with a BAC of .08 grams per deciliter or higher. Texas, California and Florida lead the states with the most alcohol-impaired driving fatalities in both 2007 and 2008.

Other statistics from NHTSA:

• In 2008, all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico had by law created a threshold making it illegal to drive per se with a BAC of .08 or higher.
• The 11,773 fatalities in alcohol-impaired driving crashes in 2008 represent an average of one alcohol-impaired-driving fatality every 45 minutes.
• Drivers with BAC of .08 or higher involved in fatal crashes were eight times more likely to have a prior conviction for driving while impaired (DWI) than were drivers with no alcohol.

MADD Milestones

Since its founding in 1980, MADD has achieved significant milestones. According to highlights from its 25th anniversary brochure, some of these milestones include:

• 1982 – Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving formed; bill enacted giving states federal funds for anti-drunk driving efforts; 100 MADD chapters by year’s end
• 1983 – Made-for-TV movie about MADD airs on NBC; 129 anti-drunk driving laws passed by year’s end; MADD’s national office moves to Texas
• 1984 – Federal 21 Minimum Drinking Age Act signed into law July 17; organization changes its name to Mothers Against Drunk Driving; by year’s end, more than 330 MADD chapters have formed in 47 states
• 1986 – Victims Assistance Institute established; Project Red Ribbon (Tie One On For Safety) launched
• 1987 – 1-800-GET-MADD launched; MADD amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court helps uphold federal drinking age
• 1987 – MADD launches MADDvocate magazine; all states and Washington, D.C. pass federal 21 drinking age law; omnibus anti-drug abuse act signed – with amendments extending crime victim compensation rights to DUI/DWI victims and increased incentives for states enacting key DUI/DWI laws
• 1989 – MADD launches Victim Impact Panel program
• 1995 – Federal zero tolerance law passes in Congress
• 1996 – MADD launches Youth in Action program; MADD launches website, www.madd.org
• 1997 – 20 to 2000 goal achieved 3 years ahead of schedule; MADD launches DRIVEN magazine; MADD holds first National Youth Summit to Prevent Underage Drinking in Washington, D.C.
• 1998 – First youth elected to national board of directors; zero tolerance legislation passes in all states; MADD commemorates Kentucky bus crash – the nation’s worst alcohol-related crash
• 1999 – MADD expands mission to include prevention of underage drinking; higher risk driver program released
• 2000 – 20th anniversary rally at U.S. Capitol; MADD grows to about 600 chapters and 2 million members/supporters; national .08 BAC measures (part of Federal Transportation Appropriations Bill) signed into law; second MADD national youth summit to prevent underage drinking takes place in Washington, D.C.
• 2001 – MADD named one of Worth magazine’s 100 Best Charities in America; MADD releases College Commission Report to Address Alcohol’s Impact on America’s College Campuses; UMADD (Protecting You/Protecting Me and Pasa Las Laves – Pass the Keys) launched
• 2002 – MADD introduces 8-point plan to reduce alcohol-related traffic deaths and injuries; MADD launches Spanish-language version of website; Protecting You/Protecting Me established as a model program by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Center for Substance Abuse and Treatment (CSAP)
• 2003 – MADD testifies before Senate subcommittees regarding highway safety initiatives; first MADD media awards held; MADD receives Fries Prize for Improving Health from Healthtrac Foundation
• 2004 – First law enforcement leadership summit held; MADD testifies before Congress in the U.S. House Education Reform Subcommittee on underage drinking issues; Every Child Deserves a Designated Driver released; Strides For Change launched; all states and Washington, D.C. pass .08 BAC as the illegal drunk driving limit; MADD receives Haddon Award from the International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety; MADD honored with Charity of the Year Award from DMA Nonprofit Federation
• 2005 – Glynn Birch becomes MADD’s first male national president; 1-877-MADD-HELP 24-hour victim helpline launched; 21st anniversary of 21 minimum drinking age law commemorated with 21-city national “Night of Compliance”; 25th anniversary rally and “Moment of Drums” held in Washington, D.C.
Where MADD Stands on Important Issues

It’s important to know MADD’s current stand on important issues.

• Alcohol Assessment and Treatment – MADD supports a number of assessment and treatment requirements, funds for impaired driving education programs, increasing taxes on alcoholic beverages, increasing excise taxes on wine and beer, and opposing diversionary or probation programs for those charged with DUI/DWI. To see the full MADD positions on these, as well as insurance industry barriers and DUI/DWI courts, go to http://www.madd.org/Media-Center/Media-Center/Official-Position-Statements/Position-Statements/Alcohol-Related.aspx.

• Other Positions – Use this link to get to MADD’s official position statements on other issues, including enforcement, responsible marketing and service, sanctions, victim-related position statements, youth, and other positions.

• Ignition Interlock – MADD is dedicated to supporting state legislation expanding the use of current alcohol ignition interlock technology and wants interlocks mandatory for all convicted drunk drivers in all 50 states.

• High Visibility Law Enforcement – MADD supports twice-yearly crackdowns on drunk driving and heightened law enforcement before holiday periods, such as Labor Day and December holidays. To this end, MADD supports saturation patrols and sobriety checkpoints.

• Advanced Vehicle Technology – MADD supports the work of researchers to create voluntary advanced in-vehicle technology that prevents an impaired driver from operating the vehicle, as long as the technology is non-intrusive to a sober driver. Partnering with leaders in traffic safety and the automotive industry, MADD hopes to explore reduction in drunk driving through the following technologies:

o Advanced breath testing – both individual testing and testing for alcohol in the vehicle
o Use of visible light to measure blood alcohol content (BAC) through spectroscopy
o Use of non-invasive touch-based systems to measure BAC through the skin
o Eye-movement measurement technology – including involuntary eye movements related to BAC and eye closure, which may indicate drowsiness

MADD Positions Stir Controversy

Several of MADD’s positions have caused controversy, particularly those calling for ignition interlocks for all new cars, and increasing sobriety checkpoints. Some of the criticism comes from the American Beverage Institute (ABI), an organization dedicated to the protection of responsible on-premise consumption of adult beverages. ABI’s website marketing slogan is “Drink Responsibly. Drive Responsibly.”

On the issue of sobriety checkpoints, ABI urges police to forego checkpoints and, instead, “rove the highways in search of the erratic driving typical of drunk drivers.” They point to a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) study that found that, “The number of DWI [driving while intoxicated] arrests made by the roving patrol program was nearly three times the average number of DWIs made by the checkpoint programs.”

ABI is also against ignition interlocks for first-time DUI offenders with low BAC. Many states now require repeat offenders to have ignition interlocks installed on their cars, but some state legislatures are approving legislation aimed at first-time offenders, “often drivers who are only one sip above the limit.” ABI cites research that drivers who are one sip above the limit are more capable of driving than those talking on a hands-free cell phone, driving while drowsy, or speeding excessively over the posted limit. ABI believes such legislation is the first step toward the long-term goal of anti-alcohol groups (such as MADD) for universal interlocks for all new cars. ABI comments that drunk drivers will always find a way around this technology, while “millions of responsible social drinkers will be inconvenienced.”

Cost is another factor that needs to be considered in state ignition interlock laws. After the New Mexico Department of Transportation issued a statement in early February 2010 that the state’s ignition interlock indigent fund had run out of money, ABI’s blog posting read, “As we’ve been saying, interlock laws are not budget-neutral. Not only do states have to think about indigent funds, they also have to pour millions into enforcement.

Randy Elder, scientific director for systematic reviews at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Community Guide Branch, said this about interlocks: “They’re not a silver bullet. It does cost money to monitor them and it’s an administrative burden.” He further explained that people “tend to revert back to what they were doing before the interlock was installed. Interlocks work while they are in the car, but they don’t have any lasting effects.”

The American Probation and Patrol Association (APPA) said in 2009 that ignition interlock technology is a promising tool that can aid in reducing drunk driving behavior, but it is not a program. It is a tool, and should be part of a comprehensive response to change substance-abusing behaviors. Evidence-based responses that do work require a balance of monitoring, intervention and treatment.

ABI proposes “real solutions to reduce drunk driving” such as:

• Alcoholism Screening – States should implement mandatory offender-paid alcoholism screening and treatment. ABI’s website states, “By the time a drunk driver is pulled over, he has already placed others in danger. Unless the underlying product abuse is dealt with, this ‘hard core’ is not likely to learn its lesson.”

• Roving Patrols – Decades of research show that roving patrols are more effective than roadblocks at arresting drunk drivers. Random roadblocks result in a very low arrest rate while roving patrols are on the lookout for dangerous driving behavior. ABI asserts, “This suspicion-based procedure not only respects constitutional rights but also vastly increases arrest rates, since law enforcement is tracking down offenders, not waiting for drunk drivers to drive through a stationary roadblock.”

• Graduated Penalties – ABI supports a multi-tiered system of sanctions in which drivers with very high BAC levels and multiple drunk driving convictions receive appropriate punishment. Beyond stiff penalties (fines and/or jail time), a graduated penalties system also encompasses requirements for extensive alcohol screening and treatment – so that drivers with alcohol abuse problems can get the help they need to change their behavior.

Where Does MADD Go from Here?

There is no question that the goal to reduce deaths caused by drunk driving is a laudable effort and one that should continue. No one argues that position. How we get there is another issue, and it’s this that continues to stir controversy. Will there ever be a meeting of the minds, where all entities agree on common and workable solutions to the problem of drunk driving? The only thing that concerned citizens can do is continue to educate themselves on current positions by industry and trade groups, substance abuse prevention and treatment organizations, lawmakers, MADD, educators, parents and community groups, and vigorously support the best and most reasoned – and those with evidence-based success – solutions.

In the end, it isn’t about abolishing alcohol completely. It isn’t about who can shout the loudest or which group has the best PR campaigns or the biggest marketing budgets (or even where they spend their money). It isn’t all about the latest technology that can prevent operation of a vehicle or mandating interlocks on all vehicles, period. It is about taking a proactive and comprehensive look at balanced solutions to drunk driving that cover monitoring, intervention and treatment of affected individuals.

So, where does – or should – MADD go from here? In its 2007-2008 annual report, MADD states: “The mission of Mothers Against Drunk Driving is to stop drunk driving, support the victims of this violent crime and prevent underage drinking.” Notice the words include the goal to stop “drunk driving.” The current mission statement was revised in 1999 to incorporate “prevent underage drinking” and marks the fifth mission statement revision. The organization’s leaders should continue to look at all the available evidence and not, as some critics have argued, twist facts to suit their purposes. Going forward, MADD should continue to revise their goals to reflect solutions that truly work.

Can they do it? MADD is a huge organization with a track record of years of dedication. Looking forward, in this 30th year of its existence, MADD can continue to make a difference just as its 25th anniversary brochure proclaimed, “One saved life at a time.”

People on the Cape drink. A lot. The first clue is the sheer number and size of the liquor stores. The main retailer is a super store that goes by the name of Luke’s Super Liquors and has five locations on the relatively small peninsula. A visit to the Luke’s closest to me revealed an interior that rivaled the size of a small supermarket and stocked everything from Pabst’s to imported French wine.

If you’re paying close attention, though, you will quickly discover that all is not well in Barnstable County. I was standing in the checkout line at Luke’s, about five people deep. Three of the people, however, were together and appeared to be purchasing one single bottle of liquor. It seemed to be taking forever. As I stood there waiting for my turn, two things became clear. First, the members of the group were young tourists from an Eastern European country. Second, the cashier was carding each person in the party. Unfortunately for us, one of the people had an expired passport with a current visa and a current passport with no visa. It took the cashier quite a while to figure out that the customer was legit.

In the meantime, I began chatting with the woman directly in front of me. I asked her what she thought was going on and she revealed that she too had run into trouble with this cashier. About an hour prior, the woman had been in the store with her elderly grandfather. When they approached the check stand, the cashier refused to sell her grandfather a bottle of wine because the woman had not brought her identification with her. Given that her grandfather was clearly over 21, and even had his identification, this seemed very strange.

When my turn finally came, I couldn’t resist making a comment to the cashier about her obsessive need to card everybody in the store. It turns out that Luke’s policy, and the policy of many liquor stores in Massachusetts, is to card everybody in the party. If someone does not have identification, or is underage, nobody can buy the alcohol. Being the quick thinker that I am, I quipped "So, high school kids know to stay in the car when someone is buying for them?" Nope. Luke’s patrols the parking lot and if they notice people waiting, either around the building or in a car, they will not sell alcohol to the party who entered the store.

On its face, the identification policy at Luke’s seems ridiculous. But, if you know about dram shop laws, it all makes perfect sense. Dram shop laws have been around since the 1800′s and forty states have them. Early laws imposed liability on tavern owners who served alcohol to minors or intoxicated persons.

In the United States, the term dram shop law is a generalized legal term that refers to a class of laws imposing liability, either criminal or civil, on an individual or entity for the act of providing alcohol. Most people familiar with the term equate it’s meaning to activities of liquor stores or eating establishments, such as bars and restaurants. Some states even impose dram shop liability on private homeowners or party sponsors; this type of non-commercial liability is often known as "social host liability". Although the most common harm addressed by dram shop laws is injury caused from drunk driving, the laws have also been triggered for bar fights or other bad behavior stemming from intoxication.

Dram shop laws are largely regulated by state law, and states differ with regard to whether they impose dram shop liability, social host liability, or both. States also differ with regard to whose drinking activity is covered by the law, as well as to whom the establishment or individual owes a duty of care. Most dram shop laws were passed with the intent of protecting the general public from drunk drivers. They put the burden on those in the best position to prevent the harm — the sober bar keep who can keep track of how much someone has had to drink and interact with customers to detect intoxication levels.

DRAM SHOP LAWS

The most common imposition of dram shop liability is for the sale of alcohol to minors or intoxicated people who later leave the bar and cause injury or death to a third party. All states outlaw the sale of alcohol to minors and some, including Texas, allow even the minor himself to sue the dram shop for his own injuries. Liability for serving alcohol to already intoxicated patrons, on the other hand, differs by state.

Many states require the plaintiff to show that the defendant knew or should have known that the patron was already in an intoxicated state. In Missouri, a new law requires the patron to be uncoordinated or physically dysfunctional before imposing liability. However, as with many negligence-based causes of action, laws are not uniform as to when the liability attaches to the customer. In Texas, the patron must be a clear and present danger.

In Massachusetts, where Luke’s Super store is located, dram shop law is common law and has not yet been codified. In addition to liability for third parties who are injured as a result of the intoxication, the patron himself can sue the bar for negligence. See O’Hanley v. Ninety-Nine, Inc. 421 N.E.2d 1217 (1981). In order to prevail, there must be willful, wanton or reckess conduct on the part of the establishment. Conversely, a social host has no liability for injuries sustained by an adult guest.

How to determine dram shop liability in Massachusetts was established almost thirty years ago with the case Cimino v. The Milford Keg (1981). The Court declared that in order to be held liable for the actions of a drunk customer in Massachusetts, he or she must be visibly intoxicated; being drunk, loud and vulgar qualifies. The plaintiff proved that the bar served an already intoxicated customer at least six White Russians prior to allowing him to head to another bar with drink in hand. When that bar refused to serve him, he left in his vehicle and ended up killing a pedestrian.

For many years, Illinois did not even impose liability on establishments whose sale of alcohol to an individual resulted in personal injuries. In maintaining the ban on dram shop liability, Illinois lawmakers felt that furnishing alcohol was not the cause of alcohol-related incidents. Instead, it was only the actual drinking of alcohol that resulted in liability. Even in cases where judges felt that dram shop liability should apply to a specific personal injury suit, they felt constrained by separation of powers and waited for the Illinois legislature to change the laws.
Illinois’ first Dram Shop Act was passed in 1872. The law imposed liability, although somewhat limited, on liquor stores, taverns, and restaurants that sold alcohol to a person who became intoxicated from that alcohol and later caused physical injury to someone else. Under present Dram Shop law in Illinois, recovery in any lawsuit for personal injury caused by intoxication filed against the establishment who sold the alcohol is limited slightly less than $60,000 for personal injury and $70,000 for loss of wages. Given these small recovery amounts, most victims of dram shop incidents do not file suit against drinking establishments.

To recover damages in Illinois, a plaintiff need only prove that selling the alcohol was a proximate cause of the intoxication and that the intoxication was a cause of the injury. In fact, an Illinois court found dram shop liability where a supplier dropped off self-serve kegs at a picnic. However, recovery for dram shop liability is barred for someone who was involved in the drinking. For instance, if a passenger in a drunk driving accident attempts to sue the bar for his injuries, he will likely be barred from recovery if it is shown that he was also at the bar, drinking with the driver.

In New Jersey, the dram shop law extends to social hosts, imposing liability even when the alcohol is given away for free. For adult drunk drivers, the ability to sue an establishment for their own injuries is reduced by the patron’s own negligence.

New York’s dram shop law applies to places that provide alcohol to persons who are visibly intoxicated or habitual drunkards. The law is codified in NY General Obligations Law section 11-101, and provides for punitive damages. In order for dram shop liability to attach, common sense factors such as unsteady gait, slurred speech, or glazed and bloodshot eyes should be considered. However, the patron cannot file suit against the bar at all.

Businesses that make money by serving alcohol to people who later go and get behind the wheel are easy targets for anti-drunk driving advocates. However, studies have shown that states with fairly narrow dram shop laws, such as Michigan and Alaska, have below-average drunk-driving fatality rates. Illinois, on the other hand, has the most sweeping of all states dram shop laws yet has a fatality rate that is above the national average.

Variations on traditional dram shop laws have been popping up. For example, lawsuits have been filed against alcohol producers or even drinking buddies, which significantly expands the traditional notions of duty of care, proximate cause, and even product liability law.

In California, dram shop liability is limited to selling alcoholic beverages to obviously intoxicated minors; there is no social host liability except for when a parent permits his child, or a child’s friend, to drink or use drugs at home and then drive with a blood alcohol content above .05 or under the influence of a controlled substance. If the child causes a traffic collision, the parent is subject to a misdemeanor and up to one year in jail and a $1000 fine.

How a dram shop law can impose liability on a drinking establishment for the actions of its patrons can be illustrated by the recent case against O’Leary’s Restaurant & Bar located in St. Louis, Missouri. O’Leary’s used to be owned, at least in part, by actor John Goodman.

On March 20, 2009 Christine Miller, a 41-year-old police officer assigned to the Sunset Hills station in suburban St. Louis, went to nearby O’Leary’s Restaurant with some friends and allegedly drank herself into an intoxicated state. After leaving the bar, Miller drover her 2001 Mitsubishi Eclipse the wrong way, about a mile from her home, and stuck a 1997 Honda Accord at approximately 1:45am, killing four people and injuring another. The four who died were graduate students at Eastern Illinois University. Miller also suffered serious head injuries in the accident and was, at one time, in critical condition. Approximately three hours after the accident, Miller’s blood alcohol content still measured a staggering .169, over twice the legal limit.

Miller was charged with four counts of felony manslaughter and a single count of felony assault. Because of her severe head injuries, Miller was placed under house arrest and was required to wear an ankle bracelet. Understandably, the parents of the five students filed a civil suit against Miller for wrongful death and personal injury, alleging that she was driving under the influence of alcohol and was driving on the wrong side of the street at the time of the accident. However, O’Leary’s Restaurant is also being sued for continuing to serve Miler even though she was intoxicated. The lawsuit alleges that employees at O’Leary’s knew that Miller was intoxicated and did not stop her from driving her car or call her a cab. The suit also alleges that the bar served Miller, despite the fact that she had slurred speech and an unsteady gait.

Social Host Liability

Like it or not, alcohol plays a large role during social and business functions. Typical dram shop laws do not apply to these situations as the alcohol is provided for free. Some states impose liability on hosts for the actions of guests who become intoxicated either on the host’s property or at a function sponsored by the host. The statutes typically cover dispensing, selling or giving. Although closely related to dram shop law, social host liability has not been adopted by all states and, where it has been imposed, typically covers incidents of providing alcohol to minors. However, state courts increasingly extend liability to social hosts that knowingly give alcohol to intoxicated guests at cocktail parties, frat parties, weddings, and office parties.

For years, Illinois did not impose social host liability in cases where alcohol was provided to a guest for free. Even if the guest became intoxicated by drinking only the alcohol provided by the host and later got into a car accident or assaulted someone in a fight, the host could not be held legally responsible for damages in a civil suit. The insulation from social host liability even applied to situations where alcohol had been provided to minors. Cool parents who bought alcohol for their kids and kids’ friends, or even hosted drinking parties, could not be held liable if the drunken kids then got behind the wheel and killed somebody.
In the mid 1990′s, Illinois appellate courts showed an inclination to begin lifting the bar on social host liability, especially in cases where giving alcohol to minors resulted in fatal car accidents. However, the Illinois Supreme Court rejected these attempts at imposing social host liability, punting the issue to the Illinois legislature.
In 2003, a high school hazing incident at a powderpuff football game at Glenbook North High School resulted resulted in a bloody brawl that sent five girls to the hospital and numerous disciplinary measures being imposed by school officials. Local media explored the issue of parental liability for the incident, focusing attention on the fact that parents sponsored the event.

Recently, however, lawmakers in Illinois have been moving toward making it harder for social hosts to escape liability for injuries arising from excessive drinking. It’s no longer fun to be the "cool" parent. Since the Drug or Alcohol Impaired Minor Responsibility Act of 2004, adults who give alcohol or other intoxicating substances to a person under 21 can be held liable for damages that arise due to the intoxication, even if the minor only injures himself. Not all situations, however, will impose liability on the parent as persons who do not "wilfully supply" the alcohol will not be held liable. For instance, if your child steals liquor from the liquor cabinet, gets drunk and injures someone, you may not be held liable if you had no reason to believe that you teen would do such a thing.

In essence, parents are now strictly liable for injuries caused by teens who become intoxicated from alcohol supplied to them by the parent. Unlike Illinois’ traditional dram shop law, there are no monetary liability limits when alcohol was given to a minor. In addition, attorney’s fees and punitive damages are available to plaintiffs. Unlike under typical dram shop laws where the negligence of the drinker is taken into consideration when imposing liability, the DAIMRA excludes any contributory negligence of the minor thus making it possible for that minor to recover full damages. Given that punitive damages are rarely covered by homeowner insurance policies, parents in Illinois should certainly think twice before providing alcohol to minors.
While it is likely that some parents will not take heed of warnings to take care in providing alcohol to minors, the effectiveness of the new law has already been proven. One of the first personal injury lawsuits filed under DAIMRA, arising from a drunk driving accident that occurred just one month after the law became effective, resulted in a settlement of $1.625 million.
In October 2004, a sixteen year old Illinois teen, named Melissa Wolkomir, sustained serious injuries in a car accident. Wolkomir and three friends left a Halloween party being held at a barn in Wisconsin that provides equipment and services for hay rides. Kegs of beer were on tap for attendees, and the hosts did not card at the door or hire servers to check IDs. Even though only adults were formally invited to the party, the minors were able to get in. Although the girls smuggled alcohol, which would have relieved party organizers of liability for providing the alcohol, the teen driver had two beers from the keg.
The girls left the party around 11:30pm and the driver made an illegal turn onto the highway. A semi-truck hit the girls’ car and Wolkomir, the only teen to sustain injuries, was thrown from the back seat onto the ground. She suffered neurological injuries which left her unable to properly use her left arm and leg. Police who arrived on scene administered a breathalyzer to the teen driver and found her blood alcohol content to be .08. She was cited for driving under the influence and later pleaded guilty to a DUI.
Millie Anne Cavanaugh, Esq. is a Los Angeles immigration lawyer and former insurance defense attorney. She is licensed to practice law in California and Massachusetts. The information contained herein is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as a solicitation for your business or as legal advice on any subject matter. You should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of this information without seeking independent legal advice.
 

Time to Reflect

While you’re in the “drunk tank,” you might use the time to begin to reflect on what you did to put yourself – and others – in such jeopardy. Some individuals who are arrested for DUI are “just a sip over the illegal limit” for blood alcohol content (BAC) of .08. Others, including those who are repeat offenders, are found to be two to three times over the illegal BAC limit. Depending on how soused you are, you may not even remember getting into the car and driving, having suffered a blackout (temporary loss of memory caused by alcohol intoxication).

Eventually, however, all persons arrested for DUI “wake up,” literally. They’re in a strange place, one that has unpleasant odors, bright lights, and the stench of fear about it. Some swear they’ll never touch another drop of alcohol again. No more pounding back shots and beers with the boys at the bar, no more tying one on and hoping to make it home in one piece. But this is just initial remorse setting in. It’s not real reflection. For that, you need to take serious stock of your situation, your self-destructive behavior, and the fact that you just may have an addiction. Recognize the true cost of drunk driving.

Ironically, and perhaps this is some consolation to those individuals to whom this applies, first-time DUI offenders are often the most likely to pay heed to the dangers of drinking and driving drunk. During the ensuing mandatory alcohol classes and/or treatment for alcohol addiction, the messages are likely to get through. Treatment, in combination with penalties, fines, ignition interlock, loss of driving privileges and other court-mandated sentences, may be the best hope for first-time DUI offenders.

You can argue – sometimes successfully – through your attorney and “get off lightly,” but this doesn’t help you change your behavior. While you can be ordered to attend alcohol classes and treatment, addiction recovery can only happen when you fully acknowledge that you have a problem and commit to changing your lifestyle.

Perhaps you only spent a short time in the holding cell, and were processed out when a friend or family member posted your bail and drove you home. Don’t think that this is the end of the situation. It’s only the beginning. It will also give you a false sense of getting away with it until you wind up in court and find out otherwise. States are getting tougher on DUI offenders – even first timers.

The actual steps involved include the initial arrest and series of sobriety and breathalyzer tests, DMV administrative hearing, arraignment, pre-trial conference, suppression hearing, trial, and sentencing. Not all of these steps occur as a result of every DUI arrest, but this is enough to show that there’s a lot to go through.

In other words, be prepared for a long road ahead. Use your time now to reflect upon what you can do to change your life – whether or not you are ordered to do so by the court.

What’s in it for you?

The prospect of attending alcohol classes for weeks on end and/or going to an addiction treatment center (inpatient or outpatient), attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and possibly community service may seem like a lot. You’d probably think so if you are here for the first time and only blew a hair over the illegal BAC limit. But let’s look at what’s actually in it for you.

Society today takes a dim view of people who knowingly drink and drive drunk. Whether you agree with their positions or not, the efforts of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) over the past 30 years have proven effective in getting public awareness to the point where drunk driving is no longer socially acceptable (if it ever truly was).

Research on alcohol addiction over the past three decades – but more significantly in the last 10 years – has shown that alcoholism is a disease, not a mental condition or sign of weakness or lack of willpower. It is also treatable. However, once you are an alcoholic, you are never cured. You will need to remain vigilant the rest of your life, but with the skills and coping mechanisms you will learn in treatment, you can live a full and productive life. In fact, treatment offers you the best hope for the future. Your life can be whatever you want it to be. There are no limits to what you can do – if you live according to the principles of sobriety.

Getting to the crux of the matter, what you will get out of coming to grips with your first-time DUI and doing what’s not only required but what is right for you means that you will:

• Regain your freedom (especially if your DUI results in any jail time)
• Get your license reinstated – usually, a conviction for DUI results in a suspension of your driver’s license for some period of time
• Learn about alcohol and alcoholism and its destructive impact
• Pay a penalty relative to fines, legal fees, treatment, higher insurance rates and other restrictions
• Begin to get a handle on why you drink, what prompts you to drink, how to cope with urges to drink, and how to avoid relapse
• Realize that you have to take responsibility for your actions and can no longer disregard the safety of others by driving drunk

The situation is far more complicated for repeat DUI offenders. States take a much harsher stance with those convicted of multiple DUI offenses. California, for example, recently introduced a bill mandating permanent driver’s license revocation for any driver who gets a third DUI conviction. That’s a really stiff price to pay, and it goes far beyond just the loss of driving privileges.

Many employers routinely check a potential employee’s driving record – and won’t hire you if you’ve got drunk driving convictions on your record. Credit checks for everything from a new mortgage to buying a flat-screen TV may potentially bring up your black mark DUI conviction. Depending on your social stature, whether you are or hope to run for any public office or have occasion to be in the limelight in the media, the stigma of drunk driving arrest and conviction will certainly not be good for your reputation. It doesn’t matter if you are the president of the PTA or the president of a Fortune 500 company – if you’re a convicted drunk driver, things are going to be tough for you.

Better to prevent future disaster by waking up to the dangers of drinking and driving drunk. Better yet, do something about it now.

Be Proactive and Get Treatment

In the past, some attorneys recommended that their DUI clients get themselves into treatment even before their sentencing. Whether or not that still holds true is irrelevant as far as doing what’s right for you. Certainly the courts will look more favorably on an individual who takes the initiative and gets himself or herself into treatment, but that’s not as important as what it means for you.

Recognition and acceptance that you have a problem is the first step toward your recovery. And, make no mistake about it. You will need to recover from your misstep with alcohol. We’re talking about real recovery, not escaping the consequences of your actions. No, you will have to take your lumps, regardless of whether or not you believe you were unfairly targeted, you were just barely over the illegal BAC limit, or any other reason. In fact, ditch those excuses right now. It’s time to get proactive.

The easiest way to start is to go online and thoroughly read through everything on the Alcoholics Anonymous website. You can find locations of meetings in your city, or attend meetings online or by telephone. Order literature or download pamphlets online. Basically, this is your introduction to what it means to be an alcoholic. There are informational pages, advice pages, stories from members pages, and plenty of resources and links.

You may also wish to do a proactive search for treatment for alcohol addiction by going to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services (SAMHSA) Treatment Facility Locator. This is a searchable directory of more than 11,000 drug and alcohol treatment programs showing the locations of facilities around the country. Use the map to find facilities in your state or use the quick or detailed search. There are also FAQs, links to state substance abuse agencies, and much more useful information.
Also check out the information on alcohol from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), and spend some time on the website researching other useful information on the harmful effects of alcoholic substances, alone or in combination with other drugs.

Getting Help

Don’t let the fact that you’ve gotten a DUI deter you from getting the help you need. If you think you need treatment, by all means look into getting it. Check out some of the facilities you identified as potential treatment centers from the SAMHSA Treatment Facility Locator. Go to the websites of those treatment facilities and thoroughly examine their treatment programs. Check with your insurance provider (you can use their website to do a search on covered benefits for alcohol treatment programs) to see if such treatment will be partially paid for. Contact the treatment facility to inquire about pay-as-you-go or sliding-scale payment programs, special financing, scholarships or grants. Many facilities offer these for patients with financial need.

You Need Support

This is a difficult situation that you are in. On the one hand, you’d like nothing more than to have it all over and done with. On the other, you know that you can’t just walk away from the problem. It’s going to be with you for quite some time. Don’t let the tendency to be overcome by it prevent you from being proactive. One thing you definitely need at a time like this is support. By support, we’re not talking about financial support. The type of support you need is the understanding and encouragement of others who have been in the same type of situation – and have come through it successfully.

No, this isn’t a group of DUI offenders who got off Scott-free. Support here refers to individuals who have come together to help others in similar situations – as well as themselves. These fellowships are the 12-step groups, such as Alcoholics Anonymous previously mentioned. There are numerous others, including those for various addictions. What they all have in common is a genuine commitment to sobriety, and to helping others abstain from chemical substances or other addictive behaviors (gambling, sexual compulsion, etc.).

You also need the support of your friends and family members as you go through the period of getting a handle on your life and entering into treatment and recovery. This is true whether or not your problem with alcohol is such that you are clinically diagnosable as an alcoholic. Don’t forget that your DUI incident affects more than just you. Everyone in your immediate family is also affected, along with your close friends (with whom you may have been drinking), your employer (who has to deal with your absences) and co-workers (who may have to pick up the slack from your not being able to attend to your responsibilities).

Getting a DUI isn’t a mark of distinction, or a sign of being macho, or a reflection on your character. You slipped up – big time. But you can recover from this and become a stronger person because of it. The old adage about learning from your mistakes holds true here. While alcoholism is a disease (again, it’s vitally important to note that it is treatable), problems with alcohol affect millions of people. When a person drinks and drives drunk, it’s a sign that something has gone drastically wrong. At the very least, it’s a serious mistake in judgment. At the worst, it could mark the beginning of a downward spiral that ends in long-term incarceration, debilitating and potentially fatal health problems, loss of family, financial ruin, legal and social consequences.

The best advice anyone can offer you in this situation is to accept what has happened, vow to do whatever it takes to overcome your problem with alcohol, and take the necessary steps to move forward with your life. Let this DUI be your wake-up call – the one that may save your life and the lives of others.