The end of school, beginning of summer, vacations and the Fourth of July are times to savor, enjoy with loved ones and friends, meet new people, see new places, and do new things. But it’s also a time when many otherwise-intelligent people throw caution to the winds and proceed to get drunk out of their mind – and then get behind the wheel.

The economy has put a damper on some Americans’ travel plans this Fourth of July, with only about 40.5 million estimated by the AAA to be on the road and traveling more than 50 miles during the holiday weekend. That’s down slightly – 1.3 percent, or nearly 500,000 people — from the 41 million who traveled last year. That’s still a huge population that will be on the road.

The thing about drinking and having a good time is that once you start the process, it’s really hard to stop. Everyone’s laughing and carrying on, telling stories, getting reacquainted, even falling in love. But when you add alcohol to the mix, it can turn deadly before you even know it.

Teens are one segment of the population that is likely to be drinking this summer. Experimentation by teens with alcohol when parents are away at work and school is out for the summer is nothing new. But even with all the media coverage warning teens not to drink and drive, they’ll still do it.

Parents with teens can help ward off alcohol-related trouble by encouraging their teens to get involved in healthy activities that are monitored or supervised by adults. Have frequent discussions about what’s expected of teens while parents are away and give them chores or duties they’re responsible for. Planning a few fun family events this summer will also give them something to look forward to so they’re not sitting around bored. That’s when they may decide to experiment with alcohol. Definitely don’t keep alcohol around the house. If you must have alcohol at home, keep it under lock and key.

But it isn’t just teens that are getting in trouble with alcohol. Somehow, vacation time and holidays seem to cause well-meaning people to figure that they deserve to let go a little, to get a bit soused, sleep off the hangover in the morning, and go on about their business.

The trouble is, tragedy can strike during one of those drinking binges or partying with pals or just having one too many on the way home from work at the start of the holiday weekend.

Think About This – Before You Get Behind the Wheel

Here are some points to remember – before you decide to drink and get behind the wheel this Fourth of July:

·It’s too easy to rationalize that you’ll be able to stop at just one. Like that will ever happen. The first one tastes good or makes you feel less tense. You quickly grab another one, and then another after that. Before you know it, you’ve really tied one on. It’s the same old story repeated far too many times. The only way to avoid getting in trouble with alcohol this Fourth of July or anytime this summer is to make a pledge never to drink and then get behind the wheel.

·What should you do if you didn’t plan to drink and then you suddenly do when you get to your destination? Spontaneous decisions like deciding to drink when you hadn’t planned to don’t have to result in a tragedy. But it does mean that you can’t in good conscience drink and then drive home – or anywhere. You’ll need to find someone to drive you home, or take alternate means of transportation, or plan to spend the night where you are. There really is nothing that can possibly justify you drinking and then driving. Plain and simple, you are playing with fire this Fourth of July if you get lit and then drive.

·Think that you’ll be able to get away with drinking and driving, that nothing will happen to you – or to anyone else – if you’re on the road? Do you really think that you should take such a chance? For one thing, when you drink, you begin to lose control over your inhibitions. You may become boisterous, take risks, get angry and start a fight, or become sad or weepy. Your mind becomes less and less able to process what’s going on, and your judgment is impaired. The more you drink, the worse your impairment. And it can come up on you all of a sudden. One minute, you think you’re fine (you’re really not, but you’re still standing), and the next minute, you’re stone drunk. The really outrageous thing is that so many obviously drunk individuals still believe they’re okay to get behind the wheel. “I’m fine. I can drive.” Make a pact with a non-drinking friend (and hopefully you have one) that if you’re drinking, they’ll take away your keys and refuse to let you drive.

·Don’t kid yourself that you can eat a big meal and then go out drinking this holiday weekend – or anytime during the summer months. Alcohol will still have a cumulative effect regardless of how much you do or don’t put into your stomach beforehand. And it still will take a much longer time for you to sober up than you have before you can safely get behind the wheel after you’ve been drinking.

·Think you’ll start off with a watered-down drink or a fruity drink and somehow pace yourself? Again, it’s fascinating and sad at the same time how many people mistakenly believe that this type of behavior will keep them from getting drunk. In many cases, all that happens is that they consume even more alcohol. They’re often not even aware that they’re slipping into the intoxicated state – until they are stumbling around, talking gibberish, and still insisting that they’re perfectly fine to drive.

·Don’t want to stick out and be the only one not drinking among your friends? Afraid of the kidding or urging by others to drink? You’d be surprised how many people today are making a conscientious decision not to drink alcohol. When you’re at a party and it’s a help-yourself bar, you can mix yourself a soda with a twist of lemon or slice of lime, or make a concoction that looks like a mixed drink but really is only fruit juices and ice with garnish. If you’re at a bar or a party where there’s a bartender, make it known to the bartender that your drink is non-alcoholic – no matter what. No one will notice – or even care. As long as they’ve got their own drink (which may very well be non-alcoholic, for all you know), they’ll be happy.

·Watch out for drinking games that often get organized by partygoers after a few drinks. It might be a ritual that happens every time these individuals get together or it may be something that someone suggests when the party starts to get a little too quiet or people seem a bit bored. Drinking games, popular on college campuses and among some high school groups, result in binge drinking – consuming five or more drinks in an hour on more than one occasion. Binge drinking can lead to serious consequences, including death from alcohol poisoning. But after engaging in drinking games, when you get behind the wheel stone-drunk, you’re just a tragedy waiting to happen. It may not be you that gets seriously injured or killed this Fourth of July or anytime this summer, but do you really want to have the deaths or injuries of others on your hands? Is it really that compelling that you take part in your buddies’ drinking games?

·Arrange for a designated driver (DD). The DD pledge is one that never goes out of style. While it’s always a wise idea never to drink and drive, the fact of the matter is that you know yourself. If you have a problem keeping your word, then the only responsible thing to do is to bring someone along with you who will not be drinking – under any circumstance, not even one drink – and who will then drive you home at the end of the evening or event. Do not argue with that person and insist that you are perfectly capable of driving. If you’ve had even one drink, don’t even think about getting behind the wheel. The only way for this to work is for you to keep your word. If you have a designated driver, let that person do the driving, not you, not after you’ve been drinking.

·Worried about your friends or a loved one who repeatedly drinks and drives? There is something you can do, something that, while it may not prevent that person from drinking, may start the process where he or she begins to think about getting some help to quit drinking. Learn all you can about the effects of alcohol on the body and the brain. Talk to your friend or loved one about cutting down drinking or cutting it out altogether. If the two of you have been drinking buddies, if you decide to quit, it may encourage your friend or loved one to also give sobriety a try. If you need help finding the words to say, look up how to stop drinking or what to say to a friend who has a problem with drinking on the Internet.

Where to Go For Help

If you’ve decided that it’s time for you to get help for your own drinking behavior that may be out of control, look into Alcoholics Anonymous meetings in your area. If you feel like you’re not yet ready to actually go to a meeting, check out the Alcoholics Anonymous website (http://www.aa.org/?Media=PlayFlash). Besides a directory listing meeting locations, there is a wealth of information available. You can read literature, get answers to your questions, find out more about alcoholism and how to overcome the addiction, find links to other resources and much more.

Need more help, possibly rehab? Look up treatment facilities by using the Treatment Facility Locator (http://dasis3.samhsa.gov/) or call their confidential toll-free helpline at 1-800-662-HELP. This way, you can find a treatment facility that can help you overcome your problem with alcohol and get on the road to recovery.

Are You Ready to Make a Change?

Perhaps the biggest thing to keep in mind is that making a decision to not drink and drive is completely up to you. It may be that you’ve “gotten away with” a lot of bad stuff so far in your life. But that’s just whistling in the dark against the shadows. Thinking something is fine when it really isn’t, is no way to live. Not only that, but it’s totally irresponsible.

Maybe now isn’t the time for you to quit drinking totally. Millions of Americans are able to have a drink now and then without a problem. As long as they don’t drink and then get behind the wheel, no one else needs to have disastrous consequences either. But for the millions of Americans who do have a problem with alcohol, and who repeatedly drink to the point of being intoxicated and then get behind the wheel, something needs to change.

There’s just no excuse to put others’ lives in jeopardy because a driver makes the foolish decision to make his or her way down the road after drinking.

Let’s start with this decision. Make a pledge not to drink and drive this Fourth of July – or anytime this summer. Let’s just begin there and see where it takes you. Little steps can be huge at this point. Think of it this way. You’ll not only potentially be saving the lives of others, but also your own. That’s certainly something worthwhile, no matter how much you enjoy your alcohol or believe that you have a right to drink if you want to.

Are you ready to make a change? Don’t get lit and drive this Fourth of July – or anytime this summer.

The scope of punishment for a DUI is extended by House Bill 1789, including the ability to declare any DUI as a felony, if the driver already holds a previous DUI offense at the felony-level. Stated another way, once a driver reaches felon status for DUI, he or she will remain at felon status.

To reach felon status for a DUI, the driver must have already have received at least four DUI convictions over a ten-year time period, or have received a conviction for vehicular homicide. The driver can also be declared a felon for DUI if he or she has been convicted of vehicular assault related to drinking while under the influence of alcohol – part of the House Bill 1789 expansions to DUI sentencing.

Lawmakers also hope to encourage DUI offenders from repeating the crime. The bill mandates that a person found guilty of reckless driving related to alcohol or first-degree negligent driving behavior related to a DUI use an ignition-interlocking device. The requirement comes under specific circumstances, but for those who install the device, the vehicle will not start if certain levels of alcohol are present on the breath. In many states, data collected from an ignition-interlocking device can be constantly tracked and monitored by law enforcement officials, and offenders must often pay for the purchase or rent of the device on their own.

Additional penalties from House Bill 1789 include mandating that anyone receiving a sentence for a vehicular homicide that involves at DUI serve that sentence to its completion. However, the bill does not allow for sentences related to DUIs to be extended or lengthened. During discussions, some lawmakers stated that making jail sentences longer did not have an impact on preventing a DUI offender from drinking and driving once he or she leaves incarceration.

Citizens who have commented on the bill say it may not stop every drunk driver, but it is a positive step toward harsher penalties – and that they support even small changes over time to current DUI laws. Research on effective consequences for preventing DUI offenders from repeating the crime, including a 2007 study published in Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research shows that immediately removing a driver’s license may have the strongest impact. Because many DUI convictions span several weeks or months in the courts, the study indicates that fast and immediately-experienced consequences like removing a license may be successful deterrents toward future DUIs.

As DUI penalties become harsher across the nation, lawmakers and officials hope to save lives and send a strong message that drinking under the influence of alcohol is a felony, and will result in serious and impactful consequences.

Xinos admitted to having “a little” to drink and denied knowing what had happened. He appeared intoxicated, with bloodshot, watery eyes, slurred speech and a staggered gait. Xinos refused to take an alcohol breath test and was arrested; Xinos’s BAC registered .18 via a mandatory blood test.

The officer investigating the incident determined that Xinos had been driving between 48 and 61 miles per hour, consistent with physical evidence and witness statements. However the officer also acknowledged that it was not an excessive speed given the time and location of events. Although Xinos’s intoxication was thought to be an “associated” factor, the investigator felt that the primary cause was the victim having stepped into the intersection against the light, as it was too dark for a driver to see someone who was wearing dark clothing. No reasonable driver would have been able to avoid the accident.

Xinos plead no contest to felony hit and run, DUI and was scheduled to be sentenced on July 3, 2007.

However in May of 2007, the investigator returned to the police impound lot and downloaded data from the “SDM” device in Xinos’s car. An SDM device records data related to seatbelts and airbags, engine speed, vehicle speed, deceleration, throttle percentage, and braking. The investigator had recently attended a training seminar where she learned that there could be SDM data even when airbags do not deploy.

The data for just prior to the collision indicated that there was some braking, but not necessarily hard breaking. The officer would later claim that if she knew there was little braking before crash, she would have added speed as an associated factor. To make matters worse, an expert’s evaluation of the data put Xinos’s speed at between 69 and 76 miles per hour just prior to the crash and between 57 and 65 at the precise moment of impact. The expert opined that Xinos could have swerved easily to avoid hitting the victim.

The prosecution moved to vacate the plea and filed a complaint for vehicular manslaughter. At a hearing to suppress evidence gathered from the SDM module, it was revealed that even though the module was not in plain view, a deputy district attorney advised the officers that no search warrant was needed to download the data. This was a violation of section 9951, which prohibits downloading of SDM data except as statutorily permitted.

The prosecution argued that no search warrant was required because there was no reasonable expectation of privacy for a vehicle driven on a public road. However, the defense argued that section 9951 created privacy rights related to SDM data. The trial court allowed introduction of the evidence, finding that it was not a search but rather an inspection of the instrumentality of the crime. Xinos was convicted of vehicular manslaughter and appealed.

The appeals court held, however, that defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy for the data. The precision data recorded by the SDM was generated by the vehicle for systems operations. Although driving on the road is observable, the digital data is not exposed to public view. The Court also held that the police lacked probable cause for the search, given that Xinos’s plea had already been accepted by the time the data had been downloaded.

Problems with California DUI breath tests

A recent published opinion of the California state appellate court held that the margin-of-error inherent in a blood alcohol content (BAC) measured by an Intoxilyzer 5000 breathalyzer is not enough to help someone who drives with a .08 or higher BAC in an effort to keep his driver’s license.

In March 2009, Steven Borger was observed by a California Highway Patrol (CHP) officer as he swerved across the highway. He crossed the solid white line three times, and then ran over a traffic cone. When the officer stopped him, there was an odor of alcohol coming from him and his car. Although his eyes were red and watery, he first denied having had any alcoholic beverages. He then admitted to having had a “handful” of drinks.

Because he failed the field sobriety tests administered at the scene, he took two breath tests and registered .087 and .09. He was then arrested for driving under the influence (DUI).

Pursuant to the California Vehicle Code, section 13353.2, the DMV suspended his license. The driver appealed the suspension at an administrative hearing. Borger’s expert testified that all Intoxilyzer 5000 machines, the same type used by the CHP officer on Borger, have an inherent margin-of-error of plus or minus .02 percent. As such, Borger’s real BAC at the time of his arrest could have been between .06 and .10 and it was impossible to say, with any scientific certainty, if the BAC was really over .08. If it were below .08 at the time of his arrest, he should not have lost his license. The hearing officer didn’t buy the argument, and upheld the license suspension. A superior court judge, however, sided with the driver and ordered the DMV to set aside the suspension.

The appellate court disagreed, lamenting that the lower court’s ruling would overrule every Intoxilyzer 5000 result unless it was .10 or more and would cause the instrument to be removed from the approved instrument list. Further, the court held that the expert had offered no data to back up his conclusions and had not examined the actual machine used during the stop.
 

At 3am on July 12, 2009, Santa Rosa police encountered a disheveled man named Mendoza on the side of the road; the officers concluded that he was in shock. The man told the police that he had been in an accident and there was someone else in the car. Several miles away, police discovered a car that appeared to have rolled over several times – it had settled upside down in a ditch. A teenage girl (the defendant) was also lying in the ditch, about sixty feet from the car. Officers determined that she had urinated on herself, had scratches and was covered in dirt.

Shortly thereafter, two California Highway Patrol (CHP) officers arrived and began to investigate the incident. While questioning Mendoza, they discovered that he had been driving along around 40 miles per hour when he and the girl started arguing. Mendoza claimed that the girl grabbed and yanked the wheel, causing him to lose control of his car and crash. As she was being place in the ambulance, the girl told police “I did it. It was my fault.”

Upon questioning at the hospital, police observed that her eyes were red and watery, her speech was slurred and she smelled of alcohol. Her blood alcohol content (BAC) was .10 three hours after the crash. She admitted to arguing with Mendoza (her boyfriend) from the passenger seat and then grabbing and turning the wheel, causing the crash. The girl also admitted to drinking five shots of hard liquor and some beer.

The girl was charged and found guilty of both misdemeanor DUI causing bodily injury and driving with a blood alcohol content over .08 causing bodily injury. The judge made her a ward of the court and put her on home probation.

On appeal, the girl argued that a passenger who grabs the steering wheel and causes a crash is not “driving” within the meaning of the Vehicle Code. Although this is a case of first impression in California, the court relied on out-of-state authority and a common sense interpretation of the Vehicle Code to declare that the girl had taken actual physical control of the vehicle and was, therefore, driving.
 

Developers of the Drinking Driver Program have looked at statistics and efforts to prevent drunk driving from all regions of New York State. One focus is on preventing drunk driving before it happens, and drivers with offenses related to driving while impaired can either volunteer to participate in the program, or be ordered by the court. If they choose to participate in DDP, some drivers may receive a conditional license to drive from the Department of Motor Vehicles.

The program also extends to people with substance abuse problems, including driving while impaired from drugs. Issues like treatment and recovery will be part of the curriculum, a joint effort between the OASAS and the DMV.

Every day in New York, around 83,000 car accidents occur that are connected to driving while impaired from drugs or alcohol. Around 19 percent of car accidents involving fatalities are connected to people who are legally drunk, with a blood alcohol content of at least .08 percent.

During the past ten years, more than 206,000 New York drivers were found guilty of driving while intoxicated. Almost 33,000 of those drivers had previous offenses for the crime, with greater than 5,000 having at least three prior impaired driving convictions on their record. During the decade under study, a total of 16 percent of all drivers with DWI penalties had repeated convictions for the offense.

The DDP program includes information about road safety, along with curriculum materials from the nationally-known PRIME For Life program, which is part of the Prevention Research Institute (PRI). Developers hope the combined programs will encourage new behavior patterns among participants and reduce their risk of driving while impaired. The program can also help people who are likely to have a drug or substance addiction problem.

Additional funding toward helping reduce DUIs in New York came from the same funding source as the DDP, the Governor’s Traffic Safety Committee. A second program will help train people to screen and assess offenders in a clinical setting, as well as another initiative to create an online-based system for collecting and reporting DUI and impaired driving information.

Karen Carpenter-Palumbo, Commissioner for OASAS, says the Drinking Driver Program will reduce fatalities in New York caused by impaired driving. Officials hope it will also help stop the behavior, as well as offer treatment and recovery options, for people battling substance addictions.
 

The law makes it an automatic felony on the first offence to drive drunk with a person under age 16 inside the vehicle. The law was enacted in November 2009, but now the second component of the legislation is going into effect. It is estimated that 25,000 drivers statewide will be required to install an ignition interlock device each year.

Dutchess County District Attorney William Grady said that if a person was arrested after November 18, 2009, and convicted after August 15, 2010, he or she will be mandated to install an ignition interlock device, which keeps the vehicle from starting until the driver has passed an in-vehicle breathalyzer test. The driver will continue being tested every 10 to 15 minutes while the vehicle is being operated.

He added that anyone convicted of a misdemeanor or felony DWI will be required to install the system on every vehicle they won within 10 days of their conviction. The system must remain in the vehicle(s) for six months to a year for a misdemeanor conviction and five years for a felony. Attempts to tamper with the system are punishable by up to one year in jail.

Senator Steven Saland said that out of the 300 DWI arrests in New York State since Leandra’s Law was passed that involve children under 15, 12 have occurred in Dutchess County and 8 have occurred in Columbia County. He added that the measure is an effort to deter people from making poor decisions, and that it’s an important component to Leandra’s Law.

The law, formally known as the Child Passenger Protection Act, was set into motion by Leandra’s father, Lenny Rosado. He said he will visit the White House on September 20th to discuss making Leandra’s Law apply to all 50 states. New York is one of 10 states in the nation to mandate ignition interlock devices for first-time drunk-driving offenders.

Sources: Mid-Hudson News, Tougher Leandra’s Law takes effect next week, August 13, 2010

Long Island Press, Kaitlyn Piccoli, New Provision of Leandra’s Law to Take Effect, August 12, 2010

A grand jury recently handed down an indictment in a New York driving under the influence (DUI) case that involved the death of an elderly doctor. However, these particular charges are not directed at the drunk driver. Instead, the passenger in the car is the one under indictment. He faces up to fifteen years in prison if convicted.

Brian Steele, twenty-eight, was riding as Kayla Gerdes’s passenger on April 20 when Gerdes jumped a curb and killed Rebecca Twine-Wright, who was mowing her own front lawn. Twine-Wright was pinned between the van and the foundation of her house. The sixty-nine-year old doctor died of her injuries.

Although Gerdes, eighteen, has been charged with twenty-eight criminal counts arising from the incident, her passenger, Steele, has been charged with four of his own. Prosecutors allege that Steele allowed Gerdes to drive his van, despite the fact that she was high on drugs. Police found a stolen prescription pad, 20 oxycodone pills and 30 Xanax pills when they searched the van.
Because prosecutors allege that Steele was acting in concert with Gerdes, he has been charged with second-degree manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, and second-degree reckless endangerment. He is free on $50,000 bond. Not one to learn a lesson, however, Steele was recently arrested for his own driving while high on Xanax and Vicodin.

For her part, Gerdes has been charged with a laundry list of serious offenses and faces up to sixty years in prison if convicted. Lawyers for the girl argue that there is no evidence that Gerdes was under the influence of drugs at the time of the accident as samples for toxicology tests were not gathered until over four hours after the accident; Gerdes claims that she took the pills after she was arrested.

Gerdes also claims that she was driving because Steele, her boyfriend, was too impaired to drive. Unfortunately, Gerdes was not licensed to drive Steele’s large construction van.

No, things are not looking good for Kayla Gerdes. Just prior to the incident she had been kicked out of a drug rehab program for failure to pay. Further, Gerdes’s mother evicted her from the house after the DUI incident and later alleged that Gerdes had stolen jewelry from her so that she could continue to buy drugs. Gerdes now faces grand larceny charges, in addition to the 29 charges arising from the DUI.

Gerdes is being held on $200,000 bond and will likely remain in jail for the foreseeable future. Because she is only eighteen, she is not eligible to participate in the drug treatment program sponsored by the NY correctional system. Her lawyers claim that she is suffering in jail without treatment and has been in and out of the jail’s medical facility.

A Case of “When Good Laws Get Twisted” in New York

A series of laws, known as the “Rockefeller” drug laws, was passed in New York with the purpose of helping addicts who dealt drugs or committed minor crimes in order to support their drug habits avoid unnecessary incarceration. Instead, the laws allowed these addicts to enter drug treatment in order to avoid jail.

However, bona fide drug dealers, whose crimes were not a direct result of their addiction to illegal substances, are using the laws to avoid jail by claiming that they are addicted to marijuana. Most of these dealers have multiple convictions for non-violent offenses.

For instance, a member of the Bloods gang had been previously convicted of two felony drug charges. Last October, he was charged with overseeing a cocaine ring. Despite denying that he had a drug problem in the past, the dealer suddenly claimed a marijuana addiction and, instead of being in jail, is in a drug treatment program. Dealers have been overheard during jailhouse conversations discussing how best to make a case for pot addiction, including making sure that a urine test comes back positive for marijuana.

Proponents of the law, however, argue that the changes work and that the cases of pot-smoking drug dealers are rare. The new laws have repealed the mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses that were implemented in the ‘70’s and allow for resentencing or release for some prisoners who would have qualified for treatment under the new law.

This expansion of judicial diversion permits a judge to dismiss a drug charge if the offender first pleads guilty and successfully completes treatment. For drug dealers who aren’t truly addicted, however, allowing them to participate in diversion will have no effect on rates of recidivism as their crime is not really tied to an addiction. Prosecutors are worried; roughly 50 percent of those who requested judicial diversion after the law passed claimed an addiction to marijuana. This is especially curious, since these same people are dealing cocaine and heroin, substances that are much more addictive than pot.

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=7453911
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/06/27/2010-06-27_smoke_pot_to_get_out_of_jail_prosecutor_sez_fiends_wrangle_treatment_angle_in_ne.html
 

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 2006 University of Florida study shows no pattern between stricter DUI consequences and a reduced rate of DUI arrests. Highway statistics continue to reflect the discouraging trend: in 2005, 16,000 people died from car accidents related to alcohol and more than 1.4 million drivers were arrested for being under the influence. The study could prompt more research into why people drive drunk, and which legal policies are actually effective at reducing the behavior.

While the threat of jail or fines do not seem to be strong deterrents, measures including increasing the drinking age, revoking licenses for offenders and more sobriety checkpoints are linked to a reduced number of alcohol-related arrests and fatalities.
Researchers suggest the disregard toward the threat of arrest, fines or jail time stems from widely varying legal consequences for drunk driving; a lengthy time frame for sentencing; and the fact that most people who engage in the behavior have done it many times before getting arrested. Enhanced alcohol education across the school spectrum is also recommended as a possible solution, but more research is called for to determine why people continue to drive under the influence.

The study analyzed 26 years of data and compared fines and jail sentences for drunken driving across the nation with the number of arrests for DUIs and fatal car crashes related to alcohol. Forty-eight states were included in the study. While several had minimum jail terms for drunk driving and mandatory fines for it, many states punish drunk driving similarly to underage drinking – a finding especially concerning toward college students. While students may realize drunk drinking is a more serious offense than underage drinking, they may be less deterred from the behavior if punishments remain similar to other seemingly “lesser” alcohol offenses.

Study leaders suggest these legal inconsistencies may generate a certain psychology toward drunk driving and repeatedly getting away with it. On average, people arrested for driving under the influence had done so previously from 50-200 times. Having friends that drink, and the impaired sense of reason related to drinking, are also listed as factors in the trend.

While the threat of arrest, jail time or fines don’t seem connected to reducing drunk driving, researchers say raising the legal age to drink from 18 years to 21 years, suspending drivers’ licenses and checkpoints for sobriety are significantly reducing road fatalities related to alcohol and could also reduce DUI arrests.

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