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
 

Sadly, parents often forget to explore the potential liability issues for allowing their child to either drive their car or, in extreme cases, drive any car at all. A typical scenario involves a teen getting into a fender bender and causing the family’s auto insurance rates to increase, over and above the amount it already rose due to having a teen driver. But, what about the more extreme examples of teen driving incidents? What if your child drives your car while under the influence? Are parents criminally or civilly liable when their teen goes out and hurts someone? The short answer is, yes.

Parental liability for teen driving is something that all parents should explore prior to signing for a license for their teen or allowing the teen to use the family car. The liability arises on a state law level, with different standards applied by different jurisdictions. Typically, however, three major areas of parental liability can attach as the result of a teen driving accident. In some cases, one or more theories of liability can attach to a single incident, increasing the total amount of financial exposure.

Parental liability for signing for a teen’s driver’s license

Parents who sign for a child’s license will be liable for motor vehicle injuries caused by that child until either the child’s eighteenth birthday or the day the parent withdraws support for the license. In California, signing for a driver’s license attaches strict liability, meaning that there is very little that a parent can do to avoid being held responsible for the acts of the minor. The liability, however, is often capped at various dollar amounts.

Liability for letting someone borrow your car

Another major type of parental liability would attach regardless of the driver’s age or familial relationship. Most states impose liability on the owner of a vehicle that has been involved in an automobile accident, if the owner knew or should have known that the driver presented a dangerous risk to others. Parents typically find themselves subject to this “negligent entrustment” liability when their teen has a history of problems with drugs or alcohol, prior DUI’s or other significant risk factors. All owners, however, could find themselves at the wrong end of a negligent entrustment suit for letting even an adult friend or relative borrow the car, if they do so despite evidence of prior dangerous behavior. For instance, if you know your 38-year old brother has two prior DUI incidents on his record, but you lend him your car anyway, you could be sued for negligent entrustment if he goes out and hurts someone with your car as a result of drinking.

Liability for negligent parenting

The final type of parental liability for teen accidents arises from the concept of negligent parenting. Although this liability can attach in any personal injury situation, such as assault, bullying or rape, parents typically encounter negligent parenting charges as a result of teen DUI or reckless driving incidents. As with negligent entrustment liability, most states require a plaintiff to show that the parent knew or should have known that the child needed to be supervised during the given activity. A teen’s history of bad behavior or drug or alcohol abuse will typically aid the plaintiff in proving that the parent was negligent in supervising his or her child.

Examples of Parental Liability for a children’s DUI

At 3:30pm on a Friday afternoon in April 2008, Chynna Stone, a sophomore at SMU, was sitting on her couch when 24-yr old Brian Adams drove through her living room in his parents’ GMC Yukon. Stone was pinned to the back wall and buried under three feet of rubble. The impact also caused Stone’s water heater and various pipes to burst, flooding the first floor of the apartment and causing water damage to any items not already destroyed by the crash. It took rescue crews at least forty minutes to free Stone from the pile of debris; she was later taken to Baylor hospital.

Stone and her parents filed a lawsuit in March 2010 against not only the driver, but also his parents. Adams’ parents are being sued civilly in Texas under the theory of negligent entrustment of a motor vehicle, as they knew or should have known that Adams was incompetent, reckless or unfit to operate a motor vehicle when they allowed him to drive it. In addition to standard negligence causes of action, the Stones are also suing the parents for gross negligence – a conscious indifference to the rights, safety and welfare of the general public. Gross negligence damages are typically not covered by liability insurance and may even be non-dischargeable in a bankruptcy filing.

In the suit, Stone alleges that Adams’s parents let him use their car, even though they knew that he had serious issues with alcohol and drug abuse. In support of their claims, the Stones allege that Adams had previously been arrested for possession of drug paraphernalia and had a prior DWI charge. The suit also alleges that the parents unsuccessfully attempted to persuade Brian to go to drug rehab and, when he refused, continued to allow him to drive their vehicle anyway.

There is evidence that, at the scene, Adams had bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and smelled of alcohol. He admitted to police that he had been drinking, and failed a series of field sobriety tests. It was determined that his blood alcohol content (BAC) at the time of the crash was 0.16, double the legal limit. Toxicology tests also showed that Adams was under the influence of marijuana and cocaine at the time.

Adams was later charged with aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury (Texas Penal Code section 22.02(A)(1)); he pled guilty and was sentenced to ten years probation.

Prior to the accident, Stone suffered from obsessive-compulsive disorder. The suit alleges that this condition has gotten worse as a result of the accident and her attorneys claim that she will endure physical pain and mental anguish in the future, as well as loss of earning capacity, physical impairment, and disfigurement. Her parents are suing on the basis of loss of services and earnings of their dependent child.

Criminal liability for a child’s DWI in New York

A more recent New York case is an example of how negligent parenting can lead to criminal charges. In September 2009, 17-year-old Lars Haas was driving drunk when he ran a red light and hit a truck driven by 72-year-old Robert Meehan. Meehan was ejected from the truck and died from his injuries six weeks later.

An investigation revealed that Haas’s mother, Susan, had furnished the alcohol that resulted in his intoxicated state. Haas was also driving his mother’s 2008 Pontiac Vibe at the time of the collision; Susan was not in the car. Several cans of beer were found in the car after the accident, and chemical tests revealed that Haas’s blood alcohol content was above the legal limit for New York. He also had marijuana in his system.

The son has been charged with aggravated vehicular homicide and DWI. Not surprisingly, the DA has also charged Susan Haas with serving alcohol to minors (a misdemeanor). A civil suit is likely on the horizon.

Millie Cavanaugh, Esq., is a former insurance defense attorney currently practicing immigration law. 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.

Sources
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2010/03/two_years_after_she_was_buried.php
http://www.smudailycampus.com/2.6641/prayer-service-held-for-smu-student-1.962258

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=871953&category=region

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.

Most recently, New Jersey has beefed up its drunk driving laws by imposing tougher standards for ignition interlock devices (IID). It has been shown that repeat driving under the influence offenses decline between fifty and ninety percent after the installation of an IID. Previously, a judge could choose to require a first time offender to install an IID in his or her car for six months to a year or could choose to require repeat offenders to install the IID from one to three years.

However, starting in 2010 first time DUI offenders whose blood alcohol content (BAC) is .15 or higher must install an IID for not less than six months and no more than a year. The new law also requires repeat offenders to have an IID for one to three years. These IID penalties had previously been left up to judges to impose.

New Jersey DUI in the news

Given its close proximity to New York, New Jersey experiences its fair share of celebrity DUI offenses. On March 23, 2010 at approximately nine o’clock in the morning, former major league baseball player Dwight Gooden was arrested in the exclusive New Jersey suburb of Franklin Lakes. A former pitcher for the New York Mets and New York Yankees, the forty-five year old Gooden was driving his five-year-old son Dylan to school when he was involved in a two-car crash. Thankfully, no one was injured in the accident.

It is alleged that, at the time of the accident, Gooden was under the influence of a controlled substance. Gooden’s manager would later reveal that he had taken Ambien, a highly-addictive sleep aid that had been prescribed by a doctor.

Gooden was charged with a laundry list of offenses arising out of the accident including being under the influence of a controlled dangerous substance, endangering the welfare of a child, driving while intoxicated (DWI) with a child passenger, leaving the scene of a motor vehicle accident, reckless driving, failure to keep right and failure to notify the state of a change of address on his driver’s license.

Sadly, this is not Gooden’s first run-in with the law nor his first struggle with substance abuse issues. In 1987, already a baseball star, Gooden tested positive for cocaine and entered drug rehab. In 1994, he was suspended for two months from baseball for failing two drug tests and eventually checked into Betty Ford; he continued to fail tests after returning from drug rehab and was suspended for the entire 1995 season. In 2002, Gooden was arrested in Tampa and pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of reckless driving. In 2005, it is alleged that he fled from a traffic stop in Tampa after being pulled over for erratic driving; the officer claimed he reeked of alcohol. In 2006, Gooden seemed high on cocaine at a meeting with his probation officer and was arrested; he served eight months in jail.

Gooden is due to be inducted into the Mets’ Hall of Fame this summer, along with Darryl Strawberry. No comment.

Is there such a thing as too drunk to commit a DUI?

Being arrested for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol after a traffic stop is, for most people, a very sobering experience. Not only must they suffer the humiliation of criminal prosecution, but they also face steep fines and significant loss of driving privileges.

However, the typical first-offense penalties are nothing compared to what happens to a driver after he or she injures someone as a result of driving while intoxicated. When the driver kills someone, the potential loss of freedom can be the equivalent of a lifetime in prison. Under the threat of such a great penalty, it is not surprising that DUI defendants will try novel defense strategies in a desperate attempt to avoid jail.

One of the more novel examples of DUI defense strategy was recently exhibited in the Morristown, NJ trial of drunk driver Eugene Baum. Baum was charged with driving under the influence in 2006, a crime in itself that also resulted in the death of two teenage girls who were simply walking down the wrong road.

On April 20, 2006, Baum was driving on a New Jersey roadway around 9pm when his car veered onto the shoulder that the girls were walking on. His blood alcohol content (BAC) was an outrageous .34, approximately four times the legal limit. The two cousins, ages 15 and 16, were walking to a local movie theatre when the car threw them off the shoulder, killing them instantly. There is no evidence that Baum ever slowed down.

During his police interrogation, Baum admitted that he mixed vodka and Librium, a drug used to treat alcohol withdrawal. At trial, a defense expert opined that Baum became an “automaton” when he drank and experienced a severe reaction to the combination of alcohol and Librium which, ultimately, caused the crash. During legal proceedings, a mental health expert for New Jersey opined that Baum was a functioning alcoholic and could tolerate elevated levels of alcohol.

A defense psychiatrist diagnosed Baum with major depression and chronic alcoholism with physiological dependence at the time of the crash, in addition to intoxication in the form of delirium. Baum had also taken Paxil the night before the crash. The doctor declared Baum to be “massively impaired”. Baum had been previously hospitalized three times for pancreatitis arising from the alcoholism, most recently just two weeks prior to the accident. Upon discharge during another admission, he was advised to avoid drinking alcohol while taking Librium.

The State of New Jersey offered Baum a plea bargain of 20 years in state prison, 85 percent of which he would have needed to serve before being considered for parole. Baum rejected the offer and, if convicted of two counts of aggravated manslaughter and death by auto, faced sixty years in prison.

After seven days of testimony during the two-week trial, the jury was asked to consider whether Baum should be acquitted because his severe alcoholism made his acts unconscious to a degree that he could not perceive the risks of getting behind the wheel in his intoxicated state. New Jersey had argued that Baum had known the dangers of drinking and driving and had been warned by a doctor not to combine alcohol with the Librium he was taking for symptoms of alcohol withdrawal.

The jury rejected Baum’s defense of being an atypical alcoholic and incapable of controlling his liquor intake. Instead, Baum was sentenced to 40 years in state prison; he will be eligible for parole around age 80.

http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20100326/UPDATES01/100326028/1005/news01/Eugene+Baum+Jr.+sentenced+to+40+years+for+cousins++DWI+deaths
http://www.newjerseydwilawyerblog.com/2010/01/dover-nj-man-faces-dwi-manslau.html
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/gooden_busted_on_dwi_charges_in_r0kzWwVANxBp4sXMO2Le8J

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/02/dover_man_was_intoxicated_on_a.html

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.
 

In Ragoonanan v. USCIS, a 2007 US district court case out of Minnesota, an applicant’s motion for summary judgment was granted and the Court declared him to possess good moral character over the objection of immigration officials. Immigration officials initially denied his naturalization application for failure to show good moral character for the required five years prior to filing. The applicant was a citizen of Trinidad who came to the US in lawful permanent resident status in 1996. At the time of the decision, his wife and child lived in Trinidad and were waiting on his citizenship so that they could move here to be with him. The applicant had worked for Honeywell since 1998, had a clean employment record, and was a member of the Teamster’s union. Further, he owned rental property and filed his tax returns as required.

In 2005, he was arrested for DUI after driving the wrong way down a Minnesota street, blowing a .18 on the breathalyser (more than double the legal limit). He was charged with a fourth-degree DWI (driving while intoxicated) misdemeanor and spend one night in jail. Subsequent to his arrest, the applicant voluntarily participated in a substance abuse inventory that categorized him as having “abusive episodic” tendencies with a low probability of having a substance abuse disorder. He completed six hours of an alcohol, drug and DUI awareness course and pled guilty to the DWI. He was sentenced to 90 days in jail and a $1000 fine (later reduced), and also had to attend a victim impact panel.

Ragoonanan fulfilled all of the DUI-related requirements and filed for citizenship in 2006; he disclosed the conviction as required by law. He attributed the DUI to the stress of his mother’s illness and the prolonged separation from his wife and daughter. USCIS denied his application, finding that the DUI, combined with the fact that he was on probation during his five year moral character period, precluded him from establishing that he the good moral character required of a US citizenship applicant. It was stressed that, by driving under the influence, he had posed a threat to the property, safety and welfare of others. In denying his request for reconsideration, it was determined that enough time had not elapsed since the incident to show the requisite reform.

The Court held that one DUI conviction that results in a year of probation does not bar a good moral character finding. Although Congress declared that habitual drunkards could not show good moral character, they did not include drunk drivers in that prohibition.

However, what if the applicant has more than one DUI? In Yaqub v. Gonzalez, the foreign national arrived in the US in 1991, received BS and MBA degrees, was involved in charitable activities and paid his taxes. In 1991 he was arrested on a minor assault charge stemming from a dispute with a neighbor. In 1993, while a university student, he was arrested for public intoxication with friends after an altercation with a restaurant manager. In 2001, he was arrested for DUI and pled guilty to reckless operation of a motor vehicle; his license was suspended for six months. In 2002, he applied for naturalization and had his interview in December of 2003. However, earlier in 2003 he was again arrested for DUI and was sentenced to 90 days in jail. At the time of his application, he was married to a citizen of Pakistan and they were expecting their first child. His application was denied in September 2004 based on a lack of good moral character.
In overturning the immigration officer’s decision, the federal district court in Ohio disregarded the 1992 and 1993 convictions, chalking them up to youthful indiscretions and emphasized the fact that the applicant admitted to his wrong doing and had provided evidence of rehabilitation and remorsefulness. The Court found that multiple DUI convictions, in and of themselves, do not preclude a finding of good moral character when balanced with positive contributions to the community, even if the incidents occur during the period of required good moral character. However, in Rico v. INS, a New York federal district court upheld denial of a naturalization application where the DUI conviction occurred in the five year moral character period and was one of a series of five DUI convictions over ten years.
Permanent residents who commit aggravated felonies after 1990 are permanently barred from naturalizing and are deportable. A simple, single DUI conviction will generally not rise to the level of an aggravated felony. However, an aggravated felony for immigration purposes is not easy to define. Courts, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), could conceivably find an aggravated felony classification for driving under the influence when coupled with aggravating circumstances such as death, bodily injury or driving on a suspended license or after a prior DUI.

In order to overcome negative moral character aspects of an immigration application, it is very important to show community involvement, substance abuse remission, and participation in a substance abuse rehabilitation program or AA. If a negative issue arose recently, it might be wise to establish rehabilitation or reform prior to applying for citizenship.

Millie Anne Cavanaugh, Esq. is a Los Angeles immigration attorney 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.