In 1984 President Reagan signed the Uniform Drinking Age Act, requiring all states to raise the legal drinking age to 21 or face reductions in their federal highway funding. Since 1995, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have complied.
But now, Minnesota lawmakers are considering legislation that would roll back the state’s legal drinking age to 18. State Representative Phyllis Kahn has proposed legislation that would allow individuals over 18 to be served alcohol in bars and restaurants. The bill would still ban retail sales of alcohol for people under 21.
Kahn—whose district area includes the University of Minnesota—argues that serving alcohol to young adults in public would teach them to drink responsibly and reduce binge drinking. And she notes that the measure would be good for the economy as it would likely increase sales in bars and restaurants.
Supporters claim that many 18- to 20-year-olds already drink, especially on college campuses, and making alcohol legally available to this group could decrease the “forbidden fruit” allure of drinking.
But critics point to studies linking a lower drinking age to increased traffic crashes and to research that shows teens and young adults respond more adversely to alcohol than older adults. In addition, MADD and the National Traffic Highway Administration (NHTSA) estimate that raising the drinking age to 21 nationally has saved approximately 900 lives per year.
If the bill is approved by the Minnesota legislature it will take effect in August.
The motivation for the change is to reduce the number of road deaths caused by drinking and driving. According to NTSB estimates, drunk driving accounts for a third of all road deaths.
NTSB Chairman Debbie Hersman said before a vote by the panel on a staff report, "This is critical because impaired driving remains one of the biggest killers in the United States."
Some of the more recent actions that have reduced drinking related deaths are federal and state policies, tougher law enforcement, and stepped up national advocacy. The NTSB staff report estimates, lowering the per se BAC for drinking and driving to .05% would save 500-800 lives annually. In the last 30 years, 440,000 lives have been lost in the United States due to drinking and driving.
Although the individual per se BAC limits are set by individual states, the federal government can be very persuasive convincing states to lower their BAC limit. For instance, the federal government can require such laws before dispersing highway funds.
Not all groups approved of the measure, most notably the American Beverage Institute (ABI). Sarah Longwell, managing director, stated the measure was "ludicrous" and "would criminalize perfectly responsible behavior." Her position is that the NTSB should focus on drivers with higher BAC percentages.
Interestingly, Ms. Longwell refers to MADD as "anti-alcohol activists" and questions whether the science has changed from 10 years ago, when MADD pushed for the .10% BAC standard. This question was not answered, nor was the NTSB number that the move will save 440,000 lives a year explained.
The two positions, between the NTSB and ABI, lacks firm numbers for either of their positions. What is missing is a study that measures the BAC for impaired drivers who were responsible for road collisions resulting in death. The study must be that specific- often when looking at the raw data of studies we find that the stated conclusion does not match the underlying data.
The NTSB also pushed for states to act more proactively in confiscating drivers licenses, installing IIDs for first time offenders, and using "passive alcohol sensors" that can measure alcohol in the air during a traffic stop.
The motivation behind the law is clear- to end drunk driving deaths. However, it is unclear whether the law matches the motivation. That is, without firm data indicating the number of deaths associated with impaired drivers at a certain BAC, then it is a leap of faith, and not data, that justifies lowering the per se limit to save lives.
However, the ABI, and other organizations involved in the hospitality industry, have an interest in keeping patrons comfortable having a drink or two with their meals. Otherwise, they may be too concerned with not creating a criminal record than to have a drink or two.
Mental affects from alcohol affect a person's decision making, including ordering dessert, for instance. From there, the patron may leave a bigger tip, or have one last over-priced after dinner drink. I suppose the perfect per se BAC limit is one which allows for impairment by over-priced alcohol, but does not affect their ability to avoid a church bus on the way home.
The problem with reasonable, scientifically based alcohol legislation is that there is a lot of power in the illogical, emotionally based impacts of drinking and driving victims. The NTSB chose Tuesday, today, to announce the legislation as the 25th Anniversary of the Carrollton Kentucky bus collision which resulted in the deaths of 27 people and 34 more were injured. The bus, which was a modified tour bus from an old school bus, contained members of the Assembly of God church on their way to Kings Island theme park. It is, undeniably, a tragedy.
Careful arguments must be made as the battleground is littered with emotional landmines. I propose that the proper change to save lives does not involve reducing the per se limit of 0.08%, but education to help people understand exactly what it is to be 0.08% BAC, or even a 0.04% BAC. Because regardless of the per se law in 1988, the impaired driver in the Carrollton collision was 0.24% BAC, and a 0.15%, 0.10%, 0.08% or even 0.05% per se law wouldn't have made a lick of difference to those that survived the crash, but were killed by the resulting fire that engulfed the interior of the bus.
Is it legal to avoid DUI Roadblocks? - Illinois DUI Lawyer Blog @import url(http://www.illinoisduilawyer-blog.com/css/styles.css); window.jQuery || document.write(' Illinois DUI Lawyer Blog Published by Illinois DUI Attorneys :: Gullberg, Box & Worby LLC HomeWebsiteAttorneysPractice Areas Contact Us « Previous | Home | Next » November 13, 2014 |Share Is it legal to avoid DUI Roadblocks? by Gullberg, Box & Worby LLC
Avoiding Roadblocks Often, motorists will seek to avoid roadblocks for a variety of reasons. They may mistake a roadblock for a traffic accident and make a turn or a U-turn prior to reaching the "entrance." Likewise, motorists may recognize the roadblock for what it is-a roadblock-and seek to avoid it for no reason at all. Officers use such "avoidance maneuvers" to justify reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop on the innocent motorist who, for example, made a U-turn instead of continuing forward into the roadblock. Until recently, the simple act of avoiding a roadblock may itself have constituted reasonable suspicion that a criminal offense had been or was about to be committed, thus justifying a stop of the vehicle. People v. Scott, 277 Ill. App. 3d 579, 584 (3rd Dist. 1996). But recently, the Third District Court of Illinois ruled that a motorist can legally avoid a roadblock.
DUI Roadblocks A DUI roadblock (also known as a sobriety checkpoint or a "roadside safety check") is a police position on a roadway set up to stop vehicles for the purpose of cracking down on impaired motorists. They are set up on random roadways, at random times, and on random dates. Roadblocks usually share the same characteristics as traffic accidents: the presence of police and emergency vehicles; several sets of flashing emergency lights; orange traffic cones; and backed-up traffic.
Legality A police officer is entitled to briefly stop a person to investigate if, given the totality of the circumstances, the officer has specific, articulable facts, taken together with rational inferences from the facts, that warrant the intrusion. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 (1968) (emphasis added). DUI roadblocks are a "seizure," and they are legal if the intrusion created by the police is limited, i.e., reasonable. In People v. Bartley, the Illinois Supreme Court held that "[t]he [DUI] problem is so serious that . . . we hold that this interest is compelling and will therefore justify some intrusion on the unfettered movement of traffic in order to reduce alcohol-related accidents and deter driving under the influence." 109 Ill. 2d 273, 285 (1985). See also Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990). The Bartley Court further held that a DUI roadblock does not violate the Fourth Amendment even where the officer has no individualized suspicion. Bartley, 109 Ill. 2d at 280 (emphasis added).
People of the State of Illinois v. Timmsen Enter People v. Timmsen. In Timmsen, the Appellate Court held that police officers lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop on a motorist who made a legal U-turn prior to reaching the entrance of a DUI roadblock. 2014 IL App. 3d 120481, 14 N.E.3d 1267, 1271 (3rd Dist. 2014). The motorist was driving eastbound on a four-lane highway when he saw a police roadblock ahead of him. The motorist signaled and then made a U-turn at a railroad crossing approximately 50 feet from where officers were stationed. One of the officers stopped the motorist after he made the U-turn and was traveling westbound on the highway. Id. at 1268-1269. The motorist was arrested for driving while his license was suspended. Id. at 1269.
On appeal, the State conceded that the motorist did not violate any traffic laws, but argued nonetheless that the motorist's attempt to avoid the roadblock gave the officer reasonable, articulable suspicion to conduct the stop. Id. at 1269 (emphasis added). The Appellate Court disagreed, finding:
"Although a U-turn may be more uncommon than a turn at an intersection or an exit, the defendant's legal traffic maneuver only raised the suspicion that he was attempting to avoid contact with the police." Id. at 1271.
Actions Taken Which May Justify a Stop There exist, however, actions that when taken by a motorist and coupled with the act of avoiding a roadblock, can create a reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop. The Timmsen Court revisited its decision in People v. Scott, where it gave three examples of such actions: (1) when a vehicle fails to stop at the roadblock; (2) when a vehicle stops just before the roadblock and the driver and passenger change places; and (3) when a vehicle avoids the roadblock in a suspicious manner. Timmsen, 2014 IL App. 3d 120481 (citing People v. Scott, 277 Ill. App. 3d 579, 584 (3rd Dist. 1996)). Notably, the Timmsen Court took care to emphasize that the mere act of avoiding a roadblock is generally not sufficient to constitute reasonable suspicion by itself, and must be coupled with other articulable facts. Timmsen, 2014 IL App. 3d 120481. The Court found that none of the above factors were present: "Looking at the totality of the circumstances, we find there were no factors to suggest that the defendant was doing any more than going about his business. Although the legality of the defendant's traffic maneuver was but one factor to consider, there were no other facts suggesting that it was a high-crime area, nor facts suggesting flight, such as speeding, squealing tires, or spraying gravel." Id. at 1271.
Conclusion The take-away point from Timmsen is that an officer cannot stop a motorist for making a legal U-turn near the entrance of a roadblock even if the officer thinks that the motorist is trying to purposefully avoid the roadblock. Effective DUI lawyers should be able to raise this defense for people stopped and arrested for avoiding a DUI or sobriety roadblock.
Permalink | Email This Post Posted In: Connect Contact Us FREE CONSULTATION (309) 734-1001 Name: Email: Phone: Message: Enter text from the Image Above: Questions and AnswersDriving Under The Influence of Alcohol Topics DUI - Challenging the Traffic Stop (2) Iowa Drivers in Illinois (2) Audio Video Evidence (2) Your BAC (breath alcohol concentration) (2) Ending License Suspenion (2) DUI - Challenging the Blood Draw (1) Speeding and Traffic Offenses (2) DUI Plea Consequences (1) Cannabis Charges (2) Punishments for Cannabis (1) Knowingly Possess (1) Search Recent Entries
November 15, 2014 The Confrontation Clause in Illinois DUI Cases The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right for the accused...
November 13, 2014 Is it legal to avoid DUI Roadblocks? Avoiding Roadblocks Often, motorists will seek to avoid roadblocks for a variety of reasons....
April 23, 2014 WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO KNOWINGLY POSSESS? The Cannabis Control Act states, "It is unlawful for any person to knowingly possess cannabis"...
March 25, 2014 EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT CANNABIS CHARGES AND PENALTIES The penalties and fines for possession, distribution, growing, and driving under the influence (DUI) of...
October 8, 2013 RECKLESS DRIVING GUIDE FOR DUI AND TRAFFIC LAW PRACTITIONERS IN ILLINOIS You are prepared to try your client's DUI case. You are looking forward to the...
October 1, 2013 TALKING AND DRIVING NOW ILLEGAL IN ILLINOIS Texting and driving has been illegal in Illinois for some time now. For those...
The Supreme Court of Illinois does not recognize certifications of specialties in the practice of law, nor does it recognize certifications of expertise in any phase of the practice of law by any agency, governmental or private, or by any group, organization or association.
MONMOUTH OFFICE 122 W Boston Ave Monmouth, IL 61462 Phone: (309) 734-1001 Fax: (309) 734-1005
BETTENDORF OFFICE Quad City Office #300 Northwest Bank Tower 2550 Middle Rd Bettendorf, IA 52722 Phone: (309) 734-1001 Fax: (309) 734-1005
PEORIA OFFICE 809 W Detweiller Dr, #800 Peoria, IL 61615 Phone: (309) 221-4292 Fax: (309) 734-1005
It's simple, the level should be zero. That way all drivers know not to drink if they are driving a car. Very simple and clear for all parties. Simple to enforce too.
The present system is the dumbest possible thing because it tells drivers they may in fact drink alcohol but they must know subjectively when to stop drinking, which gets harder to do once consumption has begun. Then people have two questions to answer, am I over the legal limit or not and will I get caught. If they do get caught, can it be beaten?
The easiest most clear cut and god forbid intelligent thing to do would be to make the limit zero, then everybody knows EXACTLY where they stand before turning the key.
But that would be way to easy and make too much sense for any US Government to employ. They would rather employ stupid mottos like over the "limit" (.08) under arrest which is not even remotely accurate or fair to the driving public as it is not an accurate reflection of the law. Thus we have a stupid subjective law (ie. The number changes over time and will continue to do so in the future) which the government itself does not know the ramifications to properly warn the motoring public.
What a ridiculously silly situation we find ourselves in; well, at least until somebody with a brain figures out this is not an effective way to save human life. It is stupid.
…And as we prance away from acknowledging the realities of the criminal justice system, we dance along with Governor Deval Patrick. His new proposed dance-step bows politely to law enforcement. It’s a nice dance, really. The only people likely to be hurt are the poor and disenfranchised. But then, if you follow the tune, you will realize that when they are accused of crimes, they are probably guilty anyway. So, perhaps still stinging from criticism that made him cave in the Parole Board fiasco, he is in no mood to consider them.
That's right. It’s gonna be another one of those blogs.
We discussed this issue awhile ago. Massachusetts’ prosecutors are whining that those big bad criminal defense attorneys who are hired to represent indigent criminal defendantsr, after a proper nickel and diming and receiving only a fraction of what their work is worth, are making too much money. Never mind the vastly uneven playing field in which prosecutors who do not have anywhere near the professional expenses and yet have all of the resources available to their disposal. Forget about the fact that those poor crusaders of justice are able to support families and build a nest egg while their indigent-representing-opponents can barely meet the expenses that law enforcement agencies meet for the "good guys".
Do you realize that those scourges of justice, the defense lawyers, have the temerity to believe that they ought to be able to meet expenses? Some such misanthropes even think they should earn a living!
Well, the governor has decided to solve the problem in true Shakespearean style. While he is not going so far as to "kill all the lawyers", he is taking a dramatic stand with they who seem to have the power…law enforcement. Of course, there is not enough money to give better salaries to prosecutors yet, so why not crush the other side of the aisle a bit more? Who’s going to complain? The poor who depend on those attorneys for a chance at a fair trial? Oh, come on, now. Those professional vermin the defense attorneyes? Grow up!
The governor now wants to eliminate the use of private attorneys to represent indigent defendants. Aside from the relativly few full-time defenders, hired by the Committee For Public Counsel Services (CPCS), private defense attorneys have been accepting appointments from the court to represent indigent defendants at surprisingly low hourly rates. Said attorneys are chosen by CPCS because of their abilities and, often, experience in the courtroom.
Hence, of course, part of the problem. Who wants experienced criminal defense attorneys in the trenches when defendants are fighting for their freedom?
Patrick’s suggestion , which he plans to include in his fiscal year 2012 budget, would end the practice. The state instead would hire about 1,000 full-time staff attorneys to replace the 3,000 private lawyers the state draws on to represent poor people.
The Commonwealth somehow sees this as a way to save money. One wonders what these salaried attorneys would be paid, in addition to what benefits and free office space would cost...which, of course, the private bar advocates do not get.
Of course, the math kind of works when you remember that the 3000 bar advocates (who are already over-burdened) will be replaced by only 1000 attorneys.
Well, maybe the governor figures that the 1000 new attorneys will be virtual super men and women who have such vast training and experience that they can do three times the work. Whooops! I forgot about the part that said attorneys would usually be new attorneys rather recently graduated from law school.
Hm. Well, maybe the governor is banking on the exuberance of youth. Alternatively, maybe the governor and the prosecutors realize that if the defense attorneys don't know alot, they cannot do alot!
On the more important bright side, at least the political prosecutors will be pleased. And, after all, the only ones being screwed, either than the lawyers, will be the indigent defendants.
Hell, do they even vote?
Previous to my 20+ years as a Boston criminal defense attorney, I was a prosecutor in New York. There, such a plan is in effect. The full time defense lawyers work for the Legal Aid Society. However, even they cannot handle all the indigent criminal defendants. Further, there are often conflicts of interests which prevent attorneys from the same organization representing certain clients. Therefore, private attorneys, such as those Governor Patrick seeks to eliminate, are necessary.
It is no surprise that the prosecutors are beside themselves with glee at this proposal. First of all, maybe it will free up some money to line their pockets a bit better. Second, indigent defendants will pose less of a threat in the courtroom.
Until the onslaught of successful appeals for ineffective assistance of counsel, that is.
You know, I get tired sometimes of clients who tell me that only people with money get a fair shot in the courtroom. They argue that the poor do not stand a chance..
I get tired of arguing with them.
It looks like, soon, I will not have to disagree.
I no longer do court appointed work. However, if you wish to consult me for a free initial consultation. I can be reached at t 617-492-3000.
To view the original story, and charming photograph about which parts of this blog were based, please go to : http://mobile.boston.com/art/30/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/01/24/patrick_wants_to_end_use_of_private_attorneys_for_public_defense/
The acronyms DUI, DWI, OMVI and OVI all refer to the same thing: operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The most commonly used terms are DUI, an acronym for Driving Under the Influence, and DWI, an acronym for Driving While Impaired.
In 1984 President Reagan signed the Uniform Drinking Age Act, requiring all states to raise the legal drinking age to 21 or face reductions in their federal highway funding. Since 1995, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have complied.
Loading ...
Contact Us FREE CONSULTATION\ABS\Auto Blog Samurai\data\DUI blog by Peter Drill\Illinois DUI\badge-ncdd.png)
\ABS\Auto Blog Samurai\data\DUI blog by Peter Drill\Illinois DUI\militarybutton.png)