HOW MADD RATES OHIO ON DRUNK DRIVING PREVENTION

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) recently released its “2015 Report To The Nation”. The report rates the efforts of each of the 50 states to prevent drunk driving. In the report, MADD uses a five-star system of measures which can be undertaken to prevent drunk driving fatalities. Ohio receives four stars.

1. Ignition Interlock Devices. MADD recommends the use of ignition interlock devices (IID). If a vehicle is equipped with an IID, the driver must blow into the IID before starting the car, and the car will only start if the alcohol concentration in the driver’s breath is below a predetermined limit. The MADD report indicates “Ohio has the opportunity to stop drunk driving. In 2014, Annie’s Law requiring ignition interlocks for all convicted drunk drivers was introduced. The legislation ran out of time and faced opposition from a fringe group of judges.” Although Ohio does not have mandatory ignition interlocks for all convicted drunk drivers, Ohio does use ignition interlock devices in two ways. First, ignition interlock may be required as a condition of limited driving privileges on an Administrative License Suspension, and its use is mandatory on a third or subsequent offense. Second, ignition interlock may be required as part of a defendant’s sentence on a first conviction and is a mandatory part of the sentence on a second or subsequent conviction.

2. License Revocation. MADD endorses the implementation of the administrative license suspension: “a swift punishment for drunk driving through the immediate confiscation of an offender’s driver’s license by the arresting officer.” Ohio imposes immediate administrative license suspensions whenever an OVI suspect refuses a chemical test or submits to a chemical test and produces a result over .08. Administrative license suspensions for a first offender are 90 days (test over limit) or one year (test refusal). For subsequent administrative license suspensions, the duration of the suspension increases, up to five years.

3. Child Endangerment Laws. MADD suggests legislation crating child endangerment laws and views drunk driving with a child passenger as a form of child abuse. Ohio’s child endangerment law makes it illegal to operate a vehicle under the influence or over the limit with a child under 18 in the vehicle. That Ohio law is punishable by up to six months in jail and a license suspension for up to one year. If violation of that law results in serious physical harm to the child, or if the offender has a prior OVI conviction, violation of the law is a felony.

4. No-Refusal Events. MADD encourages states to sponsor no-refusal events. The report states, “No refusal activities have proven to be successful in reducing the number of offenders who refuse testing by allowing law enforcement to easily and quickly obtain a warrant to test the suspected offender.” In Ohio, many counties have “no refusal weekends”. During those weekends, judges make themselves available to sign search warrants for the blood of suspected drunk drivers who refuse chemical tests.

5. Sobriety Checkpoints. MADD is of the opinion that sobriety checkpoints are extremely effective. In the report, MADD states, “we know that ignition interlocks and sobriety checkpoints are the two most effective ways to dramatically reduce fatalities and injuries.” I disagree. Although it is not possible to measure the deterrent effect of sobriety checkpoints, the numbers of persons charged with OVI at sobriety checkpoints is public record. In Ohio, a typical sobriety checkpoint results in hundreds of people being inconvenienced and only a few people being charged with OVI. In a recent checkpoint case I handled, over 400 motorists were stopped, and only one was charged with OVI.

With the exception of sobriety checkpoints, the measures recommended by MADD are effective means of combating drunk driving. MADD seeks to establish a blueprint for a nation without drunk driving. If that happens, I will gladly find another line of work. In the meantime, someone needs to ensure Constitutional rights are protected, including the rights of individuals accused of drunk driving.

Continue Reading...

MADD Rates States on DUI Prevention

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) has recently released a report rating all 50 states for their efforts to combat drunk driving.

MADD has ranked states based on a five-star system where states receive a star for particular measures employed by that state to fight drunk driving. The countermeasures that state can receive a star for include ignition interlock laws, sobriety checkpoints, license revocation laws, child endangerment laws, and no-refusal laws.

So how does California rank?

According to the report, California has been given four out of five stars.

“California has made progress toward ending drunk driving, but more action is needed. On July 1, 2010, a pilot program went into effect, requiring interlocks for all convicted drunk drivers in four counties covering 13 million people. The pilot program should be expanded statewide, as other counties in the state are missing opportunities to protect people from drunk drivers. The state should also look at improving its child endangerment law,” said MADD’s website.

MADD’s ratings can be found here.

The report comes from MADD’s “Campaign To Eliminate Drunk Driving,”a project that began in 2006 and involves working the state legislators and law enforcement agencies to create laws to fight drunk driving.

Aside from being rather arbitrary, there are issues with each and every countermeasure for which a state can receive a star. You can read other posts about the specific reasons for why I take issue with some of the countermeasures. They’re too many to list here.

It’s not that I’m against ending drunk driving. However, what’s more important is that we make sure that countermeasures actually work without foregoing the individual liberties given to us by the Constitution.

Continue Reading...

The Problem with DUI Prevention Advertising and A Common Sense Suggestion to End DUIs, Part 2

Before proceeding with more on my suggestion to have breath alcohol machines in all establishments that serve alcohol, I need to make it clear that the safest decision is to not drive when you are going to drink. No matter what amount you drink, no matter how much time should elapse between drinking and driving- don't do it. Your lawyer may or not be able to defend your case, but your Constitutional rights are second to your health. Another concern is avoiding a DUI stop and arrest which is supremely unpleasant even if found unjustified later.

My suggestion is to put breath alcohol machines in every establishment that serves alcohol. This can be equated with fire suppression equipment, or perhaps managed through Department of Health procedures. The machine must be operational and either located near the exit, or in a more discrete location- perhaps near the bathrooms. Use of the device must be free to patrons, and should be encouraged for everyone to use. This can be part of the liquor licensing process, with maintenance checks to make sure the machines are calibrated and working properly.

This will serve two purposes- first, the patron will have an idea of where his BAC is when they are leaving. This will help the drinker make an educated decision to drive or not. Second, it will help the person, driving or just using the machine for their own curiosity, understand what that particular BAC feels like. For instance, Patron X feels "okay," or "good to drive." He had a couple drinks, then waited 45 minutes to an hour, and is now getting ready to leave. Upon using the BAC machine, he may recognize that they are a .09% BAC. Surprised or otherwise, it will allow the patron to understand and examine what .09% BAC feels like when he had that many drinks and waited so long.

Patron X will also have an understanding of what .09% BAC feels like. He will begin to learn how much certain drinks (especially mixed drinks, with bartenders that can have a heavy hand) affect their BAC. Also, he or she can acquire the understanding that waiting can be successful, but usually requires more time to wait. For instance, the state's alcohol forensic experts will testify that burnoff (the human body processing the alcohol and thus reducing the effects) occurs at .015% to .02% per hour.

Next time Patron X is at a party, he can also have the same understanding of the alcohol they drank compared to their BAC at the bar last time. If these machines are required to be in every bar, restaurant or lounge, Patron X will have a greater understanding of both how individual drinks affects him/her, and what that specific BAC feels like at different times of their drinking. Again, a .09% just after drinking in a rising BAC will feel different than a .09% in a declining BAC many hours later (the Mellanby Effect).

This solution can be attached to an establishment's liqueur license. If we truly care about stopping drinking and driving, this solution goes to the core of the problem- helping the driver understand when he or she is impaired. While district attorneys make the same opening statement in trial- "Patron X made a decision to drive," the district attorney can not say, "Patron X made an educated decision to drive." More likely than not it was an uninformed, regretful decision that was made.

Please feel free to post a response or suggest your own idea. As always, if a regretful, uninformed decision to drive was made, and you or someone you know is facing DUI charges, I can always be reached for a free consultation.

Continue Reading...