Can Raising Taxes on Alcohol Reduce Drunk Driving Accidents?

A new study published in the American Journal of Public Health suggests that raising the taxes on alcohol could reduce the number of drunk driving related collisions.

Researchers from the University of Florida studied the results of a 2009 tax increase on alcohol in the state of Illinois. In that year, the state increased its excise tax on beer by 4.6 cents a gallon, on wine by 66 cents a gallon and on distilled spirits by $4.05 a gallon, or by 1 cent more that consumers pay per glass of beer or wine and nearly 5 cents more for a serving of spirits.

According to the researchers, alcohol-related traffic deaths in Illinois fell 26 percent. The decrease was higher among young people, at 37 percent. Fatal crashes involving alcohol-impaired and extremely drunk drivers fell 22 percent and 25 percent, respectively.

"Similar alcohol tax increases implemented across the country could prevent thousands of deaths from car crashes each year," Alexander Wagenaar, a professor in the Department of Health Outcomes and Policy at the University of Florida, said in a university news release. "If policymakers are looking to address dangerous drivers on our roads and reduce the number of fatalities, they should reverse the trend of allowing inflation to erode alcohol taxes.”

Wagenaar’s comments reflect the study’s observation that alcohol has become less expensive in recent years as the result of a decrease in alcohol tax rates. The study notes that having 10 or more drinks a day would have costs the average person approximately half of their disposable income in 1950. Modernly, however, having 10 or more drinks a day would cost the average person about three percent of their disposable income.

"This goes against the conventional wisdom of many economists, who assert that heavy drinkers are less responsive to tax changes, and has powerful implications for how we can keep our communities safer," said Wagenaar.

As with many studies, you have to ask yourself, “Is this a true cause and effect situation?”

U.S. News reported that David Ozgo, vice president for economic and strategic analysis for the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, had the same question. According to Ozgo, fatal collisions involving alcohol were decreasing before the tax increase.

 “In fact, the largest annual decline over the last eight years occurred in 2008, the year before the tax rate changed,” he said. “Importantly, Illinois alcohol-related traffic fatalities declined faster than the national average before the tax increase and this has not been the case since the tax increase.”

Ozgo’s observation makes us wonder whether it really is the tax that is causing the decrease in DUI related fatalities in the state.

Think about the averages alcohol abuser. Is the rather trivial increase in alcohol taxes mentioned above really going to stop someone from purchasing the alcohol? Is it going to keep them from driving after drinking?

This entry was posted on Monday, April 13th, 2015 at 7:33 am and is filed under Duiblog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Continue Reading...

The 2012 drunk driving picture in Minnesota, at a glance

One of the most recent years for drunk driving data, in the state of Minnesota, reveals some surprising facts, and today we're going to discuss this information. First and foremost, how many drunk driving arrests do you think were made in the state of Minnesota in 2012?

The answer is 22,278 such arrests. Only 260 of these arrests involved people age 18 or younger.

But what about fatal accidents involving drunk drivers? This is always a tragic and unfortunate area. In the state of Minnesota in 2012, 114 were killed as a result of an alcohol-impaired driving accident. That means that for every 100,000 people in Minnesota in 2012, there were 2.1 fatalities tied to alcohol-impaired motor vehicle accidents.

However, there is some very good news regarding the alcohol-impaired fatality rate per 100,000 people. The change in this rate from 2002 to 2012 shows a dramatic 46.3 percent decline. Hopefully we can continue this trend by having people make smarter decisions when it comes to even considering getting behind the wheel after consuming alcohol.

Unfortunately, we will never be able to completely eliminate drunk driving from our state, or the country, or the world -- though it is an admirable goal. Even self-driving cars won't fix the drunk driving problem because there will always be potential emergency scenarios where someone has to take over the driving duties, and if they are alcohol-impaired, then this creates problems.

Ultimately, we need to continue making responsible decisions about how we consume alcohol, how much we consume, and how we will safely make it home, in light of the answers to the first two questions.

Source: Foundation for Advancing Alcohol Responsibility, "State Facts: Minnesota," Accessed March 10, 2015

Continue Reading...

Drunk Driving Crash Closes San Rafael Street

Drunk Driving Crash Closes San Rafael Street - Marin DUI Lawyer Blog Marin DUI Lawyer Blog Published by Marin, California DUI Attorney Law Office of John Stanko, Inc. HomeFirm WebsitePractice AreasContact Us « Previous | Home | Next » Drunk Driving Crash Closes San Rafael Street |Share April 2, 2015

A crash that sheered off a power pole closed Francisco Blvd. East in San Rafael on Wednesday, March 25, 2015. The driver who was arrested for driving under the influence crashed his vehicle into a PG&E power pole shearing it off at the base.

The driver was not injured in the accident and there were no other cars involved. San Rafael Police Department Officers arrested the 44-year old driver on suspicion of DUI. PGE was on scene to repair the power pole.

A DUI arrest in Marin County can result in the loss of the driver's driving privilege from the DMV and in a probationary sentence that includes a fine and mandatory attendance at a DUI program. The fine for a first offense is $1,748.00 and with costs for the DUI program, insurance and license fees, the drunk driver will pay more than $2,000.00 if convicted in Marin.

If you are arrested for drunk driving, or if you get a traffic ticket in Novato, San Rafael, Sausalito, or anywhere in Marin County call an experienced aggressive traffic ticket and DUI defense attorney for help.

For more information about driving under the influence, traffic or criminal charges in Marin County, San Francisco and throughout the Bay Area, or for a free consultation, call attorney John Stanko at 415-755-8899, or toll free at 1-877-204-8900.

Categories: DUI, DUI Program Posted by John Stanko | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DUI , DUI Program

Contact Us 415-755-8899 Name: Email: Phone: Comments: Enter text from the Image Above: Search Connect Topics DUI (104) DUI Checkpoints (45) Celebrity DUI (2) DUI Field Sobriety Tests (17) Ignition Interlock Device (11) DUI Trials (2) DUI Program (26) Felony (6) Dry Reckless (1) DMV Administrative Hearings (10) Suspended Driver's License (51) Negligent Operator (4) San Francisco DMV DUI suspension (1) Oakland DMV license suspension (1) Santa Rosa DMV license suspension (1) Traffic Ticket Defense (32) Red Light Camera Tickets (11) Speeding Tickets (23) Hit and Run (1) Cell Phone and Texting Tickets (2) Criminal Defense (12) Sex Offenses (1) Assault and Battery (6) Batter on a Police Officer Battery on a Police Officer (2) Marijuana (2) Drunk in Public (1) Vandalism (1) Theft Crimes (5) Felony (8) Drug Possession (6) Child Endangerment (5) Domestic Violence (2) Evading a Police Officer (2) Trespassing (1) Resisting Arrest (2) Conspiracy (2) Embezzlement (1) Misdemeanor (5) Domestic Violence (1) Car Theft (2) Probation Violation (3) Felony (4) Drug Possession (2) Child Endangerment (1) Probation (8) Evading a Police Officer (1) NHTSA (7) Robbery (1) Drug Crimes (3) Under the Influence of a Controlled Substance (1) Speed Trap (1) Recent Entries

Apr 3, 15 10:51 AMNapa CHP Arrests 8 DUI Drivers Officers of the California Highway Patrol working out of the Napa County area office made...

Apr 2, 15 10:34 AMDrunk Driving Crash Closes San Rafael Street A crash that sheered off a power pole closed Francisco Blvd. East in San Rafael...

Feb 4, 15 11:31 AMOne Sonoma CHP Officer Gets Two DUI Drivers on 101 Sonoma County CHP Officer Mike Phennecie arrested two drivers within a matter of hours on...

Jan 31, 15 04:32 PMSonoma County DUI Enforcement Increased for Super Bowl Sonoma County law enforcement agencies will be sending out extra patrols to look for intoxicated...

Jan 30, 15 04:41 PMExtra DUI Patrols In Marin For Super Bowl Weekend The multi police agency DUI enforcement team, "Avoid the Marin 13" will be putting extra...

Dec 16, 14 10:22 AMHoliday DUI Checkpoints Planed in San Rafael The City of San Rafael Police Department will be conducting drunk driving checkpoints and special...

   4040 Civic Center Dr #200
San Rafael, CA 94903

Phone: 415-755-8899
Toll Free: 877-204-8900
Fax: 415-532-1436
Phone: 707-642-8900 Home Website Disclaimer Contact Us Website Map Blog Posts Copyright © Marin DUI Lawyer Blog Justia Legal Website Design  

Continue Reading...

New Jersey councilman charged with drunk driving

On March 14, police released a Jersey City councilman after he was arrested on suspicion of DUI that morning. Police arrested the councilman following a three-car accident, which police are still looking into. The councilman was brought up on DWI charges before his release. A city spokesperson said that there would be consequences following the final police report.

According to police reports, the councilman's blood alcohol content at the scene was .15 percent, almost twice the legal limit in New Jersey. Police conducted a field sobriety test after allegedly smelling alcohol on the councilman's breath. The report states that police arrested him after he failed the test. The councilman had been returning from a St. Patrick's Day casino night.

The related accident involved three cars, including the councilman's car. According to witness reports, the councilman was traveling south on West Side Avenue when he hit a taxi going west on Communipaw Avenue, which in turn collided with a third vehicle after going into a spin. The councilman and the second driver both claim that the other individual ran a red light. Following the accident, police impounded the councilman's car. The second driver in the collision was taken to a local hospital for problems with back pain.

In New Jersey, a person is considered to be driving under the influence with a BAC of .08 percent. In cases where the BAC level is above .10 percent, drivers can face over $2,000 in fines, seven months to a year of license suspension and up to 30 days in prison for a first offense. Sometimes the improper administration of breath tests and rising blood alcohol concentration can cause roadside breath tests to be skewed higher. As each DWI case differs, a person being brought up on these types of charges may want to consult with an attorney.

Source: NJ.com, "Jersey City Councilman Charged with Drunken Driving after Three-Car Collision," Terrence McDonald, March 14, 2015

Tags: DWI charges, fines, license suspension

Continue Reading...

Convicted Drunk Drivers Viewed as “A Significant Public Safety Threat” by the Department of Homeland Security

Convicted Drunk Drivers Viewed as “A Significant Public Safety Threat” by the Department of Homeland Securitycategories: DUI

Immigration authorities announced Monday that over 2,000 foreigners who had criminal convictions had been arrested during a five day nationwide operation in early March. This “sweep” was conducted primarily by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. Alejandro Mayorkas, Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, conducted a news conference in Washington, saying, “It had focused on deporting people who were the department’s top priorities because they posed serious public safety or national security threats.” Security officials went on to state that of the more than 2,000 people arrested “hundreds of them had convictions of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.” Advocates for immigrants have asked for leniency for immigrants with drunk driving cases, saying that oftentimes they were workers supporting their families. But immigration officials said Monday that they regarded those drivers as “a significant public safety threat.”Read More

A central part of President Obama’s immigration policy is showing tough immigration enforcement. President Obama’s controversial executive actions that protect millions of immigrants from deportation has been controversial – and has currently been placed on hold by a federal judge in Texas.

The significance of this story is that a cabinet leveled agency has now defined and labeled drivers convicted of DUI/drunk driving as “a significant public safety threat.” It has never been more important to hire an experienced and aggressive DUI/drunk driving defense team to work for you if you have been arrested and charged with DUI. Remember – “an arrest is not a conviction!”

Greenville, South Carolina DUI Attorney Steve Sumner primarily handles misdemeanor and felony DUI/drunk driving cases. Steve is a former DUI prosecutor and has been in private practice since 1994. Steve has been recognized as a South Carolina Super Lawyer® in the field of DUI defense since 2013. He is a member of the National Trial Lawyers: Top 100 Trial Lawyers™ for criminal defense. He is a member of the National College for DUI Defense and has held a judicially endorsed AV-Preeminent rating from Martindale-Hubbell® and a “Superb” (10.0 out 10.0) ranking with Avvo since 2011.
Link to Story: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/us/us-immigration-authorities-arrest-foreigners-convicted-of-crimes.html

Continue Reading...

Woman facing charges in New Jersey drunk driving case

A 66-year-old woman leaving a New Jersey liquor store was taken into custody for drunk driving on Feb. 19 around 5:30 p.m. after an anonymous phone call to police claimed she was swerving before turning into the store's parking lot. According to a police officer who responded to the tip, the woman left the liquor store and got into her car. She began swerving again as she drove up the road.

The police officer pulled her over and administered field sobriety tests that she failed to complete. She was given a breath test at the police station and allegedly tested at three times the legal limit for alcohol.

The woman is now facing charges for failure to keep right, reckless driving and DWI. She was released to a friend.

DWI charges like the ones in this case can have serious consequences. They may include license suspension, probation, community service or even jail time. Therefore, individuals facing such charges may want to work with an attorney.

An attorney may be able to look at a case like this one and recommend several courses of action for an individual. For example, a police officer may have violated the individual's rights. If the procedures for taking the individual into custody were not properly followed, it may be possible to have the charges dismissed.

An individual might also opt for a plea bargain in which they work with the prosecution to plead guilty in exchange for lesser charges. In a drunk driving case like this one, this might mean probation or community service in lieu of other penalties.

Source: NJ.com, "Driver leaving liquor store charged with DWI in Hoptacong," Feb. 23, 2015

Tags: DWI charges, license suspension, penalties

Continue Reading...

Gerry Spence, Geoffrey Feiger and Michigan Drunk Driving

It must be well known by now that in August of 2007 Michigan’s most famous, Mr. Geoffrey Feiger, was indicted on a ten-count complaint, alleging various manners and forms of violation of the Federal Campaign Act.  Feiger retained Gerry Spence to represent him, who later indicated Feiger’s would be his last trial.  On June 2, 2008 the jury acquitted Feiger on all 10 counts.

In this fascinating video Feiger and Spence talk about the case with attendees/students of the Gerry Spence Trial Lawyer’s College. Specifically, Feiger talks about the impact a conviction would have had on his life and those connected with him.  He never addresses incarceration, or what might otherwise be the obvious or expected punishment for a criminal conviction of this kind, but does refer to a criminal conviction as a death sentence; primarily because of the collateral consequences of a conviction.

What is particularly interesting about this case and Feiger’s video is that he explains how it feels to have the full power of the government bearing down upon you.  And, how it feels to contemplate the gravity of impact presented by the prospect of a criminal conviction.

At the Barone Defense Firm we have found that many of our clients feel just the same way about their cases.  Simply being charged with drunk driving in Michigan is stressful enough, but when you start to think about what it would mean to be convicted, it’s something else altogether.

Many of our clients feel as if a Michigan drunk driving conviction would, for them, be like the death penalty and that their life, as they know it, would come to an end.

If you’ve been arrested for drunk driving in Michigan, and you are trying to decide what to do, and what lawyer to hire, and if it’s worth it to fight the case, do what Geoffrey Feiger did and think about all the people that depend on you, and how they might be impacted by a conviction.  Then, just like Feiger, hire the best lawyer you can find.

Patrick Barone is the founding partner and CEO at the Barone Defense Firm, with offices in Birmingham and Grand Rapids Michigan.  Its six lawyers, exclusively represent citizens accused of intoxicated driving, including those cases involving injury or death.  No other cases are accepted. You may contact Mr. Barone at his web site www.YourMichiganDUILawyer.com, or by phone at 248.594.4554.

Continue Reading...

NHTSA Studies Show Drugged Driving Increasing, But Drunk Driving More Dangerous

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has released two new studies that highlight the changing landscape of impaired driving on America’s roadways.

NHTSA’s most recent Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers shows a steady and significant decline in drunk driving—rates have dropped by nearly a third since 2007, and by more than three-quarters since 1973. NHTSA largely credits the drop to education and enforcement campaigns that target intoxicated driving.

But the good news on drunk driving is countered by skyrocketing rates of drugged driving, which have risen sharply in recent years. According to the roadside survey, “nearly one in four drivers tested positive for at least one drug that could affect safety,” with marijuana topping the list.

The spike in stoned drivers is catching the attention of states that have or are considering making medical or recreational marijuana use legal. Many law enforcement agencies are concerned that people view drugged driving as more acceptable than drunk driving.

Yet the second study released by NHTSA notes that it is not yet clear the extent to which marijuana impairs a person’s ability to operate a vehicle. Researchers attempted to determine if using pot is associated with a higher level of crashes but were unable to definitively show a link. The study shows a correlation between drivers who test positive for THC and a slight increase in crash rates. However, the research was unable to determine if the increase was due to marijuana usage or other risk factors.

In contrast, research has established that drivers with a blood alcohol concentration over the legal limit are 5 to 200 times more likely to be in a crash than someone who is sober. Experts speculate these findings could be explained in part by the differences in how the body processes alcohol and drugs. Drivers with a positive BAC are actively impaired at the time of the test. In contrast, evidence of drug use can remain in the body long after the impairing effects of the drug have worn off.

NHTSA emphasizes that far more research on drugged driving is needed to get a better understanding on how drug use affects a person’s ability to operate a car. What is your jurisdiction doing to address the issue of drugged driving?

//

Continue Reading...

Defense Lawyer Offers Scholarship for Underage Drunk Driving

In an effort to help teens recognize the dangers of drunk driving, Colorado Springs defense attorney Christian Schwaner recently announced that he will award a $1,000 college scholarship for the best essay that recounts a teen’s experience of driving while intoxicated.

Schwaner states the goal of his First Step Scholarship is to get teenagers to think about the risks associated with drinking and driving. A parent himself, Schwaner is concerned that speeches given by parents often aren’t heard by teens. He believes that having applicants account for their actions, research the risks, and plan ways to avoid future drunk driving may make a difference for students who apply.

However, Schwaner’s idea is drawing fire from some critics. Underage drinking and intoxicated driving are both crimes, and some question whether the scholarship could be seen as rewarding teens for their dangerous and illegal behavior. Furthermore, some wonder if the process of writing an essay will truly get teens to think twice about the consequences of drunk driving. And in another wrinkle, legal experts have cautioned that in applying for the scholarship, teens will admit to criminal offenses without the protection of attorney-client privilege—a move that could have consequences down the road.

Yet, the reality is that teen alcohol misuse and underage drunk driving are serious and widespread. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that approximately 10% of high schoolers drink and drive. According to Mothers Against Drunk Driving, teen alcohol use kills 4,700 people each year and about one-fourth of teen deaths from car crashes involve an underage drunk driver. Given stats like this, supporters of the scholarship program argue that anything that could help is worth a try.

Decreasing the rate of underage drunk driving certainly requires innovative ideas. Do you think a DUI scholarship has the potential to make a difference when it comes to teens and intoxicated driving?

Continue Reading...

Fighting drunk driving charges

People who have been charged with drunk driving in the state of New Jersey have several options available for their defense. Although they will of course be considered innocent until they are proven guilty, an assertive attempt to defend themselves against the charges may result in a much more positive outcome.

The two main types of criminal defense are the affirmative and the negative. The affirmative defense does not challenge the information provided by the prosecution. Instead, it adds to it with further evidence that is intended to exonerate the accused of wrongdoing. Affirmative defenses such as duress, where the defendant asserts that there was no choice but to drive intoxicated in order to get away from a dangerous situation, or involuntary intoxication, where the defendant states that they had become chemically impaired without their volition and may not have been aware of their intoxicated state, are rare but can be asserted if the appropriate circumstances exist.

It is more common for a defendant against charges of DUI to adopt a negative defense. This means that the evidence presented is challenged by finding fault in the information itself or the way that it was gathered. For example, if it can be shown to the court that the police did not act legally in making a traffic stop that led to a DUI charge, then the charge may be dismissed.

Penalties such as license suspension or revocation may commonly accompany convictions for DUI. The New Jersey court system may impose conditions such as the required installation of an ignition locking device on the defendant's primary vehicle. There is also the possibility of jail time and hefty fines. A criminal defense attorney can be helpful to clients who wish to attempt to refute the charges or mitigate the penalties.

Source: FindLaw, "Defenses to Drunk Driving", accessed on Feb. 11, 2015

Tags: convictions, fines, license suspension, penalties

Continue Reading...

Federal Study Says Stoned Drivers Safer than Drunk Drivers

According to a new federal study from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), drivers that are under the influence of marijuana are significantly less likely to be in a collision than drivers who are under the influence of alcohol.

The study confirms what I’ve previously said on this blog, namely that, although marijuana does affect reaction times, the effects of alcohol on driving ability are far more likely to cause an accident.

The study, which is “the first large-scale [crash risk] study in the United States to include drugs other than alcohol,” analyzed over 10,000 drivers over a 20 month period.

According to the study, the risk of an accident for someone with a blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent was twice that of someone who was sober. Those with a blood alcohol content of 0.10 percent were six times more likely to be involved in an accident. The risk of an accident rose as high as 12 times for those with a blood alcohol content of 0.15 percent.

The numbers for the risk of an accident with marijuana use were significantly less.

Although drivers who had a THC in their system were 25 percent more likely to be involved in an accident, once the researchers accounted for other variable such as sex, age, and race/ethnicity, the risk ratio for marijuana use was no longer statistically significant.

“This analysis shows that the significant increased risk of crash involvement associated with THC and illegal drugs…is not found after adjusting for these demographic variables. This finding suggests that these demographic variables may have co-varied with drug use and accounted for most of the increased crash risk. For example, if the THC-positive drivers were predominantly young males, their apparent crash risk may have been related to age and gender rather than use of THC.”

In other words, the study suggests that the risk of an accident when a driver had THC in their system could be attributed to variables other than the presence of THC. And while this may be true, the NHTSA warns, “these results do not indicate that drug use by drivers is risk-free.”

However, the NHTSA also admits that, although it tested for the accident risk of drivers with THC in their systems, the presence of THC in not necessarily an indicator of actual impairment at the time of driving. THC can stay in a person’s system weeks after using marijuana and well after the person is impaired by its use.

Continue Reading...

New Jersey woman charged in crash with alleged drunk driver

On Jan. 29, the Hudson County Sheriff's Office indicated a woman from Clifton has been charged in connection with a fatal car accident that claimed the life of a Jersey City man in December. The 33-year-old surrendered to authorities on Jan. 26.

According to the sheriff's office, the defendant was intoxicated and driving well above the speed limit when her 2008 Toyota Highlander struck a 2002 Acura in West New York the night of Dec. 6. The 27-year-old Acura driver was also believed to have been drinking that night. Authorities said he lost control of his car while driving east on Hillside Road/Defino Way and crossed the center line, crashing into the defendant's Toyota.

The impact was so severe that the Acura smashed through a fence and slammed into the side of a mountain. The driver had to be cut from his vehicle by emergency workers, and he later died at Jersey City Medical Center.

While toxicology reports are pending for the decedent, investigators said the defendant's speed and intoxicated state were largely to blame for the severity of the crash. She was allegedly driving 57 mph in a 25-mph zone and had a blood alcohol content level of .10 percent. She has been charged with vehicular homicide, DWI and reckless driving.

Drunk driving charges, especially those connected to a fatal car accident, can result in severe penalties for those who are convicted. Anyone facing similar charges may wish to obtain a criminal defense attorney to vigorously fight the allegations in court. An attorney could review the evidence for weaknesses or inconsistencies and recommend appropriate defense strategies. In some cases, it may be advisable to negotiate a plea deal that reduces the most serious charges in exchange for a guilty plea.

Source: NJ.com, "Drunk driver charged in death of Jersey City man, authorities say," Kathryn Brenzel, Jan. 29, 2015

Tags: penalties

Continue Reading...

Fans Can Tackle Drunk Driving on Super Bowl Sunday

In 2014, nearly half of all American households watched the Super Bowl. This Sunday’s big game is expected to draw a similar number of viewers, and as friends and family gather to watch, alcohol will be a staple of many celebrations.

Police around the country report that drunk driving arrests and alcohol-involved crashes spike on Super Bowl Sunday. For example, California law enforcement historically sees a 77% increase in drunk driving crashes on the big day in comparison to regular Sundays. As a result, many jurisdictions plan to ramp up DUI patrols and checkpoints this weekend.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has launched its annual “Fans Don’t Let Fans Drive Drunk” campaign to get the word out about the dangers of drunk driving during and after the Super Bowl. In addition, NHTSA has created some tips to help fans end the night safely:

Before Super Bowl Sunday, make a game plan that includes a sober driver – someone who is not drinking at all.Walking impaired can be just as dangerous as drunk driving. Designate a sober friend to walk you home.Thank the designated sober drivers at your party. You could even acknowledge them on social media using the hashtag #designateddriver.Remember, if you serve a guest alcohol and he or she gets in a drunk-driving crash that night, you could be held liable.

What are you doing to intercept drunk driving during and after the Super Bowl?

Continue Reading...

Super Bowl Sunday Drunk Driving

It might be safe to say that Super Bowl Sunday is America’s unofficial holiday. The Seahawks and the Patriots will be battling it out for the title of Super Bowl XLIX champion. However, outside of the living rooms, man-caves, and bars, law enforcement will be doing its own battle and the rival is drunk drivers… with good reason.

According to California safety officials and the Auto Club of Southern California, your chances of being involved in an alcohol-related collision can double on Super Bowl Sunday. In fact, a review of data in California revealed a 77 percent increase in alcohol-related collision causing injury or death on this unofficial holiday.

The analysis of the data reviewed alcohol-related injury and fatal collisions that occurred from 5pm on Super Bowl Sunday through 4am the following day from 2009 to 2013. The data was compared against other Sundays in January and February for the same timeframes.

California saw 294 alcohol-related injury and fatal collisions during the Super Bowl Sunday timeframe from 2009 to 2013. However, other Sundays in January and February only saw 166 alcohol-related injury and fatal collisions during the same time for the same years.

Los Angeles County saw 77 alcohol-related injury and fatal collisions during Super Bowl Sundays in those years. Other Sundays in January and February during those years only saw 49.

Although Super Bowl may not be an official holiday, my advice remains the same:

Plan to take a cab, Uber, Lyft, but or other method of public transportation. Get yourself a designated driver and make sure that they, in fact, remain sober.

Continue Reading...

Do Personal Breathalyzers Prevent or Promote Drunk Driving?

Alcohol breath testing isn’t just for law enforcement anymore. One of the hottest tech items of 2014 was the personal breathalyzer. The small, handheld devices display the user’s breath alcohol concentration (BrAC), either on the item itself or by connecting to a smartphone app. In addition, some of the apps provide options to call a cab, contact a friend for a ride, or locate the nearest hotel.

Priced at $40–$150, the devices are marketed to the general public as an “accurate tool” for drinkers to track their drinking habits and evaluate their level of intoxication. And the devices are taking off in stores and online. One of the largest brands, BACtrack, states their devices are available at 15,000 retail outlets.

But the devices are coming under fire from a number of fronts. For starters, critics are concerned the devices could actually promote harmful levels of drinking by encouraging people to see just how drunk they can get, or to try to top their friends’ readings. Some users report incorporating the devices and BrAC readings into drinking games, and some devices that connect to smartphones even include games in their apps.

Equally troubling, the accuracy of the devices is questionable. A Fortune reporter recently tried out several of the most popular models and found they gave wildly different readings—varying as much as 0.03% from one brand to another. Other media outlets have had similar findings, with personal breathalyzers providing readings below those produced by corrections-grade breath alcohol testers.

That’s a problem when people may rely on portable breath testers as a guideline for driving. Law enforcement agencies and drunk driving advocates share that concern. The manufacturers state that people should not make driving decisions based on a reading. However, users who miss the fine print are likely to see a number of less than 0.08% as permission to get behind the wheel, even if they feel impaired.

Are personal breathalyzers a useful tool to help people better understand how their bodies react to alcohol, or could they actually encourage excessive drinking and impaired driving?

Continue Reading...

CA DMV Study Shows IID Pilot Program Not A General Drunk Driving Deterrent

Currently, there are four counties in California that are participating in the ignition interlock device, IID, pilot program:  Los Angeles, Alameda, Tulare, and Sacramento, per California Vehicle Code Section 23700.  The pilot program requires all driving under the influence, DUI, defendants, including first time offenders, to pay for, install, and then maintain the IID for a period of time as determined by the number of drunk driving convictions the individual has.

An IID is a breathalyzer instrument that is professionally installed in the defendant’s vehicle by a court-approved company.  The driver must blow into the device, providing an alcohol-free sample.  If alcohol is detected, the car will not start.  Once started, the driver will be prompted to give another sample within 15-minutes of driving and then again about every 45-minutes.  If alcohol is detected during a random sample, the car will stall and become inoperable.  These are referred to as “sample failures” and are reported to the court.

Recently, the Department of Motor Vehicles released its report to the Legislature of the State of California of its findings regarding the “General Deterrent Evaluation of the Ignition Interlock Pilot Program in California.”  According to this sixty page report, the DMV study found “the IID pilot program was not associated with a reduction in the number of first-time and repeat DUI convictions in the pilot counties.  In other words, no evidence was found that the pilot program has a general deterrence effect.”  (See “Report Documentation Page.”)

However, the report mentioned another follow-up study that is being conducted to determine if the pilot program has any specific deterrence effects.”  The specific deterrent effects address the “specific behavior of individual drivers who were convicted of DUI subsequent to the implementation of the … law and thus were subject to the IID pilot program requirements…” (See page ix.)

The DMV recommended that the legislature consider the specific deterrence evaluation if/when they take any further action regarding the IID program.  That follow-up study is due to be completed in the fall of 2015.  (See ix and x.)

The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman recently blogged about California State Senator Jerry Hill’s bill, SB 61.  If passed, this bill would require all those convicted of drunk driving, in all California counties, to install an IID.  Senator Hill’s position is that mandatory IID requirements reduce recidivism and first time DUI offenders, just the opposite of what the DMV’s own study found.

Continue Reading...

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...

Drunk Driving Entrapment

Drunk Driving laws are different from one state to another. Fines and other penalties are normally attached to anyone found guilty of Drunk Driving. These penalties can be severe, and the legal consequences can include fines, mandatory driver’s education, increased insurance premiums, vehicle repairs and steep medical bills. Without adequate legal representation, these penalties might be unusually harsh, so it is critical to obtain the services of a legal expert who can represent your interests.

The DUI Charge

Charges of driving under the influence, or DUI, can be tackled in several ways. Your legal defense should be appropriate for the actual circumstances, and due process should always be observed. If your rights are infringed, the charges against you might not have as much weight in the legal system. This is why experienced legal representation is critical to handling these cases. Our law firm has a long track record of successfully litigating these cases in the courtroom.

DUI Attorney

Our firm offers premium legal representation to clients via an experienced and qualified DUI Attorney. Legal assistance can make the difference in many cases. Our qualified attorney is knowledgeable about the various strategies and techniques for defending the interests of our clients. The most effective legal strategy is a delicate combination of several elements. Our process involved carefully listening to the client to assess the situation, and we also provide an informed concerning your case, so you will have the information you need to make an informed decision on how to proceed.

Drunk Driving Entrapment

Drunk Driving Entrapment laws can seem complicated. This area of the justice system requires discretion and interpretation skills. Entrapment cases require extra legal skill because they are notoriously difficult to prove. The term itself implies that a specific kind of wrongdoing on the part of a police officer or government official took place. This defense is appropriate only under certain conditions, and our legal team can help you to decide if an entrapment defense will improve the chances for your case.

Continue Reading...

Proposed Laws Would Bar Drunk Drivers From Buying Alcohol

For the second time in two years, New Mexico State Representative Brian Egolf has proposed a bill to prohibit convicted drunk drivers from purchasing alcohol. The bill—which was defeated in the state’s senate in 2013—would require DUI offenders who are under orders to use an ignition interlock to carry a special driver’s license or identity card noting they are not allowed to buy booze.

According to the most recent statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), alcohol-related crashes account for 30% of all traffic deaths in New Mexico. Currently all convicted DUI offenders in the state must install an ignition interlock in their car. However, the law has roughly a 50% compliance rate. Because so many evade their interlock requirement, Egolf feels prohibiting alcohol sales to people convicted of intoxicated driving would make the roads safer. Egolf recognizes his bill isn’t perfect but he is giving it a second try in hopes of arming the state with another tool to prevent drunk driving.

To the east, the Oklahoma legislature is considering a bill that would not only prohibit convicted drunk drivers from drinking, but would also make it a felony to “knowingly” sell or give alcohol to a person court-ordered to abstain from drinking. Like the proposed New Mexico measure, Oklahoma would issue special IDs marked “alcohol restricted” to alert clerks and servers that the person is not allowed to drink. The felony penalty for those who sell or provide alcohol would make the law one of the toughest drunk driving measures in the county.

Supporters of these bills claim banning alcohol consumption and purchases are appropriate sanctions for drunk drivers. Many courts already prohibit DUI offenders from consuming alcohol for a period of time and these bills would make that practice more widespread. Furthermore, the bills would get more of the community involved in preventing drunk driving by making businesses that sell alcohol part of the solution.

However, opponents question how effective the laws would really be. DUI offenders could enlist a friend or family member to purchase alcohol for them, and many retailers and restaurants do not card patrons who appear to be over 21. In addition, there are concerns about the anticipated costs to design a new license type and to enforce the laws. Washington State considered a similar bill in 2013, but after reviewing the financial projections decided that it wasn’t workable.

Do you think these bills will help reduce DUIs and alcohol-involved crashes or should states focus their efforts elsewhere?

Continue Reading...

Will stronger penalties for DUI really reduce drunk driving?

A DWI task force in the state of Minnesota wants lawmakers to increase the penalties on people who are accused of committing a driving while intoxicated offense, and they also want to lower the threshold at which police and prosecutors can file stronger charges against an accused DWI offender -- even if it is just the individual's first offense.

While these suggestions may not necessarily become law, the mere fact that they are being thrown out there is both expected and also a little scary. The hope, from the task force's perspective, is that these suggestions become law and, thus, fewer people will be out on the road driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. With stronger penalties, who would want to be caught behind the wheel of a motor vehicle while inebriated?

But this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how someone who is intoxicated thinks. When you are inebriated, you aren't thinking clearly. If your car is nearby, you aren't thinking about the penalties associated with a DWI, nor are you considering the task force's push to get stronger penalties. The individual in this situation is just trying to drive home -- an admittedly terrible decision, but one influenced by the substance in his or her body.

Stronger penalties may make it seem like "something is being done" about drunk driving, but the truth is that drunk driving will always be a societal issue. We need to take alcohol abuse and drinking problems more seriously in this country. Throwing added punishment at a DWI offender will only make it more difficult for that person to turn his or her life around in the wake of the charge -- and that could lead them to drinking again.

Source: Star Tribune, "Task force wants Minn. lawmakers to get tough on DWI offenders," Abby Simons, Jan. 2, 2015

Tags: Drunk Driving Charges

Continue Reading...