Proposed Bill Would Make Fourth Washington DUI a Felony

Bill Making Fourth DUI in Washington State A Felony Being Considered | Washington DUI Washington DUI HomeAbout Our FirmYour DUI DefenseDUI Facts and InfoBlogContact Recent Posts Proposed Bill Would Make Fourth Washington DUI a FelonyDUI With Child in Car? Preparing for CPS Referral in Washington DUI Cases Challenges, Stays and Early Reinstatements of HTO License RevocationsPhysical Control in Washington - Confusion, Elements and DefensesSeattle and Washington State Marijuana DUI LawFee Increase to Request Administrative DOL HearingNew Washington DUI Laws Address Reckless Driving, Home Detention And HuffingReductions From DUI to Reckless Driving No Longer To Result In Additional License SuspensionsDUI Victims Panel, Attend Early, Be ProactiveDUI Emphasis Patrols for King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties Announced for St. Patrick's DayMore Proposed Bill Would Make Fourth Washington DUI a Felony Submitted by tcmilios on Fri, 01/23/2015 - 4:28pm

Will Washington state make a fourth DUI in ten years a felony? Washington law makers are again considering legislation that would further toughen what are arguably already the nation's strictest DUI laws by doing just that. If such a bill were to be presented, it would mark the third time in three years that such an attempt has been made.  Currently, it takes five DUI "convictions" in ten years for an offense to be considered a felony. A conviction can be an actual conviction for DUI, a conviction for a lesser offense that began as a DUI such as Reckless Driving or Negligent Driving, as well as successful completion of what is known as a Deferred Prosecution.

Previously, similar sponsored bills had not passed based primarily on the cost that such a provision would pass on to Washington tax payers.  The cost of building the extra prison alone would run into the millions.  As such, a cost/benefit analysis needs to be performed. Realistically, someone convicted of a 4th offense within 10 years will likely get a year in jail.  Making such an offense a felony would only add a small amount of incarceration but do so at a tremendous cost. Is it worth the extra expenditure?  It seems likely that if this legislation is continuously proposed it will eventually pass.  That is the reality of DUI legislation.  No legislator wants to be tagged as "soft on DUI" come election time.  Hopefully, as in the past two years, law makers will recognize that more prisons will be neither efficacious nor effective.

Archive October 2009 (2) November 2009 (2) December 2009 (2) February 2010 (1) April 2010 (1) May 2010 (2) June 2010 (3) July 2010 (4) August 2010 (1) November 2010 (2) August 2011 (3) October 2011 (1) February 2012 (4) April 2012 (2) October 2012 (1) November 2012 (1) May 2013 (1) October 2014 (2) January 2015 (1) Seattle DUI Attorneys and Lawyers Serving Washington State | P:206-745-2371| P: 206-621-9956 | 1325 Fourth Avenue | Suite 940 | Seattle, WA 98101

King County | Snohomish County | Pierce County | Including the communities of Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland, Shoreline, Burien, Kent, Renton, Edmonds, Everett, Lynnwood, and Tacoma

Use of this legal website constitutes acceptance of the Milios Defense Terms of Service. The material on this site is for informational purposes only regarding DUI legal issues, and is not a substitute for legal advice provided by an attorney or lawyer and does not establish an attorney-client relationship. © 2014 Milios Defense, LLP. We want to be your Seattle DUI Attorney. All rights reserved. Seattle DUI Lawyer website Last Updated: October 27, 2014.

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...

Proposed Law would Ban DUI Offenders from Buying Alcohol

Ban the instrumentality used during the commission of a crime and that will stop the crime, at least that’s the thought.

Sen. Patrick Anderson (R) of Oklahoma has introduced a new bill which would allow a court to ban people convicted of driving under the influence from purchasing alcohol for a probationary period of time. Those convicted of driving under the influence would be required to carry a license that indicates they are “alcohol restricted.”

Similarly, those who purchase alcohol for someone who is “alcohol restricted” is would be subject to felony charges. Individuals who “knowingly sell, deliver or furnish alcoholic beverages to a person who has been order to abstain” could face a fine of up to $1,000 or one year in prison.  

Oh, where to begin listing the problems with this proposed law?

First, does a state with one of the highest incarceration rates really want to send someone to jail or prison for something as trivial as buying and selling alcohol? What’s more, Oklahoma is currently undergoing a budget deficit for local law enforcement agencies. I think most people would agree that maybe Oklahoma should allocate its resources to fighting bigger battles than this.

Whether you agree or not, alcohol addiction is a disease. Those suffering from alcohol addiction will find a way to obtain alcohol. Banning alcohol will not reduce drunk driving deaths. Remember, it’s not the alcohol that causes alcohol-related collisions. It’s the decision to drive while drunk.

However, the biggest concern this proposed law raises is enforcement. How in the world does Oklahoma intend on enforcing this law?

This law would force every party host to ask every guest if they have been convicted of drunk driving before offering them a beer or a glass of wine. It would force priests to ask every parishioner if they have been convicted of drunk driving before they offer communion. A wife could not purchase wine “for the family” at the grocery store if her husband is “alcohol restricted.”

Anderson’s bill comes months after Oklahoma passed another law aimed at curbing its relatively high drunk driving death rate. Oklahoma legislature recently passed a law making it easier for prosecutors to confiscate the vehicle of a person charged with driving under the influence once the case is in court.

According to the nonprofit investigative journalism group “Oklahoma Watch,” drunk driving deaths in the state increased 10 percent between 1994 and 1012. However, during the same period, the figure dropped 20 percent nationwide.

The Oklahoma State Senate will begin discussing Anderson’s proposed legislation in February. Let’s just hope they realize the ramifications of such an ill-advised law. If it doesn’t, however, maybe the Oklahoma State Senate should also consider banning the purchase of cell phones for anyone caught texting and driving.

This entry was posted on Monday, January 26th, 2015 at 12:14 pm 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...

New Proposed Law Could Make 3rd DUI A Felony

Could A New Law In Colorado Make 3rd DUI’s In California A Felony?

There is a proposed new law being considered in Colorado, which would make a third DUI a felony. Representatives of Weld County are reintroducing a bill that would make a third offense for driving under the influence a felony. If this law passes, and the results prove to be beneficial to the public in reducing DUI’s, it could have an impact on other states, including California. The proposed law would allow prosecutors to seek class 4 felony charges for people charged with their third DUI within seven years or their fourth during any time period. If passed, the bill would also lengthen the time period convicted drunk drivers are required to have interlock devices installed in their vehicles. Rather than one year, it may be as many as five years.

It appears that Colorado is cracking down in a serious way on people who drive while intoxicated. California, Orange county specifically, is extremely strict when it comes to DUI and thus, may be watching Colorado carefully to see how this all plays out. Orange County is continually trying to come up with new ways to seek out and crack down on individuals who drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Currently, in California, all DUI’s are misdemeanors unless they fall within one of three categories:

If an individual has any prior felony DUI charges on their record, a new DUI will be a felonyA fourth DUI within a 10 year period of timeIf, due to an individual’s driving under the influence, any person other than the defendant suffers any injuries.

A conviction for a 3rd DUI in California may include the following:

Fines ranging anywhere from $390.00 to $1,000.00 (fees and enhancements may also be included)The Court can impose 120 days in jail or, up to 1 year. Orange County typically requires jail time on a 3rdFive years probation18-month DUI classes.An individual convicted for a 3rd DUI will also be required to install an ignition interlock device in their car and face a three year license suspension.

Although Orange County is extremely strict when it comes to DUI’s, an aggressive DUI defense attorney may be able to work out alternative sentencing, which may include community service and/or house arrest.  People often feel that there is nothing that they can do if arrested for DUI.  Although this is sometimes the case, having a good DUI defense attorney look at your case may make a big difference.  He or she will know what to look for when it comes to police officer conduct and violation of rights.  Also, having the representation of a well respected and experienced attorney often times can help to minimize the severity of the punishment.

If you or a loved one has been arrested for driving under the influence, it is extremely important to consult with an experienced DUI defense lawyer before going to Court.

Continue Reading...

Proposed DUI Bill Threatens to Crack Down on Marijuana Users

A new DUI bill being, introduced by Assembly woman Norma Torres, D-Chino, could bring harsh consequences to marijuana users in California. The bill would criminalize driving with any amount of marijuana in one’s blood or urine.

The controversy around this bill centers around the fact that marijuana compounds can remain detectable in one’s body for up to 30 days from the last use of the substance. This is unlike alcohol, which leaves one’s system at a relatively quick rate.

Supporters of the bill claim it will deter those from driving under the influence of any drug or alcohol.

The use of medicinal marijuana is legal in California. Opponents of the bill state that the bill is discriminatory against marijuana users. A person could theoretically be charged with driving under the influence for the use of marijuana 30 days prior to being stopped for driving under the influence.

Opponents of the bill also claim it would unfairly lower the burden of proof needed to obtain a DUI conviction. The bill would place more emphasis on the blood and urine test results and less emphasis on the demonstrable impairment of the driver.

One thing is for certain; if this bill passes a dramatic increase in DUI arrests in California should be expected.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Proposed New Jersey DUI Law Would Greatly Stiffen DUI Penalties

By guest-writer

Several states have taken active measures to increase the severity of DUI laws in the past few years, but a proposed series of new regulations in New Jersey establish a new precedent for tough DUI enforcement, according to a report from the Newark Star-Ledger.

This week, the New Jersey Legislature will vote on a bill that would require all drivers convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol to install an ignition interlock device that would keep their cars from starting if they have been drinking.

In years past, these tools have only been used for people who have been convicted of multiple DUI offenses, but many states are now turning to ignition interlock systems for first-time DUI offenders, as well.

In New Jersey, for example, current DUI laws only require the installation of the Breathalyzer-like devices for people who have multiple DUI convictions, or for drivers who were arrested with a blood alcohol level at more than twice the legal limit.

While this law has been in place, roughly 2,500 ignition devices were installed, but if the new law is passed, this number could double in just 12 months, according to Frank Harris, a lobbyist for Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

In defense of the proposed law, Harris also said that “[r]equiring ignition interlocks for all convicted drunk drivers provides multiple benefits to society (by) teaching offenders to drive sober which helps prevent repeat offenses and in turn saves lives.”

Harris also noted that the threat of a fine or license suspension does not deter drivers from driving intoxicated again.

In response, some critics of the bill claim that ignition interlock devices aren’t worth the expense, given that they typically cost drivers several hundred dollars, which can be a significant financial burden for many drivers.

John Bowman, a spokesman for the National Motorists Association, also told reporters that these devices don’t really help to deter first-time offenders because most of these drivers learn their lesson and refrain from driving drunk again.

But despite reservations from groups like the National Motorists Association, the national trend seems to be leaning towards the installation of ignition interlock systems for every convicted drunk driver, regardless of the nature of their offense.

In the last few years, sixteen states have enacted laws requiring these systems for all drunk drivers, and Missouri will soon become the seventeenth, according to sources. So the momentum seems to be swinging in favor of the proposed New Jersey bill.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...