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...

San Francisco, Los Angeles DUI Rates Drop Thanks to…Taxis?

In September 2014, Los Angeles DUI rates dropped, as did similar rates in several cities across the nation. Many observers credit a new trend in cab services based on apps!

Uber and other mobile friendly taxi services have revolutionized American perceptions of taxis. People no longer have to wait or hope to catch a cab at a certain corner. They can call up a town car at the touch of a button, and they don’t have to carry cash. With GPS location tracking, a taxi can be dispatched to a waiting passenger without that passenger ever placing a call.

Taxi companies are increasingly marketing their services toward younger, affluent adults. They are also focusing on the high-risk demographic that is more likely to go out to bars and clubs more often.

And it’s working.

Two companies in particular have seen a growing demand for their business, Lyft and Uber. They present themselves as trendy companies, marketing themselves on bathroom walls and underneath bar stools. Their goal is to make a taxicab seem cool enough to call.

The arrival of these services and the advent of other so-called “rideshare” programs have had a measurable impact. San Francisco DUI rates have consistently fallen since Uber and other modern taxi companies started service there. DUI arrests have fallen by nearly 10% in Seattle, since the expansion of Uber’s taxicabs. In 2013, Los Angeles saw a 14% drop after a 10% increase in 2012. The difference? The availability of ride-share services.

There’s a positive, direct correlation between decreasing DUI arrests and these services becoming available to young adults. If this trend continues, we’ll likely see these services expand and receive additional media coverage in the near future. If revenue is any indication, rideshare services are here to stay; hopefully, they’ll continue to drive down DUI rates in cities across the country.

Do you need assistance constructing an appropriate response to a DUI charge? Look to the Kraut Law Group’s Michael Kraut for insight and peace of mind. Mr. Kraut is an experience Los Angeles DUI attorney with many relevant connections in the local legal community.

Did you get arrested for a DUI in Los Angeles? If so, contact Los Angeles criminal defense attorney Michael Kraut for assistance by phone at (323) 464-6453 or online. We’re located at 6255 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1480, Los Angeles, California 90028.

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...