DUI BLOG

In today’s I-told-you-so department:

Judges Reject DUI Breath-Test Results

Seattle, Jan. 31  –  In a ruling that could affect thousands of cases, a panel of King County judges said Wednesday that the state’s toxicology lab engaged in “fraudulent and scientifically unacceptable” practices that have compromised breath-test readings used to prosecute suspected drunken drivers…

In its blistering 29-page ruling, the panel of three District Court judges said the Washington State Toxicology Lab created a “culture of compromise” with so many “ethical lapses, systemic inaccuracy, negligence and violations of scientific principles” that the breath tests should not be used as evidence in pending DUI cases.

Do you really think that cover-ups of inaccurate and unreliable breathalyzer tests are limited to Seattle’s crime labs?  See “Breaking Up the Forensics Monopoly” in Reason magazine, November 2007, which concludes:

America’s forensics system, the part of our criminal justice system responsible for scientific examinations of crime-scene evidence like fingerprints and DNA, is rife with errors. Some mistakes, like botched tests or erroneously interpreted results, are inevitable. But current error rates are needlessly high.

The most recent comprehensive study of crime lab proficiency, published by the Journal of Forensic Sciences in 1995, analyzed the tests administered by the Forensic Sciences Foundation and Collaborative Testing Services as a part of the accreditation process. For many forensic disciplines, including the analysis of fibers, paints, glass, and body fluid mixtures, the rate of incorrect matches between recovered evidence and a reference sample exceeded 10 percent…

Confronted with such statistics, policy makers usually call for greater oversight—that is, finding a governmental body to watch over forensics and make sure everyone does his or her job right. In the current climate, that certainly would help. But the core problem with modern forensics isn’t an absence of oversight. It’s monopoly. Once evidence goes to a given lab or facility, it is unlikely to be examined by any other lab or facility. That increases the chances that a mistake will slip through undetected.

The “monopoly”, in most cases, are crime labs that are not independent but part of law enforcement – and increasingly more interested in facilitating convictions than in seeking accuracy and reliability in evidence.

When a person is arrested for DUI, his driver’s license is confiscated by the arresting officer and he is given a notice of “administrative suspension”. He is also given a citation to appear in court to face criminal drunk driving charges. These are usually two very different procedures: (1) the administrative suspension for driving with blood-alcohol of .08%, in most states administered by its department of motor vehicles, and (2) the criminal prosecution for the two separate offenses of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI or DWI) and driving with .08%,  which takes place in the courts.

In other words, even though he only drove once, the individual is being prosecuted in court for two different crimes: DUI and driving with a .08% BAC. He can even be convicted of both offenses (although he can only be punished for one). How is this possible?

It gets worse….The driver has already been punished by another state agency (the Department of Motor Vehicles) for driving over .08% by having his license suspended. If he is later convicted in the state’s criminal court of driving over .08% (and/or driving under the influence), he will be punished once again. The sentence may involve jail, fines, DUI schools, community work, probation — and a restricted, suspended or revoked license.

How many times can the state prosecute a person for a single crime?

Our Constitution says only once. The Fifth Amendment specifically provides that no person shall “be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life and limb”. So is this another example of “the DUI exception to the Constitution”?

Let’s first take the question of charging defendants with both DUI and .08%. The courts in the different states wrestled with this one for awhile, but eventually came to the conclusion that the driver actually commited two different crimes. As an Indiana court reasoned, “the test to be applied to determine whether there are two different offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.” Sering v. State, 488 N.E.2d 369 (1986). The .08 statute required proof of blood-alcohol concentration; although blood-alcohol evidence was used to prove the DUI crime as well (a person is usually presumed to be under the influence if his BAC is .08% or higher), the offense could be proved without it. So it’s ok to prosecute and convict him for both crimes – so long as you don’t punish him for both. 

Hmm…

Well, what about punishing the driver by suspending his license when he’s arrested — and then punishing him again in court? In fact, punishing him in court with a sentence that may include another license suspension?

This one caused the judges a bit more trouble. This wasn’t a case where the person was committing two different crimes: he was being punished by two different state agencies for the same crime: driving with .08% BAC. But there had to be some way to get around the Constitution….

The courts could not agree. Some said that there was no double jeopardy or double punishment since the DMV license foreiture was not really a “punishment” but only a “civil sanction”. Others took the position that this was, in fact, a violation of the Fifth Amendment, and they relied upon a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court decision (U.S. v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435) which involved civil forfeitures and criminal punishments for selling marijuana. In that case the Court held that a “civil sanction” was actually a punishment — and thus double jeopardy — if (1) the “clear focus of (the statute) is on the culpability of the individual”, and (2) the legislature “understood these provisions as serving to deter and punish”. The Court added that “the historical understanding of forfeiture as punishment” weighs heavily in favor of the conclusion that forfeiture continues to serve punitive purposes.

Well, relying upon the Supreme Court’s ruling, an alarming number of courts around the country were throwing out criminal DUI charges on double jeopardy grounds. This, of course, infuriated MADD, legislators, prosecutors, law enforcement, insurance companies and pretty much everyone else who did not take the Constitution too seriously. But rescue arrived  from a more conservative U.S. Supreme Court.

In 1997, Chief Justice Rehnquist revisited the forfeiture-punishment problem and did something that is rarely ever done: he criticized and flatly rejected the earlier Supreme Court’s ruling: “We believe that Halper’s deviation from long-standing double jeopardy principles was ill-considered….Halper’s test for determining whether a particular sanction is “punitive”, and thus subject to the strictures of the Double Jeopardy Clause, has proved unworkable”. Hudson v. U.S., 592 U.S. 93 (1997).

Since then, the courts have had little trouble finding that a police officer who confiscates and suspends the driver’s license of a drunk driving suspect is merely administering a “civil sanction”, not punishment….and that when he is later convicted in court and is fined, jailed and has his license suspended again, well that’s not really double jeopardy or multiple punishment. It just looks an awful lot like it.

From Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.”

When a DUI suspect is arrested, he is asked to submit to a blood, breath or urine test. If he refuses, his license will be suspended — for a considerably longer time than if a test had shown .08% or higher. In addition, many states impose an increased penalty in the criminal phase, usually a mandatory jail sentence; some states make refusal a crime independent of the underlying DUI.

Finally, the fact of refusing can be used as evidence of “consciousness of guilt” in trial — a practice which has been held by the U.S. Supreme Court not to be a violation of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. (See my earlier post, “Believing You Have Constitutional Rights in a DUI Case Can be Dangerous”.)

The reason for harsher treatment is, of course, to encourage suspects to provide evidence considerably more reliable than an officer’s opinion: it is the evidence that is desired, more than a desire to punish for not cooperating. It would follow, of course, that if a suspect changes his mind and agrees to provide a blood, breath or urine sample — what is referred to as “curing” the refusal — there would be no penalties.

Wrong — in most states. A summary of the situation was presented by a New Jersey appellate court where the defendant had initially refused to take a breath test until he could speak with his attorney:

We have been referred to various out-of-state decisions in the briefs of counsel. The majority rule in those cases which have an implied consent statute like ours….is that the initial refusal is final and hence that there is no right to “cure” an initial refusal… The cases expressing the majority view essentially turn on the question of the unreasonableness of having police officers turn aside from other duties to administer a test after the driver has initially refused. The cases allowing a “cure” generally do so on the basis that a change of mind after a relatively short delay does not prejudice the presentation of the state’s evidence nor defeat the purpose of the implied consent statute. State v. Corrado, 446 A.2d 1229.

The New Jersey court decided to follow the majority approach. A Florida appellate court, however, chose the opposite view:

The subsequent consent to take the test cures the first refusal when the request to take the first test is made within a reasonable time after the the prior first refusal…. By approving a flexible rule we believe that this important evidence will be more frequently available and therefore the prophylactic purpose of the implied consent law will be achieved. Larmer v. State, 522 So.2d 941.

The disagreement, of course, reflects two very different underlying philosophies: Which is more important — obtaining key evidence or punishing non-cooperation? The minority recognizes that actual evidence of blood-alcohol concentration is crucial; the majority prefers to focus on deterring future suspects from refusing. Which is the “correct” view?

As usual, California has adopted its own unique approach: If a suspect refuses, he can be physically restrained and a blood sample forcefully taken from him — and he will be charged with a refusal as well.

That’s right.  What these machines actually detect and measure is any chemical compund that contains the methyl group in its molecular structure. There are thousands of such compounds — including quite a few which can be found on the human breath. And this machine that determines a person’s guilt or innocence will “see” all of those chemicals as alcohol — and report a falsely high “blood-alcohol” concentration (BAC).

Most breath machines used by law enforcement in DUI cases today employ a technology called infrared spectroscopy. The DUI suspect breathes through a tube connected to the machine and a breath sample is captured in a small sample chamber inside the machine. Then beams of infrared light are shot through the captured breath sample. If there are any compounds containing the methyl group, they will absorb some of this light; the more of the chemical compound in the breath sample, the more light is absorbed. The more light that is absorbed, the less that reaches sensors at the other end of the sample chamber. And the less light that is detected by the sensors, the higher the supposed “blood-alcohol” reading.

Problem: the machines are, scientifically speaking, fairly unsophisticated. They are, as scientists say, non-specific — that is, they are not capable of detecting and measuring a specific compound.  More important for government work, they are relatively cheap.  Rather than use more expensive filters and/or multiple filters, for example, most breathalyzers use only one or three less-costly filters.  Result:  these machines can only detect and measure a broad range of compounds containing the methyl group — and they then simply assume that the unknown compound within this group is ethyl alcohol.

If a person has any of these other compounds on his breath, called interferents by the scientists, he will get a falsely high breath alcohol test result. And if there are two or three such compounds on his breath, the machine will read a cumulative result: it will add them up and falsely report the total as the breath-alcohol level.

So what kinds of compounds may be on a person’s breath that can cause false BAC readings in a DUI case? In one study of eight men, 69 different compounds containing the methyl group were discovered.  “Trace Composition of Human Respiratory Gas”, 30 Archives of Environmental Health 290.  In another study invoviing 28 subjects, researchers found that the “combined expired air comprises at least 102 various organic compounds of endogenous and exogenous origin”.  “Characterization of Human Expired Air”, 15 Journal of Chromatographic Sciences 240.  And Canadian scientists have discovered over 200 such compounds.  “The Diagnostic Potential of Breath Analysis”, 21(1) Clinical Chemistry 5.

What are these compounds?  Are there any on my breath?  Well, for starters, diabetics with low blood sugar can have high levels of acetone — which is “seen” as alcohol by breathalyzers. And scientific studies have found that people on diets can have reduced blood-sugar levels, causing acetone hundreds of times higher than found in normal individuals. Frank and Flores, “The Likelihood of Acetone Interference in Breath Alcohol Measurements”, 3 Alcohol, Drugs and Driving 1. And there are many other so-called “interferents”. See, for example, “Excretion of Low-Molecular Weight Volatile Substances in Human Breath: Focus on Endogenous Ethanol”, 9 Journal of Analytical Toxicology 246.

If you are a smoker, your breathalyzer result is likely to be higher than expected. The compound acetaldehyde — reported by the breathalyzer as “alcohol” — is produced in the human body as a by-product in metabolizing consumed alcohol, and eventually passes into the lungs and breath. Researchers have discovered that levels of acetaldehyde in the lungs can be 30 times higher in smokers than in non-smokers. Result: higher BAC readings on the machine.

And then there are the industrial compounds: paint, glue, gasoline, thinners, and other compounds contain the methyl group. No, you don’t have to drink the stuff: simply absorbing it through your skin or inhaling the fumes can result in significant levels of the chemical in your body for hours or even days, depending upon the half-life of the compound. So if you’ve painted a room or been around gasoline in the last day or two, don’t breath into a breathalyzer.

Some law enforcement officials say that this is not a problem, claiming that levels of the compound would have to be at toxic levels to raise a breath test result to .08% or higher. These officials are displaying their ignorance of the science involved — specifically, of the partition ratio. This is the ratio of the compound found in the breath to that found in the blood. With ethyl alcohol, the ratio is 2100-to-1, which means that, on average, there will be 2100 units of alcohol in the blood for every unit found in the breath. These officials are using this ratio for all compounds, but every compound has its own ratio. Toluene (found in paint, glue, thinners, cleaning solvents. etc.), for example, has a partition ratio of only 7-to-1; a far greater amount of toluene in the blood will pass into the breath, and so a much smaller amount in the body will have a far greater impact on the breath machine.

As I have said in earlier posts, law enforcement investigation techniques depend largely upon the fictitious premise that all humans are physiologically identical (see “Convicting the Average DUI Suspect”). Without that presumption, field sobriety and breath alcohol tests would not be possible. I have previously discussed many examples of physiological differences — from person to person and within one person from moment to moment — which will directly alter breath or blood alcohol testing (see, for example, “Diabetes and the Counterfeit DUI”, “GERD, Acid Reflux and False Breathalyzer Results” and “The Effect of Anemia on Breath Tests”).

Yet another example of variability is body temperature. Put simply, an individual’s body temperature will have a direct effect on the results of a breath test. The effects of changes in body temeprature from the norm of 98.6 degrees on breath testing has been discussed in an article entitled “Body Temperature and the Breathalyzer Boobytrap”, 721 Michigan Bar Journal (September 1982). If because of illness, for example, the body temperature is elevated by only 1 degree Centrigrade (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), the 1:2100 breath-to-blood partition ratio will be affected so as to produce a 7 percent higher test result. Higher body temperatures will, of course, result in greater errors.

Dr. Michael Hlastala, Professor of Physiology, Biophysics and Medicine at the University of Washington, confirms this effect. In an article entitled “Physiological Errors Associated with Alcohol Breath Testing”, 9(6) The Champion 18 (1985), he comments that even the average body temperature of a normal, healthy person “may vary by as much as 1 degree Centigrade above or below the normal mean value of 37 degrees Centigrade — or 1.8 degrees from the mean value of 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit”.

Not only can the normal mean body temperature of an individual vary from that of other persons, but the “temperature of any individual may vary from time to time during the day by as much as 1 degree Centigrade”. Result? The partition ratio for alcohol in blood is altered — meaning, according to Professor Hlastala, a 6.3 percent error for every 1 degree Centigrade increase or decrease from the presumed normal body temperature.

Yet another example of how breathalyzers are not actually testing you, but rather an “average” person who does not exist.

The latest weapon in MADD’s politically correct War on Drunk Driving:

New Law Strengthens DUI Penalties

San Jose, CA.  ABC News  –  Each year, an estimated 17,000 people are killed in drunk driving crashes.

In October the governor signed a bill that got by-partisan support to strengthen the law against first time DUI offenders.

The bill requires everyone getting a driver’s license to sign a statement indicating they know that driving under the influence is dangerous and could result in death. The statement goes on to read that if they choose to drive impaired and kill a person, they understand they can be charged with murder.

The bill had backing from Mothers Against Drunk Driving, AAA and the CHP…

Huh?

Well…It’s all a word game.  You see, a death resulting from drunk driving is punishable as manslaughter (vehicular or involuntary manslaughter).   But a death that is intentional, or involves the mental state of malice, is punishable as murder.  So what is “malice”?  Well, the courts have said it is a wanton and  reckless indifference to human life.  Hmmm…ok, so what is that?

Well, in a drunk driving case, the California courts have said it is driving a vehicle while under the influence (or with .08% blood-alcohol) — if you know that doing so is dangerous to human life.  Hmmm…doesn’t everyone know that?  I mean, duh?

Well, maybe.  If the person was drunk enough and truly knew that he was dangerous.  But what if he didn’t think he was that drunk or dangerous? 

Yes, but what if that person signed a piece of paper saying that all DUI or driving with .08% is dangerous?  Then everyone can be charged with murder — and the manslaughter statutes, which intended for DUI homicides, can be ignored and the .08% driver can be put away for life…just as if he intended to murder someone.

Manslaughter becomes murder…for signing a piece of paper.

My last post concerned the current efforts by the Governor of Washington to get legislation authorizing drunk driving roadblocks.  This would trump their own Supreme Court’s holding that these roadblocks  violate the state constitution’s prohibition against stopping citizens for no apparent reason.  But it would appear that, once again, there is a growing backlash against this never-ending “War on Drunk Driving” — and on our Constitution.  An example:

Stopping You for No Reason

Ridenbaugh Press, Jan. 8  –  When Washington Governor Chris Gregoire was explaining on Monday her rationale behind her new security checkpoint program, she pointed out that we already have security stops and checks at courthouses and airports. In many of those places, we do; and the proposed expansion of governmental stops and checks of citizens who are minding their own business and violating no law is one of the exact reasons we disapprove of them so much. Where will the quest for “safety” and “security” lead us next? How much more thoroughly will the Fourth Amendment be eviscerated in the name of keeping people safe?..

The freedom to travel from place to place without being stopped by government authorities – absent some specific reason why you should be – is core and central to freedom in America. Every one of these generalized stops and checkpoints of people undermines that, a point courts generally have upheld over the years, including courts in Washington when this kind of idea was proposed in the last decade.

And for DUI exclusively? You can see this coming: Agencies will want to piggyback other agendas on top of this one, just as the Patriot Act, supposedly solely an anti-terrorist measure, has been used much more for other purposes. Have no doubt, if this approach takes affect, it will happen. Where it will end, where its practical limits will be, remain unclear.

What this most specifically would accomplish would get Americans ever more accustomed to another stop and search routine of them by their government. And that is how the fourth amendment, and the sense of what it is to live in a free country, gets gradually whittled away.

As I’ve pointed out in the past, these so-called “sobriety checkpoints” are well-known to be ineffective in apprehending drunk drivers.  Instead, they are increasingly being used as revenue generators and illegal subterfuges to stop innocent citizens for unrelated matters.  Indeed, as the writer above has asked, where will it end?  If you permit DUI roadblocks in clear violation of the Fourth Amendment, this sets a precedent for other roadblocks – and, as at airports, serves to get citizens used to such governmental intrusions.

I’ve railed in the past about the unconstitutionality of DUI roadblacks, aka “sobriety checkpoints”, as well as their ineffectiveness.  Increasingly, they are being used as revenue generators and illegal subterfuges to stop innocent citizens for unrelated matters.  

Despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that the interests of the government in ensuring safety on the highways outweighs the clear violation of the Fourth Amendment, 11 states today ban DUI roadblocks by relying upon their own state constitutions to protect their citizens.  However, the governor of one of those states, Christine Gregoire, is now calling on the legislature to abandon that protection.

Gregoire Calls for Sobriety Checkpoints

Olympia, WA.  Jan. 8  –  Gov. Christine Gregoire wants the state Legislature to authorize police to set up sobriety spot checks, a practice unseen in Washington since the state Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in 1988…

The national and Pacific Northwest MADD organizations are targeting sobriety checkpoints and stricter laws for ignition interlocks as legislative priorities this year.

“Sobriety checkpoints work. The Centers for Disease Control says that in states where they have sobriety checkpoints, impaired driving crashes are usually 20 percent less than in states where they don’t,” said Judy Eakin, executive director of MADD’s Northwest region.

As I’ve indicated in previous posts (e.g., ”Lies, Damned Lies and MADD Statistics”), MADD is very fond of playing games with numbers.  Let’s take a closer look at the statistics connecting roadblocks to reductions of accidents….

According to MADD’s own website, 40 states have checkpoints and 10 do not. Well, it would be interesting to compare the states with the highest percentage of alcohol-related fatalities with the list of states not using checkpoints: If MADD is correct, the states with the highest fatality rates will be the no-roadblock states. Fortunately, another section of MADD’s website provides such statistics for each of the states. The 5 states with the highest alcohol-related fatality rates:

Hawaii
Nevada
North Dakota
Rhode Island
South Carolina

According to MADD, all 5 states should be non-checkpoint states. In fact, however, 4 of these states use checkpoints; only Rhode Island does not. Well, what about the 5 states with the lowest fatality percentages? They are:

Georgia
Kentucky
Indiana
Iowa
New York

If MADD is correct about the effectiveness of checkpoints, these should all be checkpoint states. But as with the previous list, only 4 of the states permit the use of sobriety checkpoints; Iowa does not. As with the previous list, the percentage is what one would expect from pure random incidence: 20% of the states (10 of 50) do not have checkpoints — and 20% of the states on each list (1 of 5) do not use checkpoints. There appears to be no correlation between fatality rates and the use of checkpoints.

Let’s take a look at another set of statistics: the effect of the proliferation of checkpoints on the national rate of alcohol-related fatalities. If checkpoints are effective, we would expect to find that alcohol-related fatalities will have declined since their widespread acceptance in recent years .

Again, the statistics do not support this. To use MADD’s own numbers: Since 1982, the number of fatalities nationwide from alcohol-related crashes has declined every year — until about 1993, when it dropped to 17,908. Perhaps coincidentally, this was the year after the United States Supreme Court ruled that sobriety checkpoints were not unconstitutional. In the 10 years since then, sobriety checkpoints have gained widespead acceptance — but the number of fatalities have levelled off, vacilating between 17,908 and 17,013. Far from supporting MADD’s position, one could even argue that this proves sobriety checkpoints have actually halted the steady decline in alcohol-related deaths. This would probably be incorrect — but indicative of how statistics can be used to serve a desired objective.

Is the tide finally turning?  For years I’ve expected to see a backlash from the citizens of this country as politicians and judges continue to bow to MADD’s hysterical crusade against drinking (and, secondarily, drunk driving) and whittle away at the Bill of Rights and basic concepts of justice and fairness.  Recently, however, there seems to be an increasing number of isolated voices of reason arising from the wilderness.  In yesterday’s media….

A Better Way to Go After Drunk Drivers

KOMO-TV News, Seattle.  Jan. 7  –   So now the governor wants to get tough on drunk driving…

The governor’s idea is to set up sobriety checkpoints so that police can arbitrarily stop anyone out driving on a particular stretch of road at a particular time.

In other words, it’s about showmanship over substance.

I don’t like sobriety checkpoints.  Not because I have any interest in protecting drunk drivers, but because I’m not too keen on giving up another piece of our constitutional rights.

Call me simplistic, but I’m kind of partial to those 4th amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

So while I’m all for Governor Gregoire getting tough on drunk driving, I’d prefer something more direct, like actually going after drunk drivers while leaving the rest of us sober folks alone.

Obviously an unpatriotic, wife-beating, alcohol-abusing radical.

Instant Suspension of DUI Suspect Licenses

Crosses Line

Phoenix Tribune.  Jan. 7  –  Sen. Jim Waring, R-Phoenix, has decided to continue a reckless vendetta against drunken driving and he seems willing to sacrifice our civil liberties and every bit of common sense in his rush to save just one more life.

A set of new DUI laws recognized as among the toughest in the country, including the mandated use of ignition interlock devices for a year on a person’s first misdemeanor conviction, has been in effect for less than three months. We have no idea if more jail time, higher fines and a physical barrier to driving after drinking will be wildly successful, an abject failure or fall somewhere in between…

State law already requires police to physically take away the driver’s license of DUI suspects. But they receive a temporary permit in return, giving the motorists an opportunity to challenge a license suspension at a state administrative hearing. As driving is considered a privilege, not a right, the standard in such cases is lower than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” DUI suspects can lose their driver’s license for 90 days even if they eventually defeat the criminal charges.

But at least a truly innocent person has a chance to appeal to an authority not beholden to the police before they lose access to a daily part of most people’s lives that often is critical to keeping a job and caring for a family.

Waring’s bill would deny even this minimal version of the due process of law. A DUI suspect anywhere in the state instantly would be powerless to drive, even if the police don’t yet have any physical evidence of intoxication (such as breath or blood test results)…

SB1008 completely disregards the American notion of “innocent until proven guilty” and would push Arizona much closer toward a police state in which judges and other independent arbiters of justice are irrelevant relics.

Obviously another rabble-rousing, child-molesting, communist pervert.

Did you ever wonder how much it could cost you today if you’re arrested for drunk driving?  Not necessarily guilty of drunk driving, just suspected of it?  Maybe $500?  Or $1000?…

Drunk Driving Could Cost $20,000

CNBC News.  Dec. 14  –  Twenty thousand dollars sounds like a lot to pay for a drink at a holiday party, but if that last cocktail puts you over the legal limit, that “one for the road” could easily cost you that or more.

One drink too many puts you at risk for not only an arrest, but also for fees, fines and costs that can run you thousands of dollars. While a DUI or DWI may be a misdemeanor charge in a number of jurisdictions, it’s a matter that most judges and district attorneys take very seriously. The financial toll of a conviction will play out for years to come, and in many states that can add up to $20,000 before everything is over. This includes bail, fines, legal fees, increased auto insurance premiums, loss of work income, court-ordered alcohol education programs and more.

Of course, if you get fired from your job as a result of the arrest, that dollar figure would skyrocket…

The Texas Department of Transportation says a June 2006 survey in that state showed the total costs of a DWI arrest and conviction — for a first time offender with no accident involved — would range from $9,000 to $24,000. 

In many states today, you’re better off committing a felony burglary, for example, than a misdemeanor DUI.  The difference between .07% and .08% alcohol in your blood could be the difference between a brief detention and a nightmare in the legal system with a $20,000 price tag. 

‘Ever wonder why?