DUI BLOG

A few years ago, citizens suspected of DUI were given a choice to submit to either breath, blood or urine testing for alcohol concentration.  In the hysteria of MADD’s "War on Drunk Driving", however, things have changed.  Today, citizens (supposedly presumed innocent) are being told they must submit to a blood test — and, if they refuse, are being forcefully restrained by a blood technician (referred to as a phlebotomist).   See my post Taking Blood by Force.

Why?  Well, cops are aware that breathalyzers are relatively inaccurate and unreliable, and take time to set up, administer and keep records.  But they still preferred breath testing because they didn’t have to find a phlebotomist to draw the blood sample, usually requiring a trip to a hospital.

The solution: draw the blood sample yourself.  Cops are throwing suspects across the  hoods of cars or pinning them down in back seats and forcefully jamming needles into screaming citizens suspected of having a .08% blood-alcohol level.  And this is a growing practice across our country.  See, for example, Forced Blood Draws by Cops in Back Seat, Forced Blood Draws by Cops Spreading and Catheter Forced Up Penis After DUI Arrest.

Judges, of course, are generally cowed by MADD and the political consequences of appearing "soft on drunk driving" at the next election.  But once in awhile, some judge remembers why he’s wearing black robes….

Judge: Troopers’ DUI  Blood Tests Unconstitutional

Well, I suppose it was a logical inevitability.  Mothers Against Drunk Driving has pressured legislators into passing Draconian laws, intimidated judges into ignoring due process, and now…..

MADD Volunteers Hit Road for DUI Enforcement

Pilot Program Launches Labor Day Weekend in Florida

Manatee County, Fla.  Aug 27   -  In a "first in the nation" pilot program developed by Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Manatee County Sheriff, Brad Steube, announced in a press conference earlier this week, that his sheriff’s department was partnering with Mothers Against Drunk Driving. In a unique program that puts specially trained MADD observers on the road to observe traffic and report potential drunk drivers, MADD and the Sheriff’s office are committed to saving lives and preventing injuries.

 "MADD’s Traffic Observation Program, or T.O.P., is the first such MADD program in the nation," stated MADD Volunteer Leader, LaVonne Bower, who is managing the program in Manatee County. "Teams of two will be on the road observing traffic to report signs of possible impaired driving to the Sheriff’s department. Our observers have received specialized training that includes classroom instruction and a minimum of six hours of ride-a-long training with certified DUI officers. They will observe all traffic laws and will make no effort to stop or interact with the subject vehicles," continued Bower…

Sound ridiculous, maybe illegal, even a little frightening?  Well, contrary to the "first in the nation" claim, MADD has been doing this kind of thing for some time now.  See, for example, my previous posts MADD Helping Police at DUI Roadblocks  and…Are you ready?… MADD Roadblocks , where MADD actually set up their own sobriety checkpoints (pissing off the local prosecutor in the process).

It may not surprise you to find out that alcoholics arrested for DUI will generally have higher blood-alcohol readings. It may surprise you, however, to learn that individuals having the disease of alcoholism will generally have higher blood-alcohol readings because they are alcoholics…..

That’s right. It’s because the physiology of alcoholics is different in some important respects. One of those is that their bodies produce more acetaldehyde — far more. Acetaldehyde? That’s a compound produced in the liver in small amounts as a by-product in the metabolism of alcohol. Unfortunately, alcohol in the lungs has been found to metabolize there as well as in the liver — and to produce acetaldehyde there.

The amount of acetaldehyde produced in the lungs (to then be breathed into the breathalyzer) varies from person to person. “Origin of Breath Acetaldehyde During Ethanol Oxidation: Effect of Long-Term Cigarette Smoking”, 100 Journal of Laboratory Clinical Medicine 908. But in a study focusing on alcoholics, researchers discovered that the amount of acetaldehyde in the breath and blood of alcoholics was 5 to 55 times higher than that in nonalcoholics. “Elevated Blood Acetaldehyde in Alcoholics and Accelerated Ethanol Elimination”, 13 (Supp 1) Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior 119.

End result: since breathalyzers can’t tell the difference between alcohol and acetaldehyde (see earlier post, “Why Breathalyzers Don’t Measure Alcohol”), alcoholics will usually have falsely higher blood-alcohol readings.

As has been widely reported in the nation’s media, Mothers Against Drunk Driving has been aggressively pushing state and federal legislators to require ignition interlock devices (IIDs) to be installed in vehicles.  MADD’s President has even publicly stated that IIDs will "eliminate drunk driving once and for all". 

Of course, automobile manufacturers have jumped enthusiastically on this.  Nissan, Saab, Volvo, Chrysler and Toyota have already designed IIDs — both as optional equipment and as possible standard equipment for all of their models.  See All U.S. Cars to Have Ignition Interlock Devices? and New MADD Goal: All Cars Equipped with Breathlayzers.

So why is MADD so enthusiastically pushing for the adoption of these unreliable, dangerous and expensive gizmos?  

Take a look at MADD’s 2005 Annual Report.   On their list of "Corporate Donors", six corporations are listed as "Platinum Corporate Donors" — that is, donors of $100,000 or more.  The first is a telemarketing company, DialAmerica Marketing.  Of the remaining five, three are carmakers planning IIDs in their models:  Nissan North America, Daimler Chrysler Corporation  and General Motors Companies (makers of Saab).  See The Truth About Ignition Interlock Devices.

Follow the money.

The debate over the minimum drinking age has continued for decades, with the recent focus being on whether it makes sense to send American youth to fight and perhaps die in foreign countries – but not to drink alcohol.  Our generals have expressed strong views on the subject.  See  MADD vs USMC.  Mothers Against Drunk Driving, ever vigilant in its Prohibitionist goals (see MADD and the New Prohibition), has fought hard (and successfully) against exposing our troops to the evils of alcohol. 

A second front, long simmering, has now errupted: the drinking age for college students.  MADD, whose  "Mission Statement" was amended a few years ago from preventing drunk driving to including preventing underage drinking, is adamantly against lowering the age to 18.  But, as with their run-in with our military leaders, this powerful group has suddenly been confronted with a another formidable enemy.

College Presidents Seek Debate on Drinking Age

Associated Press, Aug. 18  - College presidents from about 100 of the nation’s best-known universities, including Duke, Dartmouth and Ohio State, are calling on lawmakers to consider lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18, saying current laws actually encourage dangerous binge drinking on campus.

The movement called the Amethyst Initiative began quietly recruiting presidents more than a year ago to provoke national debate about the drinking age.

"This is a law that is routinely evaded," said John McCardell, former president of Middlebury College in Vermont who started the organization. "It is a law that the people at whom it is directed believe is unjust and unfair and discriminatory."

But even before the presidents begin the public phase of their efforts, which may include publishing newspaper ads in the coming weeks, they are already facing sharp criticism.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving says lowering the drinking age would lead to more fatal car crashes. It accuses the presidents of misrepresenting science and looking for an easy way out of an inconvenient problem. MADD officials are even urging parents to think carefully about the safety of colleges whose presidents have signed on.

"It’s very clear the 21-year-old drinking age will not be enforced at those campuses," said Laura Dean-Mooney, national president of MADD…

 The statement the presidents have signed avoids calling explicitly for a younger drinking age. Rather, it seeks "an informed and dispassionate debate" over the issue and the federal highway law that made 21 the de facto national drinking age by denying money to any state that bucks the trend.

But the statement makes clear the signers think the current law isn’t working, citing a "culture of dangerous, clandestine binge-drinking," and noting that while adults under 21 can vote and enlist in the military, they "are told they are not mature enough to have a beer." Furthermore, "by choosing to use fake IDs, students make ethical compromises that erode respect for the law."..

Duke President Richard Brodhead declined an interview request. But he wrote in a statement on the Amethyst Initiative’s Web site that the 21-year-old drinking age "pushes drinking into hiding, heightening its risks." It also prevents school officials "from addressing drinking with students as an issue of responsible choice."

(Chuck) Hurley, (CEO) of MADD, has a different take on the presidents.

"They’re waving the white flag," he said.

(Thanks to Susan Sullivan and Lance Maxon.)

I’ve railed in past posts about the ineffectiveness of ignition interlock devices (IIDs).  See The Truth About Ignition Interlock Devices.  This latest sure-fire weapon, which MADD loudly claims will "eliminate drunk driving once and for all", is currently sweeping the country.

We know what the Mothers think.  What about the prosecutors in the trenches?

Prosecutors Express Doubt About New DUI Law

Jacksonville, IL.  Aug. 2  - While mandatory ignition locks equipped with a breathalyzer are suppose to prevent convicted first-time, drunken drivers from driving illegally, several area prosecutors doubt they will accomplish that purpose.

The new mandate won’t take effect until Jan. 1, but prosecutors for Morgan, Scott and Greene counties are skeptical about how the offenders will be able to afford the costly monitoring device and pay their DUI fines, which the counties already find difficult to collect…

He and other prosecutors see holes in the system. “It’s a step in the right direction,” said Scott County State’s Attorney David Cherry. “And, yet, it’s a costly device and doesn’t guarantee 100 percent that they won’t drive when they shouldn’t. That’s a problem.”

“If you have a crazy drunk who is going to drink and drive, this doesn’t necessarily stop them from driving,” Mr. Bonjean noted. “It only stops them from driving the vehicle that they put the (breathalyzer) device in.

“That doesn’t mean they can’t go get in their friend’s vehicle or their kid’s vehicle or get in their wife’s vehicle, which would be a violation, and drive that,” Mr. Bonjean said.

Greene County State’s Attorney Matt Goetten echoed the two prosecutors’ concerns, adding, “What’s to prevent them from having someone not drinking blow into it and start the car up?”..

Mothers Against Drunk Driving called the new law one of the most important pieces of DUI legislation passed in Illinois in several years, because ignition interlocks stop vehicles from being driven by those who are drunk, Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White said in a press release he issued last month.

Those on the front lines are skeptical. “I personally don’t think it will have much, if any, effect on DUI offenders,” Mr. Bonjean said. “The only thing I think it is going to do is create a larger market for the (breathalyzer) devices, themselves.

“I think whoever owns stock in these (breathalyzer) companies is probably going to do fairly well, because this opens up a new (sales) avenue for them,” he said.

 
Exactly.  See my earlier post, Ignition Interlock Devices: Dangerous But Profitable.

So what do you do with someone who has the genetic disease of alcoholism – and continues to drink and drive?  Get him treatment for his disease?  Or maybe you throw him in prison for the rest of his life….

Wichita County Man Gets Life Sentence for 10th DWI

Wichita Falls, TX.  Aug. 8  -    A man with nine previous drunken driving convictions was sentenced to life in prison.

 Kenneth Chris Oneal, 58, received the maximum sentence Thursday after jurors convicted him of driving while intoxicated-repetition, his 10th drunken-driving related offense…

Well, you say, he may be an alcoholic, but he didnt have to choose to drive.  But that’s a Catch-22, isn’t it?  I mean, part of the legal definition of driving while intoxicated is impaired judgment – the inability to make rational and intelligent choices.

This sentence is far from an aberration.  See, for example, Third DUI = Life in Prison and 99 Years for Drunk Driving. 

For 15 years now, the DUI fatality rate has remained fairly stable (see MADDness and  Latest Figures in MADD’s War on Drunk Driving).   In view of the fact that most fatalities are caused by recidivists — usually alcoholics — isn’t it time to consider alternatives to MADD’s hysterical vengeance/prohibition approach?  Read Time for a Change .

(Thanks to Tom Termini)

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects American citizens from being subjected to police intrusions without "probable cause".  The Michigan Supreme Court held that DUI roadblocks violated this constitutional protection.  On appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, however, that decision was reversed. 

In a 5-4 decision, the Court found a "DUI exception" to the Fourth Amendment.  Although admittedly a violation of the Fourth Amendment, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, the "minimal intrusions" into citizens’ privacy was  "outweighed" by the governmental interest in apprehending drunk drivers.  Sitz v. Michigan

I’ve often reminded readers of this blog that we are a nation of legal precedent:  once a legal doctrine is adopted by the courts in a specific situation, it is thereafter applied in a broader context.  The danger of the Sitz decision goes far beyond the DUI roadblock situation:  if  police can stop you without reason for possible drunk driving today, then they can stop you for any reason tommorrow.  (See Sobriety Checkpoints: The Slippery Slope.)  

Community Declares War on Crime

Mayor issues curfew order

Helena, Ark.  Aug. 7  -  Mayor James Valley Thursday issued an executive order declaring an emergency curfew in certain sections of Helena-West Helena effective immediately.

In his order, Valley states the city has the duty to provide protection for its citizens and visitors and that certain areas of the city have been “under siege” with repeated gunfire, loitering, drug dealing and other general mayhem.

Valley has ordered H–WH officers to treat the “curfew zone” as a “zero tolerance zone”, which means that no loitering, “hanging out” will be permitted. All foot traffic, bicycle, horseback, moped, motorcycle, riding mower, golf cart or other mode of transportation will be subject to stop and investigation. (Emphasis added)
 

And this is how it starts….

(Thanks to David O’Shea)

For those of you unfamiliar with the logic of The War on Drunk Driving, consider the following story from yesterday’s news…

Recent DUI Checkpoint A Success

Pittsburgh, PA.  Aug. 6  -  The final statistics have been assessed from a recent sobriety checkpoint conducted by the West Hills Task Force in Stowe Township.

 Police checked 275 vehicles that went through the Route 51, Island Avenue checkpoint on Friday night.  Of the cars that were stopped, there were six DUI arrests, three drug arrests and three citations for underage drinking.

Now consider this story from last week, mentioned in my previous post:

No Arrests Make Stops a Success

 DUI checkpoints are working, police say 

Lewisberg, PA  July 31  -  Police officers say a checkpoint that catches no drunken drivers should not be considered a failure.  

"It’s a deterrence program," said Douglas Lauver, alcohol enforcement coordinator and co-coordinator of the North Central Highway Safety Network’s Regional DUI Enforcement Group. "Ideally, the goal is not to make any arrests for DUI." 

(Sgt. Scott) Hahn agreed, saying by making the scene a spectacle with lights, trucks and cars, the checkpoints make an impression on motorists going through them and prompt them to talk about the stops with others…

Get it?  If there are a bunch of DUI arrests, the roadblock is a success.  But if there are no arrests at all, then the roadblock is, well…a success.

As with the odor of alcohol on the breath, few police reports will fail to include an observation by the arresting officer that the arrestee exhibited “slurred speech”. (See my earlier post, “Alcohol on the Breath: Evidence of DUI?”).  The officer fully expects to hear slurred speech in a person he suspects is intoxicated, particularly after smelling alcohol on the breath, and it is a psychological fact that we tend to “hear” what we expect to hear. And hearing it supplies the officer with corroboration of his suspicions.

Even assuming the honesty of the officer that the defendant’s speech was slurred, there is little evidence that this is symptomatic of intoxication. Impairment of speech is, for example, a common — and sober — reaction to the stress, fear and nervousness that a police investigation would be expected to engender.  Fatigue is another well-known cause.

Skeptical?  Consider the following excerpt from Discover magazine (Saunders, “News of Science, Medicine and Technology: Straight Talk”, 21(1) Discover (Oct. 2000).

Bartenders, police officers and hospital workers routinely identify drunks by their slurred speech. Several investigative groups judged the captain of the Exxon Valdez oil tanker to be intoxicated based solely on the sound of his voice in his radio transmissions. But a team led by Harry Holien, a phonetician at the University of Florida, has found that even self-proclaimed experts are pretty bad at estimating people’s alcohol levels by the way they talk.

Hollien asked clinicians who treat chemical dependency, along with a group of everyday people, to listen to recordings made by volunteers when they were sober, then mildly intoxicated, legally impaired, and finally, completely smashed. Listeners consistently overestimated the drunkeness of mildly intoxicated subjects. Conversely, they underestimated the alcohol levels of those who were most inebriated. Professionals were little better at perceiving the truth than the ordinary Joes….

He thinks his research could encourage police to be more wary of making snap judgments: Mild drinkers might come under needless suspicion.