Comments on: Legislators Vote Themselves Exempt From DUI Arrest

By: DUI BLOG : Bad Drunk Driving Laws, False Evidence and a Fading Constitution

DUI BLOG : Bad Drunk Driving Laws, False Evidence and a Fading Constitution — Wed, 06 May 2009 15:51:02 +0000

[…] A few weeks ago, based upon a tip from a reader I posted about an item in the Denver Police Department Operation Manual which essentially instructed officers not to arrest state legislators for drunk driving. See Legislators Vote Themselves Exempt From DUI Arrrest. […]

By: RichardAlan

RichardAlan — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:41:30 +0000

Fraud is fraud no matter how you slice it.

By: La Malaise

La Malaise — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 04:10:31 +0000

Ok, it seems to be lawmakers treating themselves preferentially. But there is actually a reason for it.

Imagine you are trying to get a bill passed, and you know if two legislators donâ€™t show up for the vote, your bill can pass. You have a good friend in the police department, and so you get him to â€œarrestâ€ two legislators on the way to the vote under suspicion of DUI. Your bill passes, when it wouldnâ€™t have otherwise.

Or you see two legislators drunk at the vote. You tell them that if they try to leave the assembly after voting against the bill, your friend will have them arrested. But if they vote for your bill, they will look the other way.

The idea is to remove potential for shenanigans to corrupt or affect a vote, either by delaying a memberâ€™s arrival, or by intimidation before a vote. Itâ€™s got to be pretty serious to stop a legislator from showing up for a vote.

Note that the Op Manual says the police should get the drunk off the road and get him to the legislature or home. A reasonable balance of the issues at hand.

And by the way, the title to this post is misleading. The legislature did not vote themselves exempt. It’s in the Colorado Constitution, which requires citizens to vote on modifications. The citizens voted this in.

By: standup

standup — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:37:42 +0000

They could say, “They MIGHT have hurt somebody”. They’ve said it before, that’s for sure. We should push them for an answer…

By: David W

David W — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 18:08:22 +0000

Part 3 says if they get into an accident resulting in felony injury, that they will be arrested. So I imagine MADD would say as long as no one gets hurt, its ok to have this class of drunk drivers on the highway as they have important legislative business to attend to. What else could they say? They damn sure aren’t going to upset their main source of sizable monies. And another perfect example of us looking like idiots in the eyes of the world. Claim an impatial system,, “except!”

By: Justin

Justin — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 04:40:06 +0000

That is so funny.

By: RichardAlan

RichardAlan — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 00:45:41 +0000

This is an “Act of Intrinsic Fraud” against every free American in this country. These law makers are the very criminals who seek to steal our money, our property, and our freedom based on “Fantasy Make Believe”, .

What is MADD’s response to this tyranny against us?

By: RIDL_Prez

RIDL_Prez — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 23:53:12 +0000

OMG! This is so disgusting I hardly know what to say. Why not pass this same law for everyone caught driving under the influence? If it’s good enough for them it’s good enough for everyone. Oh that’s right. All that MONEY would be lost.

By: David W

David W — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 20:05:39 +0000

Nah, no double standard here..Got to protect our thinkers that have played part in our successful economic times..

Umm