DUI BLOG

I posted a few days ago about the recent appointment of Chuck Hurley, the CEO of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, as head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.  See Ex-CEO of MADD to Set Vehicle Safety Standards.  One inevitable consequence:  You can expect ignition interlock devices (mini-breathalyzers) installed as standard equipment in all vehicles in the near future.  See New MADD Goal: All Cars Equipped With Breathalyzers.

It seems others are also less than enthusiastic about the appointment.  The following editorial appeared in the Washington Times:

Editorial: MADD About Regulation

Wash., DC.  April 24  – President Obama’s pick to head the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration raises a few red flags. If confirmed by the Senate, Chuck Hurley, CEO of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, will drive motorists over the cliff with regulation.

The nation’s traffic-safety czar has broad powers to control the roads and road-going habits of Americans. Mr. Hurley has a history of pushing laws that harass millions of law-abiding citizens to ensnare a few lawbreakers. He supports returning the 55 mph speed limit to our highways as well as roadblocks and random pullovers to make sure drivers aren’t doing anything wrong. This methodology is based on a presumption of guilt – not innocence – of the average driver who is doing nothing wrong.

Mr. Hurley has promoted a mania of overregulation at MADD. Absent from his advocacies is the principle that a punishment should fit the crime, or that a crime even needs to be committed to incur a penalty. Under this influence, MADD has been lobbying to lower the allowable blood-alcohol content (BAC) for drivers to .04 – which means one glass of Pinot can land anyone behind bars. We do not condone drinking and driving, but the constant lowering of BAC limits has separated what is punishable from what is actually dangerous.

As a result of MADD-fueled binges for tougher laws, extreme drunken driving punishments – such as loss of driving privileges, jail time, fines and legal fees beyond $10,000 – often apply to individuals who were not drunk and in some cases were not even driving. Last month, the Connecticut Supreme Court unanimously upheld a driving-under-the-influence conviction against a man who was sleeping off his bender in his car even though the keys were not in the ignition. In 2005, the North Carolina Court of Appeals upheld a DUI sentence for a tipsy man riding a motorized skateboard. The Georgia State Police charged a woman with drunken driving for riding a horse.

Such absurd cases will continue to proliferate as long as the breathalyzer machine is the sole determinant of guilt rather than evidence of unsafe conduct. Machines are prone to error, and basing guilt on a digital reading leaves little room for the specific facts of an individual situation…

The position of NHTSA chief requires an administrator of sound judgment, not a zealot beholden to special interests. Mr. Hurley’s associations and background raise the specter that he could use NHTSA regulations and safety grants to benefit his friends and coerce states into adopting his overbearing pet policies. Mr. Hurley should be offered one (but only one) for the road and sent on his way.

(Thanks to Jeanne Pruett)

It is against the law to drive while under the influence of marijuana. It has always been assumed that cannabis, like alcohol, impairs the perception, coordination, reflexes and judgment necessary for the safe operation of a motor vehicle. And, of course, there have been governmental studies addressing the question: Does marijuana impair driving?

Interestingly, however, the findings do not necessarily support popular opinion….

On the one hand, the California Department of Justice has found that marijuana undoubtedly impairs psychomotor abilities that are functionally related to driving and that driving skills may be impaired, particularly at high-dose levels or among inexperienced users. "Marijuana and Alcohol: A Driver Performance Study", California Office of Traffic Safety Project No. 087902 (Sept. 1986).

Contradicting these conclusions, however, are two federal studies. The U.S. Department of Transportation conducted research with a fully interactive simulator on the effects of alcohol and marijuana, alone and in combination, on driver-controlled behavior and performance. Although alcohol was found consistently and significantly to cause impairment, marijuana had only an occasional effect. Also, there was little evidence of interaction between alcohol and marijuana. Accidents and speeding tickets reliably increased with alcohol, but no marijuana or combined alcohol-marijuana effects were noted. "The Effects of Alcohol on Driver-Controlled Behavior in a Driving Simulator, Phase I", DOT-HS-806-414.

A more recent report entitled "Marijuana and Actual Performance", DOT-HS-808-078, noted that "THC is not a profoundly impairing drug….It apparently affects controlled information processing in a variety of laboratory tests, but not to the extent which is beyond the individual’s ability to control when he is motivated and permitted to do so in driving". The study concluded that:

An important practical objective of this study was to determine whether degrees of driving impairment can be actually predicted from either measured concentration of THC in plasma or performance measured in potential roadside "sobriety" tests of tracking ability or hand and posture stability. The results, like many reported before, indicated that none of these measures accurately predicts changes in actual performance under the influence of THC…

The researchers found that it "appears not possible to conclude anything about a driver’s impairment on the basis of his/her plasma concentrations of THC and THC-COOH determined in a single sample".

Note: "THC" stands for Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, which is the intoxicating ingredient in marijuana. THC is fairly quickly converted by the body into inert metabolites, which can stay in the body for hours or even days. It is these metabolites that police blood tests in DUI arrests detect and measure. In other words, (1) marijuana may not impair driving ability at all, and (2) the blood "evidence" only measures an inactive substance which may have been there for days. thc & marijuana detox
 

I commented a few days ago that Chuck Hurley, the CEO of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, had been appointed to head the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration — the federal agency that, among other things, sets safety standards for auto manufacturers.  See  Ignition Interlocks Coming – as Standard Equipment.  And MADD’s latest gimmick they claim will "literally wipe out drunk driving in the United States" is installation of ignition interlock devices – eventually in every car sold in the U.S.  See New MADD Goal: All Cars Equipped with Breathalyzers.  

So what do you think Mr. Hurley’s first order of business is going to be at NHTSA?

The following is an editorial that appeared yesterday:
 

Former MADD Chief Will Steer NHTSA Wrong

Detroit, MI.  Apr. 17 –The nomination of anti-drinking activist Charles Hurley as head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is an ominous development for both motorists and auto makers.

Hurley, CEO of the public nuisance group Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), may well be the most zealous enemy of individual liberty and the free-market at NHTSA since Joan Claybrook ruled during the Carter Administration….

And drivers can expect a ratcheting up of the low-grade harassment they already endure on a daily basis — in the form of more obnoxious regulations, pullover "safety" checks and very possibly lowered speed limits, ala Claybrook’s 55-mph national limit on federal interstates.

All of this will be imposed on states in the time-honored Washington way: Those that fail to comply will lose vitally needed highway funds.

As the head gauleiter of MADD since March 2005, Hurley the led the group — already considered one of the most unreasonable and totalitarian-minded "special interests" in all of D.C. to even new vistas of reactionary Puritanism.

MADD was started by Candy Lightner, a Fair Oaks, California mother in 1980, after her daughter was killed by a drunken speeder in their quiet suburban neighborhood.

Its original mission — a public campaign to make driving drunk unacceptable — has morphed into a crusade against any consumption of alcohol whatsoever.

The legal standard for "drunk" driving has already been lowered to .08 BAC — a level well below the .10 and up level at which people have actual accidents as opposed to running afoul of "sobriety checkpoints."

But even that isn’t enough. Under Hurley, MADD has been pushing to have the legal threshold reduced to .04 BAC, which would turn anyone who had a glass of wine over dinner into a "drunk driver" as far as the law was concerned — and subject them to penalties more severe than those applied to many violent felons.

As NHTSA head, expect him to push MADD’s current agenda as far as he can —including mandatory in-car alcohol detectors for everyone, not just those already convicted of DWI. And controversial "sobriety checkpoints" that stop random cars and subject their drivers to Gestapo-like stop and frisks are likely to sprout up in irban and suburban areas across the country…

Expect more DUI roadblocks — and get used to taking a breathalyzer test every time you want to start your car.
 

In today’s "Physician, heal thyself" department, a look at drunk gun-toting cops:

Alcohol a Growing Problem in the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department, Report Says

I've posted ad nauseum about the disappearance of our Constitutional rights in drunk driving cases.  See The DUI Exception to the Constitution.  One of the more notable examples is the disappearance of the presumption of innocence.  See  Whatever Happened to the Presumption of Innocence?.  Typical of this is the automatic license confiscation and suspension by the arresting officer.  See Due Process and Automatic License Suspensions.

What if they tried to pass a law reinstating this Constitutional right?

Bill Would Presume Innocence in Drunk Driving Cases

Park Rapids, MN.  Apr. 11 – Many states suspend constitutional presumptions of innocence when it comes to drunken driving arrests.  Minnesota is no different.

If you are arrested for DWI in Minnesota, your license can be suspended or revoked within days of your arrest, even before you go to court on the actual criminal charges…

The intent is to crack down on drunken drivers immediately and get them off the state’s highways.

 A bill currently working its way through the Minnesota House of Representatives seeks to restore due process and a presumption of innocence to drivers arrested on suspicion of drunk driving. It would mandate a conviction on the criminal charges before the driver could lose his or her license. Currently, that process typically begins within seven days of the initial arrest…

The defense bar maintains Breathalyzer equipment has repeatedly been found to give false or inaccurate readings, and those are the types of issues drivers should be able to challenge in a court trial. Meanwhile, they’re already lost their privilege to drive…

The House bill, with a companion Senate bill, stands little chance of passing, opponents and political observers say.

Innocent until proven guilty?  Sounds subversive.  MADD would never approve…
 

I’ve commented in the past about MADD’s love affair with ignition interlock devices (IIDs) — what the National President of MADD has characterized as the way to "literally wipe out drunk driving in the United States".  See New MADD Goal: All Cars Equipped with Breathalyzers.  And I’ve posted news stories about the automobile manufacturers gearing up to install these costly and ineffective mini-breathalyzers as standard equipment in all vehicles.  See All U.S. Cars to Have Ignition Interlock Devices?.  Not surprisingly, it turns out that three of MADD’s six most generous contributors are Generals Motors, Ford and Toyota.  See  Breathalyzers Soon Mandatory for All Cars, Toyota Announces DUI-Proof Cars and The Car in Your Future (Nissan).

Still doubt that the car in your future will require you to take breath tests before you can start it — and, with some models, periodically while you’re driving?  In yesterday’s news:

Obama Chooses MADD Official to Lead Safety Agency

Washington, DC.  April 8 — President Barack Obama has chosen a top official with Mothers Against Drunk Driving to lead a Transportation agency that oversees safety and fuel efficiency requirements for automakers.

Chuck Hurley was nominated Wednesday to become administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Hurley, a longtime safety advocate, has served as MADD’s chief executive officer since 2005 and worked for the National Safety Council and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

At MADD, Hurley urged states to adopt tougher drunken driving laws and require first-time offenders to use ignition interlock devices on their cars. The devices require drivers to blow into an instrument that measures alcohol and prevent a vehicle from starting if the driver’s blood alcohol concentration exceeds a certain level…

The organization has received funding from several auto companies, including General Motors Corp., Toyota Motor Corp., Ford Motor Co. and others. The General Motors Foundation provided MADD and MADD-related programs with $133,000 in grants in 2007, according to financial records filed with the IRS.

What do you think Mr. Hurley’s first order of business will be?

(For why you don’t want an IID in your next car, read my posts Ignition Interlock Devices: Dangerous but Profitable and MADD Announces End to Drunk Driving: A Reply.) 
 

I’ve posted in the recent past about the growing practice of allowing police to forcefully draw blood themselves from citizens suspected of drunk driving.  See  Blood Draws in the Back Seat by the Dashboard Light,  Forced Blood Draws by Cops Spreading , Would You Want a Cop Taking Blood from You? and Forced Blood Draws: Citizen Backlash?

Despite the frightening realities of having cops jamming needles into squirming suspects handcuffed in the back seats of police cars, the overriding concern is saving the time and money expended on using nurses or licensed technicians at a medical facility.  

It would seem that perhaps the citizenry is finally saying "Enough"…

City Council Forum Draws Heated Debate

Police chief defends plan to train officers to draw blood from drunken-driving suspects

Austin, TX.  Mar. 31    …(A)bout 200 civil-rights advocates and other citizens…came to Monday evening’s public forum to question Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo about his plan to train officers to obtain blood samples from suspected drunken drivers.

“We have to use whatever tools are available to us — and legal — to keep people safe,” Acevedo told a jeering audience that packed the City Council chamber and overflowed into the lobby.

Both the plan and the forum were prompted by the latest development in the Austin Police Department’s controversial practice of requiring drunken-driving suspects who refuse a Breathalyzer test to give a blood sample…

Texas law requires the samples to be a taken by medical personnel or a “qualified technician,” so officers must take suspects to hospital emergency rooms and have a nurse collect the evidence.

But hospitals want out of the deal, Acevedo said. They say their staff does not have the time and cannot afford the legal risk of improperly declaring a suspect drunk.

Acevedo said the city could not afford the seven full-time phlebotomists it would need to take blood samples if hospitals stopped cooperating.

At the forum, Acevedo urged City Council and the public to let Austin police take part in a federal pilot program that would train officers to draw suspects’ blood themselves.

The police chief’s arguments did not satisfy critical audience members who lined up behind a microphone to grill him. The line only grew as the debate approached its scheduled end, ultimately continuing for an extra half hour.

At some points, the audience’s excitement overwhelmed the forum’s organizers. The moderator and an assistant tried for several minutes to remove one man from the microphone as he accused police of having “blood lust” and the audience chanted, “Let him talk!”

“Do you think free people in this country are going to submit to a gang of thugs?” the man asked a weary-looking Acevedo.

“If the hospitals don’t want to do it, then why should the police be doing it?” asked Jim Harrington, a UT School of Law adjunct professor who plans to help draft a City Council resolution to explicitly prohibit police officers from taking blood samples.

State Rep. Sylvester Turner has also submitted a bill to the Legislature that would ban police from taking the samples themselves…

John Bush, a panelist and the executive director of Texans for Accountable Government, was applauded as frequently as the police chief was shouted down as he attacked the training plan as “impractical and of questionable constitutionality.”

“I do not feel that any amount of training would be sufficient for an officer to take blood from a resident of Austin,” Bush said as the audience — which included several members of his group — roared with approval.

“We’re talking about police officers. They’re not necessarily known for being the most genteel creatures,” said Debbie Russell, president of the ACLU’s Central Texas chapter, to audience laughter as Acevedo smiled and took a drink of water…

The five-member panel also included Councilman Mike Martinez, who won cheers for opposing the training program, and Karen Housewright, the executive director for Mothers Against Drunk Driving’s Texas chapter and Acevedo’s only solid ally on the panel.

Has the worm finally turned?  Are Americans finally waking up to the MADDness?

(Thanks to Jeanne Pruett and RIDL)
 

What would happen if you were arrested for drunk driving?  What if you were arrested for DUI after crashing your car – twice the same day?  A long stretch in the local jail?  Not if you’re a prosecutor…

Calif. Prosecutor Drops DUI Charges Against Nevada Prosecutor

Baker, CA.  Apr. 1 – A Nevada prosecutor pleads guilty to reckless driving and won’t be prosecuted for DUI in connection with two crashes in a six-hour span, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

Nye County District Attorney Bob Becket crashed two cars within six hours on the same stretch of California  highway in June 2008. He failed an alcohol breath test at the scene of the second crash.

In September, Beckett pleaded not guilty to DUI charges.  But he changed his plea after the DUI charges were dropped, pleading guilty instead to reckless driving. As part of the plea, he is also required to complete a class on alcohol and automobiles.

Beckett will not be prosecuted for drunken driving under the plea deal entered in Barstow, Calif., Superior Court on Friday.

In the first crash, which happened early afternoon, Beckett totaled the county-issued SUV he was driving on California Route 127, south of Shoshone, Calif. No other vehicles were involved.

After riding home in a tow truck, Beckett went out to the same highway in his own van, crashing six hours later.

After failing a breath test for alcohol at the scene, Beckett was arrested, taken to Baker, Calif., and released into the custody of a friend.

San Bernardino County deputy district attorney Joel Buckingham said the plea agreement was not out of the ordinary and Beckett did not get any special consideration.

Two back-to-back crashes within hours of each other, failing a breath test — and the drunk driving charges are dropped, with no jail time and only a reckless driving conviction…No special consideration?