Comments on: Another “DUI Exception to the Constitution”: Double Jeopardy

By: health care

health care — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 05:40:22 +0000

Terrific paintings! That is the kind of information that are supposed to be shared around the net. Disgrace on the search engines for now not positioning this publish higher! Come on over and seek advice from my web site . Thank you =)

By: Godwin's Constitution | RHDefense: The Law Office of Rick Horowitz

Godwin's Constitution | RHDefense: The Law Office of Rick Horowitz — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 19:33:40 +0000

[…] I say the Constitution is dead because it is applied not as intended. Not only is it not applied the way it was intended, shielding us from an over-intrusive government, but it was intended to be applied all the time. Now, it is applied rarely. Terrorism? No need for constitutional protections of any kind. Drugs? No Fourth Amendment. DUI? The DMV isn’t part of the government subject to constitutional limitations. […]

By: Justin

Justin — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 03:59:26 +0000

It should also be noted. If you get a DUI or even a wet reckless you have a high likely hood your current insurance agent will have an underwriter review you (whether the agent wants it or not) that underwriter will see multiple lines of offense on your record. When they see these and the different dates – they’ll list each as their own individual crime (whether proven guilty or not). After that they’ll drop you. Now, if you have been proven guilty and had to do SR22 you no longer can prove your insurance (or liability) as they dropped you. You will then have to get a new insurer at probably double the cost you previously had (even if you didn’t get in an accident).

There are a lot of additional costs to getting a DUI than just what the justice system will punish you for or even the DMV.

By: Catcall

Catcall — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 02:23:49 +0000

Hi Lawrence,

In some states (at least Michigan, Virginia and Texas), the legislatures have recently created state fees called Driver Responsibility Surcharges which apply to DUI, DWLS/DWLI, no insurance and the accumulation of various moving violations.

I understand these fees are a “civil sanction”, much like the suspension and therefore, would not be considered double jeopardy.

However, it is obvious these fees were established as a means of taxation. In some states, the money goes into a general fund. Here in Texas, half of what is collected goes to fund trauma centers (I see the connect there), but the other half goes to fund some future Trans-Texas Corridor project which just happened to be legislated in the same year as the fees.

This has gone on for the past four years and I believe the collection for the fees has only been about 50% or maybe a lot less. It has also contributed to the number of unlicensed and therefore, uninsured drivers, to the detriment of everyone.

In the session last month, the legislature developed a program which would give a judge the ability to reduce or waive the fee in consideration of indigency or student status on cases sentenced after 9.1.09. Thusfar, there have been no provisions for those factors.

Do you think a class action lawsuit would be a remedy for those that are already caught up in this system? Or would the state simply contend this was punishment rather than taxation?