DUI BLOG

Another potential killer removed from our highways:

Man Rides Motorbike in Court

Woodstock, IL.  Sept. 25 – A Marengo man charged with drunken driving rode his motorbike in court Tuesday, not to it.

Carl Ahrens, 36, said he rode his Razor MX500 from Judge Thomas Meyer’s bench to the back of the courtroom in an effort to prove that the bike was a toy, not a motor vehicle. It operates on a 12-volt battery.

Despite the demonstration, the judge disagreed, and Ahrens’ license was suspended for six months…

Ahrens said he had been sitting on the bike across the street from his house when an officer approached him, likely after a complaint from a neighbor. He said he was placed under arrest, and the bike was placed in the officer’s trunk.

“I can’t believe I’m in this much trouble over a toy,” Ahrens said. “It goes 4 miles an hour. I plug it in overnight.”

Your tax dollars at work.

(Thanks to Hockey Bobc.)

The latest from the front….

ER Nurse Sues Cop for Handcuffing Her During Dispute Over Drawing Suspect’s Blood

Chicago, IL.  Sept. 21 –A head emergency room nurse at Advocate Illinois Masonic Hospital has sued the city and a Chicago Police officer for handcuffing her and putting her in the back of a squad car during a dispute over drawing blood from a suspected drunken driver.

Lisa Hofstra said she was the “charge nurse” in the emergency room on Aug. 1 when the officer approached her at about 4 a.m. The officer requested she perform a blood work-up on a DUI suspect, the lawsuit said.

Hofstra told the officer the suspect needed to be admitted to the hospital before she could draw the person’s blood. Hofstra said she told a police lieutenant that it was the hospital’s protocol to wait until a suspect was admitted, and the lieutenant agreed, she said.

The lieutenant left the emergency room.

Then Hofstra called her supervisors, but before they could respond, the officer put her in handcuffs in front of her co-workers and escorted her to a squad car, according to the lawsuit…

She was in the car for about 45 minutes before the situation was resolved, Hofstra said. The cuffs were too tight, requiring treatment in the hospital after she was released from custody, she said.

A security video of the incident shows the officer smiling outside the squad car as Hofstra sat inside.

Hofstra said it was a major problem for her to be removed from the emergency room at a time when there were numerous patients suffering from “bad trauma.”

She was responsible for triage — the process of deciding which patients need the most urgent attention.

“If this officer is treating me the way he treated me, what is he going to do to people on the street?” Hofstra said, adding that she filed her lawsuit to “stand up for nurses.”

In cop-talk, it’s called "attitude adjustment" or "field-administered punishment" for not doing what you’re told.  Welcome to MADD’s "War on Drunk Driving"….
 

(Thanks to David O’Shea.)
 

As I’ve mentioned before, Mothers Against Drunk Driving is a huge, politically powerful prohibitionist organization.  It’s also a very profitable one.  According to the required IRS annual reports posted on its own website, the organization makes about $50 million each year in contributions — about $12 million of which goes to professional telemarketers and "management".  That’s the official report.  But an investigation by a Canadian newspaper into MADD in that country revealed that "most of the high-profile charity’s money is spent on fundraising and administration, leaving only about 19 cents of each donor dollar for charitable works."

MADD is now further expanding its profitable prohibitionist horizons.

MADD Offers Virgin Drinks

Charlotte, NC.  Sept. 21 – Mothers Against Drunk Driving is teaming up with Hill Street Marketing to offer a new line of alcohol-free drinks. That includes virgin Margaritas, Mojitos, and Pina Coladas, as well as a virgin Lager & Lime, virgin Red and White Wine, and a virgin Sparkling White Wine, according to a press release.

Hill Street is in discussions with retailers and the line is expected to arrive in a store near you this fall – just in time for the holiday season and holiday parties…

Hmmm….I wonder what the Internal Revenue Service will say about this?  MADD is a 501(c)(s) tax-exempt charitable organization, and charitable organizations aren’t supposed to be making tax-free profits.  According to IRS regulations, a charitable organization is subject to tax on its "unrelated business income". 26 U.S.C. sec. 513(f).

For that matter, here in California and in many states, when a defendant is convicted of DUI he’s required to pay fines, taxes — and make a contribution to MADD.  It’s not an option: pay the designated amount or go to jail.   According to MADD’s latest posted annual report, the organization made $4.4 million last year from these "contributions".  But…don’t IRS rules require contributions to tax-free charities to be voluntary? 

Note:  The feared watchdog of charities, Charity Navigator, rates over 5,400 of the largest charities in the U.S. on the basis of how much contributed money goes to the supposed purposes of the charity — and how much goes to overhead (such as telemarketing and bloated executive salaries).  Charities are rated on a 4-star system, with 4 stars indicating a relatively high percentage of money going to the charitable purpose.  MADD’s latest rating: 1 star.

(Thanks to Marty Capetz and Dan Jaffe.)
 

Coming soon to a neighborhood near you…

Police Draw Blood from DUI Suspects

Federal program tries roadside tests in Idaho, Texas

Boise, ID.  Sept. 14 — When police officer Darryll Dowell is on patrol in the southwestern Idaho city of Nampa, he’ll pull up at a stoplight and usually start casing the vehicle. Nowadays, his eyes will also focus on the driver’s arms, as he tries to search for a plump, bouncy vein.

"I was looking at people’s arms and hands, thinking, ‘I could draw from that,’" Dowell said.

It’s all part of training he and a select cadre of officers in Idaho and Texas have received in recent months to draw blood from those suspected of drunken or drugged driving. The federal program’s aim is to determine if blood draws by cops can be an effective tool against drunken drivers and aid in their prosecution.

If the results seem promising after a year or two, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will encourage police nationwide to undergo similar training.

For years, defense attorneys in Idaho advised clients to always refuse breath tests, Ada County Deputy Prosecutor Christine Starr said. Starr hopes the new system will cut down on the number of drunken driving trials. Officers can’t hold down a suspect and force them to breath into a tube, she noted, but they can forcefully take blood — a practice that’s been upheld by Idaho’s Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court.

The practice of cops drawing blood, implemented first in 1995 in Arizona, has also raised concerns about safety and the credibility of the evidence.

"I would imagine that a lot of people would be wary of having their blood drawn by an officer on the hood of their police vehicle," said Steve Oberman, chair of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers’ DUI Committee.

Actually, Ms. Starr, the U.S. Supreme Court authorized forced blood draws only if they are done in a "medically approved manner" — and no mention was ever made of cops doing the drawing.  Somehow, I don’t think the Court would view cops jamming needles into suspects spread across the hood of a car as "medically approved".
 

(Thanks to David O’Shea.)
 

A recent dispatch from the front:

Monmouth County Man Accused of Drunken Driving in Morris County

Madison, NJ – A Holmdel man was charged with driving while intoxicated after police found him lying on the grass near his parked car, police said today.

Devin R. McQuade, 23, was also charged with careless driving, Madison police spokesman Lt. Darren Dachisen said.

Officer Paul Papamarkos was on patrol around 4:15 a.m. Friday when he found McQuade’s car parked on Loantaka Way, near a walking path. As he was checking out the vehicle, a 9-1-1 caller reported a man lying in the grass a short distance away.

After a brief search, Papamarkos found McQuade lying on his face in the grass. He was found to be highly intoxicated and arrested, Dachisen said.

Uh…It’s still drunk driving, isn’t it?  I mean, like in…driving?

Well, I guess that taught citizen McQuade a lesson: Next time you’ve had a few, don’t act responsibly by stopping and sleeping it off — just keep driving!
 

I've  written ad nauseum about the double standard that is pervasive when it comes to citizens accused or convicted of drunk driving.  See, for example, The DUI Exception to the Constitution.  The following news story is only the latest reflection of this neo-prohibitionist attitude:

County Wants DUI Convicts to Pay for Jail Stay

Tucson, AZ.  Sept. 6 — If Pima County officials have their way, more convicted drunken drivers will soon have to pay for the privilege of eating and sleeping at the county's Adult Detention Center.

So…why aren't there laws requiring other prisoners to pay for the "privilege" of being jailed – rapists and child molesters, for example?  Why only for DUI?

Interesting that the two judges don't object to forcing drunk drivers to pay for their own imprisonment  because it's discriminatory and unfair.  Their only objection is a practical one:  they've already been penalized so much there's no more money to be had.
 

The latest news from the front in MADD's "War on Drunk Driving"….

Man Says Police Forcibly Collected Urine Sample

Lawrenceburg, IN.  Sept. 3 — An Indiana man has filed a lawsuit claiming that police forcibly withdrew urine from his body during a drunken driving arrest.

 According to the suit, police arrested Jamie Lockard, 53, on suspicion of drunk driving in March.

 A Breathalyzer test showed he was under the legal limit, but Officer Brian Miller doubted the findings.

 Lockard and his attorney claimed in the suit that police took him to Dearborn County Hospital and forced him to submit to a urine test.

Police said they obtained a warrant, but Lockard's attorney said his client was shackled to a gurney and had a catheter inserted against his will.

 "It has to be executed reasonably," said attorney Doug Garner. "No one would say this is reasonable behavior. It's reprehensible that anyone could think that this is appropriate."

 The test showed that Lockard's blood-alcohol level did not exceed Indiana's legal limit, police said.

 Garner said the police officer did not apologize, but instead charged Lockard with obstruction of justice.

Hmmm…Breath test shows suspect is innocent…but he "flunks the attitude test", so…cop decides to administer "attitude adjustment" therapy…test confirms innocence…cop covers ass by arresting suspect for "obstruction of justice".

I'm surprised the cop didn't use the catheter to extract a confession.

You think this was just an aberrration?  An isolated instance of a bad cop?  Take a look at a similar story from Washington State I posted on a few months ago:  Catheter Forced Up Penis After DUI Arrest.  Or how about cops jamming needles into handcuffed suspects in the backs of their cars?  See Forced Blood Draws by Cops in Back Seat and Blood Draws in the Back Seat by the Dashboard Light.

Welcome to "The War".
 

(Thanks to David O'Shea.)

Ok, the cop said I failed the field sobriety tests, but I have an injured knee and I was really nervous – and, anyway, I only had two drinks and I’ve got witnesses. No matter what the police say, I can tell my side of the story to my fellow citizens and let them decide. Right?

Not necessarily…

This right to jury trial, handed down centuries ago from England’s Magna Carta, was considered so fundamental that it is included in the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution.  And the Constitution makes no exceptions to this sacred right to trial by a jury of peers.

So why do some states today deny a person accused of drunk driving a jury trial? Why, for example, does an American citizen arrested in New Jersey have to accept the decision of a politically-appointed judge? After all, the Sixth Amendment is pretty clear on the subject:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed…

How did the government get around this fundamental right? Well, once again they started whittling away by playing around with words.  As Humpty Dumpty said to Alice long ago, “A word means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less”.

It started some years ago when the federal courts decided that the framers of the Constitution didn’t really mean “in all criminal prosecutions”. So they changed one little word. They said what the framers really meant was that there was a right to jury trial in “serious” criminal prosecutions — not in “petty” ones. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968).

Hmmmm…So what is “serious”? Well, a couple of years later, the Supreme Court decided that there was no right to a jury trial if the maximum authorized prison sentence did not exceed six months. Amazingly, going to jail for half a year was not "serious" enough to justify giving a citizen a right to trial by his peers!

The Court added, however, that a defendant could have a right to jury trial “only if he can demonstrate that any additional statutory penalties, viewed in conjunction with the maximum authorized period of incarceration, are so severe that they clearly reflect a legislative determination that the offense in question is a “serious” one”. Baldwin v. New York,  399 U.S. 66 (1970).

Well, what about DUI cases? They usually involve maximum sentences of six months in jail — and a bunch of other stuff:  fines, license supensions, DUI schools, ignition interlock devices, 3-5 years of probation. And the possibility of even stiffer punishment for a repeat offense. Doesn’t that show that lawmakers think drunk driving is pretty serious?

Inevitably, a citizen accused of DUI and (inevitably) convicted by a judge in Nevada took the case up to the U.S. Supreme Court. With all the additional punishment over and above the six months in jail, his attorney argued, wasn’t it “serious” enough to have a right to a jury?

No, the Court said: “Considering the additional statutory penalties as well, we do not believe that the Nevada Legislature has clearly indicated that DUI is a “serious” offense.” Blanton v City of North Las Vegas 489 U.S. 538 (1989).

Hmmm…..Drunk driving seems “serious” enough to justify ever-harsher DUI laws because of the oft-mentioned “carnage on the highways” — but apparently not “serious” enough to give a citizen his constitutional right to a jury trial.

We’ve come a long way since those historical words “In all criminal prosecutions…”