Monthly Archives: August 2008
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
Tucson, AZ. Aug. 30 - A Pima County Superior Court judge tossed out blood-alcohol evidence in an alleged drunken driving case, saying the state’s method of field blood draws is 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).
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.