Drink and drive 3 times, and plates could tell everyone you're a drunk driver

Pipe Dream ^ | 3/24/04 | Pipe Dream

[freedom44]

U-WIRE) CHICAGO – A bill before the Illinois General Assembly would establish a new class of eye-catching license plates on the highway to identify drivers convicted of driving under the influence.

The bill, proposed by Southwest Side Rep. Susana Mendoza (D-Chicago), would require Illinois drivers convicted of driving under the influence three or more times to display brightly-colored license plates.

“Some judges are granting leniency to drivers convicted a third time of driving under the influence and letting them continue to drive. Other drivers should know that that person has a habit of not following the law,” Mendoza said.

Despite decreases in recent decades, alcohol-related crashes remain a problem, particularly among drivers who have previous convictions for drunk driving. According to statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations, more than 17,000 fatalities resulted from alcohol-related accidents from 2000 to 2001.

In all, 1,118 drivers’ licenses were revoked in 2002 for a third driving under the influence offense, and 583 drivers’ licenses were revoked for four or more offenses, said Susan McKinney, executive director of Mothers Against Drunk Driving of Illinois.

Mendoza said she was prompted to write the bill after fielding a request from a constituent who had been to Ohio and noticed brightly-colored license plates.

[sarasota]

Why wait for 3? Once should be enough.

[theDentist]

*I could be wrong* but I think they had proposed something of the same kind in Mass., perhaps it was a bumper sticker, but it was not implemented because the courts said it would impugne drivers and may cause police to pull over drivers without due cause.... it violated their rights somehow.

Any Mass Freepers who remember this? Maybe 6 to 8 years ago...

[BSunday]

may cause police to pull over drivers without due cause

Seems like having one of these license plates is automatically due cause.

[MineralMan]

I have a better idea than this: Three convictions for DUI and you lose your license for life. Get busted driving without a license after losing your license for 3 DUI convictions and serve 5 years in the slammer.

I hate repeat drunk drivers! They're responsible for way, way too many deaths of innocent folks. Driving while intoxicated is a choice. Make it and take the consequences.

[Agnes Heep]

Why not make repeat offenders put up a substantial bond for their good behavior?

[GovernmentShrinker]

Drink and drive twice, and you should get a huge ugly tattoo on your left cheek signifying that it is illegal for you to drive at all, ever, anywhere. Drive again -- in any condition -- and you should get locked up for good.

[tiamat]

I agree.

[theDentist]

I think that was their point. Just pulling someone over for that plate and having no other reason was a violation of thir rights. And if the car was loaned to a wife/husband/sibling...

Any lawyers out there who can undoubtedly explain it better than I?

[SedVictaCatoni]

Any lawyers out there who can undoubtedly explain it better than I?

*shrug* Creating a class of "presumed criminals" who can be searched at will violates the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of the laws. This is especially true if the harm extends to persons who also drive the same car such as family members.

Consequently, you can create a special label "watch out, the owner of this vehicle has been caught driving drunk" license plate, but you can't give police the power to stop them at will.

[MineralMan]

I agree that this special tag creates some serious legal problems. That's why I propose that 3rd time DUI convictees have their licenses to drive permanently revoked. Solves that problem. Penalty for driving with a revoked license for DUI reasons should be a long term in prison.

No legal problems with that.

[Proverbs 3-5]

I wonder what the stat is for the ratio of drunk drivers to sober drivers in accidents is?
(No point, just curious).

Its funny I read yesterday on FR how Canada is or will prohibit prison guards in maximum security prisons from wearing stab proof vests because the prisoners might get their feelings hurt...

[Proverbs 3-5]

Revoking the license is one thing, keeping them from driving is another.

A few years back a 7-11 worker stole my dad credit card number and made a bunch of 900 # calls. The police caught the guy and found that not only had he been caught before but the phone company put him on a list prohibiting him from ever having phone service again. But the phone company allowed this guy's 4 year old son to get phone service.... (same address too)

Another story. My wife's old uncle lost his license. So he drove his lawn tractor to the local tavern. On his way home he totaled the lawn tractor when he ran out of gas and lost control as he tried to coast down to the bottom of the hill.

Point is a special tag or not, they'll get some wheels anyway.

[MineralMan]

"Revoking the license is one thing, keeping them from driving is another.

"

That's why the jail term for folks who drive after getting their license revoked for DUI. A few folks serve 5 years, and the word will get out.

Personally, I'd like to see the second DUI conviction be a felony, with serious prison time, but that's never going to fly.

Driving while intoxicated is a choice, and any deaths that result from accidents should be treated as homicides, in my opinion.

I have no sympathy for drunk drivers whatever.

[Politically Correct]

Another story. My wife's old uncle lost his license. So he drove his lawn tractor to the local tavern. On his way home he totaled the lawn tractor when he ran out of gas and lost control as he tried to coast down to the bottom of the hill.

There's a country western song in there somewhere!

[KingNo155]

I want a set! ... lol just a joke. Prolly keep the tailgaters off my ass though.

[GrandMoM]

Three convictions for DUI and you lose your license for life.....the court withheld three priors of drunk driving that the man who killed my daughter 20 years ago had because it was deemed prejudicial....and

Even though he pled guilty, he served no time because there were no witnesses.