Posted on 05/05/2006 7:24:46 AM PDT by Hammerhead
October 13, 2005 Sober = Drunk in Washington, DC posted by Daniel J. Solove I'm quite in favor of cracking down on DUI, but this story from the Washington Post is really disturbing:
Debra Bolton had a glass of red wine with dinner. That's what she told the police officer who pulled her over. That's what the Intoxilyzer 5000 breath test indicated -- .03, comfortably below the legal limit. She had been pulled over in Georgetown about 12:30 a.m. for driving without headlights. She apologized and explained that the parking attendant must have turned off her vehicle's automatic-light feature.
Bolton thought she might get a ticket. Instead, she was handcuffed, searched, arrested, put in a jail cell until 4:30 a.m. and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol.
Bolton, 45, an energy lawyer and single mother of two who lives in Alexandria, had just run into a little-known piece of D.C. law: In the District, a driver can be arrested with as little as .01 blood-alcohol content.
As D.C. police officer Dennis Fair, who arrested Bolton on May 15, put it in an interview recently: "If you get behind the wheel of a car with any measurable amount of alcohol, you will be dealt with in D.C. We have zero tolerance. . . . Anything above .01, we can arrest." Neither the police department nor the attorney general's office keeps detailed records of how many people with low blood alcohol levels are arrested. But last year, according to police records, 321 people were arrested for driving under the influence with blood alcohol levels below the legal limit of .08. In 2003, 409 people were arrested. . . .
Fair acknowledged that many people aren't aware of the District's policy. "But it is our law," he said. "If you don't know about it, then you're a victim of your own ignorance."
It strikes me as outrageous that people who are clearly not intoxicated (the national BAC limit is .08) are being arrested and charged with DUI. But what follows is even more troubling:
Not many people fight the charge, said Richard Lebowitz, another defense lawyer, because the District offers a "diversion program" of counseling for first-time offenders. "If diversion is offered and accepted, there's a guarantee that the charges will be dropped," Lebowitz said. "If you go to court and try to prove your innocence, it's a coin-flip. So most people choose diversion."
Bolton didn't. She balked at the $400 fee and the 24 hours of class time required to attend the "social drinker" program.
The system seems designed to encourage people just to accept a dubious criminal charge that would not stand up in court because fighting the charge can be more costly and time-consuming than just paying the fine and attending the class. Bolton decided to fight it as a matter of principle and hired a lawyer:
Since what she refers to as her "unfortunate incarceration," Bolton has spent hours in D.C. Superior Court and at the DMV and $2,000 so far fighting the DUI charge. Her refusal to submit to the 12-week alcohol counseling diversion program has sent her on a "surreal" odyssey. Twice, after hours of waiting, prosecutors told her that they had lost her file and that she would have to come back.
On Aug. 22, after four court appearances, prosecutors dropped the charge. But she spent all of September battling the DMV to keep her driving privileges from being suspended for three months.
Corey Buffo, the DMV's general counsel, explained that the agency drops its procedures only after a case goes to trial and is dismissed on its merits. "Our burden of proof is lower" than the Superior Court's, he said. "Not enough evidence for them may be enough evidence for us." Yesterday, the DMV decided not to suspend her privileges and issued her a warning instead.
This strikes me more like a form of extortion than a well-functioning criminal justice system.
Bolton thought she might get a ticket. Instead, she was handcuffed, searched, arrested, put in a jail cell until 4:30 a.m. and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol.
Bolton, 45, an energy lawyer and single mother of two who lives in Alexandria, had just run into a little-known piece of D.C. law: In the District, a driver can be arrested with as little as .01 blood-alcohol content.
As D.C. police officer Dennis Fair, who arrested Bolton on May 15, put it in an interview recently: "If you get behind the wheel of a car with any measurable amount of alcohol, you will be dealt with in D.C. We have zero tolerance. . . . Anything above .01, we can arrest." Neither the police department nor the attorney general's office keeps detailed records of how many people with low blood alcohol levels are arrested. But last year, according to police records, 321 people were arrested for driving under the influence with blood alcohol levels below the legal limit of .08. In 2003, 409 people were arrested. . . .
Fair acknowledged that many people aren't aware of the District's policy. "But it is our law," he said. "If you don't know about it, then you're a victim of your own ignorance."
It strikes me as outrageous that people who are clearly not intoxicated (the national BAC limit is .08) are being arrested and charged with DUI. But what follows is even more troubling:
Not many people fight the charge, said Richard Lebowitz, another defense lawyer, because the District offers a "diversion program" of counseling for first-time offenders. "If diversion is offered and accepted, there's a guarantee that the charges will be dropped," Lebowitz said. "If you go to court and try to prove your innocence, it's a coin-flip. So most people choose diversion."
Bolton didn't. She balked at the $400 fee and the 24 hours of class time required to attend the "social drinker" program.
The system seems designed to encourage people just to accept a dubious criminal charge that would not stand up in court because fighting the charge can be more costly and time-consuming than just paying the fine and attending the class. Bolton decided to fight it as a matter of principle and hired a lawyer:
Since what she refers to as her "unfortunate incarceration," Bolton has spent hours in D.C. Superior Court and at the DMV and $2,000 so far fighting the DUI charge. Her refusal to submit to the 12-week alcohol counseling diversion program has sent her on a "surreal" odyssey. Twice, after hours of waiting, prosecutors told her that they had lost her file and that she would have to come back.
On Aug. 22, after four court appearances, prosecutors dropped the charge. But she spent all of September battling the DMV to keep her driving privileges from being suspended for three months.
Corey Buffo, the DMV's general counsel, explained that the agency drops its procedures only after a case goes to trial and is dismissed on its merits. "Our burden of proof is lower" than the Superior Court's, he said. "Not enough evidence for them may be enough evidence for us." Yesterday, the DMV decided not to suspend her privileges and issued her a warning instead.
This strikes me more like a form of extortion than a well-functioning criminal justice system. "
Man this pisses me off!
And if you are a Kennedy, none of this applies.
Too bad she didn't have Kennedy at the end of her name.
If you are a Kennedy none of anything applies.
So why wasn't Congressman Kennedy handcuffed, searched, areested and put in a jail cell?
because the kennedys are the american royal family.
It strikes me as outrageous that people who are clearly not intoxicated (the national BAC limit is .08) are being arrested and charged with DUI.
___________
The author is a bit confused on this. Over .08 BAC and you will be charged with DWI, driving while intoxicated. Under .08 is DUI, driving under the influence. Much bigger problems with DWI than for DUI. .01 is a bit ridiculous, but I don't think that anywhere in America will you get a free pass for under .08.
So what's your opinion of mixing drugs and alcohol even though you're under the legal limit.
"The rules don't apply to them." - Rush Limbaugh.
somehow I am missing the "Kennedy" in this story ...
I know that fat slob got off for murder for his REAL DUI, but other than making a slap at his being wrongly referred to as a human, I don't see him in the story anywhere .. (also since his DUI was in Massachusetts not DC.)
Patrick Kennedy's most recent crash ( 2nd in 3 weeks) was in DC, at the Capitol.
Wonder if her arrest has anything to do with her name being "Bolton"?
Oh THAT Kennedy .... thanks! I must get current with current events!! ;-)
How many Kennedy's does it take to change a lite bulb?
One to hold the bulb; The others just have to drink enough to get the room to spin.
Does anything good ever come out of D.C.
It isn't just DC. The usual wording of the law is this: That you are presumed DUI above a certain BAC (usualy 0.8, these days), but that you can be arrested with any measurable BAC coupled with any evidence of impairment. It's not enough to sustain a conviction, but it's probable cause for an arrest.
Georgia state law, at least as I learned it in Driver's Ed many years ago, also allowed the cops to hold an apparently impaired driver until he sobers up. Without any need to bring charges.
We have lots of stupid laws and lots of stupid LEOs to go with them....
So it's the parking attendant's fault that she didn't turn her lights on while driving?
Where is the personal responsibility? It's always someone else's fault. Ridiculous.
Actually, if you are a member of Congress, none of this applies. Under Article 1 Section 6 of the US Constitution, the police cannot arrest or even question a Member of Congress if he is on his way to or from a debate in Congress.
The Police did the right thing in Patches' case, as uncomfortable as that fact is. Patches has a special immunity. Yet one more reason to never send a Kennedy to Congress.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.