Replies

Indeed. The bozo still tested over the limit 5 hours later, and he's complaining about it! OTOH, if they are imputing his alcohol level based on time, I have a bit of a problem with that. Personally, I am absolutely opposed to drunk driving laws because of the damage they've done to the constitution unless you are in an accident, or otherwise cause actual harm, as opposed to mere theoretical harm, at which point, intoxication should be taken into account and weigh heavily against you. Of course, the fact that he's probably performed this exact same constitution-shredding procedure himself in the past, does lend itself to a bit of schadenfreude on my part.

I think drunk driving and drugged laws are the hallmark of a free society that recognizes that laws should punish those who put the lives of others at serious risks, and not those who use drugs and alcohol responsibly. When people drive drunk and commit vehicular homicide, and end up receiving a shorter prison sentence than someone who sold crack cocaine to an undercover police officer, we have a serious problem.

While I recognize that not every drunk or drugged driver will injure someone, the fact remains that they are many times more likely to injure someone, especially with alcohol. I thought the move by MADD to lower the BAC to .08 from .10 was inappropriate. .10 seems like a good DWI limit to me, but states should be setting their legal BAC limits anyway. .10 is a good limit because if you're a 170 pound guy, you can still have 3 drinks in your system without running afoul of the limit, and most drinkers do indeed drive fine with 3 drinks in them. The problem, of course, comes with drivers who mix the booze with medications (muscle relaxants, pain killers) that they know they shouldn't, as well as drivers who are clearly intoxicated (certainly anyone with a BAC of .10 or above has no business being on the road -- visual acuity and response time is noticeably diminished by this time). It is estimated that these people are 6 to 12 times more likely to get involved in a fatal crash or injury. Half of fatally injured drunk drivers have BACs of .16 or above. We should have different levels of punishment for different BACs.

FOR EXAMPLE, any driver caught with a BAC above .16 should be found guilty of a felony and have their license to drive revoked for 5 years. If they drive while on the suspended license (except in limited exceptions), they should be sent to prison for 10 years. This will largely eliminate the drunk driving problem. Any driver caught with a BAC between .10 and .16 should be found guilty of a misdemeanor with their driver's license revoked for a year. If there is a second DWI conviction, that should result in a mandatory 3 year prison sentence. I would also favor amending state laws to allow drivers with BACs above .10 who are involved in fatal crashes to be charged with second-degree murder or voluntary manslaughter. We need to recognize that obviously drunk drivers involved in fatal crashes are guilty of second-degree murder because of their depraved indifference for the safety of others. We have had a couple of prosecutions like this on Long Island. In one tragic case a 7 year old child serving as the flower-girl in a wedding was killed by a driver going the wrong way on a highway who crashed into their limousine. The limousine driver was also killed. The perp was charged with second-degree murder, convicted, and sentenced to 18 years to life in prison. He should have gotten the maximum of 25 years to life.

We do, however, have to get away from the MADD focus on constantly reducing the legal BAC to be considered DWI. There is talk of lowering it to .06. That is completely inappropriate because the focus should be on combating drunk driving, not combating drinking.

Lastly, we need to make sure that every cop convicted of DWI serves at least some time in prison and is never allowed to work in law enforcement again. When citizens see preferential treatment being given to police officers in DWI cases, that breeds a disrespect for the rule of law which is very dangerous.

We could make room for all of these drunk drivers (like this cop) by releasing the non-violent drug offenders from jails and prison, and recognizing that the focus of law enforcement should be on those that put the lives of others at risk (like drunk and drugged drivers). The risk is not merely theoretical -- empirical evidence shows that these drivers are taking the lives of other people in their hands when they drive on public roadways. Alcoholics and drug addicts on the other hand, merely pose a theoretical risk, until they do something that puts the lives of others at risk (namely getting behind the wheel of a motor vehicle while under the influence).

Drunk driving laws do damage to our constitution only in the respect that the Supreme Court has allowed for warrant-less seizures of drivers at DWI checkpoints. If that's the point you're making, that these laws violate the spirit of the constitution, then I agree with you. Not only do they violate the spirit of the constitution, but they also don't work. The cops will search 1500 cars and maybe nab one drunk driver. They are basically a revenue and overtime generator for local and state police departments.