DUI BLOG

A few minutes ago I posted about an arrest yesterday for driving a golf cart under the influence.  Then I stumbled over this news story from the same day:

Man on Bicycle Charged with DUI

Naples, FL.  Jan. 26 — A Tampa man riding a bicycle was charged with driving under the influence after Collier County stopped him in East Naples.

The sheriff’s office reports that 51-year-old Tommy Charles Miller was riding a bike Saturday night without any lights. When deputies stopped him, they reported that his eyes appeared bloodshot, and he smelled like alcohol. Deputies also found two cans of beer in the bike’s front basket.

Miller was arrested and charged with DUI, refusing to submit to a DUI test, having an open alcohol container in public and refusing to sign a citation. He was being held on $7,000 bail.

$7000 bail for riding a bike with a .08% blood-alcohol level?  Must be a dangerous criminal…

Again, not an isolated instance of an over-zealous cop.  For stories of other arrests for DUI on a bicycle, see my posts Felony Bicycle DUI, DUI – on a Foot-High Toy Bike and DUI – While Walking a Bicycle.  
 

If you ever doubted that MADD’s "War on Drunk Driving" was more about alcohol than saving lives…

Man on Golf Cart Arrested for Drunk Driving

Bonifay, FL.  Jan. 26 — Florida State Troopers were on the scene of a fatal accident on County Road 177 Tuesday afternoon when Jerry Ogburn drove up on a golf cart just to look at the crash. That’s not against the law. But driving under the influence is.

Ogburn was arrested for DUI and booked into the Holmes County Jail. Troopers say it’s not his first DUI arrest.

Because of Ogburn’s drunk driving history, his golf cart was supposed to have an ignition interlock device which would prevent him from starting it if he’d been drinking…

DUI in a golf cart?  Ignition interlock devices on golf carts?

No, this isn’t some weird aberration or an over-zealous cop.  This is MADD’s prohibition agenda run amok.  See some of my previous posts, including DUI arrests on golf carts, wheelchairs, lawn mowers and — a horse. 

So where do we go next in MADD’s hysterical War on Drunk Driving?

Craig’s List DUI Busters

Milwaukee, WI.  Jan. 22 — We’re all fed up with drunk drivers. Some people on the popular website Craigslist have decided they’ve had enough, and they want to put a stop to it. They call themselves the DUI Busters, but some are questioning their controversial tactics…

The so-called "DUI Busters" are trying to put a stop to it, and they’re bragging about their exploits on Craigslist.

The DUI Busters say they hang out in bars looking for people who’ve had too much to drink, trail the unknowing person to their car, then follow them down the road, and call 9-1-1…

Liz Rhode is firmly against drunk driving, but the Waukesha woman says something about staking out bars bothers her. She posted her point on Craigslist: How are they going to prevent the DUI they are following from from running through a red light possibly leading to a fatal collision. why not stop them before they get into the car. That’s is what a good samaritan would do.

Suddenly the debate over the DUI Busters was the hottest controversy on Craigslist.

The fact that FOX 6 was doing a story on DUI Busters even got some of the posters peeved. What really get them riled up were the guidelines on "How to Roll" when you make the 9-1-1 call – "Tell them you’ve been following a driver that’s ’swerving everywhere’, and the clincher being they ‘almost hit a parked car’"

Whether it’s true or not, at least one DUI Buster admits telling 9-1-1, "I lie to the police about the prospective drunk driver hitting a parked car when they didn’t. As long as you’re over the .08 you’re legally intoxicated if you hit a parked car or not.", even though the driver wasn’t actually swerving or hitting anything.

Welcome to the MADDness….
 

So you thought the crime of drunk driving required….well, driving?

High court: Asleep at wheel, not driving, enough to get a DWI

Minneapolis, MN.  Jan. 21 — Being drunk and asleep at the wheel of his car while it was parked in his apartment lot with the keys on the console was sufficient evidence to convict a Crookston man of drunken driving, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday.

In a seven-page decision, Justice Alan Page said the jury could reasonably conclude that Daryl Fleck was in "physical control" of his vehicle when arrested.

Fleck’s appellate lawyer, G. Tony Atwal, an assistant state public defender, disagreed with the ruling. "Presumably, if you’re in or about your car, the county attorney could now charge you with a physical control DWI," Atwal said.

In 2007, Fleck was drunk and asleep in his car with the driver’s door open in the assigned parking spot at his apartment building when someone called police. He got his fourth drunken-driving conviction and was sentenced to four years in prison. The state Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction, setting up the appeal to the Supreme Court.

Atwal said he pushed the appeals because there was no indication Fleck had driven; the engine was cold, and the car wouldn’t even start when an officer tried it.

 
I suppose the next step is to throw people in jail for drunk driving without being drunk.  Oh, right, I forgot, they already can — if the machine says your blood-alcohol level is .08%.
 

Suppose a police officer asks or orders an individual to drive a vehicle — and then arrests him for DUI when he complies? This situation comes up more often than you might think. Take, for example, the following case that eventually made its way to the New Jersey Supreme Court….

The defendant asked his brothers at a wedding reception to drive him home because he was too intoxicated to drive. In the parking lot, however, the brothers got into a fight, attracting the attention of local police. One of the officers struck a brother with his nightstick. The defendant asked the officer to quit hitting his brother. The officer replied by ordering him to leave the parking lot. When the defendant did not immediately comply, the officer repeated the order and then forcefully escorted him to his truck. The defendant obediently got into the vehicle, started the engine — and backed into a police car. He was arrested for drunk driving.

At trial, the judge ruled that the defendant had failed to prove entrapment or duress as a defense, and he was convicted. On appeal, however, the conviction was reversed on grounds of quasi-entrapment — that is, the defendant should have been acquitted if he could show that but for the officer’s order to leave in the vehicle he would not have driven. The prosecution appealed this reversal to the state’s supreme court.

Incredibly, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court and reinstated the conviction. Its reasoning? "Obviously," the court said, "if the law were to permit [drunk drivers] to offer as a defense that they drove only because they reasonably feared that telling the police that they were drunk might lead to arrest, the invitation to offer a pretext would be clear".

The court continued its twisted logic: "No one ordered the defendant to get drunk and no one ordered defendant to drive drunk. The police did not coerce defendant into driving his vehicle through the use or threats of violence. The police officers merely ordered defendant to get in his truck and leave the scene of the fight…." (Emphasis added)  State v. Fogarty, 607 A.2d 624.

This "no win" scenario is fairly typical of what I have referred to in earlier posts as "the DUI exception to the Constitution".
 

Please excuse the blatant self-promotion, but…..

Most of the readers of this blog are aware that I’m the author of two books on DUI laws, procedures and evidence:  Drunk Driving Defense, 6th edition (I wrote the original edition 31 years ago) and California Drunk Driving Defense, 4th edition.  Unrelated to the DUI field, however, I’ve also written ten other books: 

Trail of the Fox (Simon and Schuster)

Handling Criminal Appeals (Thomson West)

To Honor and Obey (William Morrow)

Born to Crime (Greenwood Press)

The D.A. (William Morrow)

Eyewitness Identification (Michie)

A Trial of Generals (Icarus Press)

Scientific Interrogation (Michie)

Setting Sail (Icarus)

Witness Immunity (Charles C. Thomas)

Some of these are legal textbooks for attorneys, others are trade books (true crime, etc.) written for the general public — some of which have had film rights sold. 

My publishers have for some time encouraged me to develop a website devoted to these books.  After considerable procrastination on my part, website designers have finally unveiled the new site, cleverly entitled:  Author Lawrence Taylor.  The site includes content or plot summaries of the 12 books, reviews from book critics, publisher information, biography of the author (yours truly) and, most importantly, where to purchase copies.

I invite you to visit the site….and buy lots of my books!
 

Three days ago I posted an example of what appears to be a growing backlash against the practical and constitutional damages being wrought by MADD’s out-of-control "War on Drunk Driving".  See A Breath of Fresh Air.  Another example of this rational but politically incorrect view was recently presented by the President of the National Motorists Association, James J. Baxter:

Laws Will Create New Criminals and Won’t Deter Chronic Offenders

When I first heard the announcement that the state Legislature was going into special session to overhaul Wisconsin’s drunken driving laws, my first thought was "it’s about time." Maybe legislators will go all the way and reduce the drinking age so it reflects something closer to reality. Better yet, they will raise the legal blood-alcohol limit so the vast majority of the driving public that isn’t part of the drunken driving problem will be left alone and not subjected to life-ruining penalties and career-destroying sanctions.

But, alas, I was wrong.

Wisconsin’s drunken driving policies are taking on all the worst elements of the war on drugs:

The penalties and punishments are out of proportion to the supposed crime. Have two or three drinks and blow a 0.08 breath-alcohol concentration, without an accident and no realistic impairment, and you are looking down the barrel of a multi-thousand-dollar fine, fees, surcharges, possible job loss, revocation of professional licenses, scholarship cancellation and of course suspension of your driver’s license.

And, this doesn’t even scratch the surface!

How many times does it have to be proven that statistics surrounding drunken driving are more propaganda than fact? Drunken drivers are not responsible for 41% of Wisconsin’s fatal traffic accidents. The simple presence of alcohol in someone’s system in a population where 60% to 70% of the population consumes alcohol is not automatically the "cause" of a traffic accident. Yet that is what the public is led to believe.

A more realistic and valid estimation of accidents caused by drunken drivers would be 10% – not 41%. This isn’t acceptable, but it does put the issue in a different, more rational perspective.

Speaking of repetition: Despite their apparent admiration for the Berlin Wall and Soviet Union checkpoints, why do acolytes of Mothers Against Drunk Driving continue to promote roadblocks? Is this just an irrational desire for revenge against a free society in general? It’s been repeatedly proven that roadblocks do not catch or deter meaningful numbers of drunken drivers.

Why is the Legislature ignoring the results and the recommendations of the most extensive review of ignition interlock devices? It is clearly stated that mandating ignition interlock devices for first-time offenders, regardless of blood-alcohol level, result in increased numbers of accidents. I’m assuming that the intent of this legislation is to reduce traffic accidents, so why pass a provision known to increase accidents?

Recognizing that this legislation will create thousands of new "criminals," and thus will cost the public money, the preferred source of revenue will be people caught driving on suspended licenses – many of which are suspended because the driver couldn’t afford to pay the original fine and/or out-of-sight insurance premiums. This sounds a lot like beating blood out of stones.

And what evidence is there that society will benefit one whit from the creation of new crimes or the heaping on of more penalties? We’ll end up with thousands of new "criminals" and thousands more with lost jobs and diminished job opportunities.

The only apparent beneficiaries will be the companies that make ignition interlock devices. And the serious and habitual drunken drivers who dominate the headlines, how will this affect them? Not at all. They have long proven their resilience to the punitive approach. Many have nothing of consequence to lose.

Further, as is currently the case, enforcement, judicial and institutional resources will be too focused on these new DUI criminals, caught driving home from ball games, wedding receptions, Friday night fish fries or bowling alleys, to devote any serious attention to the perennially and seriously impaired drunken driver.
 

Amen again.  For my own comments on this issue see Time for a Change.
 

In today’s Is-the-tide-turning department, this from the Ron Paul blog:

Cuccinelli and Drunk Driving Laws

Drunk driving laws don’t often come up as a campaign issue, but when they do my reaction isn’t always what the person who brings them up in a campaign usually intends. DUI law in our country is chock full of gross violations of Constitutional rights, so I find myself impulsively sympathetic to the candidate accused of being ”weak on drunk driving.”

This is because being “weak on drunk driving” inevitably refers to an apparent unwillingness to further demolish the rights of citizens who might be accused of drunk driving.

This is playing out in Virginia where Republican Attorney General candidate Ken Cuccinelli is being attacked by his Democratic opponent for “consistently voted against tougher penalties for drunk drivers.” I’m sure I disagree with Cuccinelli on some issues, but if he has consistently opposed new DUI laws then he’s to be applauded.

I could write an entire essay about how DUI laws violate the Constitution, but that essay has already been written by DUI lawyer Lawrence Taylor. In “The DUI Exception to the Constitution” Taylor explains how nearly every Constitutional protection designed to protect the rights of the accused, most notably the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, has been utterly destroyed by the way our criminal justice system pursues the legitimate goal of prosecuting dangerous drunk driving.

In other words, if for no other reason than having “consistently voted against tougher penalties for drunk drivers” consider me pro-Cuccinelli.

Amen.
 

In today’s DUI double standard department:

Early Release Sends Some DUI Offenders Back to Prison

Chicago, IL.  Dec. 25 — Anti-drunken driving advocates reacted angrily earlier this week when the Chicago Sun-Times revealed that Gov. Quinn’s administration had released 18 felony drunken drivers from prison early to serve the rest of their prison time on home confinement.

On Thursday, those same anti-DUI advocates were cheering after the governor ordered all 18 back behind bars to serve the remainder of their prison time. Each will be paroled between mid-January and mid-October under the terms of their original sentences.

"That is a delightful Christmas story," said David Malham, a victim-services specialist with Mothers Against Drunk Driving in Chicago. "MADD is absolutely delighted that the governor reacted to this serious issue in such a way."

The Sun-Times revealed Tuesday that the 18 felony DUI drivers and 40 burglars were among 204 inmates released early from prison under a new program aiming to save taxpayers $5 million a year by putting certain "low-level, nonviolent offenders" on home detention. Eventually, 1,000 inmates are supposed to be released early.

MADD officials said repeat DUI offenders should have been considered violent. After reviewing the program, the state Corrections Department agreed.

The 18 DUI offenders were rounded up during the past two days. No more DUI drivers will be eligible for early release.

"A decision was made to eliminate any and all DUI offenders from the electronic-detention program," Corrections Department spokeswoman Januari Smith said.

Apparently, drug dealers were not "re-classified" by the politicians. But then "MADD" doesn’t stand for "Mothers Against Drug Dealers".

Chalk up a MADD endorsement and a few more votes for the Governor come re-election…