I wrote the Book on Illinois DUI Laws

Visit Americas Top DUI and DWI Attorneys at www.1800dialdui.com or call 1-800-DIAL-DUI to find a DUI OUI DWI Attorney Lawyer Now!

New state DUI law's success rate remains a source of debate

Visit Americas Top DUI and DWI Attorneys at www.1800dialdui.com or call 1-800-DIAL-DUI to find a DUI OUI DWI Attorney Lawyer Now! By Christy Gutowski | Daily Herald Staff Contact writer It's hailed as Illinois' toughest crackdown on drunken drivers since the state lowered the legal blood-alcohol limit to .08 percent more than a decade ago. As many as 41,500 first-time DUI offenders this year may have to install an alcohol ignition interlock to get back out on the road legally. Illinois is one of eight states where first-time offenders are mandated or highly induced into installing the instrument. Proponents say the device is up to 90 percent successful in curbing a drunken driver while its installed, but even they admit recidivism rates climb again afterward. Its success rate - and the device itself - remains a source of debate. Busted About the size of a cellular phone, the Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device measures a motorist's blood-alcohol content when they blow into it. It allows first-time offenders to drive legally during their suspension period. In Illinois, the length of the suspension also was doubled with the new law, to six months if the motorist cooperated with police but failed breath/chemical testing, or 12 months for a refusal. Motorists still can't drive during the first 30 days of their suspensions. They have the option to apply for the program once they go to court. It replaces the conditional driving permit a judge used to give to eligible offenders so they could legally drive to specific places, such as work, school or the doctor, during the suspension. There are no such restrictions with the new program. "This way, at least they get to drive," said Susan McKeigue, the Illinois executive director of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which spearheaded the law. "They just don't get to drive drunk." "It's using technology to stop this violent crime," she added. "You get hit by a drunk, it's assault with a deadly weapon." The offender must blow into the instrument to start the car and then again within the first 15 minutes and twice an hour thereafter. The device won't stop the car in mid-drive, but it will honk the horn and flash the lights to alert police. The car will not start if the instrument records a blood-alcohol level of .025 or higher. The motorist will be prompted to wait 10 minutes and try again. The ignition will be locked for 24 hours if there's three such readings in a 30-minute period. The interlock records the results in its internal memory. Every 60 days, the drivers must take their cars to the vendor, which sends the results to the Illinois Secretary of State for review and possible enforcement. The punishment for violations begins with a 90-day extension of the suspension period to license revocation or the car being impounded for 30 days or seized. If drivers are convicted of deliberately trying to skirt the law, such as driving a different car, they face a felony punishable by up to three years in prison. The cost isn't cheap. The offender pays about $85 to install the device, another $80 a month to rent, and another $30 a month in fees that the Illinois Secretary of State charges to administer the program. That's on top of first-time DUI court fines and fees of up to $2,500 and the cost of a good DUI attorney - about $5,000. They also must contribute to a state fund for poor offenders, determined by a judge as unable to afford the program. First-time offenders are eligible for the program if they are at least 18 with a valid license and were not involved in an alcohol-related crash that caused serious injury or death. Those who drive a bus, cab, or truck or otherwise hold commercial licenses are only eligible if the offense occurred off duty in their personal car. The law defines a first-time offender as someone with a valid license who has not had a DUI conviction in the last five years. And therein lies one of many issues critics point to as a problem. Too much, too little? MADD wants all 50 states to pass such laws, arguing it will save more lives, but critics contend it will lead to measures that restrict alcohol policies too much with few lifesaving results. Attorney Donald Ramsell, whose Wheaton law firm specializes in DUI defense, said the new law punishes people before conviction and hurts other family members who are forced to blow into the device to use the same car. He questions what effect it'll have to reduce DUI deaths. By his research, less than 1 percent of first-time offenders arrested in Illinois each year are rearrested within the next 12 months, which is the longest period the device is on the car. So, he argues, after calculating the monthly fees, about $27 million a year is going to a half-dozen private companies authorized to install the instruments to try to stop a small number of people for a short amount of time. And scofflaws who are willing to risk a prison term can try to skirt the law simply by driving a different car or having a sober person blow for them. "It's a baldfaced lie that it's going to be a big accident or death preventer," Ramsell said. "All this money is being dumped into this when there's absolutely no proof it is effective in any way, shape or form. It's pork barrel politics meets DUI." Another staunch critic of interlock laws for first-time offenders is the Washington, D.C.-based American Beverage Institute, a restaurant trade association. The group said it supports "sensible alcohol policies" for repeat offenders and those arrested with high blood-alcohol levels since national transportation data shows those groups are primarily involved in DUI fatalities. ABI Managing Director Sarah Longwell said the laws MADD advocates don't allow judges to distinguish between the social drinker who is within a few sips of .08 and those who are way over the limit. She warned such laws could lead to more draconian measures. "To divert our attention and focus on social drinkers is to take our eye off the ball," Longwell said. "The people who cause fatalities are people who have high BACs and are repeat offenders. If we want to solve the problem, then we have to go after these chronic drunk drivers." And that's exactly what proponents say the new law accomplishes. They point to studies showing one-third of all drunken drivers have a prior DUI conviction. "What we're trying to do is prevent the first-time offender from becoming the chronic offender," said Susan McKinney, administrator of the Illinois Secretary of State's BAIID division. "We know this is not going to end drunken driving, but it's going to help." The success rate in New Mexico, which in June 2005 became the first state to enact a first-offender interlock law, is highly debated. Statistics show a 19 percent drop in DUI fatalities there from 2004 to 2007, but critics say the death rate already was dropping. If viewed during a 10-year span, the decrease is closer to 6 percent, they argue. The American Civil Liberties Union has not weighed in on the ignition interlock laws, but high courts in states where they are in use have upheld them as constitutional. The next frontier So far, one in every 10 DUI offenders nationwide has an interlock device, but that number is expected to climb. Last year, 71 alcohol-ignition interlock bills were considered in 27 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. "It looks like there is a trend," said Anne Teigen, a NCSL policy specialist. "More states are looking at ignition interlocks as a way to reduce impaired driving." Those on the front lines say there will come a day not so far in the future when even this device will be obsolete. They envision every car as its original equipment having a largely invisible device that keeps the vehicle from running if the driver had too much to drink. A five-year research program, sponsored by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety, is developing the advanced technology so that it is as nonintrusive and affordable as today's air bags. It includes sensors in the wheel or shift lever that measures alcohol in perspiration, so called "sniffers" that check cabin air and a camera that monitors eye movements. The research program, which launched a Web site, dadss.org, short for Driver Alcohol Detective System for Safety, estimates in-vehicle testing of prototypes by 2013. "I personally think we will get drunken driving eliminated in this lifetime," McKeigue said. "Now that's something to be proud of."

Daily Herald | New state DUI law's success rate remains a source of debate

Daily Herald | New state DUI laws success rate remains a source of debate Visit Americas Top DUI and DWI Attorneys at www.1800dialdui.com or call 1-800-DIAL-DUI to find a DUI OUI DWI Attorney Lawyer Now!

Attorneys criticize new DUI law

Visit Americas Top DUI and DWI Attorneys at www.1800dialdui.com or call 1-800-DIAL-DUI to find a DUI OUI DWI Attorney Lawyer Now! - A new state law aimed at reducing drunken-driving crashes and deaths has triggered criticism from local defense lawyers who say it may not keep the intoxicated off area roads. The law, less than a month old, requires first-time drunken-driving offenders to install breath-monitoring devices in their vehicles. Similar to the blow tests administered by local police during traffic stops, anyone convicted of a first DUI must blow into these steering wheel-mounted contraptions before the car will start. And at timed intervals on their drives, they must resubmit to breath tests to make sure they cannot thwart the system. But many attorneys don’t think it’s going to be easy to implement and wonder when — not if — the first court challenge to the law will be filed. “It’s the modern-day version of the public stockades. The person, when they wanted to publicly humiliate someone, they would lock you in that for a couple of days. It has that sort of taste to it,” said Donald Ramsell, a noted DuPage County DUI defense lawyer who has handled about 13,000 DUI cases since 1986. “It’s a real overkill.” He said he fully expects a court challenge to the law. So does former Cook County assistant state’s attorney Tracy Gentile, now a criminal defense lawyer and associate attorney at Sam L. Amirante & Associates PC. “I think it’s going to cause further problems in court,” she said, adding judges no longer have discretion to sentence the most-deserving defendants to this particular punishment. Officials within the division of the Illinois Secretary of State’s Office charged with directing the program had hoped to have a maximum of 30 employees by the time the law was in full swing. But budget cuts by Gov. Rod Blagojevich last year shorted the program about $3 million. The breath-alcohol ignition interlock division currently employs just six. “I feel confident we’re going to be able to handle it,” said Susan McKinney, administrator of the division. The equipment, called a Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device, requires a driver to blow into a tube so his or her breath can be tested. The car won’t start if the breath sample registers a 0.025 blood alcohol level or higher. The legal limit in Illinois is 0.08, much higher than this device allows. “The machine should be at 0.08. At 0.05, it will dismantle completely. You have to take the car into the shop,” Ramsell said. “The car won’t start if you blow 0.025. You have to wait half an hour and try it again.” The device also requires samples at random intervals throughout the trip to prevent having someone else blow into the device to get the car started. Gentile said she thinks some defendants will try to skirt the safeguards. “People are just trying to get to work,” she said. “What do you want? People on welfare? I know I would do anything to support my son.” Ramsell said the day may come when a DUI defendant with a little knowledge of wiring finds a way around the device. “Go online. You can find canisters of air to hook up to these things,” he added. Any first-time DUI offender who wants to drive during the time of his or her statutory summary suspension will have to elect into the program. Suspension times also have increased — from six months to 12 months for a driver who refuses testing when they are pulled over and from three months to six months for drivers who take the test and have a BAC of 0.08 or higher. The court will ask the offender if he or she wants a Monitoring Device Driving Permit, then will order the secretary of state’s office to issue one if the offender wants in the program. The MDDP replaces the judicial driving permit, which could be granted by the court and allowed the first-time offender to drive at certain times, such as to get to work and back. A person who is caught driving on a DUI-suspended license without the BAIID can be charged with a Class 4 felony. Until January, the offense was a Class A misdemeanor, said Rich Kim, chief of the traffic and misdemeanor division of the Sangamon County state’s attorney’s office. “Most of the time people are receptive,” McKinney said. “Their concerns are not about any unfairness of the law, but about the difficulty they see in implementing pieces of it.” BAIID is available from one of six certified vendors, and can be installed at any of more than 150 approved sites. No Illinois resident lives more than 28 miles away from an installation site, according to the secretary of state. Summary suspensions aren’t effective until 45 days after the DUI arrest, and the MDDP doesn’t allow any driving at all for the first 30 days of the suspension. If someone was charged with a DUI Jan. 1, the soonest they could obtain an MDDP would be mid-March. Once issued, an offender has 14 days to have a BAIID installed on any and all cars they want to drive during the suspension. The device costs about $100 to install, depending on the type of vehicle and other factors, with an $80-a-month rental fee, both paid to the vendor. There’s also a $30 monthly monitoring fee paid to the secretary of state’s office. Because there is no driving allowed during the first month of the summary suspension, that means the minimum cost to the offender will be about $650. “You could have gotten 1 million free cab rides,” Ramsell said. “I’ve already got people calling me complaining they can’t afford it.” The law also requires an indigency fund to be used for offenders who want the MDDP but can’t afford to pay for the device. The fund will be built from a surcharge added to paying customers’ rental and installation fees. The fund can’t be used to pay the secretary of state’s monitoring fee. Those fees are up to the offender to pay. Indigency and how to determine it is seen as one of the problems with the new law. Judges — who have no say as to whether the MDDP is granted — apparently will be the sole arbiter of whether someone qualifies as indigent. “There is no in-between,” McKinney said. “There is no sliding scale, so someone is either indigent or they’re not. But we have to implement the law the way it is written.” McKinney said she’s working with a group of judges to see if they can come up with some indigency guidelines. “The criteria isn’t the same as for asking for a public defender,” she said. With approximately 40,000 first-time DUI offenders each year in Illinois, Springfield attorney Scott Sabin said he thinks the sheer number of people who will want into the program will be overwhelming. Some estimate that as many as 30,000 first-time offenders could be in the program by the end of 2009. Sabin said he might have had two to three clients a week ask for a judicial driving permit. Ramsell said of about 40,000 first-time offenders, between 1 percent and 3 percent re-offend within the 12-month window the device remains attached to the car. That means between 400 and 1,200 people may try to drive drunk in that time. Of those drivers, about 1 percent to 3 percent may become involved in a car crash if they didn’t have the device on their vehicles. That equals four to 12 crashes that may result in injuries, he explained. “What we’re talking about is pouring $18 million to $36 million into five or six licensed (BAIID) providers for a problem that covers about 1 to 3 percent of the people previously arrested for a DUI,” he said. Previously someone could get court supervision once every 10 years for either driving on a license suspended for DUI or for driving on a license revoked because of DUI. Both were Class A misdemeanors. Now, the new law makes driving with a suspended license a Class 4 felony, while driving on a revoked license remains a misdemeanor and supervision remains an option every 10 years. If violations are found on the device when it is monitored, the offender’s suspension may be extended by three-month increments or eventually canceled. Also, the device doesn’t test for marijuana, for example, just alcohol. But if someone is arrested for driving under the influence of marijuana and their license is suspended, they still have to get the machine to drive, McKinney said. “It’s so early in the program, I don’t know how it’s going to work,” said Brookfield Deputy Police Chief Jeff Leh. “In theory, I think it’s great. Some people never learn. (After convictions) it doesn’t stop them from driving (drunk). I don’t think you can just have somebody blow into it and you’re on your way. If the technology is anything like the (breathalyzer) machines we have, those are very sophisticated.” If successful, there may be fewer drunken-driving fatalities, he said.

2008-2009 Illinois DUI Penalties Chart (For offenses after June 1, 2008)

Visit Americas Top DUI and DWI Attorneys at www.1800dialdui.com or call 1-800-DIAL-DUI to find a DUI OUI DWI Attorney Lawyer Now! 2008-2009 Illinois DUI Penalties Chart (For offenses after June 1, 2008) First Offense Class A Misdemeanor Court Supervision up to 2 years DUI Tech Fee $500.00 Fines of 0-2,500.00 BAC > .16 or greater Mandatory 100 hours community service Mandatory Minimum fine of $500.00 Passenger < under16 years old Subject to 6 months jail or 25 days community service in a program benefitting children Mandatory minimum $1000 fine Up to maximum fine of $2,500.00 If Bodily Harm to Passenger under 16, Class 4 felony, min $2,500.00 to max $25,000.00 plus 25 days community service in a program benefitting children and Mandatory minimum 10 days jail or 480 hours community service [11-501(d)(3)] If suspended, revoked, or no license or no insurance, then Class 4 felony 1-3 years imprisonment or Probation up to 30 months and Mandatory minimum 10 days jail or 480 hours community service [11-501(d)(3)] If driving School Bus with pass < 18, Class 4 felony If driving in a school zone with limit of 20 mph in effect and accident with bodily harm other than great bodily harm, permanent disability or disfigurement Class 4 felony 1-3 years imprisonment or Probation up to 30 months and Mandatory minimum 10 days jail or 480 hours community service [11-501(d)(3)] If Great bodily harm, permanent disability or disfigurement Class 4 felony 1-12 years imprisonment or Probation up to 30 months and Mandatory minimum 10 days jail or 480 hours community service [11-501(d)(3)] and Minimum fine $2,500.00 Second Offense Class A Misdemeanor No Court Supervision - Mandatory Conviction Revocation of Driving Privileges Mandatory 5 days jail or 240 hours community service DUI technology Fee of $1,000.00 Fines of up to $2,500.00 If 2d DUI and prior reckless homicide, then Class 4 felony If BAC >.16 Add additional 2 days jail to above penalties Mandatory minimum fine of $1250.00 If Passenger < 16 years old Class 2 felony 3-7 years imprisonment or probation up to 48 months §11-501(d)(1)(K) and (I) and min $2500.00 plus 25 days community service in a program benefitting children §11-501(d)(1)(K) and (I) and Mandatory minimum 10 days jail or 480 hours community service [11-501(d)(3)] If Bodily Harm to Passenger under 16, Class 2 felony 3-7 years imprisonment or probation up to 48 months §11-501(d)(1)(K) and (I), and min $5000.00 to max $25,000.00 plus 25 days community service in a program benefitting children and Mandatory minimum 10 days jail or 480 hours community service [11-501(d)(3)] If Great bodily harm, disability or disfigurement to any person Class 4 felony, from probation to 1-12 years imprisonment Minimum fine of $5000.00 plus 25 days community service in a program benefitting children (any bodily harm per 11-501(d)(1)(K and I) Mandatory minimum 10 days jail or 480 hours community service 11-501(d)(3) If suspended, revoked, , or no insurance, then Class 4 felony 1-3 years imprisonment or Probation up to 30 months and Mandatory minimum 10 days jail or 480 hours community service 11-501(d)(3) If accident with great bodily harm Class 4 felony 1-3 years imprisonment or Probation up to 30 months and Mandatory minimum 10 days jail or 480 hours community service 11-501(d)(3) Minimum fine $5,000.00 Third Offense Class 2 Felony 3-7 years imprisonment or Probation up to 48 months, and Mandatory minimum 10 days jail or 480 hours community service DUI Tech fee $1,000.00 Fines up to max $25,000.00 If BAC > .16 Mandatory 90 days jail and Mandatory minimum fine of $2500.00 If passenger < 16 years old Mandatory minimum fine of $25,000.00 and Mandatory 25 days community service in a program benefitting children If Great bodily harm, disability or disfigurement Class 2 felony, from 480 community service to 1-12 years imprisonment (note: combining 1-12 years great bodily harm requirement; if any jail then must be minimum 1 year) Fourth Offense Class 2 Felony non-probationable 3-7 years imprisonment and DUI Tech fee $1,000.00 Maximum fine of $25,000.00 If BAC > .16 Mandatory Minimum fine is $5,000.00 If passenger < 16 years old Minimum fine $25,000.00 and Mandatory 25 days community service in a program benefitting children If Great bodily harm, disability or disfigurement Class 2 felony, from 480 community service to 1-12 years imprisonment (note: combining 1-12 years great bodily harm requirement) Fifth Offense Class 1 non-probationable 4-15 years imprisonment DUI Tech fee $1,000.00 Fine up to $25,000.00 If BAC >.16 Mandatory Minimum fine $5000.00 If passenger < 16 years Minimum fine $25,000.00 and Mandatory 25 days community service in a program benefitting children Sixth Offense Class X felony non-probationable 6-30 years imprisonment DUI Tech fee $1,000.00 Fine up to $25,000.00 If BAC >.16 Minimum fine $5000.00 If passenger < 16 years Minimum fine $25,000.00 and Mandatory 25 days community service in a program benefitting children DUI Death If violation of DUI proximately causes death to another Class 2 felony Minimum is probation, or 3-14 years for one death Minimum probation to 6-28 years for 2 or more deaths Judge must find extraordinary circumstances to award probation

New 2009 Illinois DUI Laws - MDDP and Driving Permits

Effective January 1, 2009, the judicial driving permit, a hardship license formerly granted to first offenders (see 625 ILCS 11-500 for definition of ‘first offenders’) is abolished for all arrestees on or after 1-1-09. 625 ILCS 5/6-206.1 makes several substantial changes to the implied consent laws. But, before getting into those changes, let me state two things that are not affected. First, summary suspension hearings and procedures remain the same, other than the fact the length of the suspensions double (six months for a test failure, twelve months for a test refusal). Second, criminal DUI laws do not change. What the new law does: in place of the judicial driving permit, the new law creates the Monitoring Device Driving Permit (MDDP). In essence, the law gives the first offender the option to drive after the 31st day of his suspension, for any purpose and at any time. Unless a defendant opts out of the MDDP law, the driver must agree to have a breath alcohol interlock ignition device (BAIID) installed on the car that the offender drives. (See Section 3.__ for a more detailed discussion of BAIID devices). If a driver is caught driving during a summary suspension and he has opted out of the MDDP, it is a Class 4 felony punishable by up to 1-3 years incarceration. The MDDP is available only to ‘first offenders’, which is defined in 625 ILCS 11-500. Essentially, a ‘first offender’ is a person who has had no DUI suspensions or findings of guilty in the past 5 years. MDDPs are available only for First Offenders unless: (1) The offender's driver's license is otherwise invalid;(2) death or great bodily harm resulted from the arrest for Section 11-501;(3) the offender has ever been previously convicted of reckless homicide; or(4) the offender is less than 18 years of age. Unlike a JDP, a first offender is entitled to an MDDP if he fits the above qualifications; the court has no discretion and must order an MDDP, unless the offender opts out in writing: “(e) Following a statutory summary suspension of driving privileges pursuant to Section 11-501.1, for a first offender, the circuit court shall, unless the offender has opted in writing not to have a monitoring device driving permit issued, order the Secretary of State to issue a monitoring device driving permit as provided in Section 6-206.1. A monitoring device driving permit shall not be effective prior to the 31st day of the statutory summary suspension.” 625 ILCS 5/6-208.1 Further, unlike a JDP, the offender does not need an alcohol evaluation or any supporting documentation in order to have a MDDP granted. In summary, here are the features to the MDDP process: An offender is arrested for DUI; A sworn report, completed by the police officer, is sent to the Secretary of State (SOS); The Secretary of State sends a Notice Order of Summary Suspension to the offender (effective on the 46th day after the test or refusal), along with MDDP information; The offender then goes to court for the DUI; The trial judge asks the offender whether he or she wants an MDDP; If the offender says yes, then an order for an MDDP is completed; If the offender says no, then the offender is admonished by the court and the offender signs an ‘opt out’ statement; If yes, then an order for the MDDP is sent to the Secretary of State; The Secretary of State then gets the Court Order; The SOS reviews the offender for eligibility and determines any requirements that must be fulfilled (i.e. cost) The SOS then sends the offender the requirements for the MDDP, i.e. the bill, etc.; Once the offender meets the requirements, then the SOS sends the offender the MDDP; The offender then has 14 days to have the MDDP installed. The MDDP law requires the offender to pay to the SOS an administrative fee of 30.00 per month. 625 ILCS 5/6-206.1. The entire number of months must be paid up front. (i.e $150.00 for a 6 month summary suspension and $330.00 for a twelve month refusal suspension.) The offender must take the vehicle to a certified BAIID installation company. These are private companies. There will be an installation fee (approximately $150.00) and a monthly fee for the device (approximately $115.00 per month). Once installed, the device begins monitoring. It is initially uploaded to the SOS to notify them of installation. If not uploaded initially, then eventually the MDDP is cancelled. Thereafter, the offender must bring the vehicle into the installer every 30 days for readings. The BAIID company sends a report to the SOS monthly, and the computer at the SOS looks for violations. There are a specific set of rules that have been promulgated by the Secretary of State of MDDP violations and other MDDP related issues. These rules can be found at 92 Ill. Adm. Code 1001, and in the Illinois Register at Volume 32, issue 28 pages 9819 to 9869 as proposed amendments, or online at http://ilsos.net/departments/index/register/register_volume32_issue28.pdf . If the offender receives is convicted of any moving violation during the MDDP period, the SOS shall extend the suspension for another 6 or 12 months, depending on the suspensions initial length: “(b) The Secretary of State upon receiving a report of the conviction of any violation indicating a person was operating a motor vehicle during the time when said person's driver's license, permit or privilege was suspended by the Secretary, by the appropriate authority of another state, or pursuant to Section 11-501.1; except as may be specifically allowed by a probationary license to drive, judicial driving permit issued prior to January 1, 2009, monitoring device driving permit, or restricted driving permit issued pursuant to this Code or the law of another state; shall extend the suspension for the same period of time as the originally imposed suspension; however, if the period of suspension has then expired, the Secretary shall be authorized to suspend said person's driving privileges for the same period of time as the originally imposed suspension.” 625 ILCS 5/6-303 MDDP Violations include: Tampering or attempted tampering 10 or more unsuccessful starts within a 30 day period 5 or more unsuccessful starts within a 24 hour period BAC of .05 or more Failing a running retest Failing to take a running retest Removing the BAIID device Failing to utilize the BAIID as required (under-usage) Failing to submit a timely monitoring report Additionally, a driver must keep journal of: Unsuccessful starting attempts Failure to successfully complete a running retest Any problem with Device Name of driver for each of the above. If the S.O.S. determines that a violation has occurred, it will notify driver who must respond in writing within 21 days. S.O.S. can extend the suspension for additional 3 months: “ (j) Upon making a determination that a violation of the requirements of the MDDP has occurred, the Secretary shall extend the summary suspension period for an additional 3 months beyond the originally imposed summary suspension period, during which time the person shall only be allowed to drive vehicles equipped with an ignition interlock device; provided further there are no limitations on the total number of times the summary suspension may be extended. The Secretary may, however, limit the number of extensions imposed for violations occurring during any one monitoring period, as set forth by rule. Any person whose summary suspension is extended pursuant to this Section shall have the right to contest the extension through a hearing with the Secretary, pursuant to Section 2-118 of this Code. If the summary suspension has already terminated prior to the Secretary receiving the monitoring report that shows a violation, the Secretary shall be authorized to suspend the person's driving privileges for 3 months, provided that the Secretary may, by rule, limit the number of suspensions to be entered pursuant to this paragraph for violations occurring during any one monitoring period. Any person whose license is suspended pursuant to this paragraph, after the summary suspension had already terminated, shall have the right to contest the suspension through a hearing with the Secretary, pursuant to Section 2-118 of this Code. The only permit the person shall be eligible for during this new suspension period is a MDDP.” 625 ILCS 5/6-206.1(j) For the first and second violations, the SOS will extend the suspension and MDDP for 3 month periods. After the third extension of the Summary suspension, local law enforcement will impound the vehicle for 30 days. After a fourth violation, the vehicle is permanently seized and forfeited. MDDP Cancellations: If the holder of the MDDP is convicted of or receives court supervision for a violation of Section 6-206.2, 6-303 (driving while suspended/revoked), 11-204 (fleeing and eluding), 11-401 (leaving the scene of an accident), 11-501 (DUI), 11-503 (reckless driving), 11-506 (street racing) or a similar provision of a local ordinance or a similar out-of-state offense or is convicted of or receives court supervision for any offense for which alcohol or drugs is an element of the offense and in which a motor vehicle was involved (for an arrest other than the one for which the MDDP is issued) the MDDP is cancelled. The MDDP will also be cancelled if the driver violates 625 ILCS 5/6-206.2, which includes driving a vehicle not equipped with a BAIID device after being issued an MDDP, or soliciting another to blow into a BAIID device in order to avoid a restriction. If cancelled, the driver is not automatically reinstated with full privileges at the end of the MDDP. Instead, the driver must apply for restricted drivers permit (RDP). If granted, the driver must then drive on the RDP for a length which is double the original period (with extensions). If an offender is indigent, there is an indigent fund that can cover all or part of the cost of an MDDP. Company cars: “Persons who are issued a MDDP and must drive employer-owned vehicles in the course of their employment duties may seek permission to drive an employer-owned vehicle that does not have an ignition interlock device. The employer shall provide to the Secretary a form, as prescribed by the Secretary, completed by the employer verifying that the employee must drive an employer-owned vehicle in the course of employment. If approved by the Secretary, the form must be in the driver's possession while operating an employer-owner vehicle not equipped with an ignition interlock device.” 625 ILCS 5/6-206.1(a-2) However: The company cannot be owned in whole or in part by the driver or the driver’s family; Cannot be used to drive a company car that is also made available for personal use; Car cannot be driven more than 12 hours per day and 6 days per week. orney Lawyer Now!

YouTube - The answers you need for your DUI case

The answers you need for your Michigan DUI case Michigan DUI DWI Attorney Patrick Barone provides information on Michigan Drunk Driving Law

False Results - Don't Take a Breath Test!!!

YouTube - Don't Take a Breath Test!!! California DUI Attorney Darryl genis proves how a breath test can falsely over-report a breath test by more than double the true amount!!

Police step up DWI enforcement during the summer

Police step up DWI enforcement during the summer

Police step up DWI enforcement during the summer

By TERENCE CORCORAN THE JOURNAL NEWS

(Original publication: July 8, 2007)

State, local and county police have made more than 18,000 arrests for driving under the influence on Lower Hudson Valley roads since 2002, yet some drivers still insist on getting behind the wheel after knocking back a few drinks.

Although the number of arrests appears staggering, police agencies throughout Putnam, Rockland and Westchester counties remain undaunted in their year-round efforts to get drunken and drugged drivers off the roads.

"You would think that people would get it by now, that our enforcement is not going away," said state police Lt. Douglas Larkin of Troop K in Westchester. "If you're going to drink, do it at home, designate a driver or hire a taxi. We're not saying there's anything wrong with drinking - just drinking and driving."

A statewide effort targeting intoxicated drivers began June 29 and continues through today to coincide with the July 4 holiday and summer vacations. "The Fourth of July holiday is the second deadliest holiday period in terms of impaired driving. Only New Year's is greater," said Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano. "This type of enforcement saves lives and reduces the number of alcohol-related injuries as well."

Since 2002, DWI arrests have been on the rise in all three counties, save for a couple of years when the numbers went down slightly.

"It's always a priority for the state police to look for DWIs," said Capt. Steven Nevins of Troop F in Rockland. "You find that a lot of fatal accidents involve people driving while intoxicated."

In 2002, police in Rockland made 641 arrests. By 2006, there were 996. Putnam had 295 DWI arrests in 2002. It was up to 397 last year. In 2002, police in Westchester charged 2,338 motorists with DWI. Last year, the number was 2,515.

"For whatever reason, some people aren't getting the message," Larkin said. "If you're still out there drinking and driving, we're going to make sure you get the message."

Westchester STOP-DWI Coordinator Tom Meyer said county police will team with local departments this summer to find and arrest drunken drivers.

"Everyone has a cell phone these days. If you've had too much to drink, call a cab," Meyer said.

Police employ a variety of methods to combat drunken driving. These include fixed sites - where they set up a DWI checkpoint at a specific location - and saturation patrols, in which extra officers are put on the roads to search specifically for intoxicated motorists.

Most drunken-driving arrests are made in the evening and overnight, police said, and most drunken drivers implicate themselves by their inability to drive safely.

"The simple fact is that if you're driving drunk, you're not going to keep the car between the lines," Larkin said. "That's when you'll get pulled over."

Trooper Greg Kalarchian, who works the overnight shift in northern Westchester and was among the leaders in DWI arrests by troopers last year in the county, said many drunken drivers make it easy for police.

"Most DWI arrests come from (traffic) stops. They cross the double-yellow line, they weave, or they got stopped for speeding," Kalarchian said.

Kent Police Officer Raymond Beauchesne is always among the leaders of DWI arrests each year in Putnam County. Beauchesne's success in getting drunken drivers off the road is the result of simple observation: If he sees a car weaving, failing to signal a turn or crossing the double-yellow line, he pulls it over.

"He's a very aggressive officer when it comes to DWIs," Kent police Lt. Alex Divernieri said.

Once the driver rolls down the window, Kalarchian said, it's easy to tell if he or she has been drinking.

"The first thing that hits you is the odor of alcohol -it's so obvious," he said. "I've had a few drivers who know they've been drinking and try to play it down, but the odor on their breath gives them away."

Larkin said the worst aspect of drunken driving is having to respond to the accidents, or worse - having to inform a parent that a son or daughter has been killed in a DWI-related crash.

Despite the increased police efforts and advertising campaigns, some people will continue to break the law, said defense lawyer Glen P. Malia of Cortlandt.

"From my observations, there are two different types of DWI defendants," Malia said."There are those who have made the mistake and will never make it again. It's not a stigma but a personal embarrassment, the entire arrest. ... The other defendants are those who have a drinking problem and are likely to recommit."

Movement Afoot To Repeal Breath Tester Mandate - Local News Story - KPHO Phoenix

Movement Afoot To Repeal Breath Tester Mandate - Local News Story - KPHO Phoenix Just like I have said - These devices do notihign to reduce drunk driving, except for the additional business owners who now can afford limousines based on the money they make from these things! PHOENIX -- The Arizona House signaled its support Tuesday for repealing a new requirement that first-time drunken driving offenders install breath-testing ignition interlocks on their vehicles for at least a year after resuming driving. Republican Rep. John Kavanagh of Fountain Hills urged lawmakers to back out of the earlier decision, saying he has since reviewed studies that conclude the devices don't lead to a reduction in traffic accidents or repeat offenses by first-time offenders. "All I am doing is allowing us to gracefully retreat from what appears to have been a mistake until we can get more data and then make a decision based on fact -- and not wishful thinking," said Kavanagh, who had previously voted for the bill containing the interlock requirement. After clearing its first hurdle at the Legislature, the proposed repeal now moves to a formal vote by the House. Supporters of the interlock requirement said it was an alternative to fines and penalties that don't do enough to change offenders' behavior. Opponents said the requirement unfairly burdens first-time offenders. A drunken driving sentencing bill signed into law nearly a month ago by Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano made Arizona the only state besides New Mexico to have an interlock requirement for first-time drunken driving offenders. The law would take effect later this year. State law now requires repeat drunken drivers or those convicted of extreme or aggravated DUI to use interlocks when their driving privileges are restored. The devices won't allow a vehicle to start if the person's alcohol content is above a certain limit. Republican Rep. Andy Biggs of Mesa, leader of the effort to keep the interlock requirement, said studies show the devices contribute to a reduction in repeat offenses and wrecks. "We may not be able to prevent the first-time offenders, because people get out there and drink, but we can reduce the second-time offenders by using this," Biggs said. Democratic Rep. Chad Campbell of Phoenix, who voted for the bill that contained the interlock requirement but now supports the proposed repeal, said the financial penalties and embarrassment of a drunken driving conviction are probably enough to prevent first-time offenders from making the mistake again. "There is no definitive answer about the impact (the requirement) would have," said Campbell, who, like Kavanagh, had previously expressed reservations about the interlock requirement. Republican Rep. Russell Pearce of Mesa, who wanted to keep the requirement, said the studies cited by repeal supporters were flawed, because some people who were convicted of drunken driving may later operate a vehicle while impaired but may not get caught doing so. "It is your choice not to drive intoxicated," Pearce said. "It is our choice to make that life pretty miserable for you if you make that bad choice."

Scalia's daughter gets probation for DUI - CNN.com

Scalia's daughter gets probation for DUI - CNN.com

WHEATON, Illinois (AP) -- The daughter of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was sentenced to 18 months of court supervision after pleading guilty to drunken driving.

Ann S. Banaszewski, 45, of Wheaton, Illinois, on Wednesday accepted a plea agreement under which prosecutors dropped four other charges including endangering the life of a child and failure to secure a child younger than 8 in a child-restraint system.

She was arrested February 12 while driving away from a fast-food restaurant in Wheaton, 20 miles west of Chicago. Three of her children were inside her 1996 Ford van when someone called police to report a suspected intoxicated driver, authorities have said.

Banaszewski didn't contest the automatic six-month suspension of her driver's license for refusing to take a breath test.

A DuPage County judge also sentenced her to 140 hours of public service and to attend counseling sessions, according to Paul Darrah, a spokesman for the DuPage County state's attorney's office.

Banaszewski's attorney, Donald Ramsell, said the plea agreement was fair to both sides.

Scalia, who began serving on the Supreme Court in 1986, has nine children.

Lindsay Lohan’s DUI Feature Story

Lindsay Lohan’s DUI Lindsay Lohan’s DUI 27-May-2007 Written by: Jackson Reeves Lindsay Lohan charged with DUI after police find cocaine in her crashed car. Lindsay Lohan, whose movie Georgia Rule premiered May 11, crashed her 2005 Mercedes SL-65 on a curb on Sunset Boulevard, in Beverly Hills, CA at 5:30 a.m. on May 26. Police investigators found what appeared to be cocaine at the scene of the accident. Lt. Mitch McCann stated that Lohan was not in immediate possession of the illegal drug, and that Lohan was released to hospital custody for treatment of minor injuries from the crash. However, police still charged Lohan with the misdemeanor of driving under the influence, since the crash seemed to have resulted from speeding, possibly caused by a cocaine-induced, hyperactive state. The 20-year-old actress and pop singer will need to appear in court to answer the DUI citation, as reported by the website X17 Inc. Earlier this year, Morgan Creek Productions CEO James G. Robinson admonished Lohan, in a now well-publicized memo, for “discourteous, irresponsible, and unprofessional” conduct – probably resulting from the same source as her DUI: her notorious partying lifestyle – during filming of Georgia Rule. Lohan admitted to dabbling with drugs after achieving star status with 2004’s Mean Girls, but she denied ever using cocaine, Vanity Fair reported in its January 2006 issue. The Catholic-raised Lohan cited her estranged father, Michael Lohan’s abuse of cocaine and resultant jail time as her prime reason for her anti-cocaine resolve. However, after exiting rehab for alcohol abuse in early May, Lohan returned to drinking, and grainy pictures surfaced soon-thereafter (and later…a movie version that currently circulates the web!), depicting Lohan snorting a line of cocaine off of a toilet in Teddy’s nightclub in L.A., reported the News of the World. On the day before her car accident, Lohan stated that she was growing more mature and that her notorious partying lifestyle, which aligned her with the likes of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, was just a character-type that she is dramaturgically trying on for size. She said, “I’m just a girl, but I’m growing up; I’m learning,” as support for her developing maturity and an insistence that she had changed, reported Hollywood.com. Unfortunately, Lohan makes no signs of slowing down in spite of her DUI, with regards at least to alcohol. She has already publicly proclaimed that she will spend her 21st birthday – the first time that she will legally be allowed to drink alcohol – drinking vodka at her Svedka sponsored bash on July 2, as reported by Us Weekly.

Missouri Chemical tests for alcohol content of b

Section 577-020 Missouri Chemical tests for DWI alcohol content of breath or blood

Missouri Revised Statutes

Chapter 577 Public Safety Offenses Section 577.020 August 28, 2006 Chemical tests for alcohol content of blood--consent implied, when --administered, when, how--information available to person tested, contents--videotaping of chemical or field sobriety test admissible evidence.

577.020. 1. Any person who operates a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state shall be deemed to have given consent to, subject to the provisions of sections 577.019 to 577.041, a chemical test or tests of the person's breath, blood, saliva or urine for the purpose of determining the alcohol or drug content of the person's blood pursuant to the following circumstances:

(1) If the person is arrested for any offense arising out of acts which the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe were committed while the person was driving a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated or drugged condition; or

(2) If the person is under the age of twenty-one, has been stopped by a law enforcement officer, and the law enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to believe that such person was driving a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content of two-hundredths of one percent or more by weight; or

(3) If the person is under the age of twenty-one, has been stopped by a law enforcement officer, and the law enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to believe that such person has committed a violation of the traffic laws of the state, or any political subdivision of the state, and such officer has reasonable grounds to believe, after making such stop, that such person has a blood alcohol content of two-hundredths of one percent or greater;

(4) If the person is under the age of twenty-one, has been stopped at a sobriety checkpoint or roadblock and the law enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to believe that such person has a blood alcohol content of two-hundredths of one percent or greater;

(5) If the person, while operating a motor vehicle, has been involved in a motor vehicle collision which resulted in a fatality or a readily apparent serious physical injury as defined in section 565.002, RSMo, or has been arrested as evidenced by the issuance of a uniform traffic ticket for the violation of any state law or county or municipal ordinance with the exception of equipment violations contained in chapter 306, RSMo, or similar provisions contained in county or municipal ordinances; or

(6) If the person, while operating a motor vehicle, has been involved in a motor vehicle collision which resulted in a fatality or serious physical injury as defined in section 565.002, RSMo.

The test shall be administered at the direction of the law enforcement officer whenever the person has been arrested or stopped for any reason.

2. The implied consent to submit to the chemical tests listed in subsection 1 of this section shall be limited to not more than two such tests arising from the same arrest, incident or charge.

3. Chemical analysis of the person's breath, blood, saliva, or urine to be considered valid pursuant to the provisions of sections 577.019 to 577.041 shall be performed according to methods approved by the state department of health and senior services by licensed medical personnel or by a person possessing a valid permit issued by the state department of health and senior services for this purpose.

4. The state department of health and senior services shall approve satisfactory techniques, devices, equipment, or methods to be considered valid pursuant to the provisions of sections 577.019 to 577.041 and shall establish standards to ascertain the qualifications and competence of individuals to conduct analyses and to issue permits which shall be subject to termination or revocation by the state department of health and senior services.

5. The person tested may have a physician, or a qualified technician, chemist, registered nurse, or other qualified person at the choosing and expense of the person to be tested, administer a test in addition to any administered at the direction of a law enforcement officer. The failure or inability to obtain an additional test by a person shall not preclude the admission of evidence relating to the test taken at the direction of a law enforcement officer.

6. Upon the request of the person who is tested, full information concerning the test shall be made available to such person. Full information is limited to the following:

(1) The type of test administered and the procedures followed;

(2) The time of the collection of the blood or breath sample or urine analyzed;

(3) The numerical results of the test indicating the alcohol content of the blood and breath and urine;

(4) The type and status of any permit which was held by the person who performed the test;

(5) If the test was administered by means of a breath-testing instrument, the date of performance of the most recent required maintenance of such instrument.

Full information does not include manuals, schematics, or software of the instrument used to test the person or any other material that is not in the actual possession of the state. Additionally, full information does not include information in the possession of the manufacturer of the test instrument.

7. Any person given a chemical test of the person's breath pursuant to subsection 1 of this section or a field sobriety test may be videotaped during any such test at the direction of the law enforcement officer. Any such video recording made during the chemical test pursuant to this subsection or a field sobriety test shall be admissible as evidence at either any trial of such person for either a violation of any state law or county or municipal ordinance, or any license revocation or suspension proceeding pursuant to the provisions of chapter 302, RSMo.

(L. 1977 S.B. 60, A.L. 1982 S.B. 513, A.L. 1983 S.B. 318 & 135, A.L. 1996 H.B. 1169 & 1271 merged with S.B. 722, A.L. 1998 S.B. 634, A.L. 2001 H.B. 144 & 46, A.L. 2006 S.B. 872, et al.)

(1985) The arrested person does not have a choice of which statutory test to take. If a choice were allowed, the person could avoid taking the test by choosing one which was unavailable. Kiso v. King (A.), 691 S.W.2d 374.

(1987) Department of Health rules on approved methods and techniques for chemical analysis of blood alcohol relate to evidence, are procedural and may be applied retrospectively. State v. Kummer, 741 S.W.2d 285 (Mo.App.E.D.).

Man busted while drunk driving in wheelchair | Oddly Enough | Reuters

Man busted while drunk driving in wheelchair Oddly Enough Reuters BERLIN (Reuters) - A wheelchair-bound German stunned police when they pulled him over for using the road and found he was 10 times over the legal alcohol limit for drivers. "He was right in the middle of the road," said a spokesman for police in the northeastern city of Schwerin Tuesday. "The officers couldn't quite believe it when they saw the results of the breath test. That's a life-threatening figure." The 31-year-old told police he had been out drinking with a friend and was a little over a mile from home when a squad car stopped him as he passed through the village of Ventschow. Police said that because the man was technically traveling as a pedestrian, he could not be charged with a driving offence. "It's not like we can impound his wheelchair," the spokesman said. "But he is facing some sort of punishment. It's just not clear yet what exactly that will be." Illinois DUI Attorney Donald Ramsell's comments: A Wheelchair is considered a vehicle in most of the United States.

Scalia's daughter denied bid for restricted license | Chicago Tribune

Scalia's daughter denied bid for restricted license Chicago Tribune Scalia's daughter denied bid for restricted licensePublished May 17, 2007 A DuPage County judge Wednesday denied the daughter of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia her request for a restricted driver's license.Ann Banaszewski, 45, a Wheaton mother of five, had her license automatically suspended on March 30 for six months when she refused to submit to a Breathalyzer test after being arrested in February on drunken driving charges. Her attorney, Top Illinois DUI Attorney Donald Ramsell, sought a restricted license to allow her to drive her children to school, arguing state law permits such licenses to allow people to drive to and from work during the suspension of their license."She is employed as a homemaker," said Ramsell. "No doubt, this is work, this is employment. This is not for her benefit, but for her children and husband."The request sought permission for her to drive her children from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and to AA meetings.DuPage Judge Daniel Guerin ruled the request improper under state law."This is certainly an interesting and progressive viewpoint," he said. "I certainly understand her household chores. But I am limited by the specific language of the state statutes."Ramsell and DuPage prosecutors were unsuccessful in reaching a negotiated settlement of the case before Guerin's ruling.The case has been continued until May 30.

No permit for Scalia's daughter :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Metro & Tri-State

No permit for Scalia's daughter :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Metro & Tri-State: "No permit for Scalia's daughter May 17, 2007 The daughter of a U.S. Supreme Court justice lost her bid Wednesday to obtain a temporary driving permit as she fights drunken-driving and child-endangerment charges filed against her in DuPage County. Ann Banaszewski, 45, of Wheaton had her license automatically suspended for six months because she refused to take a breath test after being stopped Feb. 12 by police while she was driving with three of her children in a minivan. Illinois DUI Defense attorney Donald Ramsell on Wednesday unsuccessfully sought a limited judicial driving permit for the daughter of Justice Antonin Scalia, contending she needed to drive her five children to school and other activities. "

Prosecutor fired after pot arrest - 05/17/2007 - MiamiHerald.com

Prosecutor fired after pot arrest - 05/17/2007 - MiamiHerald.com STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Prosecutor fired after pot arrest A Miami-Dade prosecutor was fired after being charged with buying marijuana from a street dealer in Coconut Grove. BY DAVID OVALLE dovalle@MiamiHerald.com function PopupPic(sPicURLx, sHeight, sWidth) { var sPicURL = "/460/v-morephotos/story/109355.html"; y=Math.floor((screen.availHeight-sHeight)/2); x=Math.floor((screen.width-sWidth)/2); window.open(sPicURL,"slideshow","width="+sWidth+",height="+sHeight+",top="+y+",left="+x+",scrollbars=auto,resizable=yes").focus(); } COURTESY OF MIAMI-DADE CORRECTIONS Utpal Dighe Blog Crime Scene Prosecutor Utpal Dighe was fired Wednesday, hours after police say he bought marijuana from a dealer in Coconut Grove. The Miami-Dade state attorney's office has asked the governor's office to appoint a special prosecutor to handle his case, which is routinely done to avoid any conflict of interest. Dighe was charged with one count of third-degree felony purchase of cannabis and one misdemeanor count of cannabis possession. ''As a prosecutor, one is sworn to uphold our criminal laws, not violate them. I cannot tolerate one of my prosecutors behaving as if their oath of office required no personal commitment to the law,'' State Attorney Katherine Fernández Rundle said in a statement. Dighe was booked into Miami-Dade County Jail Wednesday morning and has since posted $6,000 bond. He could not be reached for comment. According to a Miami police arrest report, Dighe pulled up in his black Acura to a dealer on Grand Avenue Tuesday night. Detective Willie B. Smith, of the Crime Suppression Team, says he spotted Dighe buying the drugs. His car was pulled over. According to the police report, he told an officer ``Please, just take it. Let me go. I can't go to jail. . . . I will lose my job.'' Dighe joined the state attorney's office in 2004. In November 2006, he was reprimanded after he approved an 18-month plea bargain for a career criminal accused of stealing a police officer's gun. Dighe offered the plea without consulting police or his supervisors, drawing the ire of the Police Benevolent Association, Miami-Dade's police union. Dighe is the third prosecutor to be arrested during the past 13 months. In March 2006, Ramon Sarmiento was arrested after an off-duty police officer working at the nightclub Space said he found seven Ecstasy pills in the man's pocket. He resigned from the state attorney's office; the charges were later dropped. In January, veteran prosecutor George Cholakis was arrested after police say he drove drunk and hit a scooter ridden by two people, seriously injuring them. He has pleaded not guilty and his trial is pending

Ohio needs to toughen DUI laws

Times Recorder - www.zanesvilletimesrecorder.com - Zanesville, OH Ohio needs to toughen DUI laws

Why do we continue to tolerate drunks who drive, crash and kill people?

Drunken driving is a huge problem in Ohio. For every 10 cars that drive past you, one is likely to be driven by someone convicted of driving under the influence.

ADVERTISEMENT

According to Department of Public Safety figures dating back to 1973, there are almost 36,000 drivers with five or more drunken-driving convictions in Ohio. There are 312 people in Muskingum County with five or more DUI convictions, including two with a staggering 16 convictions each.

Last year, 52.9 percent of the 528 people convicted in Muskingum County of operating a vehicle under the influence were repeat offenders. That's far above the state average of 41.2 percent for repeat offenders.

After a run of fatalities at the hands of repeat offenders, the General Assembly is belatedly taking action.

Last week, the Ohio Senate unanimously passed a bill requiring Ohioans with multiple drunken-driving convictions to take breath tests when stopped by police, and to wear bracelets to monitor alcohol levels through their sweat.

Blood-alcohol tests would be mandatory for anyone with two or more DUI convictions.

The measure moves to the House, which likely will consider a proposal that would require anyone convicted of drunken driving to install an ignition-locking device. The device won't allow the car to start if the driver has been drinking.

While they are at it, legislators should close the loophole that ties judges' hands when it comes to repeat offenders. A man in Cincinnati only got six months in jail for his eighth DUI in 30 years because of the time gaps between his convictions.

It's impossible to eliminate drunken driving entirely. But tougher laws and greater vigilance among us all can reduce the number of intoxicated drivers - and the deaths they inevitably cause.

Post a Commen

Breath Testers Considered For All DUI Convictions - Local News Story - KPHO Phoenix

Breath Testers Considered For All DUI Convictions - Local News Story - KPHO Phoenix

6abc.com: Not Your Typical DUI

6abc.com: Not Your Typical DUI