Google sponsored links


pj7
 
It has been brought up here many times, people behind the wheel of an automobile with suspended, revoked, or non-existant operator permits. Ever wonder the driving history of the person in the automobile the next lane over?
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/352292,CST-NWS-whydrive22a.article

[quote=The Story]
Why are they still driving?
April 22, 2007
BY SHAMUS TOOMEY Staff Reporter

Nery E. Morales knew he was catching a break. With two DUI arrests last year and a suspended driver's license, the Northwest Side man faced jail time after getting pulled over by the Illinois State Police for doing 90 mph on the Northwest Tollway near Rolling Meadows in November, records show.

But in exchange for pleading guilty to driving on a suspended license, Morales, 24, avoided being sent to jail.

"I understand the seriousness," Morales told Judge Pamela Karahalios on March 16. "I'm getting some slack, and I'm thankful I'm getting a second chance."

Then he walked out of the Cook County branch courthouse in Rolling Meadows, got into a white Mitsubishi and drove away -- even though his driver's license is suspended until 2013.

A man who twice answered "This is Nery" on a phone listed to Morales told a reporter asking about the courthouse drive-off that it was a wrong number.

A Chicago Sun-Times reporter and photographer saw Morales drive away from the courthouse. The newspaper is watching local courthouses for drivers with invalid licenses thumbing their noses at judges -- often despite warnings not to drive.

They're not hard to find.

Around the area, people with suspended driver's licenses -- or no license at all -- routinely drive to and from court. Some, like Morales, do it after pleading guilty to the same law they're breaking.

Five years ago, the Illinois Legislature passed a law to crack down on this illegal practice. The measure was prompted by a series of reports in the Chicago Sun-Times dubbed "Why Are They Driving?"

The law lets police seize a driver's car and sell it the first time the person is convicted of driving on a suspended license, as long as the suspension was based on a serious offense, such as DUI. The old law required four convictions.

Since the change, thousands of cars have been seized. In DuPage County alone, 2,206 cars have been taken since 2003, most from people caught driving on invalid licenses, DuPage County State's Attorney Joe Birkett said.

In Cook County, about 270 cars a year are seized, the "overwhelming majority" from people caught driving on suspended licenses, Cook County state's attorney spokesman John Gorman said.

In Kane County, 143 cars have been seized since last summer, when the county ramped up its efforts, officials said.

The law allowing the cars to be seized appears to be succeeding in one respect -- the overall number of statewide convictions for driving on suspended and revoked licenses has dropped 10 percent since 2003, records show.

Still, the Illinois secretary of state's office processed nearly 75,000 convictions last year alone. And in Cook County, violations for driving on a suspended or revoked license have steadily increased in each of the last five years.

A Sun-Times spot check last month caught drivers continuing to break the law.

ACCUSED OF DUI -- AND LYING TO LAWYER?
Shahid Munir's driver's license was suspended, and he knew it, his lawyer said.
The 37-year-old North Side man was charged with driving drunk in Franklin Park in December, records show. His blood alcohol was measured at .213, far above the .08 limit to drive in Illinois, according to the ticket he was issued.

The self-employed man appeared before Judge Paula M. Daleo at the Cook County branch courthouse in Maywood on March 22 to contest the DUI. She ruled against him at the hearing, and Munir, after conferring with his lawyer, Andy Sotiropoulos, walked out of the courthouse.

After looking over his shoulder a few times, he got into the same Lexus in which he was pulled over for DUI and drove away.

Sotiropoulos said Munir "knew full well he wasn't supposed to drive," and Munir had told his lawyer that day he was getting a ride from the courthouse.

"I drove by him in my car. I saw him waiting outside," Sotiropoulos said. "He told me he was waiting for a ride. . . . I always tell my clients they're not supposed to drive. I hammer that home."

Munir wouldn't comment for this story.

STERN WARNINGS LAND ON DEAF EARS
On March 14, Fidel Martinez of Wood Dale went to the Maywood courthouse after being pulled over for driving without a license in La Grange Park on Feb. 9, records show.
Speaking through an interpreter, the Spanish-speaking Martinez told Judge Paula M. Daleo he still didn't have a license. He pleaded guilty and was fined $130.

"I'm warning you sir, if you're caught driving without a license again, the state will treat it as a misdemeanor and you'll be facing jail time," the judge told him.

But Martinez, 23, walked out of the courthouse, past the bus stop and to a black Jeep Cherokee. He promptly pulled out, went the wrong way on a one-way street and drove away. He could not be reached for comment.

On March 22 at the same courthouse, Beatriz Garcia, 19, of Cicero, pleaded guilty to driving without a license. It was her first offense, so she was given six months of court supervision, $150 in fines and a stern warning.

"If you come back before me charged with this again, you're not getting supervision," Judge William Wise told her. "Word to the wise. You understand me?"

She indicated she did, only to leave the courthouse, beep open the doors of a red Pontiac with a remote and drive off. She couldn't be reached for comment later.

JUDGES TRY HARD TO DRIVE POINT HOME
Some judges make a point to warn defendants to stay away from the driver's seat. Judge William Wise routinely warned defendants in Maywood not to drive.
Others took it a step further. Judge James A. Zafiratos, also in Maywood, asked some defendants directly how they got to court. When one man told the judge he took the bus, Zafiratos made him produce a bus pass.

When another man told the judge a friend drove him to court, Zafiratos made the man give up the name and phone number of the friend, and had a sheriff's deputy call to check it out. (He was telling the truth.)

Not every suspended driver flouts the law. The Sun-Times watched many suspended drivers wait for a bus, get a ride from a spouse or friend or even walk home from the courthouse.

Others, however, show up alone -- and drive off alone.

NO EXPLANATION FOR 'YES, SIR'
Latisha C. Fisher, 31, of Bolingbrook had her license suspended in 2003 after racking up too many moving violations, according to the secretary of state's office.
She kept driving, though, and got into an accident last September, records show. On March 21, she pleaded guilty in Maywood to driving on a suspended license.

"Ma'am you understand you cannot drive," Judge James A. Zafiratos said to her.

"Yes, sir," she replied, looking straight at him.

But after signing up for community service, Fisher got into a black car in the courthouse parking lot and drove away.

When reached later, she wouldn't say why she was still driving.

"I don't want to explain," Fisher said. "I don't feel I need to explain."

Illegal drivers in 20% of fatal wrecks
Accidents involving drivers without valid licenses continue to be a problem in the country. Nearly 20 percent of all fatal crashes in the country involve a driver without a valid license, a 2003 study found.
In that nationwide study for the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, researchers from the Data Nexus firm analyzed 256,345 fatal crashes involving 287,655 deaths over seven years.

More than 50,000 of the crashes involved a driver who wasn't properly licensed. Those crashes resulted in 57,504 deaths.

The Cook County Sheriff's Department has conducted 189 courthouse stings in the last five years to catch motorists driving away from courthouses, including two stings last month. More than 1,000 drivers have been snared, spokeswoman Penny Mateck said.

DuPage County also does stings, and has been on the forefront of seizing cars ever since Joe Birkett, the DuPage state's attorney, helped get the state's original seizure law passed in an effort to crack down on repeat drunken drivers.

"This is working," Birkett said of the seizures. "The rate of recidivism of these guys is low. There's only been a few repeat offenders from the guys we took cars from. ... The cops love this. So do police chiefs."

Cars seized under the statute tend to wind up in the hands of police departments, which can sell them, use them for education or find other uses.

If there's a lien on the car because of a car loan, the car goes to the lien holder.

A judge can also return the car to a spouse if there's a hardship, or to an innocent owner if they didn't know they were letting a suspended driver use it.

In Kane County last fall, a Batavia woman admitted she let Randall J. Visor use her 1998 Chevy Malibu despite knowing his license was invalid, officials said.

Visor's license had been permanently revoked after he was convicted of reckless homicide and DUI in a 1997 crash that killed four young women, three from Waubonsie Valley High School.

When Batavia police caught Visor driving the woman's Chevy last year, they seized it. They now plan to sell it and use the proceeds for drug education and enforcement.

Not all cars of people caught driving on suspended licenses are eligible for seizure. For those cars, there's a new $500 fine in Cook County that must be paid before a driver can recover the car. Sheriff Tom Dart calls it "our newest enforcement tool." Even after coughing up the cash, the driver still faces towing charges, storage fees and court fines.

Yet drivers with bad licenses keep on driving.

"It's outrageous," Birkett said.


The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.

Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
- http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in this thread)
- http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in this thread)

Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
- http://www.bikeforums.net

huge
 
This is a huge problem with no good solution.

Short of having a car scan the code of your license which is implanted under your skin in an rfid chip befor starting, of course.


deputyjones
 
#1 answer when I ask them why they were driving:

"Well, how the hell else am I gonna get to work?" :(


San Rensho
 
Problem no.1 in all these cases is the same, alcoholism. The second problem is that we live in a society that almost requires everyone to have a car, there is essentially no alternative to the car.

For any given individual, solve one or two above and you will solve the problem of repeat drunk drivers.

I'm willing to bet there are many chronic alcoholics in Manhattan that never get a DUI because they don't own and never have to drive a car.


bike2math
 
The one question I come away with: why are the judges still being forgiving? Have they not learned their lesson? Stop giving people second, third, ..., thirtieth chances and very quickly you will see people stop driving. Start crushing their cars into cubes, even if it's a friends car. Start fining the people who own the cars they are driving.

Given the choice between 12 months in jail or biking/busing, I'm guessing most sane people would choose the biking/busing.
The problem is that they are all to aware that a moderately skilled lawyer and small fine will keep them out of jail. That's the only thing we need to fix. But just in case that doesn't work let's alienate those who drive while suspended from the people who let them borrow their cars by punishing the enablers as well.


slowandsteady
 
Since all 50 states now have the magnetic strip on the driver's licenses, why don't they just make a device that requires everyone to swipe their DL before they can start the car? Even if your friend swipes their DL and you are the one driving you have an audit trail of who was an accessory to the illegal driver.


John E
 
Unfortunately, we live in an automobile-dominated society which lacks the political will do something, other than mandating airbags and strong doorbeams, about our shamefully high rate of highway carnage. There are plenty of alternatives to owning and driving a car, but people have to think outside the box and realize that this could entail taking up bicycling or even moving close to work and shopping.

Car-crushing has actually been tried with the street racers. Given their financial and emotional attachment to their vehicles, I suspect it may be effective, unless they decide to "get back" at a society for depriving them of their "right" to drive at twice the speed limit.


Zeuser
 
The bigger question is: "WHY AREN'T THESE PEOPLE IN JAIL?"

Repeated DUI? Come-on. Send the little prick to jail.


slowandsteady
 
The bigger question is: "WHY AREN'T THESE PEOPLE IN JAIL?"

Repeated DUI? Come-on. Send the little prick to jail.


Unfortunately the jails are full of rapists and murderers. There is nowhere to put them.


Zeuser
 
Lock them up in the Whitehouse basement. I'm sure that after a while the powers that be will do something about it.

Doing a reverse "not in my back-yard" often wakes people up! ;)


slowandsteady
 
Lock them up in the Whitehouse basement. I'm sure that after a while the powers that be will do something about it.

Doing a reverse "not in my back-yard" often wakes people up! ;)


Well the Whitehouse does seem like the appropriate place to house people with no respect for the law or how their actions affect the lives of others. ;)


Falkon
 
Unfortunately the jails are full of rapists and murderers. There is nowhere to put them.

why don't they just stick them where they put the minor drug offenders and the like?


slowandsteady
 
why don't they just stick them where they put the minor drug offenders and the like?


Because it is full of minor drug offenders.... :) The reality is that there isn't room, but this is a stupid reason to let dangerous people onto the streets. We need to build more prisons....but where to put them?


San Rensho
 
The bigger question is: "WHY AREN'T THESE PEOPLE IN JAIL?"

Repeated DUI? Come-on. Send the little prick to jail.


They are. Jails are full of repeat DUI offenders, many serving sentences much longer than someone would for bashing in their wife's face. And if they injure someone, forget it. In Florida, multiple years in state prison for DUI injury. For every highly publicised instance that you see someone "get away with it", there are hundreds doing serious state time for repeat DUIs.

But jail for multiple DUIs is like putting drug users away, punishing them is not going to get someone who is addicted to a substance to stop using. You have to address the alcoholism and simultaneously keep them away from cars.

The heads are already on the pikes, asking for more heads will not solve the problem.


slowandsteady
 
Although that is true.....it is a lot easier to just build more prisons. :(

Though, as they say in AA, you either need to hit rock bottom or have the bottom raised up for you. A decent jail sentence just might raise the bottom for some people.


deputyjones
 
They are. Jails are full of repeat DUI offenders, many serving sentences much longer than someone would for bashing in their wife's face. And if they injure someone, forget it. In Florida, multiple years in state prison for DUI injury. For every highly publicised instance that you see someone "get away with it", there are hundreds doing serious state time for repeat DUIs.

But jail for multiple DUIs is like putting drug users away, punishing them is not going to get someone who is addicted to a substance to stop using. You have to address the alcoholism and simultaneously keep them away from cars.

The heads are already on the pikes, asking for more heads will not solve the problem.

I definitely understand that SR because I see it everyday, but what do you do with the people who refuse to get or comply with court ordered treatment and continue to be a danger on the roads?

I am not necessarily advocating that we put them all in jail as this puts more of a burden on the taxpayer that they don't need, but what is the solution then? Personally, I would like to see forfeiture of the vehicle be the remedy, and it does not matter whose vehicle it is. People would not let their alcoholic friends/children/family members borrow their vehicles if they had any reason to believe their vehicle would be seized.


San Rensho
 
I definitely understand that SR because I see it everyday, but what do you do with the people who refuse to get or comply with court ordered treatment and continue to be a danger on the roads?

I am not necessarily advocating that we put them all in jail as this puts more of a burden on the taxpayer that they don't need, but what is the solution then? Personally, I would like to see forfeiture of the vehicle be the remedy, and it does not matter whose vehicle it is. People would not let their alcoholic friends/children/family members borrow their vehicles if they had any reason to believe their vehicle would be seized.

Lets be clear, I'm not saying that they shouldn't go to jail, they should, because obviuosly the first step is to get them off the streets.

But in addition to jail, to keep them from driving DUI, there also have to be programs to keep them from drinking or providing alternate means of transportation. As I said previously, there are many alcoholics in cities like Manhattan, where essentially few people drive cars, that don't drive while drunk because there is alternative transportation.


pj7
 
Isn't it illegal to loan someone a *thing* if you know that they are going to use it in the commitance of a crime?
Seems to me that we already have the laws/rules in place to take care of this situation.


genec
 
The interesting thing to me is that the Judges continue to just slap wrists and essentially let these offenders continue in their crimes.

Seems to me that after a harsh penalty, the court should assign someone to walk them down to public transit... see that they get on a bus and then tow any cars left behind.

If reporters can watch the folks walk down to a car and drive away, why can't police do that too? And then sieze the car.

As others have mentioned, the laws are in place... it is the enforcement that is lacking.

Yeah I know I am being simplistic in my view... but sometimes a simple answer is all you need.


anonymous-julie
 
I was (sadly) unsurprised by the article. In Ohio, DUI offenders have to change to a fluorescent yellow license plate. Can't force anybody to change plates, but I like the shame factor a lot.

Edited to add: if the Sun-Times can figure out who's driving away, it should be easy enough to justify a couple more police salaries in doing the same thing.


genec
 
I was (sadly) unsurprised by the article. In Ohio, DUI offenders have to change to a fluorescent yellow license plate. Can't force anybody to change plates, but I like the shame factor a lot.

Edited to add: if the Sun-Times can figure out who's driving away, it should be easy enough to justify a couple more police salaries in doing the same thing.

Exactamoondo!


Raiyn
 
Since all 50 states now have the magnetic strip on the driver's licenses,
Mine doesn't.....anymore :D
http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/7646/backoflichl8.jpg


Feldman
 
Here's my solution: Every police department has a few sickos, you know, officers who's jones is creating pain in people they have cause to stop. Create DUI reeducation units in every PD, staff it with officers who've racked up a string of excessive force complaints, and tell them that they can have chronic drunk drivers as a sort of unlimited sporting target--do whatever they want to these vermin, just don't leave a mess behind that can be found. The companion idea has to do with community service for convicted car thieves. Give career car boosters a list of cars that have to be off the street--yesterday. Arrange for either hauling and wrecking yard crushing, or chop-shop dismantling. Sic the car thieves on the vehicles so that even if the drunk drivers recover from their reeducation, they won't have wheels.


sbhikes
 
Why don't they just sentence them to riding their bikes to work. Or make them ride their bikes to AA meetings.


Dchiefransom
 
Why don't they just sentence them to riding their bikes to work. Or make them ride their bikes to AA meetings.

For many people, getting to work by bicycle or public transportation is not feasible. Getting them to obey the law might be easier, if we institute a county jail that runs like the Maricopa, AZ county jail. People don't like going back there.

I keep hearing the thought that we should make people move closer to work, but is fining someone hundreds of thousands of dollars really an appropriate punishment?


Bekologist
 
the courts seize property- cars, houses, everything- from drug dealers all the time, why not simply seize cars of repeat DUI offenders?


donnamb
 
I am not necessarily advocating that we put them all in jail as this puts more of a burden on the taxpayer that they don't need, but what is the solution then? Personally, I would like to see forfeiture of the vehicle be the remedy, and it does not matter whose vehicle it is. People would not let their alcoholic friends/children/family members borrow their vehicles if they had any reason to believe their vehicle would be seized.
+100. I seem to recall during one school year the nuns in Catholic school taking away contraband from students and not giving it back at the end of the year. It was remarkably effective.


pj7
 
For many people, getting to work by bicycle or public transportation is not feasible. Getting them to obey the law might be easier, if we institute a county jail that runs like the Maricopa, AZ county jail. People don't like going back there.

I keep hearing the thought that we should make people move closer to work, but is fining someone hundreds of thousands of dollars really an appropriate punishment?

Exactly! I live in the detroit suburbs where alot of people who live here drive to Detroit to work. Forcing them to move to the city of Detroit goes above and beyond cruel and unusual punishment :D


deputyjones
 
Lets be clear, I'm not saying that they shouldn't go to jail, they should, because obviuosly the first step is to get them off the streets.

But in addition to jail, to keep them from driving DUI, there also have to be programs to keep them from drinking or providing alternate means of transportation. As I said previously, there are many alcoholics in cities like Manhattan, where essentially few people drive cars, that don't drive while drunk because there is alternative transportation.

I understand and agree to a certain extent, but am actually arguing to NOT put them in jail because jail is really little deterrent to an addicted person. They typically fail to see beyond their next drink or fix.

Total agreement from me on the idea of that in areas where cars are not viewed as a necessity this is not as much of a problem, but that perception (be it true or not) is the reality to that person. If we take away their car/cars and force them to try and find another way it might help to alter that perception.

TO pj7: You are correct that these laws exist, but it is extremely difficult to prove. You have to basically get that person to admit that they not only knowing allowed the person to drive their vehicle, but that they also knew at that time that the person was drunk or without a license. I have done it a number of times before, but in most cases people are too smart.


slowandsteady
 
Mine doesn't.....anymore :D
http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/7646/backoflichl8.jpg


Guilty conscience?


San Rensho
 
Here's my solution: Every police department has a few sickos, you know, officers who's jones is creating pain in people they have cause to stop. Create DUI reeducation units in every PD, staff it with officers who've racked up a string of excessive force complaints, and tell them that they can have chronic drunk drivers as a sort of unlimited sporting target--do whatever they want to these vermin, just don't leave a mess behind that can be found. The companion idea has to do with community service for convicted car thieves. Give career car boosters a list of cars that have to be off the street--yesterday. Arrange for either hauling and wrecking yard crushing, or chop-shop dismantling. Sic the car thieves on the vehicles so that even if the drunk drivers recover from their reeducation, they won't have wheels.

You are unbelievable. Put down the remote and stop watching The Shield, this is the real world.

Don't stop with sending thugs after accused DUI drivers. We could just hang draw and quarter them. Much easier, and we shouldn't even have to worry about convicting anyone, as long as a cop stops them for DUI, they must be guilty, right?


Mr. Underbridge
 
Because it is full of minor drug offenders.... :) The reality is that there isn't room, but this is a stupid reason to let dangerous people onto the streets. We need to build more prisons....but where to put them?

I think the solution of seizing and selling the cars is perfect. Cops have incentive to enforce because it would pay their salaries. Legal drivers might get less harassment from cops in the form of speed traps from ridiculously low speed limits (my office is located on a divided 4 lane road with a 25 MPH speed limit used for police department fundraising). Everybody gets the benefit of fewer outrageously dangerous drivers on the road.

This is where a little local activism would be well spent.


deputyjones
 
You are unbelievable. Put down the remote and stop watching The Shield, this is the real world.

Don't stop with sending thugs after accused DUI drivers. We could just hang draw and quarter them. Much easier, and we shouldn't even have to worry about convicting anyone, as long as a cop stops them for DUI, they must be guilty, right?
I agree with your assessment here SR, but speaking of procedure it would be helpful to make it easier to complete and hold up a drunk driving arrest. The cottage industry of lawyers who defend drunk driving arrests and their friends in the legislature have made a simple drunk driving arrest a 3 hour long affair for the Officer. So even when we put out 8 or 10 hours of overtime for guys to focus on drunk driving the most anyone can do is 2 MAYBE 3 arrests.

Make Preliminary Breath Tests (field tests) admissible in court and have a requirement for any driver to submit to one at anytime and 3 hours just went to 1/2 an hour.


slowandsteady
 
I agree with your assessment here SR, but speaking of procedure it would be helpful to make it easier to complete and hold up a drunk driving arrest. The cottage industry of lawyers who defend drunk driving arrests and their friends in the legislature have made a simple drunk driving arrest a 3 hour long affair for the Officer. So even when we put out 8 or 10 hours of overtime for guys to focus on drunk driving the most anyone can do is 2 MAYBE 3 arrests.

Make Preliminary Breath Tests (field tests) admissible in court and have a requirement for any driver to submit to one at anytime and 3 hours just went to 1/2 an hour.


So why aren't the field tests admissible?


Feldman
 
I don't know what "The Shield" is and in any case hardly watch TV! After 40 years of cycling and hearing of a (non-cycling, killed while driving her own car sober) family friend murdered by a repeat DUI, I have achieved a sad state of wisdom--I no longer believe in treating these vermin as human beings. Final solution, baby, final freakin' solution!


Dchiefransom
 
So why aren't the field tests admissible?

I read an article on a lawyer's website once, where at the beginning of a shift, the Seargent was instructing officers on the use of the Breathalyzer. He blew into it and it registered him as drunk. It was reset for others, and they all blew drunk. A lab tech was brought in and he calibrated it, and they blew drunk again. As far as I know, the blood test at a certified lab is hard to question.


Warden11
 
Fact: In the U.S. where public transportation generally stinks, people need to have some kind of transportation.

Suspended licenses are what our government believes is the best way to stop drinking and driving. I wonder why they don't use ignition locks (breathalyzers in the car)more often? This will allow the offender to continue to get to work and insure they are driving WITHOUT any alcohol in their system. Issue a restricted license so they will only be allowed to drive to work.

Too simple for our government?


deputyjones
 
I read an article on a lawyer's website once...
That's where you went wrong ;)

Seriously, we actually use a breath test for the evidential test, but the field test is somehow considered less accurate although that is not my experience, when used appropriately. The fact is that by making drunk driving arrests more technically challenging the defense attorneys have more angles of attack against it (Officers basically have to prove their case twice), thus having an increased number of victories (ill gotten) and more clients by being able to say "look how many cases we have won". It is purely financial interest.

Unfortunate, but true. They make grandiose claims about fighting for the rights of people, but really are fighting for their bottom line, nothing less. I am all about fighting for peoples rights, making sure only guilty people get charged and having someone standing over me any time to make sure I didn't screw something up, but this is purely financial. As evidence of this almost all Officers I know, including my union as an organization, are actually IN FAVOR of in-dash video cameras. Video of the average Officer doing his/her job will vindicate that Officer rather than implicate them 99.9999999999% of the time.


pj7
 
I love watching clips from those in dash cameras. My favorites are when the cop asks the guy to do all that chicken dance stuff to see if they are sober and the guy says flat out "I couldn't do this even if I was sober". That's classic! almost as funny as stories link the following link:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/13093845/detail.html


slowandsteady
 
I read an article on a lawyer's website once, where at the beginning of a shift, the Seargent was instructing officers on the use of the Breathalyzer. He blew into it and it registered him as drunk. It was reset for others, and they all blew drunk. A lab tech was brought in and he calibrated it, and they blew drunk again. As far as I know, the blood test at a certified lab is hard to question.


I used to work in a hospital as a breathalyzer technician and it is very easy to register as drunk on one of these machines. There are certain rules that must be adherred to such as....

You cannot burb for 15 minutes leading up to the test.
You cannot have anything to eat or drink or gargled with mouthwash for 15 minutes prior to the test.
(A swig of mouthwash before the test will register you as drunk every single time.)

If the cop in the field does not ensure these rules are adhered to, I would think the results would be inadmissible.


Dchiefransom
 
I love watching clips from those in dash cameras. My favorites are when the cop asks the guy to do all that chicken dance stuff to see if they are sober and the guy says flat out "I couldn't do this even if I was sober". That's classic! almost as funny as stories link the following link:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/13093845/detail.html

I haven't had a drink in months, and I couldn't pass the tests I see them give on "Cops".


deputyjones
 
I haven't had a drink in months, and I couldn't pass the tests I see them give on "Cops".

If the PBT was admissible those tests would be unnecessary. Just to confirm that a person is NOT drunk, but maybe had one beer an hour and a half ago that I can still smell on their breath I have to spend 20-30 minutes giving them tests before I can release them. The whole thing is rather silly.


trackhub
 
People driving with a suspended / revoked license is a serious problem all over the country. In MA, operating without a license is punished by a fine of 100 dollars. That's it. It could be the first offense, or the 50th, the fine is still a hundred bucks. No jail time, or any other punishment.

State representative Jeff Perry (R-Barnstable) has filed a bill which would change this. This bill would keep the first offense at a hundred bucks, but after that, the fine would go up dramatically. I don't have the bill number, but I believe that starting on the third offense, judges would be given discretion in handing down jail time, and impounding vehicles.

Rep Perry was talking about this on a talk radio show one afternoon. He is a former police officer, and he said that one week, he stopped the same driver eight times for driving without a license. He further explained that district court judges are just as frustrated as police officers, in seeing the same offenders again, and again.

I hope this bill passes the legislature and gets signed into law.


Previous - Top - Next