As proposed, the law would make it a Class B felony if a minor where killed in an accident while riding with an intoxicated driver. The punishment would be 5 to 25 years in prison. If the minor were injured instead of killed, then it would be a Class C felony with three and a half to 15 years in prison. If convicted of driving intoxicated with a minor where no injuries or death were caused, it would be a Class E felony with up to 4 years in prison. The proposed law also specifies that anyone charged with having a BAC higher than .08 while driving a passenger who is 16 or under, would lose their license pending prosecution. Conviction in this scenario would result in loss of license for a year. The loss of license penalty is increased to a year and a half if the driver had a prior DWI in the past 10 years.

In addition to these penalties, anyone convicted would also be categorized as a “serious offender” and would be required to have a ignition interlock for one year. This makes the car inoperable unless the driver demonstrates his sobriety by blowing into the device prior to starting the car. This proposed law would make this mandatory instead of at the court’s discretion.

You can read the Governor’s press release here.

Under the new refusal law, the state will double the penalty for a  first offense from 180 days to a year and for a second offense from 18 months to two years. The new driving while suspended law creates two categories of offense. The first of these is for DWIs and requires a minimum 15 day jail sentence with a maximum of six months. The second class is for anyone suspended for any accidents resulting in death. These will require a 60 day jail sentence with a maximum of six months.

The third law just limits how much discovery a defense attorney can demand prior to a hearing. It is designed to make the process quicker for the legal system. This is the change that I think is most heinous. It is just another way of taking away your right to an adequate defense and a move to convict people without proper constitutional protection.

This law gives too much power to police with no judicial oversight. It will also put a huge burden on testing labs in the states. It is possible that they may be overwhelmed by requests since there will be no checks and balances to the police officer’s authority on the matter.

This is another example of laws being enacted across the country that are designed to reduce drinking and driving, but try to accomplish this in an almost  totalitarian way. This law skirts the foundations of the legal system in this country. It is time to stop the abuse of power that Mothers Against Drunk Driving is pushing. Write your local officials and tell them where you stand.

Senate Bill 177 applies to first time offenders with a BAC reading of .15 or higher. The new penalties increase the period of license revocation to six months from three. It also increases the imposition of ignition interlock devices and limits drivers with ignition interlock devices to driving for work, school, alcohol treatment or service appointments for the device. The complete text of the bill can be read here. 

Since the penalties imposed by House Bill 152 are onerous, it will surely increase the need for and cost of good defense attorneys.

This practice should be ruled unconstitutional since it only applies to certain drivers and enforces a BAC level that is 75% lower than the legal limit. In effect, it creates a set of laws for one class of people that is different and more onerous than for another class of people. In my opinion it violates the equal protection clause of the constitution.

Their is a cost involved with installing the device, removing the device, servicing it and a monthly service fee that runs $75 to $125 a month. These fees, not surprisingly, are paid by the driver and not the state. Register your displeasure with the law by calling your representatives in Missouri and asking them to show you how this law will save lives or reform repeat offenders without providing them with any rehabilitation.

It is this web site’s position that the proposed law is not needed and could cause harm to the people of Ohio. Fortunately, the Ohio Emergency Medical Services Board “has determined that an EMT does not appear to be a ‘qualified technician’ for the purpose of withdrawing blood pursuant to a law enforcement matter.” You can read their determination here: Withdrawing Blood for OVI Evidence Collection.

The aforementioned states join New Mexico, Arizona, and Louisiana, which already have similar laws. South Carolina has passed the same law, but only for repeat offenders. Other states have the option of imposing the device in lieu of loss of registration privileges.

The costs involved with these devices are quite high. There is an installation charge, a monthly lease payment, and a monthly surcharge to the state. I see it as another revenue generator for a few companies and extremely greedy governments.

It is time to outlaw drinking altogether or to reform DWI laws and punishments so that they make sense and are effective in preventing accidents and deaths. Toyota is engineering a steering wheel that can detect blood alcohol content from the perspiration of your hands. Maybe this should be standard on all vehicles. What do you think?

If you are convicted of any serious offense other than a serious drug offense, a sex offense, or DWI, you can apply for a work release program. In this program, you can work during the day and report to the jail each night. The geniuses behind this rule obviously equate someone who goes out and has a few legal drinks with friends, and has the lack of common sense to drive, with a pervert who rapes a child or with a drug dealer. Does that make any sense to you? It is time for DWI reform in New Jersey.

Despite the fact that you can spend a half year in jail, New Jersey does not categorize DWI as a crime. If the state called it a crime, it would be required to provide jury trials and plea bargaining with the prosecution. Since this is the case, judges side with the prosecution and jail otherwise law abiding individuals for six long months. The disruption of family life and professional life has no bearing on these onerous results. In fact, most judges could care less about any extenuating circumstances.

New Jersey has a provision in its code that allows a judge to allow a convicted third offender to request 90 days in rehab following the 90 days in jail. How generous is that? Not very. You are sentenced for committing a potential crime, since DWI itself is not a crime. The potential crime is that the driver could hurt others in an accident. Since when does any legal code call for jailing people for the potential of hurting someone?

Jailing people for the potential of hurting others could result in restaurant owners being jailed for serving liquor or bad food. It could result in houseware store owners being jailed for selling steak knives and gun shop owners would simply change their zip code to the nearest jail.

It is time to reform the legal code surrounding DWI in New Jersey. DWI defendants must have the same rights as other defendants. They must have their constitutional right to a trial with a jury of their peers enforced, and they should be punished according to the gravity of their delinquency. It is manifestly unjust to jail someone for six months for having two drinks.