Like Slim Pickens said in Blazing Saddles:
"Ditto!"

You guys say that like there's something wrong with civil litigation.

Make it a Class B misdemeanor to fail to provide a sample of breath or blood. Repeal the ALR statutes and regulations and save a lot of money and paperwork. Mandatory rules of community supervision for this new crime could include community service hours at a trauma center, not driving on off-work hours, etc.

Amen brother.
Aditionally, no drunk gets behind the wheel and considers the 3 years worth of fees as well as the potential license suspension before making the decision to drive. If DWI is as big a problem as we are told,(and I'm not disputing that it is)then why not make the first one a felony? or at least the second one? and why allow a defendant who has 1 or more felony DWIs to go 10 years without getting caught and then start over at a class B? The whole DWI sentencing scheme is a mess and sends conflicting messages throughout.Couple that with the DWLS statute(s) and you really can get confused in a hurry. My suggestion is to treat DWI like family violence cases, allow a deferred on the first case as a class A, and allow the deferred to be enhanced to a felony for the second offense regardless of the time lapse between the two. Add to that the class A for refusing to blow and make that enhancable as well and remove all these other peripheral stumbling blocks. I suspect that DWI pleas in my jusidiction will fall and trials increase simply because very few of the defendants who are mainly lower to lower-middle income folks will be able to pay these new fees. Sorry to rant, but it seems that each time there is a change, it does nothing to help us get to the root of the problem.

As an officer I read those warnings to hundreds of intoxicated drivers and now have heard it read almost as many times as a prosecutor. I can attest to the fact that the glassy, confused look in their eyes is not always from the intoxicant, but is sometimes caused by the reading of the DIC forms.

But, it is certain they all understand the word "jail". Don't blow or bleed, you'll be charged with that and face more jail time. Its simply the K.I.S.S. method.

I'm all for giving ALR the Boot!

[This message was edited by raythomas on 07-10-03 at .]

I'm with John....let's can ALR and go with making it a criminal offense to refuse to provide a breath sample. For a felony DWI I think state jail time would be enough. The "warnings" then become simple: blow or it's a crime. Adding layer upon layer of penalties and hearings seems to me to be nothing but legislation ensuring full employment for DWI defense lawyers, not to mention reams of paperwork for law enforcement and parallel bureaucracies. I also like the idea of a first time class A deferred and then off to felony land no matter how long the lapse in time between number one and number two.

[This message was edited by BLeonard on 07-10-03 at .]

Here is more evidence it ain't working:

Statesman article

This is probably heresy (not the 802 kind), but I'd be interested to hear from the defense bar about this, too. And I don't mean the "sky is falling, overreaching bully prosecutors" defense bar, but in terms of what practical effect on their practice? Would it dent their good repeat customer income?

From the defense side:

The "administrative fee" BS will certainly increase the number of trials. I can't speak for other lawyers, but generally I'll try a DWI case when I have a 40% or greater chance of winning. Why go below 50%?: Although I think I'll "probably" lose the "40% chance of winning" case, it is within a zone of reasonableness where an acquittal is at least plausible. Juries can be crazy and it is a risk-benefit analysis.

Now the question will be: Do I drop the floor to 30%? That is, when a client is faced with a $3000 administrative fee whether he pleas or whether he is convicted by the jury, is it worth the proverbial rolling of the dice even when the chance of winning is 3 out of 10? Probably.

Plus there's the intangible attitude of: "If DPS is going to screw us around with fees, then we're darn sure gonna make the State work for it."

One other thought: You misdemeanor prosecutors who will deal with pro se defendants, it would seem to me that you have a moral and ethical obligation to tell those poor saps what DPS will do to them if they take a DWI probation (or 10 day in jail on the jail run cases).

I hate it when you're right like that.

But, Barry, you did not answer the question of whether the defense bar would favor repeal of the ALR, occupational license stuff. Interestingly, I noted TCDLA was in favor of the bills that would have mandated early release from probation and automatic expungement of criminal records (two areas in which the defense bar has a vested interest in attorney's fees).

Repeal ALR? That's really a tough call. Our benefit: Getting a mini deposition which can really come in handy sometimes. The down side (beside getting our morale kicked in the crotch from losing 90% of the time): It's really a pain to handle the hearing and occupational licenses.

I'd vote to get rid of it BUT I'm not willing to create a new criminal offense of BTR to get it. Just seems too harsh of an alternative.

Man, the legislature beats up on the DWI defendant more than any other.

But, surely you would agree that analysis of a breath sample is better evidence of the defendant's guilt or innocence than having to rely on the things now used. Of course, we all realize that the vast majority of those who currently refuse to provide a sample would show to have a "bad" alcohol concentration and that would be bad for business (though perhaps good for safer roadways). The license stuff was designed to encourage providing evidence, but it comes at a great cost and relatively little benefit (to anyone other than the bureacracy that enforces it and the attorneys who litigate the issues). MADD probably supported it because they knew the votes were not there for stronger evidence-gathering laws at the time. If such support has grown, then the ALR experiment should be chunked in favor of something that will actually work to protect the public.

How is it a harsh punishment? We could be prosecuting it as the current third degree felony for tampering with physical evidence.