Here is a trivia quiz: Why did this public official, unlike many others, provide physical evidence that could show intoxication?
The Woodlands congressman arrested on DUI charge in South Dakota
DALLAS � A Republican congressman from The Woodlands has been arrested and charged with driving under the influence in South Dakota.
A state trooper pulled over U.S. Rep Kevin Brady, 50, Friday night for a problem with the taillights of his vehicle, Clay County Sheriff Andy Howe said.
It was homecoming weekend at the University of South Dakota, so officers were on the alert for driving violations including manning sobriety checkpoints, Howe said.
Brady is a graduate of the University of South Dakota.
Authorities are waiting for results of a blood test to determine Brady's blood-alcohol level at the time of the arrest. The legal limit in South Dakota is 0.08.
If convicted of the misdemeanor charge, Brady faces up to $1,000 fine and a year in jail. A typical penalty for a first offense is $300 to $400, Howe said.
Brady was in East Texas Monday and could not be reached for comment, said Sarah Stephens, a spokeswoman for Brady.
Brady attended meetings with residents in Jasper, Newton, Deweyville and Buna on Monday to discuss hurricane recovery. He plans to visit Orange, Vidor, Kountze and Woodville on Tuesday.
Gee John, you pan them when they don't, and pan them when they do. Maybe he was just following the law and providing a role model for his constituents. It is possible (despite the prosecutor's shock at hearing this) that other factors lead to an abnormally high blood/alcohol content.
Ah, Beck, you have fallen right into my thread trap. I don't think my trivia question pans or praises public officials. It merely asks why this case is different.
Could it perhaps, just maybe, be because there is a difference between Texas and South Dakota law? Anyone want to guess the difference?
Could it be that in South Dakota, if you refuse they will take your blood without your consent even in a standard, non-accident, DWI. Is that the answer?
Posts: 293 | Location: San Antonio | Registered: January 27, 2004
I looked at dwidata.org and couldn't find any thing tougher there than here as far as penalties for refusal. Is it something new John, don't keep us in suspense?
I would say Richard has the best answer. Apparently, after some quick research by TDCAA's Executive Director, the law in S. Dakota is pretty much the same until you get to your 3rd DWI, when the sample is mandatory.
But, hey, I sure did enjoy all the speculation.
Kind of makes you wonder why we don't change the law here in Texas, eh?
Regardless of the number of priors, samples should be mandatory in Texas. It would eliminate a great deal of time-consuming and, unfortunately, all too often inaccurate litigation. It is not too intrusive to blow, and if you have problems with the reliability of the breath test, then submit to a blood test. Providing a sample seems to be nothing more than an important incident of implied consent law. Keep our roads safe!
I just got done reading South Dakota statutes regarding DWI, so at least humor me...
1) Maybe because there is a presumption of no intoxication if BAC is .05 or less (SD 32-23-7)
2) Maybe because person cannot refuse on third or subsequent DWI (SD 32-23-10 (1))
3) Or, if I am reading this right, it may be that, if you fail to "invoke the provision ... which permits him to refuse to submit to a test, then the failure to invoke the provision permitting a refusal to submit to a test shall constitute consent and authority to administer a test..." (SD 32-23-13)
I give up
Posts: 70 | Location: Sinton, Texas, USA | Registered: January 20, 2005
Just a wild speculation, but, since its the results of a blood test they are waiting for; is it possible he reached that point of intoxication called unconsciousness at some point prior to refusing a breath/blood test?
If he was unable to refuse, does S.D. law permit the officer to drain a vein sans warrant; or did an enterprising young trooper get fired up and draft a warrant?
I don't think we need to jack with the DWI laws. What we need is a new offense: Failure to Give breath/blood/ or urine sample when requested, if there is P/C Def. may be DWI.
FTGS (FailureTo Give Sample) should have the exact same penalties as DWI, and both DWI and FTGS priors should count for enhancements for both offenses.
I suspect FTGS would be a lot easier to prove to a jury than would DWI.
My friends in SD tell me that they also have a pretty high refusal rate, and there is no mandatory blood draw for a first offense. So looks like the Congressman may have simply followed the law and obeyed a lawful request of a peace officer to cooperate. Refreshing.
quote:Originally posted by rob kepple: My friends in SD tell me that they also have a pretty high refusal rate, and there is no mandatory blood draw for a first offense. So looks like the Congressman may have simply followed the law and obeyed a lawful request of a peace officer to cooperate. Refreshing.
Very refreshing indeed. Taking responsibility for one's actions seems to be a rare thing these days.
