Anyone have the official word about new DWI fees that were supposedly imposed by the last legislative session?

Rumor has it that it will be $1,000 a year for those placed on community supervision. (!!!) The amendment is said to be to the Transportation Code. (Additionally, there is word that the fees will apply to all cases disposed of after a certain date regardless of the date of the offense. If true, there could be of a flood of pleas in the upcoming weeks).

If anyone knows what actually happened in the legislature, I would appreciate it hearing about it. Someone set me straight! Thanks.

We'll discuss this in detail at TDCAA's Legislative Updates, but here's a primer:

HB 3588, a 310-page transportation bill, creates a new "Driver Responsibility" Program to be administered by DPS (see Article 10 of the bill, here: HB 3588 link). This program is based on several other states' programs that assign point values to various moving violations and impose annual surcharges (payable directly to the state) when a driver accrues a certain number of points over a specified period.

The bill also creates surcharges for specific offenses, as follows:

- $1000/year for three years upon conviction of DWI-1st;
- $1500/year for three years upon conviction of a subsequent DWI;
- $2000/year for three years upon conviction of a DWI involving a BAC > 0.16;
- $250/year for three years upon conviction of Driving While License Invalid/Suspended or Failure to Maintain Financial Responsibility; and
- $100/year for three years upon conviction of Driving Without a License

These surcharges are license fees, not fines or court costs, and they apply to final convictions and probations. They also apply only to defendants sentenced for these offenses AFTER 9/1/2003, so expect a rush to plead many of them before that date. Note also that failure to pay the surcharge results in a DL suspension, and that none -- zero, zip, nada -- of this money goes toward public safety.

Shannon

I believe a good portion of the money from the DL points program and the surcharges go to fund trauma care. I guess the idea is that the drivers that cause the damage ought to help pay for it!

And, once again, the Leg has found a way to send a mixed message. We want people to blow in the intoxilyzer and get a DL, but we make it very, very punitive to blow and expensive to get that DL.

Woody suggested an amendment to change the .16 BAC provision to a failure to blow provision, but they did not pick it up. What it will probably do is increase the caseload at the county level while stripping the counties of funds to handle it, since judges will probably impose lower fines in response to the heavy surcharges on licenses.

Can't imagine what would convince most defendants that the better decision wouldn't be to roll the dice with a trial - in the past, it's been cheaper to plead than to pay for a trial. And for those who qualify for an appointed attorney, WOW! This has the potential to be REALLY ugly!

Who is going to collect this? Will the county collect this as some form of Court Costs or will this be handled by DPS similar to "reinstatement" fees?

We (meaning DPS) collects the surcharges. I believe the act also authorizes contracting with collection services to collect.

Sorry--it's the end (almost of the day -- been here since 7:20a.m.) It should have read: "We (DPS) collect...."

See those of you in the Austin area at the TDCAA New Legislation update.

As Janette says, this is entirely a DPS endeavor (aren't they lucky?), and failure to pay the surcharge will result in DL suspension.

The bill also allows people to pay on an installment plan, and/or to make payments to DPS by credit card (!). Clearly, the credit industry's lobbyist did his job ...

P.S. - The Legislature also passed this bill creating another DWI-related fee that IS a new court cost, to the tune of $100 per conviction (See new CCP Art. 102.0185). This money also goes to an EMS/trauma care fund, not to public safety or local judicial systems.

Shannon, it really was all about money.

Obviously those few persons who do decide to plead guilty to being intoxicated while driving will also choose (voluntarily or involuntarily) not to pay the surcharge and therefore will likely show right back up in court with a driving while license invalid charge (arising out of a stop for some other traffic offense). Those cases are usually pretty easy to prove, especially when you have a pendant revocation (on the DWI). So, net effect, county must pay to house even first-time offenders (assuming jail time is assessed as part of the punishment) and regular license remains suspended for at least three years after DWI case is disposed of* (and longer if driver never comes up with the $250 surcharge for the DWLI points).

*Unclear to me whether suspension continues beyond the 3 years for non-payment or whether that suspension would be treated like the current fail to pay re-instatement fee cases.

Sounds like we'll have even more DWLS situations and the occupational license practice will continue to mushroom. Ugghhhh.

Once again, it seems that the easier thing to have done would have been for the Leg to just make it a straight crime to refuse to blow. As it is, we have all these "penalties" for failing to blow (or blowing to much), but it is just a big, tangled mess.

If you make it a crime, you can drop all the dumb warnings. You drop all the endless ALR hearings. And, maybe, just maybe, we actually get some people to blow.

And from a money-making approach, John, think of how many more defendants would have to pay the fine -- er, excuse me, I meant "surcharge" -- for failing to blow.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JFowler:
Sounds like we'll have even more DWLS situations and the occupational license practice will continue to mushroom. Ugghhhh.

---

How 'bout we give DPS or the AG all the jurisdiction to represent the State in all occupational driver's license cases? I'm tired of reviewing and re-reviewing these things!!

OK, this thread raises an interesting question that the Legislature might examine in the interim, namely: whither ALR?

I know Chairman Terry Keel is interested in revising or repealing the ALR system. So my question is, if you were king/queen of the world, what would you like to see done with ALR, and/or how can it be improved?

Repeal it. What a big waste of time and money.

Unless they are going to remove the biggest loophole -- an occupational DL -- the whole thing is pointless.

In addition, you simply can't expect a drunk to sit and listen to the endless warnings and react by blowing because he wants to keep his DL. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Repeal ALR. Delete all failure to blow penalties. Just warn the drunk that he/she is facing additional charge of tampering with evidence if refuses to blow. Make it a Class A misdemeanor to refuse to blow (unless you have two prior DWI's, and then make it a 3rd degree felony).

People would blow. We could go back to prosecution rather than a bunch of civil litigation.

Yeah!!!!! What John Said.