Thanks, Martin for posting the California statutes. (see Aug 21, 07 06:48 PM, above)

I can see how that might help encourage a person to take the test. Of course, here in Texas, given what the leg has done with DWLI cases recently, I doubt the fear of losing his license would do much to encourage the test unless there were also stiff penalties for driving while the license was suspended. Maybe we could make driving under a BTR suspension a more serious crime. Throw in some minimum jail time, perhaps.

In Texas, deaths when the driver of at least one of the vehicles had BAC of .08+ went up 2.6% from 2005 to 2006.

In Iowa they went up almost 30%, Kansas 33%, and Utah 63%.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlexLayman:
In Texas, deaths when the driver of at least one of the vehicles had BAC of .08+ went up 2.6% from 2005 to 2006.

In Iowa they went up almost 30%, Kansas 33%, and Utah 63%.

---

Are these numbers so high because Iowa, Kansas and Utah recently began requiring BAC tests in fatality accident cases? If we don't count fatality accidents with alcohol involved, but where the BAC is unknown, then States without mandatory BAC laws will show lower numbers. I can see how a change in the law would have an immediate impact on the statistics simply by moving non-BAC fatalities into the BAC pool.

For Utah my guess is that the large percentage change is due to the low population of that state.

Also I think they have a lot of people who don't drink alcohol for religious reasons.

So the total number of DWI deaths increased by only 21 people ... so it is possible that a dozen wrecks account for the entire 63% increase.

Even after the 63% increase they are still sitting at 1 death per 47,223 residents ... a number much closer to New York than the other western states.

The neighboring state of Nevada has 1 per 17,574 so a number really similar to Texas.

Bill Murray drives golf cart drunk through Stockholm, refuses breath test

STOCKHOLM, Sweden - Bill Murray could face a drunken driving charge after cruising through downtown Stockholm in a golf cart and refusing to take a breath test, citing U.S. law.

Police officers spotted the "Caddyshack" star early Monday in the slow-moving vehicle and noticed he smelled of alcohol when they pulled him over, said Detective-Inspector Christer Holmlund of the Stockholm police.

"He refused to blow in the (breath test) instrument, citing American legislation," Holmlund told The Associated Press on Wednesday. "So we applied the old method -- a blood test. It will take 14 days before the results are in."

We need to do away with the ALR system. It's a racket. Why tell people we're going to suspend their licenses when we really don't. I like the California "hard suspension" practice. The DWI defense lawyers love the ALR as a way go on a fishing expedition in a case and the extra money they make from representing people at ALR hearings.

I think ALR is a good idea, but it needs some changes by the Legislature. Possible changes:

1. Suspension only for refusal

2. One Year suspension for first susp; two year for any subsequent susp.

3. Shift burden of proof to driver to shower officer did not have PC and that driver did not refuse

4. Strictly define what a court can authorize when granting an occupational license and make a stiff penalty for violation of the terms

5. Provide for forfeiture of any motor vehicle a person is driving if arrested a second time for DWLI while on ALR or DWI suspension. (That includes a vehicle owned by another party if that person knew or reasonably should have known the driver was on suspension).

JMHO as a former ALR attorney. I know that in more than a few counties, the ALR suspension often was the only thing that happened to a driver arrested for DWI. Unfortunately, since I was in the ALR program, the system seems to have been hijacked for discovery purposes and some hearings seem more like mini DWI trials.

Janette

Why not take the "implied" out of implied consent? Most folks on juries wouldn't know that they "deemed to have consented" to give a sample when arrested for DWI. We should have a simple form at DPS that requires express consent in exchange for a DL. If you want to refuse at that point, we will simply refuse to give you a license.

My vote:

Abandon ALR as a colossal waste of public money and good lawyers. I seriously doubt that ALR has done anything to reduce drunk driving or keep a driver who wants to drive off the road. Add up all the money and personnel being spent on pushing paper and move it into actual enforcement of the DWI laws.

Make breath/blood testing upon DWI arrest mandatory (I could live with starting off applying that only to 3rd DWI, just to show the Leg how well it would work.)

Apply suspensions (with no ODL) after a conviction.

How about adding this language to the DWI statutes: Any person who refuses to provide a specimen of their blood or breath upon request shall be presumed to have alcohol concentration in excess of .08. At trial of any offense under this section, the jury shall be instructed of this presumption.

I haven't researched the legality of such a presumption. However, there are numerous other statutory presumtions in the penal code.

I would think that, if this were the law, defense attorneys would quit telling their clients not to blow. And, I'm not sure I would care if their failure to blow resulted in a presumption of intoxication.

Presumption of guilt?

The law already provides that a jury may consider a refusal as evidence of guilt. We argue that all the time. Not all that successfully, but there you go.

Jane is right about the ALR system. A tremendous waste of money.

Licenses should be suspended in DWI cases until criminal charges are resolved. All occupational licenses sought by DWI defendants should require an alcohol ignition interlock as a mandatory condition. This would also serve to monitor the times of operation of the vehicle to see if they were staying within the parameters of their occupational DL.

If found not guilty or dismissed, license comes back after 2 years if it was a refusal. If convicted of DWI, you will have special license plates on your vehicle and would have to have an occupational DL limiting your scope and time of operation for the term of probation.

As I said when I posted above, I hadn't done any research. Upon looking, I believe my suggestion would be unconstitutional since it created a mandatory presumption. See Willis v. State, 790 S.W.2d 307, 310 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). Of course its mandatory nature is why I thought it would be an improvement over our current "you can consider it" instruction.

So, my next suggestion is to make it a crime to refuse to provide a specimen upon the request of a peace officer. It should carry the same penalty as DWI and be enhanceable in the same manner (3rd refusal offense is felony). I did actually look before making this suggestion. Apparently Alaska has such a statute that applies to commercial motor vehicles. They even make refusal of a PBT a class B misdemeanor. See
Alaska Stat. � 28.33.031 and Alaska Stat. � 28.35.032.

You all are giving really possible solutions, and here I'm going to throw out something that sits in the back of my head sometimes and isn't very realistic. It would be amazing if all vehicles had interlock devices installed (just like seatbelts are now required to save you after you crash--they were not around so much until my elementary school years). You would think if cars can park themselves and have bluetooth capabilities, an interlock system would not be that difficult.

The reason I say this is because all the suspensions in the world are not going to stop drunken ( ) driving....because they're already drunk when they are making that decision and not thinking about future actions or suspensions. Also, the DIC-24 tells them if they blow and fail, the license will be suspended anyway, so what's the benefit of blowing? Suspended either way......

It seems like forcing them to blow before the car will even start would be the most effective solution. And make people entirely more aware of how drunk they actually are before they get behind the wheel!

I know, public outrage, and how to make car manufacturers sell a product noone would choose to buy......Still, I think about it and sigh.

You're right smj, no one would buy that except for the drinkers who know they have a problem and want to overcome it. Non-drinkers would find it an unnecessary hassle, and the drunks who don't care would oppose it for obvious reasons. The number of people who would voluntarily put an Interlock in their cars is, I think, miniscule.

I think most of us would favor it for everyone else, but not ourselves....

Maybe market forces could be used to encourage the ignition lock.

What if you could save a bunch of money on your car insurance? ... or get a better rate on a car loan?

These would set up a situation where a consumer could either save money, or could get a better car for the same money, simply by choosing the ignition lock.

The Japanese are already moving toward putting such devices as standard in their cars. I watched a show the other day in which the steering wheel tested for the presence of alcohol and denied ignition.

Imagine, if 20 years from now cars had such devices, how much your docket would be reduced. Of course, the chronic drunks would alter the devices, but the numbers would drop.

For the story, click here.

What if the ignition lock was connected to the OnStar and it secretly alerted the call-center. Then the call-center operator could contact the police and give the location of the vehicle.

Actually thats a little scary in a "big brother" or HAL-9000 sort of way.

Perhaps the Leg could create the offense of attempted DWI for those that trigger the lockout.