DUI Arrest

D.W.I.

DWI Dilemma DWI Dilemma Drunk driving is wrong, it's irresponsible, and does cause a senselesswaste of lives. However, what should be done about the problem isdebatable and certainly open to discussion. That anyone should bekilled by a drunk driver is tragic, but the solutions to this problemare often based on emotion, personal vendettas, and not rationalthought, sound public policy, nor backed up by statistical data. Alcohol-related fatalities, a number grossly exaggerated, refers towhether any of the participants in an accident is suspected ofconsuming alcohol beverages, even the slightest amount, regardless ofwhether the person was the cause of the accident or not. When policeaccident reports are studied for contributing human factors infatality cases, 11 percent are blamed on physical impairment. However,physical impairment includes not only being under the influence ofalcohol, but also includes being ill, falling asleep, fainting, heartattacks, strokes, epileptic seizures, insulin shock, and otherabnormal physical problems. Irresponsibility on our highways comes inmany forms and impaired driving is only part of the overall problem. What do we do about the drunk driver in our society? The knee-jerkresponse by lawmakers has been strict laws and severe punishments. Butsevere punishments have not proven successful. Tough sanctions workthe best on responsible drivers, those who self-correct, are easilydeterred, and restrict their behaviors with good common sense. . . people who are the least problem to society. Severe sanctionsare the least effective on irresponsible, hardcore drinkers who aresociety s greatest problem. Movements to reduce the legal intoxication level from 0.10 to 0.08percent BAC or less will do nothing to get at the problem. Thehardcore group will not be thwarted by this legislation. The hardcoregroup wakes up in the morning close to a .010 BAC and builds on itfrom there. Most drunk driver fatalities have BAC levels close to0.20. If lawmakers reduce the level to 0.08, they are simply catchingmore of the wrong people, the people who are not the problem. DWI lawsare like bicycle locks - they keep responsible people honest but theyare useless against determined bicycle thieves. In their zeal to get "them", groups like MADD have gotten "us" insteadby reducing our constitutional rights significantly in the area ofprivacy, self-incrimination, search and seizure, and the freedom to beleft alone. We've paid the price, but it is questionable whether wehave bought any safety at all. The hardcore irresponsible drunk driverin our society is not going to be easily controlled, particularly bythe well-meaning but ineffective efforts of those who think ourcriminal justice community can solve the problem. Police should focuson the characteristics of this hardcore group instead of thepopulation in general. People who conduct themselves in this mannercan be spotted. Legislatures should stop being swept up in the misleading media hypeand enact legislation which treats the vast majority of peopleadministratively outside of the court system with license suspension,education, counseling, and treatment. Responsible peopleself-correct. Losers don't. Source: The Moderation Reader. Written by the HonorableDennis A. Challeen, a district judge in southeastern Minnesota. ThisArticle was published in the January/February 1995 NMA NEWS. Taken from the NMAHomepage . Related Documents DWI: Are We Going in the Right Direction? Related Pages Driving While Intoxixided Back Home | Start

Drivers With Repeat Convictions or Arrests for Driving While ... Warning: This site is being maintained for historical purposes, but has had no new entries since October 1998. To find more recent articles, please visit the following: CDC Recommends at http://www.phppo.cdc.gov/CDCrecommends/AdvSearchV.asp MMWR at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwrsrch.htm CDC Web Search at http://www.cdc.gov/search.htm Current TrendsDrivers With Repeat Convictions or Arrests for Driving While Impaire-- United States MMWR 43(41);759-761 Publication date: 10/21/1994 Table of Contents Article Editorial Note References POINT OF CONTACT FOR THIS DOCUMENT: Tables Estimated number of drivers convicted or arrested for driving ... Article In 1992 (the latest year for which data are available), morethan 1.6 million persons in the United States (approximately 1% oflicensed drivers) were arrested for driving while impaired (DWI)(1). Persons arrested for DWI are at substantially greater risk forfuture death in a motor-vehicle crash involving alcohol than thosewho have not been arrested for DWI, and this risk increasesdirectly in relation to the number of DWI arrests (2). In addition,drivers convicted of DWI are at greater risk of being involved ina fatal crash, regardless of whether they are killed (3). Thisreport summarizes data about convictions and arrests for DWI fromstate traffic safety officials analyzed by the National HighwayTraffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) during 1994. During May-June 1994, NHTSA contacted the governor's trafficsafety representative in each of the 50 states requesting allavailable data about the proportion of DWI arrests or convictionsthat involved a repeat DWI offender and the duration for which DWIconvictions or arrests are retained in a driver's record. Of the 14states for which data were available and complete, seven reporteddata by the number of drivers arrested or convicted for DWI, andseven reported data by the total proportion of DWI arrests orconvictions. Only data reported by the number of drivers arrestedor convicted for DWI are presented in this analysis.Five of the seven states reported data about drivers convictedfor DWI; in these states, the estimated percentage of drivers withprevious DWI convictions ranged from 21% (Iowa during 1992) to 48%(New Mexico during 1992) Table 1 . The other two states reportedinformation about drivers arrested for DWI; the estimatedpercentages of drivers with previous DWI arrests were 26% (Coloradoduring 1989-91) and 46% (Minnesota during 1993) Table 1 . Thepercentage of drivers arrested or convicted for DWI with previousconvictions or arrests did not vary substantially during theyear(s) for which the data were reported. However, the percentageswere greater in most of the states that retained driving recordsfor longer periods of time. Reported by: JC Fell, MS, Office of Alcohol and State Programs,National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Div ofUnintentional Injury Prevention, National Center for InjuryPrevention and Control, CDC. Editorial Note Editorial Note: Motor-vehicle crashes are the leading cause ofdeath in the United States for persons in all age groups from ages1 through 34 years (4). Approximately 44% of the 40,115 trafficfatalities in 1993 were alcohol-related (5). In 1990, alcohol-related crashes cost $46.1 billion, including $5.1 billion inmedical expenses (6). Although state laws have been effective in reducing drinkingand driving and deaths associated with alcohol-related crashes (6),the findings in this report indicate that, in those states thatprovided data, approximately one third of drivers who were arrestedor convicted for DWI had previous offenses for alcohol-impaireddriving. Although this finding is consistent with previousunpublished reports of state data, it probably underestimates theprevalence of such drivers because convictions or arrests for DWIthat occur out-of-state may not be included in a driver's record.Because of the limited number of states with available data,the findings in this report may not be representative of alldrivers with previous convictions or arrests for DWI. The need forsuch information underscores the importance for states andlocalities to develop systems to track DWI offenders (e.g., systemsthat combine criminal justice records with driver history data).The risk for repeat arrests for DWI is higher among males andyoung persons (7); this risk is also higher among persons withhistories of numerous traffic violations, a high alcoholconcentration at arrest, and histories of alcohol problems (7). Forexample, of 461 drivers convicted of DWI in New York City during1983-84, approximately 73% had histories of serious alcoholproblems (8). In addition to the influence of the risk factors, thepercentage of drivers with previous convictions or arrests for DWImay reflect the aggressiveness with which states enforce lawsagainst alcohol-impaired driving. Although the annual arrest ratefor DWI nationally in 1992 was nine per 1000 licensed drivers (1),the rate varied by state and ranged from three to 22 per 1000licensed drivers (1). In addition, most repeat arrests for DWIoccur within 5 years of the previous arrest date (R. Peck,California Department of Motor Vehicles, unpublished data, 1994).Effective strategies implemented by states and localities toprevent drinking and driving have included prompt licensesuspension for persons who drive while intoxicated; enactment oflegislation lowering permissible blood alcohol content to 0.08 g/dLfor adults and to 0.02 g/dL for drivers aged less than 21 years;and initiation of public education, community awareness, and mediacampaigns about the dangers of alcohol-impaired driving (6).Specific measures implemented to prevent repeat convictions andarrests for DWI include mandatory substance-abuse assessment andtreatment, incarceration, and both; house arrest with electronicmonitoring; ignition interlocks on vehicles; license plate tagsthat identify drivers with licenses suspended for DWI; vehicleimpoundment or confiscation; fines; and increases in automobileinsurance rates (9). The effectiveness of these specific measuresmust be evaluated further; however, the findings in this reportsuggest that, to prevent injuries and deaths in alcohol-relatedcrashes, additional and stronger state legislation (e.g., mandatorysubstance-abuse assessment and treatment) should be directed towardpersons arrested for or convicted of DWI. References References 1. Federal Bureau of Investigation, US Department of Justice.Uniform crime reports: crime in the United States, 1992.Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Federal Bureau ofInvestigation, 1993. 2. Brewer RD, Morris PD, Cole T, Watkins S, Patetta MJ, Popkin C.The risk of dying in alcohol-related automobile crashes amonghabitual drunk drivers. N Engl J Med 1994;331:513-7. 3. Fell JC. Repeat DWI offenders: their involvement in fatalcrashes. In: Utzelmann H-D, Berghaus G, Kroj G, eds. Proceedings ofthe 12th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs, and TrafficSafety. Cologne, Germany: Verlag TUV Rheinland, 1993. 4. NCHS. Health, United States, 1993. Hyattsville, Maryland: USDepartment of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service,CDC, 1994; DHHS publication no. (PHS)94-1232. 5. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, US Department ofTransportation. Traffic safety facts, 1993: alcohol. Washington,DC: US Department of Transportation, National Highway TrafficSafety Administration, 1994. 6. CDC. Reduction in alcohol-related traffic fatalities -- UnitedStates, 1990-1992. MMWR 1993; 42:905-9. 7. Arstein-Kerslake GW, Peck RC. A typological analysis ofCalifornia DUI offenders and DUI recidivism correlates. Sacramento,California: California Department of Motor Vehicles, Research andDevelopment Office, 1985. 8. Miller BA, Whitney R, Washousky R. Alcoholism diagnoses forconvicted drinking drivers referred for alcoholism evaluation.Alcohol Clin Exp Res 1986;10:651-6. 9. Popkin CL, Wells-Parker E. A research agenda for the specificdeterrence of DWI. Journal of Traffic Medicine 1994;22:1-14. POINT OF CONTACT FOR THIS DOCUMENT: To request a copy of this document or for questions concerning thisdocument, please contact the person or office listed below. Ifrequesting a document, please specify the complete name of thedocument as well as the address to which you would like it mailed.Note that if a name is listed with the address below, you may wishto contact this person via CDC WONDER/PC e-mail. For single issue purchase 800-843-6356 NATIONAL CENTER FOR INJURY PREVENTION AND CONTROLState/Fed Gov: For free copies write to: CDC, MMWR MS(C-08) Atlanta, GA 30333 Table 1 TABLE 1. Estimated number of drivers convicted or arrestedfor driving while impaired (DWI), by state and year -- United States===================================================================== Drivers convicted of DWI ------------------------------- Previous convictions --------------------State Year(s) Total No. (%)---------------------------------------------------------------------Iowa 1992 18,000 3,780 * (21)Nebraska 1994 + 146,619 38,547 & (26)New Mexico 1992 11,478 5,566 & (48)North Carolina 1988 65,714 21,028 @ (32)Ohio 1980-93 637,678 211,280 ** (33) Drivers arrested for DWI ------------------------------ Previous arrests --------------------State Year(s) Total No. (%)Colorado 1989-91 99,848 26,335 ++ (26)Minnesota 1993 30,717 14,034 && (46)---------------------------------------------------------------------* Within 6 years of the most recent conviction.+ Drivers convicted as of March 4, 1994.& Within 30 years of the most recent conviction.@ Within 7 years of the most recent conviction.** Within 5 years of the most recent conviction.++ Within 5 years of the most recent arrest.&& Within 30 years of the most recent arrest.===================================================================== Home Frequently Asked Questions Search Utilities Help Contact Us This page last reviewed: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Epidemiology Program Office Division of Public Health Surveillance and Informatics

Breathalyzers Search HSW and

Howstuffworks "How Breathalyzers Work" Auto Stuff Science Stuff Health Stuff Entertainment Stuff People Stuff Computer Stuff Electronics Stuff Home Stuff Money Stuff Travel Stuff Shop for Stuff Popular Searches Body Armor Hurricane Hypnosis Intelligent Design Military Technology Stem Cells UFOs Sponsored By: Subjects Earth Science Engineering Life Science Military Physical Science ShortStuff Space Supernatural Browse the Science Library Reference Links San Diego DUI Lawyer LA DUI Lawyer Explore Stuff Lidrock.com Big List of Articles Get the Newsletter Shop for Top Products Compare Prices for Breathalyzers Search HSW and the Web Main > Science > Physical Science How Breathalyzers Work by Craig C. Freudenrich, Ph.D. Table of Contents Introduction to How Breathalyzers Work Why Test? Principle of Testing Types of Devices: Breathalyzer Types of Devices: Intoxilyzer Types of Devices: Alcosensor III or IV Lots More Information Compare Prices for Breathalyzers Types of Devices: Breathalyzer There are three major types of breath alcohol testing devices, and they're based on different principles: Breathalyzer - Uses a chemical reaction involving alcohol that produces a color change Intoxilyzer - Detects alcohol by infrared (IR) spectroscopy Alcosensor III or IV - Detects a chemical reaction of alcohol in a fuel cell Regardless of the type, each device has a mouthpiece , a tube through which the suspect blows air, and a sample chamber where the air goes. The rest of the device varies with the type. Breathalyzer The Breathalyzer device contains: A system to sample the breath of the suspect Two glass vials containing the chemical reaction mixture A system of photocells connected to a meter to measure the color change associated with the chemical reaction To measure alcohol, a suspect breathes into the device. The breath sample is bubbled in one vial through a mixture of sulfuric acid, potassium dichromate, silver nitrate and water. The principle of the measurement is based on the following chemical reaction: In this reaction: The sulfuric acid removes the alcohol from the air into a liquid solution. The alcohol reacts with potassium dichromate to produce: chromium sulfate potassium sulfate acetic acid water The silver nitrate is a catalyst , a substance that makes a reaction go faster without participating in it. The sulfuric acid, in addition to removing the alcohol from the air, also might provide the acidic condition needed for this reaction. During this reaction, the reddish-orange dichromate ion changes color to the green chromium ion when it reacts with the alcohol; the degree of the color change is directly related to the level of alcohol in the expelled air. To determine the amount of alcohol in that air, the reacted mixture is compared to a vial of unreacted mixture in the photocell system , which produces an electric current that causes the needle in the meter to move from its resting place. The operator then rotates a knob to bring the needle back to the resting place and reads the level of alcohol from the knob -- the more the operator must turn the knob to return it to rest, the greater the level of alcohol. The Chemistry of Alcohol The alcohol found in alcoholic beverages is ethyl alcohol (ethanol). The molecular structure of ethanol looks like this: H H 3 C - C - O - H H where C is carbon, H is hydrogen, O is oxygen and each hyphen is a chemical bond between the atoms . For clarity, the bonds of the three hydrogen atoms to the left carbon atom are not shown. The OH (O - H) group on the molecule is what makes it an alcohol. There are four types of bonds in this molecule: carbon-carbon (C - C) carbon-hydrogen (C - H) carbon-oxygen (C - O) oxygen-hydrogen (O - H) The chemical bonds between the atoms are shared pairs of electrons. Chemical bonds are much like springs: They can bend and stretch. These properties are important in detecting ethanol in a sample by infrared (IR) spectroscopy . Next Page Prev Page Intro Next Page >> HSW Home Table of Contents: › Introduction to How Breathalyzers Work › Why Test? › Principle of Testing › Types of Devices: Breathalyzer › Types of Devices: Intoxilyzer › Types of Devices: Alcosensor III or IV › Lots More Information › Compare Prices for Breathalyzers Rate this Article! Home Store Newsletter Search Advertising Privacy Contact About Help © 1998 - 2006 HowStuffWorks, Inc.

DWI Programs, 2004 HTML

DUI programs: Substance abuse treatment facilities with DUI/DWI programs, 2004, SAMHSA,Office of Applied Studies Substance Abuse Treatment Facilities with Driving Under the Influence Programs The DASIS Report: Facilities with DUI/DWI Programs, 2004 HTML format PDF format Highlights: Of the substance abuse treatment facilities reporting to SAMHSA's National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS) in 2004, 31% offered a special program for driving under the influence (DUI), driving while intoxicated (DWI), or other drunk driving offenders. Among the substance abuse treatment facilities that offered DUI/DWI programs, most were privately operated (90% for DUI/DWI-only facilities and 86% for multi-programs facilities). Multi-program facilities were more likely than DUI/DWI-only facilities to offer urine screening (82% vs. 57%) and blood alcohol testing (65% vs. 52%). Other Reports on Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol or Illegal Drugs Reports on Illicit Drug Use Other Topics Other OAS Publications and Services This Short Report, The DASIS Report: Facilities with DUI/DWI Programs, 2004 , is based on the Drug and Alcohol Services Information System (DASIS) , the primary source of national data on substance abuse treatment. DASIS is conducted by the Office of Applied Studies (OAS) in the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). For PDF formats, click here to download the Acrobat Adobe Reader and follow the instructions for the free reader. Click to Return to OAS Home Page Click to Email OAS Data Questions Click For Non-frames / text version of site This page has been accessed 3191 times since 12/2/05. This page was last updated on December 2, 2005. SAMHSA, an agency in the Department of Health and Human Services, is the Federal Government's lead agency for improving the quality and availability of substance abuse prevention, addiction treatment, and mental health services in the United States. Privacy Statement | Site Disclaimer | Accessibility What's New Highlights Topics Data Drugs Pubs Short Reports Treatment Help Mail OAS

Drunk Driving Laws

Massachusetts DUI Laws,Criminal Laws Massachusetts DWILaws DUI DWI: International Referral Database of DUI, DWI, Impairedand DrunkDriving, Drinking and Driving, Lawyers & Attorneys State orProvince | County | Region | Attorneys | Courthouses | License & Traffic Offices | Legislation | Instruments | Standards | Experts | Articles Add Attorney | Add Courthouse | AddDMV Office | Add Legislation | AddInstrument | Add Standards Home | Debate | AddingYour Firm | Words are used in Canada? DUI | DWI | DrunkDriving | Drinkingand Driving | DUI Laws | DWILaws | Ontariodui | Ontario dui laws | ImpairedDriving | TorontoDUI | BramptonDUI | MississaugaDUI DUI : Driving Under the Influence; DWI : Driving While Intoxicated;OUI: Operating Under the Inflence; OWI: Operating While Intoxicated; ImpairedDriving: Impaired in Canada to Slightest Degree; Over 80: Excess BAC alcohol inCanada over 80 mg/100mL; Care or Control: Occupy seat normallyoccupied by operator in Canada, act or series of acts involving useof car , fittings or equipment Sponsored by: Case Briefs www.casebriefs.net D atabase F or C anadian C riminal L aw | Summariesof DUI Law DWI Law Massachusetts | Law | FirstAppearance | Practice Descriptions | Local Data | Courthouses | Licenses Law Offices of Robert P. Kidd , MA DUI Law, DWI Laws Please add data. Andrews & Updegraph, P.C. , MA DUI Law, DWI Laws Please see our website Jack Diamond - Torney Mahoney Diamond & Bennett , MA DUI Law, DWI Laws It is legal in virtually all 50 United States to drive a car after drinking alcoholic beverages, if you are over the age of 21 years. Despite this fact, drunk driving is one of the most politically controversial crimes, subject to constant lobbying by powerful groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). Today, drunk driving is one of the most aggressively enforced crimes on the Massachusetts books. What is drunk driving, operating under the influence (OUI), driving under the influence (DUI) or driving while intoxicated (DWI)? Contrary to the term drunk driving, one does not actually have to be drunk to be arrested and convicted for drunk driving. Massachusetts law states that an operator only has to have his ability to safely operate a motor vehicle impaired by the consumption of alcohol to be guilty of operating under the influence of alcohol. This terminology creates a very ambiguous standard of measure that is subject to the subjective opinions of various jurors, judges and police officers. In Massachusetts, as it is in most other states in this country, an operator is presumed to be under the influence of alcohol if he has a .08 percent blood alcohol content (BAC). In Massachusetts, however, this is not proof that you are intoxicated but rather is a rebuttable presumption of that fact. While OUI is not the most serious crime on the books in Massachusetts, it is one of the most aggressively prosecuted crimes and carries mandatory minimum dispositions for convictions or pleas. All of these dispositions carry a Registry of Motor Vehicle (RMV) license suspension, in addition to court-imposed penalties. It is important you understand all of the various penalties and ramifications imposed against you in disposing of your OUI case. Despite the grim picture painted above, with proper representation, your likelihood of avoiding a conviction for your OUI charge is quite good. Juries currently acquit OUI defendants in slightly over 50 percent of the trials presented to juries. The most important step you can take to avoiding a conviction in your OUI case is to consult with a qualified criminal defense lawyer immediately. As with any criminal case, early intervention into your matter helps to preserve evidence that may be favorable in your behalf and can mitigate some of the prosecutor's efforts to secure evidence to convict you. Jones & Milligan , Ma DUI Law, DWI Laws please see www.dwilawoffice.com Law Office of Theodore J. Koban , MA DUI Law, DWI Laws Drivers whose driving is found to have been "impaired" by alcohol use are sentenced as follows:First Offense: A fine of not less than $500 or more than $5,000 OR by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or both (Note- No mandatory imprisonment for first offenders). Licence lost for 1 year*;Second Offense (within 10 years): A fine of not less than $600 or more than $10,000 AND imprisonment for not less than 60 days and not more than 2 1/2 years. License lost for 2 years*;*- Diversionary counseling programs may be available to reduce license loss time and to provide for incarceration in a non-penal environment.Third Offense (within 10 years): A fine of not less than $1,000 or more than $15,000 AND imprisonment for not less than 180 days or more than 2 1/2 years. License lost for 5 years.Fourth Offense (within 10 years): A fine of not less than $1,5000 or more than $25,000 AND imprisonment in state prison for not less than 2 1/2 years or more than 5 years. Sentence cannot be reduced to less than 12 months time served.Failure to submit to a breath test adds 120 days license loss to the offense. Breath test of over .08 leads to immediate loss of license for 90 days or until case is "disposed of" by plea (in which case the other license loss provisions are applied) or trial (unlikely to occur within 90 days).This information is provided to provide background information only and should not be relied upon as legal advice which can only be provided by a knowledgable attorney who has become fully familiar with the particular facts of an individual's situation. Other criminal charges may generate additional sentences to those set forth above. Additional fees and costs (not set forth herein do to space limitations) are customarily imposed during the disposition of an OUI/DWI case. - September 2001 Law Office of Russell Matson , MA DUI Law, DWI Laws Please see my website for more information 2458 | DUI DWI Practice Descriptions, Links, andProfiles | DUI DWI Summaries of Law | Searchby Region, County, City | First Appearance inDUI Court DWI Court | MembersOnly | AddYour Firm | Delete | Privacy | For Ontario DUIDWI impaired driving criminal law information please visit www.lawyers.ca See also TorontoDUI For more information respecting this database or to report misuse contact: AllbissLawdata Ltd. , 303-470 Hensall Circle, Mississauga,Ontario, Canada, L5A 3V4. Theauthor and the participants make no representation or warranty whatsoeveras to the authenticity and reliability of the information contained herein.Advertisement.Theselawyers do not practice in association. WARNING: All informationcontained herein is provided for the purpose of providing basic information onlyand should not be construed as formal legal advice. The authors disclaim any andall liability resulting from reliance upon such information. You are stronglyencouraged to seek professional legal advice before relying upon any of theinformation contained herein. Legal advice should be sought directly from aproperly retained lawyer or attorney.