Breathalyzers and Open Source -- [IP] more on Breathalyzers and Open Source interesting-people message [ Date Prev ] | [ Thread Prev ] | [ Thread Next ] | [ Date Next ]--[ Date Index ] | [ Thread Index ] | [ Elist Home ] Subject : [IP] more on Breathalyzers and Open Source From : David Farber <dave@farber.net> To : Ip Ip <ip@v2.listbox.com> Date : Fri, 28 Oct 2005 19:04:03 -0400 Begin forwarded message: From: Kris Gabor <kgabor@aol.com>Date: October 28, 2005 6:03:53 PM EDTTo: dave@farber.netSubject: Re: [IP] more on Breathalyzers and Open Source A district court judge here in Fairfax County (Northern Virginia) is challenging a similar notion by dismissing a number of DWI cases where above-the-limit breathalyzer results are setting up a presumption of guilt -- not all that different from the presumption of guilt that comes from refusing a breathalyzer. Good article about it in yesterday's Washington Post: Maverick N.Va. Judge Tosses Out DWI Cases That Presume Guilt By Tom JackmanWashington Post Staff WriterThursday, October 27, 2005; Page A01 A Fairfax County judge who believes Virginia's drunken driving laws are unconstitutional has begun dismissing cases, including five DWI cases in a week, and has threatened to throw a veteran prosecutor in jail for arguing with him. Judge Ian M. O'Flaherty made it known in July that he felt Virginia's DWI law unfairly deprived defendants of the presumption of innocence if breath tests showed that they had a blood alcohol content of .08 or higher, levels at which people are presumed to be intoxicated. <snip> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/26/ AR2005102602 572.html -- Kris On 10/28/05 17:49, "David Farber" <dave@farber.net> wrote: Begin forwarded message: From: Ed Biebel <edward@biebel.net>Date: October 28, 2005 10:22:45 AM EDTTo: dave@farber.netSubject: RE: [IP] more on Breathalyzers and Open Source In addition, I believe that in both Pennsylvania and New Jerseyagreeing tosubmit to a breathalyzer or blood test is a condition of having adriver'slicense. Refusing to take the test can result in an immediatesuspension ofyour driver's license (6 months to a year I believe). A friend of mine that is attorney recommended not refusing the tests(especially for a first offense) because he said that at trial a goodattorney would have leeway to present mitigating issues, challenge theaccuracy of the tests, plea to a lesser charge for a lightersentence, etc.However the refusal of the test was cut and dry and essentiallyresulted ina mandatory punishment. While IANAL and I'm not advocating people drink and drive (or avoidpunishment if they do), I thought this was an interesting legalperspectiveworth mentioning. -Ed -----Original Message-----From: David Farber [ mailto:dave@farber.net ]Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 5:14 PMTo: Ip IpSubject: [IP] more on Breathalyzers and Open Source Begin forwarded message: From: Bradley Roberts <br2@u.washington.edu>Date: October 25, 2005 4:04:40 PM EDTTo: David Farber <dave@farber.net>Cc: "Andrew D. Swart" <andrew@swart.com>Subject: Re: [IP] more on Breathalyzers and Open Source A friend got pulled over in front of me for some minor infraction(into a bike lane too early for a right turn, if I remembercorrectly). I knew he had come from a bar and had probably had atleast one drink. They started in on the normal dui tests (speech,eye, coordination, etc) in front of me. I had enough time beforethis to tell him not to submit to a breathalyzer as they'reinaccurate - he said that he was probably above the limit, so I toldhim that he could expect that they'd figure this out and he'd betaken to the police station for a blood test if he refused abreathalyzer. By refusing to submit to the breathalyzer, under CA law (or at leastin San Luis Obispo), the officers have the option to place the personunder arrest and take them in for more thorough evaluation. They didthis - unfortunately for my friend, he didn't take well to beinghandcuffed and started to argue/resist. Probably would have beentreated better had he not. Ultimately his blood was tested and wasfound above the legal limit. He made a bad choice and is stillpaying the consequences but no one was hurt. However, it should be clear that if you refuse to take a breathalyzertest, you MAY be arrested. Whether or not you've ever had a drop ofalcohol in your life. Refusing the test is within your rights, butan officers suspicion will quickly place you in shackles and you'llbe subjected to the more reliable (and repeatable) tests. Begin forwarded message: From: "Andrew D. Swart" <andrew@swart.com>Date: October 24, 2005 4:30:21 PM EDTTo: dave@farber.net, 'Ip Ip' <ip@v2.listbox.com>Subject: RE: [IP] more on Breathalyzers and Open SourceReply-To: andrew@swart.com ...I mention all these factors because they are common in manymeasurement instruments......No amount of viewing the code will tell you that. A local attorney (Santa Barbara) regularly takes out full page ads in local papers seeking DUI clients, but also advising people of their rights during a suspected DUI stop. One of his biggest pieces of advice: refuse under all circumstances an invitation to take a breathalyzer test. He points out that the portable technology is flawed and the results can't be verified independently (only a single sample). Instead, do no resist, if law enforcement insists, taking a blood or urine test. More reliable and samples remain for independent testing at later stage. Warning: refusing a breathalyzer test (but not the other tests) in California is reportedly within our rights; this may not be the case in all other states. Andrew Swart -------------------------------------You are subscribed as br2@u.washington.eduTo manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- people/ -------------------------------------You are subscribed as interesting-people@lists.elistx.comTo manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ [ Date Prev ] | [ Thread Prev ] | [ Thread Next ] | [ Date Next ]--[ Date Index ] | [ Thread Index ] | [ Elist Home ] Search: this month this year this elist Match: all any boolean Sort by: score date reverse score reverse date Words: | Help Powered by eList eXpress LLC
|
California DWINHTSA Campain Safe & Sober Program Planner 21 Fact Sheet Contents | Planner Contents Key Facts Legislative Status Recommendations for Strengthening and Increasing the Use of Vehicle and Vehicle Plate Sanctions Research and Evaluation Regarding the Effects of Vehicle and Plate Sanctions Transfer and Grant Programs Information Sources Vehicle and License Plate Sanctions Revoking or suspending a motorist's operators license is now a common penalty for many traffic infractions, especially those related to impaired driving. Unfortunately, many of these offenders continue to drive. It is not unusual for suspended drivers to receive additional traffic citations or be involved in crashes during periods of license suspension. As a way of reducing this problem, many states have passed laws that directly affect the offender's vehicle or license plates as a sanction for the impaired driving offense or for driving with a suspended license. Some states now permit the vehicles of drivers convicted of certain impaired driving offenses to be impounded, immobilized (club or boot), or forfeited and sold. Other states allow the license plates to be removed and impounded. Still others allow for the use of specially marked license plates, or allow for the installment of alcohol ignition interlock devices. Key Facts In 1997, 1.5 million people were arrested in the U.S. for driving under the influence (DUI) or driving while intoxicated (DWI)–more than all other reported criminal offenses except larceny and theft. About one-third of all drivers arrested or convicted of DWI each year are repeat DWI offenders. Drivers with prior DWI convictions are also overrepresented in fatal crashes and have a greater relative risk of fatal crash involvement. Many second- and third-time convicted DWI offenders who had their licenses suspended accumulated traffic offenses or were involved in crashes during the suspension period. In one study, 32 percent of suspended second-time DWI offenders, and 61 percent of third-time offenders received violations or crash citations on their driving records during their suspensions. Many drivers do not reinstate their licenses even when eligible to do so. In one study involving first-time DWI offenders who had their licenses suspended for 90 days, 50 percent had not reinstated their licenses three years after they were eligible to be relicensed. Also, many of these offenders drive without auto insurance and do not attend treatment programs when required for reinstatement. | Back To Top | Legislative Status Forty-four states have laws that can affect the vehicles or vehicle plates of offenders. Vehicle Impoundment: Overnight impoundment of the vehicle of an individual arrested for impaired driving is a typical practice in most states. Thirteen states have laws which permit longer-term impoundments for certain offenses, usually for repeat DWI offenses or for Driving While Suspended (DWS) where the original offense was related to a DWI infraction. States which impound vehicles for these types of offenses include California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, Oregon, and Wisconsin. Suspension of Vehicle Registration: In 15 states, vehicle registration is withdrawn upon conviction of a DWI or DWS offense where the original licensing action can be related to a DWI offense. States which can withdraw vehicle registrations for a DWI or DWS offense are Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Virginia, and Wyoming. Some of these states have their own enforcement departments that send out investigators to pick up the license plates of these offenders. However, in general, the vehicle license plate suspension provisions are poorly enforced. Vehicle Confiscation: Twenty-five states permit the vehicle of multiple DWI or DWS offenders to be confiscated or sold, where the original licensing action can be related to a DWI offense. These states are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont,Washington, and Wisconsin. Vehicle Immobilization: Courts can prevent a DWI or DWS offender from using his or her car by immobilizing the steering wheel (by using a club) or locking a wheel (with a boot). Currently, only Ohio uses these types of sanctions. Special License Plates or Plate Markings: Three states–Iowa, Minnesota, and Ohio–issue special license plates to permit the use of the vehicle by family members of convicted DWI offenders. Two states-Oregon and Washington-enacted laws which permitted officers to affix a zebra sticker over the annual year portion of the license plates of offenders. Ignition Interlock: The purpose of an ignition interlock is to prevent a person who has consumed alcohol from operating a vehicle. The device measures alcohol concentration in the breath and is attached to a vehicle's ignition system. Before the car can be started, a driver must blow a sample of his or her breath into the interlock device. If the driver's breath alcohol is below a specified concentration, the driver will be able to start the vehicle's engine. However, if the driver has a breath alcohol concentration above the established level, the vehicle cannot be started. Thirty-seven states have laws providing for either the discretionary or mandatory use of ignition interlock devices for repeat and chronic DWI offenders. The ignition interlock is discretionary in 32 states: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. In three states–California, Oregon, and Texas–the law is mandatory under special circumstances. In some jurisdictions, interlocks may also be used for first offenders. | Back To Top | Recommendations for Strengthening and Increasing the Use of Vehicle and Vehicle Plate Sanctions Interviews with state and local officials, judiciary members, and law enforcement officers suggest that while impoundment and forfeiture legislation is common, application of these laws is rare. The reasons cited include: (1) these laws are generally reserved for the relatively few multiple DWI offenders rather than the more numerous first offenders; (2) there are difficulties in dealing with nonoffender owners; (3) it is costly to store junk vehicles that are not reclaimed by their owners; and (4) judges are reluctant to punish innocent family members. Yet some states have developed innovative ways for dealing with these problems. Minnesota experienced a twelvefold increase in the use of its license plate impoundment law when they switched from court-based to administrative enforcement of the impoundment law. The following recommendations may help state legislators and local officials revise existing legislation or enact new legislation to increase the use and effectiveness of their laws. Consider legislation that provides for administrative impoundment of plates and civil forfeiture of vehicles. In general, try to avoid criminal laws providing for forfeiture, as courts rarely use them. Enact legislation that allows for seizure at the time of arrest if officers impound either the vehicle or plate. It is more difficult and costly to track down the offender's vehicle later, and the delay gives the offender the opportunity to transfer vehicle ownership. Consider legislation that makes it unlawful for the owner of a motor vehicle to allow another person to drive the vehicle unless the owner determines the person possesses a valid driver's license. Also, require nonoffender owners to sign an affidavit stating they will not allow the offender to drive the vehicle again while the suspension is in effect. Establish a computerized state record-keeping system to document vehicle (impoundment and forfeiture) and license plate actions. This allows states to monitor use of the sanctions. Apply impoundment laws to all repeat DWI offenders and to all DWS offenders where the original infraction was for a DWI offense. This will encourage an increase in the use of impoundment since many courts do not apply this sanction to second-time DWI offenders or to first-time DWS offenders. Where the law provides for special license plates (e.g., family plates or license plate sticker laws), incorporate a provision that permits officers to stop the vehicle for the sole purpose of checking whether the driver is operating the vehicle while their license is under suspension. | Back To Top | Research and Evaluation Regarding the Effects of Vehicle and Plate Sanctions Maryland ignition interlock program lowered the re-arrest rate for repeat alcohol offenders: A Maryland study involving 1,380 repeat alcohol offenders randomly assigned participants to either an ignition interlock group or a control group that did not receive the sanction. Alcohol-related traffic re-arrest rates were tabulated for a full year. They showed that only 2.4 percent of the interlock group was rearrested, whereas 6.7 percent of the control group was re-arrested-a statistically significant difference indicating that the interlock program reduced the risk of an alcohol traffic violation within the first year by about 65 percent. Additional analyses of post-interlock recidivism are being examined. Other research on ignition interlocks is being conducted in Illinois and Alberta (Canada). Recently, NHTSA initiated another assessment of ignition interlocks. The focus of this congressionally mandated study is to conduct additional research on the effectiveness of these devices once they have been removed from offenders' vehicles. The findings from this four-year research effort will become available in 2002. Minnesota License Plate Impoundment Study: In Minnesota, violators incurring three DWI violations in five years, or four or more in ten years, can have their license plates impounded and destroyed. An evaluation of the effects of the law found a significant decrease in recidivism for violators who had their plates impounded versus violators who did not. Violators whose license plates were impounded by the arresting officer showed a 50 percent decrease in recidivism over a two-year period (when compared with DWI violators who did not experience impoundment). Ohio Impoundment and Immobilization Program: In Franklin County (Columbus), Ohio, researchers conducted a field test to study the deterrent effects that a combined impoundment and immobilization sanctions program has on crashes and violations for multiple DUI (Driving Under the Influence) and suspended license offenders. From September 1993 to September 1995, the vehicles of nearly 1,000 offenders were impounded and then immobilized. The recidivism rates of these offenders were compared to eligible offenders who did not receive a vehicle sanction. Offenders whose vehicles were impounded and immobilized had lower rates of DUI recidivism both during and after the termination of the sanction than offenders who managed to avoid the impoundment and immobilization sanctions. Similiar findings were obtained in Hamilton County where only vehicle impoundment was used. A project report will be available by early 2000. California Impoundment Program: NHTSA, in conjunction with the State Department of Motor Vehicles, conducted a research effort to study the impact of California's new vehicle impoundment law as applied to unlicensed and suspended license offenders. The innovative 30-day impoundment law is not typical of those found in most states, since it involves a civil action independent of a criminal DWS conviction for those caught driving without a valid license. More than 6,300 unlicensed drivers and those with suspended or revoked licenses whose vehicles were impounded were compared to about the same number of drivers in 1994 whose vehicles would have been eligible had the 1995 impoundment law been in effect. Driving records of both groups were compared for a one-year period on subsequent traffic violations and crashes. First offenders whose vehicles were impounded had an average rate of subsequent DWS or driving while unlicensed (DWU) that was 24 percent lower than those whose vehicles were not impounded. Repeat offenders had 34 percent fewer DWS or DWU convictions. Also, both first-time and repeat offenders whose vehicles were impounded had fewer crashes there was a 25 percent reduction for first-time offenders and a 38 percent reduction for repeat offenders. Zebra Tag Program in Oregon and Washington States: In Oregon, suspended license offenders whose vehicle plates were "zebra tagged" had fewer subsequent DWI and DWS violations than suspended offenders who did not receive the special tags. Also, among suspended license offenders, the possibility of receiving a zebra tag if re-arrested appears to reduce subsequent violations and crashes. A similar law in Washington State did not affect subsequent violations or crashes for these types of offenders; however, it was not applied to nearly as many drivers and vehicles and it was not as strongly enforced by the police. (Legislators in both states allowed the zebra tag law to expire.) | Back To Top | Transfer and Grant Programs In 1998, as part of the TEA-21 Restoration Act, a new Federal program (see section 164 program) was established to encourage states to address the problem of the repeat intoxicated driver. To comply with Section 164, the state's laws must require that certain sanctions must be imposed on persons convicted more than once within a five-year period of driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence of alcohol (DWI/DUI). One of the sanctions that must be imposed is: that all motor vehicles of repeat intoxicated drivers be impounded or immobilized for some period of time during the driver's license suspension period, or that an ignition interlock system be installed on all motor vehicles of such drivers for some period of time after the end of the suspension period. States that do not meet the Section 164 requirements will have a portion of their Federal-aid highway construction funds redirected into other state safety activities, beginning in fiscal year 2001. In addition, TEA-21 modified the Section 410 grant program. Under the program, as modified by TEA-21, states that qualify for a basic grant may also qualify for supplemental grant funds by meeting one or more of six criteria. One of the six criteria is a program to reduce driving with a suspended driver's license. In order to qualify for a supplemental grant under this criterion, a state must impose one of the following sanctions on individuals convicted of driving after their license has been suspended for an alcohol-related offense: suspension of the offender's vehicle registration and return of license plates; impoundment, immobilization, forfeiture or confiscation of the offender's motor vehicles; or the use of distinctive license plates on the offender's motor vehicle. | Back To Top | Information Sources Beck, Kenneth H., et al. Effects of Alcohol Ignition Interlock License Restrictions on Multiple Alcohol Offenses: A Randomized Trial in Maryland. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 89, No. 11, 1696-1700 (November 1999) A Guide to Sentencing DUI Offenders. NHTSA and NIAAA, DOT HS 808 365, March 1996. Model Specifications for Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Devices (BAIIDS). Federal Register Notice, Vol. 57, No. 67, Tuesday, April 7, 1992 (11772-11786). Assessment of Impoundment and Forfeiture Laws for Drivers Convicted of DUI, Phase II Report: Evaluation of Oregon and Washington Vehicle Plate Zebra Sticker Laws. DOT HS 808 136, Final Report, April 1994. Rogers, A. Effect of Minnesota's License Plate Impoundment Law on Recidivism of Multiple DWI Violators, Alcohol, Drugs and Driving. Vol. 10, No. 2, 1994. In Vehicle BAC Test Devices as a Deterrent to DUI. Unpublished NIAAA Final Report, January 1993. Assessment of Impoundment and Forfeiture Laws for Drivers Convicted of DWI: Phase I Report: Review of State Laws and Their Application. DOT HS 807 870, Final Report, June, 1992. Popkin, C., et al. An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Sanctions for DWI in Preventing Recidivism in North Carolina. UNC HSRC, Raleigh, NC, September 30, 1992. Alcohol Ignition Interlock Service Support. DOT HS 807 923, Final Report, December, 1992. De Young, N.J. An Evaluation of the Specific Deterrent Effect of Vehicle Impoundment on Suspended, Revoked and Unlicensed Drivers in California. DOT HS 808 727, Final Report, November 1997. | Back To Top | The reports and additional information are available from your State Highway Safety Office, the NHTSA Regional Office serving your State, or from NHTSA Headquarters, Traffic Safety Programs, ATTN: NTS-11, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590; 202-366-9588;or NHTSA's website at www.nhtsa.dot.gov
|
DUI / DWI, Drinking 
