OUIL

D.U.I.

Driving Under the Influence (DUI) among Young Persons December 31, 2004 Driving Under the Influence (DUI) among Young Persons In Brief In 2002 and 2003, 21 percent of persons aged 16 to 20 reported that they had driven in the past year while under the influence of alcohol or illicit drugs Among persons aged 16 to 20, whites and American Indians/Alaska Natives were more likely to report DUI than other racial/ethnic groups In 2002 and 2003, approximately 4 percent of persons who reported DUI in the past year had been arrested and booked for DUI in the past year Motor vehicle crashes were the leading cause of death among young persons aged 16 to 20 in 2002. 1 In that year, 6,327 persons aged 16 to 20 were involved in fatal crashes, representing a 10 percent increase since 1999. In addition, 29 percent of drivers aged 15 to 20 who were killed in motor vehicle crashes in 2002 had been drinking alcohol. 2 The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) asks persons aged 12 or older if they had driven a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or illicit drugs in the past year 3 and if they had been arrested for driving under the influence (DUI). 4 The survey also asks about the use of alcohol and any illicit drugs in the past year and past month. Alcohol measures used in this report include any past month use, binge use, and heavy use. Binge alcohol use is defined as drinking five or more drinks on the same occasion (i.e., at the same time or within a couple of hours of each other) on at least 1 day in the past 30 days. Heavy alcohol use is defined as drinking five or more drinks on the same occasion on each of 5 or more days in the past 30 days; all heavy alcohol users also are binge alcohol users. NSDUH defines "illicit drugs" to include marijuana/hashish, cocaine (including crack), inhalants, hallucinogens, heroin, or prescription-type drugs used nonmedically. This report presents the prevalence of DUI involving alcohol or illicit drugs, as well as the prevalence of being arrested for DUI among persons aged 16 to 20. 5 To improve the reliability of estimates for population subgroups, all estimates presented in this report are annual averages based on combined data from the 2002 and 2003 NSDUH. However, the prevalence of DUI involving alcohol or illicit drugs among persons aged 16 to 20 was lower in 2003 (20 percent) than in 2002 (22 percent). Prevalence of Substance Use and DUI In 2002 and 2003, an annual average of 44 percent of persons aged 16 to 20 had used alcohol in the past month, 30 percent were binge alcohol users, and 10 percent were heavy alcohol users. Approximately 38 percent of this age group had used an illicit drug in the past year. In 2002 and 2003, more than 4 million persons (21 percent) aged 16 to 20 reported DUI involving either alcohol or illicit drugs in the past year (Figure 1). In this age group, 17 percent reported past year DUI involving alcohol, 14 percent reported DUI involving illicit drugs, and 8 percent reported DUI involving a combination of alcohol and illicit drugs used together. Figure 1. Percentages of Persons Aged 16 to 20 Who Reported Driving a Vehicle Under the Influence of Alcohol or Illicit Drugs in the Past Year: 2002 and 2003 Figure 2. Percentages of Persons Aged 16 to 20 Who Reported Driving a Vehicle Under the Influence of Alcohol or Illicit Drugs in the Past Year, by Age: 2002 and 2003 Demographic Differences in DUI Among persons aged 16 to 20, older persons had a higher reported prevalence of DUI involving alcohol or illicit drugs than those who were younger (Figure 2). For example, persons aged 20 were nearly 3 times more likely to have driven under the influence than persons aged 16 (28 vs. 10 percent). Among all persons aged 16 to 20, males (24 percent) were more likely to report DUI involving alcohol or illicit drugs than females (18 percent). Among racial/ethnic groups, whites (26 percent) and American Indians/Alaska Natives (28 percent) were more likely to report DUI involving alcohol or illicit drugs than members of other racial/ethnic groups (Figure 3). In 2002 and 2003, approximately 25 percent of persons aged 16 to 20 who lived in the Midwest reported DUI involving alcohol or illicit drugs in the past year compared with approximately 20 percent in the South and 19 percent of persons in this age group in the Northeast and West. 6 The prevalence of DUI involving alcohol or illicit drugs was highest among persons who lived outside of metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) (25 percent), followed by persons who lived in small MSAs (23 percent) and persons who lived in large MSAs (19 percent). 7 Figure 3. Percentages of Persons Aged 16 to 20 Who Reported Driving a Vehicle Under the Influence of Alcohol or Illicit Drugs in the Past Year, by Race/Ethnicity: 2002 and 2003 Prevalence of Being Arrested for DUI among Those Reporting DUI Among the estimated 4.2 million persons aged 16 to 20 in 2002 and 2003 who reported DUI involving alcohol or illicit drugs in the past year, approximately 4 percent (169,000 persons) indicated they had been arrested and booked for DUI involving alcohol or drugs in the past year. 8 The percentage of this group who reported being arrested for DUI was higher among males than among females (6 vs. 2 percent). End Notes Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. (2004, November 30). WISQARS leading causes of death reports, 1999 – 2002 . Retrieved December 2, 2004, from http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2003, August). Traffic safety facts 2002: Young drivers . Retrieved December 2, 2004, from http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSF2002/2002ydrfacts.pdf Respondents were asked, in three different questions, if during the past 12 months they had driven a vehicle while under the influence of (a) alcohol only, (b) illicit drugs only, or (c) a combination of alcohol and illicit drugs used together. Responses to these questions then were recoded to determine the prevalence of DUI involving (a) alcohol, (b) illicit drugs, (c) either alcohol or illicit drugs, or (d) both alcohol and illicit drugs. Respondents were asked if during the past 12 months they had been arrested and booked for DUI involving alcohol or illicit drugs. Persons aged 15 or younger were not included in these analyses because a substantial portion of persons aged 15 or younger are prohibited from driving by State laws. The Midwest has 12 States: IL, IN, IA, KS, MI, MN, MO, NE, ND, OH, SD, and WI. The South has 17 States: AL, AR, DC, DE, FL, GA, KY, LA, MD, MS, NC, OK, SC, TN, TX, VA, and WV. The Northeast has 9 States: CT, MA, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, and VT. And the West has 13 States: AK, AZ, CA, CO, HI, ID, MT, NM, NV, OR, UT, WA, and WY. Large metropolitan areas have a population of 1 million or more. Small metropolitan areas have a population of fewer than 1 million. Non-metropolitan areas are outside metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), as defined by the Office of Management and Budget. See the U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2003, June 12). About metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas . Retrieved December 1, 2004, from http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/aboutmetro.html This excludes an estimated 38,000 persons who reported they had been arrested and booked for DUI in the past year but indicated elsewhere that they had not driven under the influence of alcohol or drugs in the past year. Figure Note Source: SAMHSA 2002 and 2003 NSDUH. The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) is an annual survey sponsored by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Prior to 2002, this survey was called the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA). The 2002 data are based on information obtained from 68,126 persons aged 12 or older, including 16,723 persons aged 16 to 20. The 2003 data are based on information obtained from 67,784 persons aged 12 or older, including 16,167 persons aged 16 to 20. The survey collects data by administering questionnaires to a representative sample of the population through face-to-face interviews at their place of residence. The NSDUH Report is prepared by the Office of Applied Studies (OAS), SAMHSA, and by RTI International in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. (RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute.) Information and data for this issue are based on the following publications: Office of Applied Studies. (2003). Results from the 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National findings (DHHS Publication No. SMA 03–3836, NSDUH Series H–22). Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Office of Applied Studies. (2004). Results from the 2003 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National findings (DHHS Publication No. SMA 04–3964, NSDUH Series H–25). Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Also available online: http://www.oas.samhsa.gov . Because of improvements and modifications to the 2002 NSDUH, estimates from the 2002 and 2003 surveys should not be compared with estimates from the 2001 or earlier versions of the survey to examine changes over time. The NSDUH Report (formerly The NHSDA Report ) is published periodically by the Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration ( SAMHSA ). All material appearing in this report is in the public domain and may be reproduced or copied without permission from SAMHSA . Additional copies of this report or other reports from the Office of Applied Studies are available on-line: http://www.oas.samhsa.gov . Citation of the source is appreciated. For questions about this report please e-mail: shortreports@samhsa.hhs.gov . Click to Return to OAS Home Page Click to Email OAS Data Questions Click For Non-frames / text version of site This page was last updated on December 16, 2004 . 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

OUIL - Pit Area of Owendale Speedway Covered by Statute OUIL- PIT AREA OF OWENDALE SPEEDWAY COVERED BY STATUTE By JudgeStephen C. Cooper People v. Nickerson, 227 Mich App 434 (1998), 1/20/98 Return to District Court Review Menu Return to Calhoun County Courts Homepage Facts: The defendant was charged with operating a vehicle while under theinfluence of intoxicating liquor. The defendant filed a motion todismiss claiming the pit area of the Owendale Speedway is not covered bythe statute. The District Court granted the motion and the CircuitCourt affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed. Ruling: The Court of Appeals noted that the statute states that a person, whileunder the influence, "shall not operate a vehicle upon a highway or otherplace open to the general public or generally accessible to motor vehicles,including an area designated for the parking of vehicles..." MCLA§257.625(1). The district and Circuit Court ruled that the pitarea was not a "place open to the general public" as there was age restrictionsand because there was an admission fee. The Court of Appeals ruledthat even if the pit are was not a "place open to the general public,"the pit area could be an area "generally accessible to motor vehicles." The Court noted that the legislature added "generally accessible to motorvehicles" in order to expand the coverage of the statute. The Courtthen stated that since vehicles are generally able to drive into the pitarea, the pit area was an area "generally accessible to motor vehicles"and therefore was covered by the statute. Top of Page Return to District Court Review Menu Return to Calhoun County Courts Homepage Last updated 4-27-99 Send your comments, questions and suggestions to Phil Harter at 161E Michigan Avenue, Battle Creek, Michigan 49014 or e mail to pharter@internet1.net

Driving Under Influence

RCW 46.61.502: Driving under the influence. About Us | Contact Us | E-mail Notifications | Search | Help Legislature Home | Senate | House of Representatives Print Version | No disponible en español Inside the Legislature Find Your Legislator Visiting the Legislature Agendas, Schedules and Calendars Bill Information Laws and Agency Rules Legislative Committees Legislative Agencies E-mail Notifications Students' Page Outside the Legislature Washington State History and Culture Congress - the Other Washington TV Washington Washington Courts Transportation Performance Audit Board OFM Fiscal Note Website RCWs Title 46 Chapter 46.61 Section 46.61.502 46.61.500 << 46.61.502 >> 46.61.503 RCW 46.61.502 Driving under the influence. (1) A person is guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug if the person drives a vehicle within this state:      (a) And the person has, within two hours after driving, an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher as shown by analysis of the person's breath or blood made under RCW 46.61.506 ; or      (b) While the person is under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug; or      (c) While the person is under the combined influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor and any drug.      (2) The fact that a person charged with a violation of this section is or has been entitled to use a drug under the laws of this state shall not constitute a defense against a charge of violating this section.      (3) It is an affirmative defense to a violation of subsection (1)(a) of this section which the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant consumed a sufficient quantity of alcohol after the time of driving and before the administration of an analysis of the person's breath or blood to cause the defendant's alcohol concentration to be 0.08 or more within two hours after driving. The court shall not admit evidence of this defense unless the defendant notifies the prosecution prior to the omnibus or pretrial hearing in the case of the defendant's intent to assert the affirmative defense.      (4) Analyses of blood or breath samples obtained more than two hours after the alleged driving may be used as evidence that within two hours of the alleged driving, a person had an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more in violation of subsection (1)(a) of this section, and in any case in which the analysis shows an alcohol concentration above 0.00 may be used as evidence that a person was under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug in violation of subsection (1)(b) or (c) of this section.      (5) A violation of this section is a gross misdemeanor. [1998 c 213 § 3; 1994 c 275 § 2; 1993 c 328 § 1; 1987 c 373 § 2; 1986 c 153 § 2; 1979 ex.s. c 176 § 1.] Notes: Rules of court:   Bail in criminal traffic offense cases -- Mandatory appearance -- CrRLJ 3.2.       Effective date -- 1998 c 213: See note following RCW 46.20.308 .       Short title -- Effective date -- 1994 c 275: See notes following RCW 46.04.015 .       Legislative finding, purpose -- 1987 c 373: "The legislature finds the existing statutes that establish the criteria for determining when a person is guilty of driving a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs are constitutional and do not require any additional criteria to ensure their legality. The purpose of this act is to provide an additional method of defining the crime of driving while intoxicated. This act is not an acknowledgement that the existing breath alcohol standard is legally improper or invalid." [1987 c 373 § 1.]       Severability -- 1987 c 373: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [1987 c 373 § 8.]       Severability -- 1979 ex.s. c 176: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [1979 ex.s. c 176 § 8.] Business operation of vessel or vehicle while intoxicated: RCW 9.91.020 . Criminal history and driving record: RCW 46.61.513 . Operating aircraft recklessly or under influence of intoxicants or drugs: RCW 47.68.220 . Use of vessel in reckless manner or while under influence of alcohol or drugs prohibited: RCW 79A.60.040 . Comments about this site | Privacy Notice | Accessibility Information | Disclaimer

Drunk Driving Laws

dwi laws, DWI LAWS, D.W.I. Laws dwi laws, DWI LAWS, D.W.I. Laws: driving while intoxicated laws, laws aboutdwi The words dwi laws, DWI law, D.U.I, and "driving while intoxicated", are usedby DWI lawyers and DWI attorneys in United States DWI Law . The expression "DWI laws" is not found in the CriminalCode of Canada. Canadians use terminology other than "DWI laws" or "drivingwhile intoxicated laws". We use the words "impaired driving laws" or"impaired operation laws", or "impaired care or control laws" but not "drivingwhile intoxicated laws". In Canadian laws it is any impairment byalcohol or a drug of one's ability to operate a motor vehicle combined withoperation that is forbidden, not "driving while intoxicated". (DWI). The words "drive while intoxicated" in Canada implies that anindividual is drunk beyond the point of self-control. Provincial legislationauthorizes the arrest of intoxicated persons when there is an element of dangerto themselves. Intoxication may be a defence to serious criminal offences wherethe drunkenness directly interferes with the individual's capacity to intend todo something. When it comes to DWI law in Canada we don't use the words"drive while intoxicated" or D.W.I, DWI. Instead we focus on whetheror not the person's ability to operate the motor vehicle is "impaired"by alcohol. The prohibited level of impairment may be slight. In R. v. Stellato , 78C.C.C. (3d) 380 , the issue waswhether or not Canada's DWI offence required that the driver's conductdemonstrated a marked departure from that of a normal person. Chief JusticeLamer of the SupremeCourt of Canada agreed with the views of Mr. Justice Labrosse for the OntarioCourt of Appeal : "At trial, the Crown's evidence consisted of the testimony of thearresting officer and the breathalyzer technician who had observed the classicsigns of impairment: erratic driving, strong odour of alcoholic beverage, glassyand bloodshot eyes, slurred speech and unsteadiness on his feet. Both policeofficers had concluded that the appellant's ability to operate his vehicle wasimpaired by alcohol." "In his reasons, the trial judge stated: The question then remains as to whether those observations are sufficient or indeed whether in law what the court requires, in order to convict someone of this offence, [is] a marked departure from the standard. In that regard I have always had reference to the case of R. v. Winlaw, that is a decision of the Ontario District Court, as it then was, and His Honour Judge Salhany, a case reported at 13 M.V.R. (2d) 112, 6 W.C.B. (2d) 251, a judgment rendered some two years ago, December, 1988. There, the learned judge went through the law, as was presented to him, with respect to the law of impaired driving and I take that case to stand for the proposition that the section involved here, namely, s. 253(a), creates an offence of being impaired, not markedly impaired, but simply impaired, and it does not require evidence of a marked departure from a norm or standard of sobriety; any kind of impairment, even slight, was sufficient to constitute the offence." "The expression ''marked departure from what is usually consideredas the normal'' originated in the decision of the Alberta District Court in R.v. McKenzie (1955), 111 C.C.C. 317, 20 C.R. 412, 14 W.W.R. (N.S.) 500. This wasan appeal from a conviction on a charge of driving while ability was impaired.At p. 319, Sissons C.J.D.C. stated: There appears to be no single test or observation of impairment of control of faculties, standing alone, which is sufficiently conclusive. There should be consideration of a combination of several tests and observations such as general conduct, smell of the breath, character of the speech, manner of walking, turning sharply, sitting down and rising, picking up objects, reaction of the pupils of the eyes, character of the breathing. If a combination of several tests and observations shows a marked departure from what is usually considered as the normal, it seems a reasonable conclusion that the driver is intoxicated with consequent impairment of control of faculties and therefore that his ability to drive is impaired. I do not think such a finding should be made on a slight variation from the normal." ... "In R. v. Campbell (1991), 26 M.V.R. (2d) 319, 87 Nfld.& P.E.I.R. 269, 12 W.C.B. (2d) 155, the Prince Edward Island Court of Appealalso considered the test for impairment. Without specific reference to McKenzie,Mitchell J.A., speaking for the court, rejected the requirement for a markeddeparture from normal behaviour. At p. 320, he wrote: The Criminal Code does not prescribe any special test for determining impairment. It is an issue of fact which the trial Judge must decide on the evidence. The standard of proof is neither more nor less than that required for any other element of a criminal offence. Before he can convict, a trial Judge must receive sufficient evidence to satisfy himself beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol. It is not an offence to drive a motor vehicle after having consumed some alcohol as long as it has not impaired the ability to drive. However, a person who drives while his or her ability to do so is impaired by alcohol is guilty of an offence regardless of whether his ability to drive is greatly or only slightly impaired. Courts must therefore take care when determining the issue not to apply tests which assume or imply a tolerance that does not exist in law. Trial judges constantly have to keep in mind that it is an offence to operate a motor vehicle while the ability to do so is impaired by alcohol. If there is sufficient evidence before the Court to prove that the accused's ability to drive was even slightly impaired by alcohol, the Judge must find him guilty." ... "I agree with Mitchell J.A. in Campbell that theCriminal Code does not prescribe any special test for determining impairment. Inthe words of Mitchell J.A., impairment is an issue of fact which the trial judgemust decide on the evidence and the standard of proof is neither more nor lessthan that required for any other element of a criminal offence: courts shouldnot apply tests which imply a tolerance that does not exist in law. In all criminal cases the trial judge must be satisfied as tothe accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before a conviction can beregistered. Accordingly, before convicting an accused of impaired driving, thetrial judge must be satisfied that the accused's ability to operate a motorvehicle was impaired by alcohol or a drug. If the evidence of impairment is sofrail as to leave the trial judge with a reasonable doubt as to impairment, theaccused must be acquitted. If the evidence of impairment establishes any degreeof impairment ranging from slight to great, the offence has been made out. In the present case, the trial judge applied the correct testfor impairment. There was sufficient evidence adduced at trial from which hecould find that the Crown had proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that theappellant's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol at thematerial time." It is also a "DWI laws"criminal offence in Canada to drive having more than 80 milligrams of alcoholper 100 mls of blood whether one's ability to drive is"influenced" (DWI) or not . Canada has two main substantive DWI law criminal offences: impaired operation or careor control , over 80 operation or careor control Section 253. Every one commits an offence who operates a motorvehicle or vessel or operates or assists in the operation of an aircraft orof railway equipment or has the careor control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment,whether it is in motion or not, (a) while the person's ability to operate the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by alcohol or a drug; or (b) having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration in theperson's blood exceeds eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitresof blood. Impaired operation or care or control in Canada includes operation or care orcontrol of a motor vehicle, vessel, or aircraft while one's ability to operateis impaired by alcohol or a drug to any degree of impairment. This DWI offence isproven by evidence of bad driving and various indicia of impairment observedsuch as slurred speech, difficulty with standing walking turning, red glassyglossy bloodshot eyes, dilated pupils, odor odour of an alcoholic beverage,complexion flushed face, and performance on physical tests. The DWI offence of excess blood alcohol or over 80 is usually proven by breathtests that determine blood alcohol concentration using and approved instrumentsuch as a Breathalyzer 900 900A or Intoxilyzer 5000C. Blood tests are used in DWIcases where breath testsare not practical to provide evidence of blood alcohol concentration. Both Canadian DWI laws are federal criminal law offences. The Crown inCanada can prosecute a DWI in either of two ways. DWI offences are hybridoffences in Canada. The Crown may prosecute a DWI offence by indictment (roughlysimilar to a US felony DWI) or they may prosecute a DWI offence by summaryconviction (roughly similar to a US misdemeanor). The local Crown Attorney mustelect whether to proceed with the D.U.I. by indictment or by summary conviction.Until he or she elects, the DWI offence is deemed to be prosecuted byindictment. Most Canadian DWI offences are prosecuted by summary conviction. The usual penalty for a first DWI offence in Canada is a fine. The minimumsecond DWI offence penalty is 14 days in jail. The minimum penalty for a third DWIis 90 days in jail. There is always a DWI driving prohibition and the local province will suspend a DWI offender's driver's licence . If a US citizen or other non-Canadian citizen is convicted of a DWI offencein the USA or a dwi offence in any country other than Canada, the DWI offenderwill be inadmissibleto Canada on grounds of criminality, unless rehabilitated , because the DWI offence is deemed to be a CanadianDWI offence and all Canadian DWI offences aredeemed indictable (similar to a US felony - see above) unless the Crown haselected to proceed with the DWI offence by summary conviction (which will neverhave happened because the DWI offense occurred outside Canada. The situationwill be different if the DWI offence occurs in Canada and the Crown elects toproceed by summary conviction which they normally do. Click the banner for more Canadian DWI laws information. DWI LAWS, D.U.I. Laws, or driving under the influencelaws is, however,an important concept used in the United States. For more detailed DWI legalinformation click on one of the links below: Alabama DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Alabama d.w.i. law in Alabama Alabama dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in AL AL dwi laws l aws about dwi in AL Alaska DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Alaska d.w.i. law in Alaska Alaska dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in AK AK dwi laws l aws about dwi in AK Alberta DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Alberta d.w.i. law in Alberta Alberta dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in AB AB dwi laws l aws about dwi in AB Arizona DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Arizona d.w.i. law in Arizona Arizona dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in AZ AZ dwi laws l aws about dwi in AZ Arkansas DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Arkansas d.w.i. law in Arkansas Arkansas dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in AR AR dwi laws l aws about dwi in AR British Columbia DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in British Columbia d.w.i. law in British Columbia British Columbia dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in BC BC dwi laws l aws about dwi in BC California DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in California d.w.i. law in California California dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in CA CA dwi laws l aws about dwi in CA Colorado DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Colorado d.w.i. law in Colorado Colorado dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in CO CO dwi laws l aws about dwi in CO Connecticut DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Connecticut d.w.i. law in Connecticut Connecticut dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in CT CT dwi laws l aws about dwi in CT Delaware DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Delaware d.w.i. law in Delaware Delaware dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in DE DE dwi laws l aws about dwi in DE District of Columbia DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in District of Columbia d.w.i. law in District of Columbia District of Columbia dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in DC DC dwi laws l aws about dwi in DC England DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in England d.w.i. law in England England dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in EN EN dwi laws l aws about dwi in EN Florida DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Florida d.w.i. law in Florida Florida dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in FL FL dwi laws l aws about dwi in FL Georgia DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Georgia d.w.i. law in Georgia Georgia dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in GA GA dwi laws l aws about dwi in GA Hawaii DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Hawaii d.w.i. law in Hawaii Hawaii dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in HI HI dwi laws l aws about dwi in HI Idaho DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Idaho d.w.i. law in Idaho Idaho dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in ID ID dwi laws l aws about dwi in ID Illinois DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Illinois d.w.i. law in Illinois Illinois dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in IL IL dwi laws l aws about dwi in IL Indiana DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Indiana d.w.i. law in Indiana Indiana dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in IN IN dwi laws l aws about dwi in IN Iowa DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Iowa d.w.i. law in Iowa Iowa dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in IA IA dwi laws l aws about dwi in IA Kansas DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Kansas d.w.i. law in Kansas Kansas dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in KS KS dwi laws l aws about dwi in KS Kentucky DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Kentucky d.w.i. law in Kentucky Kentucky dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in KY KY dwi laws l aws about dwi in KY Louisiana DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Louisiana d.w.i. law in Louisiana Louisiana dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in LA LA dwi laws l aws about dwi in LA Maine DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Maine d.w.i. law in Maine Maine dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in ME ME dwi laws l aws about dwi in ME Manitoba DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Manitoba d.w.i. law in Manitoba Manitoba dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in MB MB dwi laws l aws about dwi in MB Maryland DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Maryland d.w.i. law in Maryland Maryland dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in MD MD dwi laws l aws about dwi in MD Massachusetts DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Massachusetts d.w.i. law in Massachusetts Massachusetts dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in MA MA dwi laws l aws about dwi in MA Michigan DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Michigan d.w.i. law in Michigan Michigan dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in MI MI dwi laws l aws about dwi in MI Minnesota DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Minnesota d.w.i. law in Minnesota Minnesota dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in MN MN dwi laws l aws about dwi in MN Mississippi DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Mississippi d.w.i. law in Mississippi Mississippi dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in MS MS dwi laws l aws about dwi in MS Missouri DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Missouri d.w.i. law in Missouri Missouri dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in MO MO dwi laws l aws about dwi in MO Montana DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Montana d.w.i. law in Montana Montana dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in MT MT dwi laws l aws about dwi in MT Nebraska DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Nebraska d.w.i. law in Nebraska Nebraska dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in NE NE dwi laws l aws about dwi in NE Nevada DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Nevada d.w.i. law in Nevada Nevada dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in NV NV dwi laws l aws about dwi in NV New Brunswick DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in New Brunswick d.w.i. law in New Brunswick New Brunswick dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in NB NB dwi laws l aws about dwi in NB New Hampshire DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in New Hampshire d.w.i. law in New Hampshire New Hampshire dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in NH NH dwi laws l aws about dwi in NH New Jersey DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in New Jersey d.w.i. law in New Jersey New Jersey dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in NJ NJ dwi laws l aws about dwi in NJ New Mexico DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in New Mexico d.w.i. law in New Mexico New Mexico dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in NM NM dwi laws l aws about dwi in NM New York DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in New York d.w.i. law in New York New York dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in NY NY dwi laws l aws about dwi in NY Newfoundland DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Newfoundland d.w.i. law in Newfoundland Newfoundland dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in NF NF dwi laws l aws about dwi in NF North Carolina DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in North Carolina d.w.i. law in North Carolina North Carolina dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in NC NC dwi laws l aws about dwi in NC North Dakota DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in North Dakota d.w.i. law in North Dakota North Dakota dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in ND ND dwi laws l aws about dwi in ND Northwest Territories DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Northwest Territories d.w.i. law in Northwest Territories Northwest Territories dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in NT NT dwi laws l aws about dwi in NT Nova Scotia DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Nova Scotia d.w.i. law in Nova Scotia Nova Scotia dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in NS NS dwi laws l aws about dwi in NS Nunavut DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Nunavut d.w.i. law in Nunavut Nunavut dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in NU NU dwi laws l aws about dwi in NU Ohio DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Ohio d.w.i. law in Ohio Ohio dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in OH OH dwi laws l aws about dwi in OH Oklahoma DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Oklahoma d.w.i. law in Oklahoma Oklahoma dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in OK OK dwi laws l aws about dwi in OK Ontario DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Ontario d.w.i. law in Ontario Ontario dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in ON ON dwi laws l aws about dwi in ON Oregon DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Oregon d.w.i. law in Oregon Oregon dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in OR OR dwi laws l aws about dwi in OR Pennsylvania DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Pennsylvania d.w.i. law in Pennsylvania Pennsylvania dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in PA PA dwi laws l aws about dwi in PA Prince Edward Island DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Prince Edward Island d.w.i. law in Prince Edward Island Prince Edward Island dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in PE PE dwi laws l aws about dwi in PE Quebec DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Quebec d.w.i. law in Quebec Quebec dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in QC QC dwi laws l aws about dwi in QC Rhode Island DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Rhode Island d.w.i. law in Rhode Island Rhode Island dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in RI RI dwi laws l aws about dwi in RI Saskatchewan DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Saskatchewan d.w.i. law in Saskatchewan Saskatchewan dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in SK SK dwi laws l aws about dwi in SK South Carolina DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in South Carolina d.w.i. law in South Carolina South Carolina dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in SC SC dwi laws l aws about dwi in SC South Dakota DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in South Dakota d.w.i. law in South Dakota South Dakota dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in SD SD dwi laws l aws about dwi in SD Tennessee DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Tennessee d.w.i. law in Tennessee Tennessee dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in TN TN dwi laws l aws about dwi in TN Texas DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Texas d.w.i. law in Texas Texas dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in TX TX dwi laws l aws about dwi in TX Utah DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Utah d.w.i. law in Utah Utah dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in UT UT dwi laws l aws about dwi in UT Vermont DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Vermont d.w.i. law in Vermont Vermont dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in VT VT dwi laws l aws about dwi in VT Virginia DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Virginia d.w.i. law in Virginia Virginia dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in VA VA dwi laws l aws about dwi in VA Washington State DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Washington State d.w.i. law in Washington State Washington State dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in WA WA dwi laws l aws about dwi in WA West Virginia DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in West Virginia d.w.i. law in West Virginia West Virginia dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in WV WV dwi laws l aws about dwi in WV Wisconsin DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Wisconsin d.w.i. law in Wisconsin Wisconsin dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in WI WI dwi laws l aws about dwi in WI Wyoming DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Wyoming d.w.i. law in Wyoming Wyoming dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in WY WY dwi laws l aws about dwi in WY Yukon DWI LAWS D.W.I. Laws in Yukon d.w.i. law in Yukon Yukon dwi laws D.W.I. Laws in YT YT dwi laws l aws about dwi in YT

DUI Insurance

Washington DUI Guide: Car Insurance Everything You Need to Know About First Offender DUI / DWI, Drinking Driving and Drugs Home | State By State Help | DUI Lawyers | Insurance Help | Breath Testers | DUI Videos Other States Washington Topics Washington DUI Washington Car Insurance Washington DUI Lawyers Google Search Results Washington Auto Insurance Since 1993, InsureMe has helped countless consumers save money on their auto insurance. Fast, easy and free. With our free service, enter your information once and you are instantly matched with the most competitive companies in the business. You'll get back up to five quotes so you can compare and save. At InsureMe, we shop your insurance so you don't have to. Your privacy is important to us. At InsureMe, we use the highest level of security available to safeguard your personal information. We hate spam just as much as you do, so we'll never sell or rent your email address for mass marketing. Why not get started today? Get Quote Now Home > State By State Help > Washington DUI > Car Insurance DISCLAIMER : This website provides only general information intended for those charged with drunk driving offenses. The information and news items on the site are for information only. This information is not legal advice, nor is it intended to create any binding advisory relationship. Do not take action based upon this information unless you consult with an attorney or other specialist. © 2005 Drivers Research Institute   All Rights Reserved   Send eMail   Advertise With Us