Chicagoist: DUIs in 2009 Are Gonna Blow

jennyblur

Tue, 30 Dec 2008 10:06:22 -0600

It's the very nature of being mentally impaired that said person is unware of it. This archetype is all over popular literature from Thoreau's "Ignorant Woodsman" to "Flowers for Algernon". The problem I have with criminalizing drunk driving is that there is no intent. In other crimes, being drunk is actually a mitigating circumstance.

Karl Klockars

Tue, 30 Dec 2008 08:17:47 -0600

As far as the "refuse to blow" thing is concerned: If you do in fact refuse the field sobriety test, I believe you're instantly taken into custody and an automatic license suspension is enacted. Then, the police can get a judge to order a blood test - of course, the whole process takes time, during which sobering occurs. Inre: the state making money off this, yes, the Secretary of State is only making $30 per device - but when there's thousands and thousands of drunk driving arrests each year, it does add up. How many people do you think are going to be hired to do the actual monitoring? Or will it be rolled into police duties or DMV responsibilities? I don't know. In addition, at least one site I saw from another state that have implemented the program indicate that heavy lobbying from the ignition-interlock people probably had as much to do with the passage of the legislation as any concerns for public safety. (Surprise!) Again, I don't know if that's the case in Illinois, but you do the math. @Stephen: Ask anyone who pounds 14 Old Styles in about 7 innings if they're drunk.

Albanyparkour

Tue, 30 Dec 2008 01:45:41 -0600

Aww, Rachel, did you get a word-a-day calendar for the holiday? It's not an oxymoron at all, to knowingly impair one's self, a bit of temporary brain amputation. Tomorrow's word is "Pedant." Don't come crying about the rights of people driving drunk. You are not required to have a driver's license and obtaining one makes you subject to a whole host of very odious laws, restrictions and codes. If you wish to live a life of drunken pleasure, wholly free of such imposition, don't drive, period.

via chicago

Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:35:32 -0600

i think that correct, but if you refuse a blood test, then you automatically lose your license for 6 months. of course, if you are over the BAC, then youre going to lose your license for a year and have a DUI conviction on top of it.

via chicago

Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:33:57 -0600

kgvs72

Mon, 29 Dec 2008 18:40:24 -0600

Drive hammered, get hammered. Whether installing is right or wrong, I seriously doubt that the State is going to make a profit out of this. The company that installs this device is the one that is going to be making a profit. This is like saying the state makes a profit by issuing house arrest devices.

kgvs72

Mon, 29 Dec 2008 18:36:53 -0600

morydd

Mon, 29 Dec 2008 17:12:03 -0600

I'm not sure how the fifth amendment applies. This is punishment as part of your sentence when convicted of a crime. As long a due process is maintained in arriving at the conviction, the state has the right to deprive you of life, liberty and property.

garlic

Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:29:25 -0600

Apparently your fifth amendment rights can be restricted if the government suspects that you're naughty enough.

HateBrianClub

Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:09:37 -0600

The DUI program is a huge cash cow for the state... I wonder if any of this money is going to improve public transportation, education or treatment. I doubt it.

Tower18

Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:02:44 -0600

For those with DUI convictions, it's usually part of their sentence that they are not allowed to drive under the influence, not even a little bit. Because of their previous indiscretion, they are not afforded the .08 that the rest of us can be trusted with.

jennyblur

Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:54:00 -0600

You can actually refuse ANY kind of testing, the penalties upon convinction are just more severe. The point is, how so you PROVE that someone's BAC is above the legal limit without a chemical test? At that point the convinction lies totally in the hands of the arresting officer who liekly based his arrest on a series of completely subjective and non-uniform field tests. I would never submit to a BAC test of any kind. It's even stupider than actually driving drunk.

Stephen

Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:52:04 -0600

If you get busted doing so, you could very well go to the pokey for 3 years. Something to think about before you pound back that 14th Old Style and borrow your buddy's conversion van to hit the liquor store. I didn't realize anyone could get drunk off 14 Old Styles? :confused: Ingrid, the Trib reports that "Drivers who register a 0.08 or higher blood-alcohol level at the time of their arrest will be required to drive with the monitoring devices for five months. Drivers who refuse alcohol testing but are convicted must use the devices for 11 months." The thing that I'm conflicted about with this little device is that if it detects a BAC above 0.024, it will disable the car. I know that drivers with prior DUI convictions should probably be held to a stricter BAC limit than the general unconvicted populous, but the difference between 0.08 and 0.024 seems pretty significant - I guess I had wrongly assumed it would only disable the car if the driver was actually over the legal limit.

Tower18

Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:45:23 -0600

As I remember it, refusing to blow won't save someone who's truly drunk. The point is, you're not legally required to take a breathalyzer...if you refuse, you ARE legally required to take a blood test. It's your choice. But you'll be arrested in the meantime. Okay, so, why do that? Because if, when you were pulled over, you're quite aware of how much you drank, and you're probably JUST straddling the .08 line, the time it takes for you to be taken down to the station and booked will be enough time for you to fall below .08. At least that's how I understand it. But that's mostly because I never drive while drunk enough to really care...so the situation above (right at the limit) is the only one that would ever apply to me.

jennyblur

Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:26:26 -0600

I think "knowingly mentally impaired" is a bit of an oxymoron. And the whole point of refusing to blow is that it lowers the chances you'll get convicted by 2/3. Do you know what works and is free? AA.

Albanyparkour

Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:04:59 -0600

Unlike screwing people for $50 bucks for overstaying at a 25 cent meter, this holds people who actually endanger the public to account. Drunk Driving is someone choosing to get in a huge metal machine while knowingly mentally impaired. Honestly, I don't like the idea of someone who would do that having the privilege to drive at all.

Albanyparkour

Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:03:39 -0600

Ingrid

Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:54:17 -0600

I despise anyone who thinks they can get drunk and then get into a car and drive, so I think this is a good idea. It's probably not fool proof, but it's a good start. My question is, once you get the DUI and have this installed in your car, is it something that is there forever or would there be different terms for different levels of offense? btw, I know a young guy who just got busted for DUI...totalled the car, the whole nine yards. His mommy hired an atty. and is doing her best to get him off, which I think is just so wrong. He needs to be punished because he'll just go and do it again. He drinks and drives all the time. If I told you the excuse he used for crashing into a tree two blocks from his house, you wouldn't even believe me. But the thing is, because of his attitude, he should get punished by the law, to the full extent. Mommy isn't doing him any favors by trying to get around what he should have coming to him. He could have killed someone.