Massachusetts Toughens OUI Penalties

Boston, MA–A new, comprehensive drunk driving law that will make
punishment for repeat offenders of drunk driving offenses took effect on
October 28, 2005. State Rep. William C. Galvin, D-Canton, stated, “Not
only do these laws work to punish those who are guilty of repeat drunk
driving offenses but they also work as a deterrent measure.”

The new law, called “Melanie’s Law” after a young girl who was killed
in a drunk driving accident, includes numerous provisions. A new offense
charges drunken drivers for operating a vehicle with a child under the
age of 14. Anyone with a blood alcohol
level of .15 or higher must attend an alcohol assessment program. The
penalties for knowingly allowing someone to use an automobile, though he
or she has a suspended license from drunk driving, have increased to a
fine of $500 for the first offense, and a fine of $1,000 and also
possibly one year in jail for the second offense.

Mandatory sentences have become stricter. The mandatory sentence for a
drunk driver who convicts manslaughter is now doubled. A new mandatory
sentence of one year in prison will be applied to those driving under the
influence with a suspended license.

Prosecutors can use original court papers and certified information of
a defendant’s prior life history from certain records for a previous OUI.
These documents will serve as complete evidence, and no testimony or
additional evidence will be necessary to prove authenticity.

Repeat offenders will need to operate cars with ignition interlock
devices that force them to measure their blood alcohol level before being
able to turn on the ignition. Tampering with the device or driving a car
without the interlock devices will serve time in prison.

License suspension procedures will be more severe with first offenders
having suspended licenses for 15 years, up from 10 years. Second-time
offenders of OUI Motor Vehicle Homicide will have their licenses
suspended for life. Anyone refusing to take a Breathalyzer test will have his or
her license suspended for 180 days, but if an accident results in death
or injury of another person and the driver refuses the Breathalyzer test,
a 10-year suspension will result. Refusal with previous OUI violations or
convictions will result in license suspension, and those with three
previous violations will have lifetime license suspension. Those who
refuse the Breathalyzer test will also have their cars impounded for 24
hours.

November 18, 2005

Also See:

• Melanie’s Law Targets Repeat Drunk
  Drivers

New drunk driving law seems to have quick effects
December 31, 2005

BOSTON — The number of repeat drunken driving arrests in
Massachusetts has dropped 44 percent in the two months since lawmakers
passed Melanie’s law, a tough new measure aimed at habitual
offenders.

In the two months since the law passed, 1,051 repeat offenders were
charged with drunken driving. That’s compared to 1,889 during the same
period a year before, according to statistics from the state Registry of
Motor Vehicles.

Advocates of the law said they were encouraged by the early results,
though they emphasized the numbers reflect just a short period of
time.

Ron Bersani, grandfather of Melanie Powell, for whom the law was
named, said he hopes the drop shows that people are “smartening up” about
the affects of drunken driving. Powell was a 13-year-old from Marshfield
who was killed by a repeat drunken driver.

“I suspect there are a lot of people now who have been pulled over
once or twice who became very, very well aware of the new law and saw the
incredible ramifications,” Bersani told The Boston Globe.

The new law, enacted Oct. 28, mandates a year in prison for someone
who drives with a suspended license. It doubles to a year the waiting
period for second-time offenders to apply for hardship licenses to get to
work. If a driver already convicted of one drunken driving charge
declines blood-alcohol tests on a second charge, his or her license is
suspended for three years. Drivers who decline the test after fatal
accidents would lose their licenses for life, if convicted in the
accident.

And starting Tuesday, repeat offenders who want their licenses
restored will have to blow into a device that prevents the ignition from
starting if any alcohol is detected on their breath. The offenders must
use the device for two years.

Though repeat drunken driving arrests have dropped, the number of
drunken driving offenses overall has changed little in the last two
months.

Since the law took effect, 2,215 Massachusetts motorists have been
arrested on drunken driving charges. That’s down less than 2 percent from
the same period last year, according to Registry data.

Last year, 203 people were killed in alcohol-related accidents in
Massachusetts, 43 percent of all vehicle-related fatalities, according to
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

SOURCE: Boston News

New Drinking And Driving Laws Target Teens

Meteorologist Tim Williams Reporting

(WJZ) There are new and tougher penalties for underage drivers caught
drunk behind the wheel. With the laws going into effect this week,WJZ’s
Tim Williams reports that violators could lose their license for up to a
year.

The new laws are cracking down on teen drivers, enacting a double
penalty on those who choose alcohol before getting behind the wheel.

Jan Withers’ 15-year-old daughter Alisa was killed in 1992. She was
the passenger in a car driven by a drunk teen driver.

Withers feels the new law will have a dramatic effect. “If they know
that combining the lethal effect of alcohol and driving could take away
their license,” she says, “I think it could prevent them from doing
it.”

The new law penalizes anyone under 21 convicted of driving under the
influence with one year driver’s license suspension.

“Traffic’s not going to let up over time,” says Maryland Governor Bob
Ehrlich. “Our kids need to be better at an earlier age and that’s what
these laws are all about.”

The new law was approved by the General Assembly in April.

Source: http://wjz.com

WICHITA, Feb. 20 – Ever since Sedgwick County District
Judge Eric Yost started his rotation through traffic court,
he’s been making headlines. First he exercised a
little used option to send first-time DUI offenders to jail, now
he’s hit a repeat offender with a modern day version
of the Scarlet Letter by making him publicly identify himself every time
he gets behind the wheel .

Curtis Mollinelli, 36, was sentenced Friday afternoon for his fifth
DUI in the last five years and his eighth DUI conviction in his 20 years
of driving. Yost sentenced Mollenelli to jail time, fined him, ordered
him into alcohol treatment and gave him a window sticker identifying him
as a DUI offender. Mollenelli will have to display the sticker in any car
he drives for the two years he’s on probation. The
sticker comes off easily so Mollenelli can move it with him from car to
car, and so anyone else who drives Mollenelli’s car
won’t be branded as a DUI offender.

Mary Ann Khoury, who runs the DUI Victim Center in Wichita, says the
sentence is about safety and education. “I think the
community wants to know who the drunk drivers are on our
roads.â€

Mollenelli agrees he should pay for what he’s done,
and calls his sentence “fair.†He says he
hopes it will help other people learn from his mistakes. Yost
wouldn’t comment on the sentence, but from the bench
he said Mollenelli would benefit from a daily reminder of his probation.
If Mollenelli doesn’t use the sticker when driving,
his probation will be revoked and he’ll serve a year
behind bars.

Driving under the influence (DUI) is a serious offense that is classified
in this state as a violent crime and if you are convicted will
permanently remain on your driving record. If arrested and/or convicted,
a driver may lose driving privileges and also may be fined and/or
imprisoned. Repeat arrests or convictions may result in greater
penalties.

Arrest and conviction for DUI can be embarrassing, costly and
inconvenient. If arrested, you will be taken to a police station or
county jail. You will be held there until bond is posted. Your car may be
impounded (towed) and forfeited.

IMPLIED CONSENT LAW: When driving on Illinois roadways, you
automatically give your consent to submit to certain tests following
arrest for DUI. These can include breath, blood and/or urine tests to
determine if you were drinking or using any other drug or intoxicating
compound before or while driving. A doctor or registered nurse must
perform the blood test. You may have a qualified person of your own
choosing administer more tests at your own expense.

STATUTORY SUMMARY SUSPENSION LAW: If you are arrested and found to
have a BAC of .08 percent or more and/or any impairing drug in your
system while operating a motor vehicle, your driving privileges will be
suspended for three months. If you refuse to submit to testing, your
driving privileges will be suspended for six months. If you are a second
offender within a five-year period, your privileges will be suspended for
12 months if you fail the test or 36 months if you refuse to test. A test
refusal may be used as evidence against you in the DUI court case. At the
time of arrest, the officer will take your license, and if valid, will
provide you with a temporary receipt allowing you to drive for 45 days.
Your suspension begins on the 46th day from the notice date and will not
be terminated until you pay the reinstatement fee and your record is
updated.

DUI CONVICTION: In addition to a Statutory Summary Suspension, you may
be convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol, other drugs
and/or intoxicating compounds. The first DUI conviction will result in
the loss of your license for a minimum of one year. You also may be fined
up to $2,500 and given a jail sentence of up to one year. If you are
convicted of a second DUI offense within 20 years, you will lose your
license for a minimum of five years. If this is the second offense within
five years, in addition to other fines and penalties, you will be
sentenced to 5 days in jail or 30 days of community service. You also may
be fined up to $2,500 and given a jail sentence of up to one year. A
third conviction, which is a Class 4 felony, will result in the loss of
your license for a minimum of 10 years, a possible one to three years
imprisonment and a fine of up to $25,000. A fourth conviction will result
in the loss of your license for life.

Persons convicted of DUI where the alcohol content was .16 or greater
OR convicted of a DUI while transporting a child under the age of 16, in
addition to the penalties that apply for each conviction, will be subject
to enhanced penalties including additional fines, community service and
jail time.

A DUI also will subject you to high risk auto insurance rates for
three years. Before your driving privileges are restored, you will be
required to undergo an alcohol and drug evaluation and successfully
complete a rehabilitation or an alcohol and drug education program and/or
meet other requirements.

ILLEGAL TRANSPORTATION OF AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE OPEN CONTAINER: It is
illegal for anyone to drink alcoholic beverages in a vehicle. Both driver
and passengers may be issued a traffic citation. Passengers on chartered
buses, motor homes, mini motor homes, and limousines are exempt from this
rule. It is illegal to have alcohol in the passenger area of a vehicle if
the container has been opened. If convicted, you may be fined up to
$1000. If there is a second offense within one year, your driver’s
license will be suspended or revoked for one year. Any driver under age
21 also faces loss of driving privileges for the first conviction.

AGGRAVATED DUI: You may be charged with Aggravated DUI if you, as the
driver, are involved in a death or personal injury crash while driving
under the influence; have received a third DUI; committed DUI while
driving a school bus with children; or received a DUI after a previous
history of reckless homicide or Aggravated DUI involving a death. This is
a Class 4 felony punishable by a possible 1-3 years imprisonment (1-12
years if a personal injury was involved) UNLESS involving a death which
is a Class 2 felony, 3-14 years imprisonment (if multiple deaths 6-28
years); felonies carry fines of up to $25,000. The type of offense
involved will determine the length of license revocation.

DRIVING ON A SUSPENDED OR REVOKED LICENSE (FOR DUI, RECKLESS HOMICIDE,
LEAVING THE SCENE OF A FATAL OR PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENT): If you are
convicted of driving while your license is revoked or suspended for the
above incidences, the suspension or revocation period will be extended.
Your vehicle may be seized and sold at public auction and you will be
faced with a mandatory 10 days in jail or 30 days of community service.
This is a Class A misdemeanor which carries fines of up to $2,500 and
possible jail time of up to one year.

All convictions are Class 4 felonies carrying fines of up to $25,000
and 1-3 years of imprisonment. A second conviction of this violation may
also result in 30 days of jail time or 300 hours of community service. A
third conviction has a mandatory minimum of 30 consecutive days in jail,
a fourth or subsequent conviction requires a minimum imprisonment of 180
days.

ALLOWING SOMEONE UNDER THE INFLUENCE TO DRIVE YOUR VEHICLE: It is
illegal for you to allow someone to drive your vehicle if you know that
person is under the influence. If convicted, you may be fined up to
$2,500 and given a jail sentence of up to one year.

PROVIDING ALCOHOL TO A PERSON UNDER AGE 21: If you are convicted of
providing alcohol to a person under age 21, you may be fined up to $2,500
and given a jail sentence of up to one year and/or your driving
privileges may be suspended under the Illinois Liquor Control Act.

Drunken-Driving Deaths Down – High Numbers Among Youths Stir
Worries
By Josh Noel Tribune Staff Reporter
Published August 18, 2006

Although Illinois saw a record-low number of alcohol-related traffic
fatalities last year, there is cause for concern, experts said, because a
surprisingly high number involved drivers not legally old enough to
drink.

According to statistics released this week by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 580 people died in alcohol-related traffic
crashes in Illinois last year, down from 613 the previous year. The total
is the state’s lowest since 1982, when the federal government
standardized its method of tracking alcohol-related fatalities.

The 5.4 percent drop was greater than the national average, which saw
a .2 percent decrease in such crashes.

But of the alcohol-related fatal crashes in Illinois last year, 44
involved drivers between the ages of 16 and 20 who were legally drunk.
According to the statistics, one of every five teens at the wheel for a
fatal crash was legally drunk. A total of 396 people were legally drunk
and driving in fatal crashes last year, plus four more whose age was
unclear or under 16.

This year is the first time the traffic agency has broken down such
statistics by age, and they startled some longtime observers.

“That seemed like a high number because they’re not even supposed to
be drinking, let alone drinking and driving,” said Charlene Chapman,
executive director of Alliance Against Intoxicated Motorists. “It was a
surprise.”

The demographic long considered to be the most at-risk to drive drunk,
people between the ages of 21 and 34, continues to provide the bulk of
those involved in fatal wrecks, with nearly a third involved in deadly
crashes last year.

Although Illinois had the fewest number of people killed in
alcohol-related accidents in years in 2005, Donald McNamara, traffic
administration regional administrator, said there is still cause for
concern because the state is ahead of the national average in terms of
alcohol-related traffic fatalities.

In 2004, about 39 percent of road fatalities in the United States were
alcohol-related. In Illinois, the figure was 45 percent, he said.
Statistics for 2005 have not yet been released.

“We’re moving in the right direction in Illinois,” he said. “But
Illinois is still above the national average and has work to do.”

Still, longtime anti-drunken driving activists seized on what they
called the good news of fewer people killed in Illinois in alcohol-
related crashes. For the last 10 years, the figure has generally been
between 600 and 700, with a high of 968 in 1982.

“The number is still 580 lives too high, but we should be very pleased
we’ve had this decrease,” said Marti Belluschi, who manages Gov. Rod
Blagojevich’s alcohol abuse task force. “It was unexpected to me, and
it’s a good sign.”

Advocates said the reduced number is the product of decades of
hammering at an anti-drunken driving message. Experts say the combination
of increased enforcement–in the form of more patrols and
checkpoints–and publicizing the measures acts as a deterrent.

“We’re seeing the results of many years of hard work,” Belluschi said.
“We should be optimistic that we are having an impact. But don’t for a
minute think the numbers aren’t too high.”

Coinciding with the release of the statistics, several law-enforcement
agencies joined Mothers Against Drunk Driving Thursday to announce
expanded patrols and roadblocks during Labor Day weekend.

Clayton Harris III, chief of staff for the Illinois Department of
Transportation, said 1,400 “saturation patrols” will fan across the state
that weekend in search of intoxicated motorists. Also, 200 roadside
checkpoints will be set up, he said.

Three will be in Chicago on the Friday and Saturday of Labor Day
weekend, said Chicago Police Sgt. Scott Slavin.

Also getting increased use during the holiday weekend will be “sniffer
flashlights,” which officers use during traffic stops as normal
flashlights, but unbeknownst to drivers, also detect alcohol on the
breath.

As many as 50 of the flashlights are in use across the state, but IDOT
is distributing another 62 to law enforcement officials and plans to
buy90 more, said spokesman Mike Claffey. Officials said the reading on
the flashlights alone do not provide probable cause to make a
drunken-driving arrest and is usually followed by a proper breath test or
field-sobriety test.

“It’s just another tool that can be used,” Harris said.

Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com

Judicial Driving Permits

This permit is issued, following a circuit judge’s order, to a first
offender age 18 or older serving a statutory summary suspension following
an arrest for driving while under the influence of alcohol, other drugs
and/or intoxicating compounds (DUI). Judicial driving permits have the
same restrictions and provisions as restricted driving permits.

Restricted Driving Permits

If your license is suspended or revoked by the Secretary of State’s
office, you may be eligible for a restricted driving permit (RDP). Under
Illinois law, a restricted driving permit may be issued to drivers age 16
or older to allow limited driving privileges for employment, education or
medical care. Before the Secretary of State’s office will issue an RDP,
it must be convinced that the driver receiving the permit does not pose a
threat to the safety of others on the roadway. A statutory summary
suspension second offender is not eligible to apply for this type of
driving relief. Eligible applicants with prior DUI suspensions or
revocations are to have a Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device
(BAIID) installed in their vehicle. More information on restricted
driving permits is available from the Administrative Hearings Department,
210 Howlett Building, Springfield, Illinois 62756.

Denial “Denial” means that you are temporarily denied the privilege of
applying for a driver’s license and, in certain instances, an instruction
permit. A denial can only be entered to the driving record of an
individual under the age of 18 for conviction of one of the following
offenses:

A conviction that results in a mandatory revocation of driving
privileges, such as a DUI conviction.A denial for this type of offense
precludes application for either a driver’s license or an instruction
permit until the person’s 18th birthday.

Suspension “Suspension” means that you have temporarily lost your
driving privileges. When the suspension is for a specific length of time,
you may regain your driving privileges after your suspension has ended
and you have paid a reinstatement fee. In other cases, your driver’s
license will not be returned until you meet a requirement of Illinois
law.

Too Many Tickets Your driver’s license will be suspended if you are
convicted of three traffic violations committed within any 12-month
period. If you are under 21 years old at the time of arrest, two traffic
violations within any 24-month period will result in a suspension. If you
are under age 18, you will be required to successfully complete a driver
remedial education course to make your driving privileges valid again. In
addition, you may be required to submit to a complete driver’s license
examination to be re-issued a driver’s license. The length of the
suspension will vary according to the seriousness of the traffic
offenses.

If your driver’s license is suspended for conviction of three traffic
violations within a 12-month period, you may be eligible for a
probationary license or occupational driving permit. If you receive a
suspension for conviction of two traffic violations in a 24-month period
while under the age of 21, you may be eligible to receive a restricted
driving permit. The Secretary of State’s office will notify you if you
are eligible.

Your driver’s license may also be suspended under the following
DUI-realted conditions:

TRAFFIC CRASHES: You were convicted for refusal or neglect to report a
traffic accident.

UNINSURED CRASHES: You were uninsured at the time of a crash in which
you were determined to be at fault and for which you owe damages.

DRUG/ALCOHOL TEST FAILURE: A test following your DUI arrest revealed a
blood alcohol concentration of .08 percent or more or any trace of
cannabis, controlled drug substances or intoxicating compounds.

DRUG/ALCOHOL TEST REFUSAL: You refused testing for drugs or alcohol
after being arrested for DUI in Illinois or another state.

ILLEGAL TRANSPORTATION OF ALCOHOL: You are convicted of illegally
transporting alcohol twice in 12 months.

DRUG OR SEX OFFENSE: You committed a drug or sex crime while operating
or in direct physical control of an automobile.

ILLEGAL TRANSPORTATION OF ALCOHOL: You were convicted of illegally
transporting alcohol and you were under age 21.

ILLEGAL POSSESSION, CONSUMPTION, ATTEMPTING TO PURCHASE ALCOHOL, OR
ACCEPTING ALCOHOL AS A GIFT: You are under age 21 and convicted of
violating the Liquor Control Act of 1934.

FAILURE TO APPEAR VIOLATIONS: You failed to appear for any traffic
citation.

Revocation “Revocation” means that your driving privileges have been
taken away indefinitely by the Secretary of State’s office. To regain
your driving privileges, you may be eligible to reapply for your license
after a minimum of one year, unless otherwise noted.

Revocation of your license is a very serious matter. Your driver’s
license will be revoked if you are convicted of the following
offenses:

AGGRAVATED DUI: You caused personal injury or death as a result of
DUI, had a prior conviction of reckless homicide or Aggravated DUI
involving a death and committed a DUI, received a third or subsequent DUI
conviction, or committed a DUI violation while transporting children in a
school bus. Minimum revocation lengths vary according to type of offense
and previous history.

DUI: You drove under the influence of alcohol, other drugs and/or
intoxicating compounds.

Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) BAC is a measurement of the amount
of alcohol in your system based on a test of your breath, blood or urine.
It is illegal to drive if your BAC is .08 percent or greater. However,
you can be convicted of DUI if your BAC is less than .08 percent and your
driving ability is impaired. Your BAC can be affected by:

the amount you drink. Twelve ounces of beer, five ounces of wine or
one and one-half ounces of “hard” liquor contain the same amount of
alcohol.

time is the only way to remove the effects of alcohol. Food, coffee
and showers do not speed up the elimination of alcohol from your
body.

your body weight or size. Usually, heavier people have more blood and
body fluids to dilute the alcohol. Other things affect your reaction to
alcohol. These include food eaten, your tolerance of alcohol and any
drugs you may have taken.

Other Drugs

In addition to alcohol, many other prescription and nonprescription
drugs impair safe driving. Some of these drugs are: antihistamines, cold
remedies, pain relievers and mood-changing drugs. Others are marijuana,
hashish, LSD, heroin, cocaine, morphine and amphetamines (pep pills).
Mixing even small amounts of alcohol with other drugs is very dangerous.
It is also illegal to operate a motor vehicle on Illinois highways with
any trace of a controlled drug, substance, cannabis (marijuana) or
intoxicating compounds in your blood.

In Illinois, the minimum legal drinking age is 21 years. Licenses for
drivers under 21 are issued with a red header and a blue photo
background. Effective January 2003 under 21 licenses say “Under 21 Until”
… and “Under 18 Until” …. Under 21 licenses issued prior to January
2003 have a red header above the photo and the words “Under 21.” If you
are under age 21 and convicted of DUI:

• the Secretary of State’s office will revoke your driving privileges
  for a minimum of two years. A second DUI conviction will result in a
  license revocation for a minimum of five years or until you reach age
  21, whichever is longer. A third DUI conviction, which is a Class 4
  felony, will result in a minimum 10-year revocation. A fourth DUI
  conviction will result in a lifetime revocation. Your license also will
  be suspended for conviction of illegal transportation or possession of
  alcohol.
• the Secretary of State’s office may issue you a restricted license
  after one year, but under no conditions will an RDP be issued until the
  age of 16. This license may be used between the hours of 5 a.m. and 9
  p.m. or as otherwise provided. It is valid for one year. Then, you
  would be evaluated again by the Secretary of State’s office.
• you may be fined up to $2,500 and given a jail sentence of up to
  one year.
• you may be directed to participate in a Youthful Intoxicated
  Driver’s Visitation Program.

If you are under 21 and are arrested for any traffic violation and
found to have a trace of alcohol in your system while operating a motor
vehicle, your driving privileges will be suspended for three months. If
you refuse to submit to testing, your driving privileges will be
suspended for six months. If you are a second offender, your privileges
will be suspended for 12 months if you fail or 24 months if you refuse to
test. Your suspension begins on the 46th day from the notice date and
will not be terminated until you pay the reinstatement fee and your
record is updated. If you were suspended prior to age 18, you will be
required to successfully complete a driver remedial education course to
make your driving privileges valid again. In addition, you may be
required to submit to a complete driver’s license examination to be
re-issued a driver’s license. A traffic stop for Zero Tolerance can be
upgraded to a DUI arrest depending on test results or a test refusal, at
the discretion of the investigating officer.

Any person under the age of 21 that is convicted of illegal
consumption, attempting to purchase or possession of alcohol, or
accepting an alcoholic beverage as a gift, will lose their driving
privileges for one year.

Arrest Warrants Backlog Tops 61,000
In game of catch-me-if-you-can, suspects are winning.
By Ken Kobayashi and Jim Dooley Advertiser Staff Writers

O’ahu has an
estimated backlog of 61,500 bench warrants, costing the state a potential
$20 million in unpaid fines and fees and allowing defendants to avoid
charges as routine as running a red light and serious as negligent
homicide.

Largely because the state Sheriff Division and the Honolulu Police
Department lack the personnel to serve the backlogged bench warrants, the
orders — most for traffic cases and some dating to the
1980s — remain stored at the two agencies.

An Advertiser investigation of the unserved warrants found:

Poor coordination among law enforcement agencies and the courts is
contributing to the problem, resulting in long delays in processing
warrants, missed opportunities to serve the orders and, in some cases,
failure to capture fugitives.

A new $13 million state court computer system designed to help reduce
the number of unserved warrants has made the problem worse, at least for
the short term.

The state sheriff’s department — the agency tasked
with serving more than 80 percent of O’ahu’s 61,500 unserved warrants
— has only 12 full-time officers dedicated to serving
warrants.

As sheriff deputies and police work to reduce the backlog, the courts
continue to produce as many as 100 new warrants daily, virtually ensuring
that authorities will never solve the problem without additional
help.

To get a handle on the backlog, the Judiciary last year purged more
than 25,000 old traffic warrants, some for major violations.

Prosecutors, largely because they lack funding, can decline to
extradite suspects — located by sheriffs
— who are wanted on felony warrants and have left the
state, and have done so in about 250 cases since the 1980s.

NATIONWIDE PROBLEM

O’ahu is not alone in dealing with what is a costly, potentially
dangerous backlog of warrants. The Neighbor Islands and other localities
across the country face similar stores of unserved arrest orders.

“It’s a dirty little secret,” said David A. Harris, a criminal justice
expert and law professor at University of Toledo College of Law.
Jurisdictions nationwide have invested insufficient effort and manpower
in catching those wanted on warrants — and those being
sought know it, Harris said.

The number of Hawai’i’s warrants, Harris says, appears to be typical
of the problem facing most other states. Delaware, for example, a state
with roughly the same population as O’ahu, faced 70,000 unserved “writs,”
which are similar to warrants, before it recently took steps to reduce
its backlog.

Judiciary officials downplay the public safety concern, noting that
most of those wanted on warrants arise out of driving violations; an
estimated 1,500 deal with felonies.

“The majority of traffic bench warrants were issued for failure to
appear in court for minor or nonserious traffic infractions, and many of
the persons who committed these offenses may be described as
irresponsible scoff-laws, rather than dangerous criminals,” said Marsha
Kitagawa, state Judiciary spokeswoman.

But for the mother of a 7-year-old boy killed by a drunken driver, the
unserved traffic warrants are particularly disturbing.

Earl Franca Jr., had at least five outstanding traffic warrants when
he struck Ethan Thomas as the boy crossed Farrington Highway near Kahe
Point five years ago.

“It’s appalling,” says Patricia Thomas, 39, of Kalihi, when she
recently learned from The Advertiser that Franca was never arrested on
pending warrants for speeding and other citations prior to the boy’s
death. “The state should have caught him.”

But even if officials catch up with defendants, there is no guarantee
they will be held to account.

A practice not widely known even in the legal community allows law
enforcement officials to turn down extradition of felony defendants who
have left the state, largely because it is costly to return them. About
250 charged with felonies dating to the 1980s have escaped prosecution by
leaving the Islands, The Advertiser found.

The cases underscore a continuing community dilemma: balancing limited
resources against the demand for justice.

MOUNTING WARRANTS

Bench warrants are issued by the courts to secure the arrest of men
and women for several reasons: they are charged by grand juries with
felony offenses, have failed to show up for criminal proceedings, have
violated the terms of probation or have failed to pay court-ordered fines
and fees.

The warrants are issued in only a fraction of the traffic and other
criminal cases processed by state courts each year. Many offenders have
more than one bench warrant outstanding, some because they didn’t answer
an earlier warrant. Once issued, the warrants are transferred to state
sheriffs and police, who must find the individuals named and formally
serve the order.

State officials acknowledge the growing warrants problem, and worry
about the message it sends to the community.

“I believe that respect for the rule of law is decreased where arrest
warrants of any kind go unserved for long periods of time,” said Attorney
General Mark Bennett, the state’s chief law enforcement officer.

But Bennett has called only for a task force to look into the problem
and neither the state Department of Public Safety, which oversees the
sheriffs, nor the Honolulu police have proposed more funding to
specifically address the issue.

The overriding reason is that additional personnel to serve the
warrants would be expensive.

According to Lt. Frank Dela Rosa of the Sheriff Division, a qualified
warrants deputy costs the state around $50,000 a year in salary,
training, equipment and fringe benefit expenses.

Based on the success rate of recent warrant sweeps by sheriffs, it
would take 20 full-time deputies at least 2 1/2 years to serve the
traffic warrants outstanding on O’ahu at a cost of $2.5 million. The
final bill could be lowered by fines and fees collected from traffic
offenders but raised by the costs of trying and imprisoning convicted
offenders.

More police would be similarly costly. All police officers are
expected to watch out for those wanted on warrants and to serve them when
defendants are located. But the price tag of a strengthened police effort
isn’t clear.

Honolulu police Chief Boisse Correa said his department does what it
can with limited resources, targeting “persons who pose the greatest risk
to the community, such as repeat offenders who are actively committing
crimes.”

The department “would welcome additional staffing” Correa said, but
added, “we do not anticipate any increase at this time.”

BACKLOG ‘UNACCEPTABLE’

Coordination has also proven frustrating for all involved. Because
three agencies deal with warrants — the courts,
sheriffs and police — the process inevitably breaks
down. The sheriffs say they don’t get the issued warrants from the
Judiciary in a timely manner; the police sometimes see pending warrants
in the computer system that can’t be served because they lack hard
copies; and the courts may turn away people with warrants even when they
show up at the Judiciary’s door, saying it is the sheriffs and police who
are responsible for serving the orders.

A new computer system, the Judiciary Information Management System,
known as JIMS, will greatly improve issuing and tracking bench warrants
once it is can be fully operated, said Corinne Watanabe, Intermediate
Court of Appeals judge and co-chairwoman of the Judiciary’s Executive
Committee on Technology and Information Management.

Still, the new efficiencies promised by the system won’t kick in for
at least another three months and only if the Legislature approves
changes to existing state law, according to Wata-nabe. Meanwhile, 3,900
new traffic court arrest warrants ordered by O’ahu District Court judges
since the JIMS computer system went online in early November had not been
sent by the courts to sheriffs by early January, court officials said.
The new warrants may be transferred by mid-April or earlier, according to
Judiciary spokeswoman Kitagawa.

Honolulu City Prosecutor Peter Carlisle isn’t happy with the
delay.

“All (JIMS) does is serve to aggravate an already existing and
unacceptable backlog,” he said.

‘IRRESPONSIBLE ADULTS’

Nearly 51,000 of the unserved O’ahu warrants for traffic cases are
stored in court computers or held by the Sheriff Division, filed in nine
cabinets in a state Capitol basement office. Honolulu police say they
have more than 10,500 warrants for misdemeanor and felony cases filed at
their Beretania Street headquarters.

All of these unserved warrants mean that thousands of people, some of
whom could pose a threat to public safety, are walking the streets and
driving the roadways without restraint.

Police make a special effort to serve warrants for the most serious
felonies, and the sheriffs recently increased periodic sweeps to serve a
few dozen warrants at a time. Four sweeps conducted in November and
December led to enforcement of 99 warrants and the arrests of 47 people,
the Sheriff Division’s Dela Rosa said.

Nonetheless, law violators soon find that if they ignore the warrants,
there’s a good chance they won’t get nabbed unless stopped by law
enforcement for another reason, such as a traffic violation.

Wahiawa resident Rebekah Parsons, 22, recently paid $225 for her
traffic case, including a $50 collection fee for a bench warrant issued
after she earlier failed to show up in court.

“That’s a lot of irresponsible adults,” she said about the outstanding
warrants. “If they can live with the fact that it might come around and
get them, that’s their choice. But I don’t want that on my
shoulders.”

Others, however, have no qualms about walking away from their fines
and court dates.

“It does undermine confidence in the justice system as a whole when
people find out that lots of folks don’t take their obligation to show up
and face the consequences of their actions seriously,” law professor
Harris said. “And we don’t make them do that.”

WRONG MESSAGE

The public pays for unserved warrants in more ways than may seem
obvious.

Motorists who avoid facing the consequences of their criminal traffic
citations may create other hazards on the streets, drive up the cost of
insurance for law-abiding drivers, and commit even more serious
crimes.

Thousands of the warrants involve charges against motorists accused of
driving without licenses or insurance.

Michael Onofrietti, AIG Hawaii Insurance Co. vice president, was “a
little bit stunned” by the high numbers of outstanding warrants.

Industry studies show that people who drive uninsured tend to get into
more accidents. “So it’s an obvious public safety issue,” he said.

It can also be costly to consumers. The best predictor of whether
someone is likely to get into an accident is whether they consciously
obey traffic laws, said Tim Dayton, GEICO general manager in Hawai’i.

“To the extent that there are people out there who should be arrested
but aren’t, that costs everyone else more money,” he said.

Law professor Harris doesn’t believe the unserved traffic warrants
pose a major public safety problem because many might have forgotten
about the tickets or have other excuses.

But at least one Honolulu attorney believes this broken warrants
system serves only to escalate crimes.

“If an individual feels that the judicial system is asleep in allowing
him to get away with criminal behavior — even criminal
behavior that seems relatively not serious in that person’s mind; not
driving with insurance, driving without a license —
then it follows in that person’s mind that he can get away with more
serious behavior, such as driving while drunk,” says attorney Richard
Turbin, who represented Harold Keith Thomas, Ethan’s father.

Shortly after 8 p.m. on June 8, 2001, Ethan, his father, brother and
sister got off a bus and began crossing Farrington Highway to go to the
beach. They planned to celebrate Ethan’s seventh birthday of a week
earlier.

Harold Thomas, 58, could not be located to comment for this story. But
according to his 2002 deposition in a civil case, he and his son were
holding hands as they walked near the highway median when they were
struck by Earl Franca Jr.’s car.

“As I was hit by the car and felt him pull away, his hand pull away,
and seen the car pass, and Ethan was gone,” he said.

The father said he managed to get to his son and place his face next
to the boy.

“He said, ‘Help me, Daddy,’ ” the father recalled. “I said, ‘I can’t,’
and he told me, ‘It’s OK. I love you,’ and died.”

Franca’s blood alcohol content registered at 0.16, twice the legal
limit, according to police reports. He was speeding in his wife’s
uninsured 1976 Toyota Corolla, traveling at more than 60 mph in a 35-mph
zone.

At the time, Franca had traffic warrants dating as far back as 1995.
He had been charged with speeding, failing to have insurance, overtaking
a vehicle on the right shoulder, fraudulent use of license plates and
driving without a license, traffic records show. In one case, Franca had
admitted guilt, but made only partial payment of court-ordered fines.

He was served with his warrants only after he surrendered following a
negligent homicide indictment for Ethan’s death in 2004. The traffic
charges were later dropped because of the age of the cases and because
Franca repaid his outstanding fine, according to court records.

Franca, a 32-year-old laborer from Wai’anae, pleaded no contest to the
negligent homicide charge. He is currently serving a maximum 10-year
prison term at Tallahatchie Correctional Facility in Tutwiler, Miss. He
declined to comment for this story.

According to court files, Ethan’s father and mother, now divorced,
sued the state; city; Franca and his wife; and Nancy’s Kitchen, a Waipi’o
Gentry restaurant where Franca had been drinking.

The suit alleged the state negligently designed the highway, the city
failed to place a crosswalk near the bus stop and Nancy’s Kitchen served
Franca alcohol. Ethan’s family recently received a $95,000 settlement
— $5,000 each from the state and city, $65,000 from
the restaurant and $20,000 from insurance.

The Francas did not contribute to the settlement; they defaulted.
Patricia Thomas’ lawyer, Christopher Dias, said the Francas did not have
assets that the Thomases could collect.

No one can say if Ethan’s death could have been avoided had Franca
been brought before the courts on his warrants. But Patricia Thomas
believes had Franca been arrested on his warrants, the chances of the
tragedy happening could have been reduced.

“It might have slowed him down,” said Patricia Thomas.

Ethan’s death “never should have happened,” his mother said, holding
back tears. “I have to live with that for the rest of my life.”

“He said, ‘Help me, Daddy.’ I said, ‘I can’t,’ and he told me, ‘It’s
OK. I love you,’ and died.”

Source: http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/