U.S. SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS ASSET FORFEITURE LAWS

WASHINGTON, June 25 /PRNewswire/ — The U.S. Supreme Court’s 8-1
decision yesterday to uphold current asset forfeiture laws leave many
people asking the question: “So, what happens to all those seized and
forfeited assets, anyway?” The answer is simple: government auctions. Two
upcoming government auctions provide insight of the law in action:

1) This Friday, June 28, at “high noon, ” the U.S. Customs Service
will auction the magnificent 407-acre “Top Gun Ranch” in Whitefish,
Montana, which the agency seized in October 1990. The ranch was seized
from Jimmie Norjay Ellard, a notorious drug smuggler for the late Pablo
Escobar of the Medellin cartel, who oversaw one of the largest smuggling
operations ever investigated by the Customs Service. Between 1985 and
1990, his organization flew 27.5 tons of cocaine from Colombia into
southern Florida. Code named Operation Caballero (Operation Cowboy), the
Customs Service’s five-year investigation of the Ellard organization
began in 1989. It resulted in the arrest and conviction of Ellard and
several others, and the seizure of the Montana ranch, which Ellard used
as a respite in between smuggling runs. The Ellard case led Customs and
other federal agencies to arrest and convict other key members of the
Medellin cartel in the early 1990s, including Pablo Escobar’s number one
hit man, Dandy Munoz-Mosquera.

Top Gun Ranch was part of $5.8 million worth of assets seized in
Operation Caballero. Other assets include aircraft, vehicles, and other
real estate properties in Colorado, Florida, and Texas. These items have
been, or will be, disposed of separately.

2) On July 18 beginning at 9 a.m. in Edison, New Jersey, several U.S.
Treasury agencies will auction several hundred lots of merchandise
representing the booty of many criminal and civil asset forfeiture cases.
The agencies involved will include the U.S. Customs Service, the Internal
Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Division, the Secret Service, the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and the Office of Foreign Asset
Control. A wide range of property will be offered for sale, including
automobiles, furniture, electronics, jewelry, carpets, household goods,
hardware, and much more.

This auction is expected to generate between $500,000 and $1 million,
all of which will be deposited directly into the U.S. Treasury Asset
Forfeiture Fund. Since 1990, auctions such as these have generated more
than $115 million in net proceeds to the Department of the Treasury’s
asset forfeiture program.

The end result of asset forfeiture is simple: property purchased with
illegally obtained monies is turned back into dollars via public
auctions; these dollars are then used by federal law enforcement agencies
to support crime fighting efforts, thereby offsetting taxpayers’ costs.
No doubt, these auctions are a better source of revenue than more
taxes.

Common types of illegal activities which seizures and forfeitures
result from include drug smuggling, money laundering, and fraud schemes.
EG&G Dynatrend of Wellesley, Massachusetts, and Larry Latham
Auctioneers of Indianapolis, Indiana, conduct auctions throughout the U.S
and Puerto Rico for Department of the Treasury agencies and offices.

The public can obtain more information about the U.S. Treasury Auction
Program by calling the Public Auction Line at 703-273-3441, or via the
Internet at www.ustreas.gov.

DIRECTIONS TO JUNE 28, 12:00 NOON AUCTION: From Central Street in
Whitefish, go 11.4 miles on Highway 93 west to Farm to Market Road just
past mile marker 139. Turn left, go 1.6 miles to Star Meadows Road, turn
right, travel 11 miles to Top Gun Ranch (enter at Caretakers Complex on
your left). It will be just past mile marker 539.

-0- 6/25/96 /CONTACT: Kristi Messner of the U.S. Customs
Service Support Division, 703-273-3441/
CO: U.S. Customs Service Support Division ST: District of Columbia,
Montana

Asset Forfeiture: Federal Appeal Upholds Seizure of Cash Despite
Lack of Drugs

Article from Drug War Chronicle, Issue #441, June 23, 2006

A federal appeals court has held that police acted within the law when
they seized nearly $125,000 in cash from a man’s car during a traffic
stop, even though no drugs were found in the car. A three-judge panel
from the 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals found in US v. $124,700 in US
Currency that the cash may have been linked to the drug trade,
overturning an earlier decision by a US Magistrate Court judge in
Nebraska.

Emilio Gonzolez was pulled over for speeding on Interstate 80 in 2003.
Gonzolez told the officer the car he was driving had been rented by
someone named Luis, that he had never been arrested, and that he was not
carrying drugs, guns, or large sums of money. Gonzolez then consented to
a search of the vehicle, which turned up $124,700 in cash in a cooler on
the back seat. Police also learned that Gonzolez had been arrested for
drunk driving and that the person who rented the car was not named Luis.
Police then sicced a drug dog on the vehicle, and the dog alerted on the
cash and on the seat where it was sitting.

In court, Gonzolez testified that he had flown from California to
Chicago and planned to use the cash to buy a refrigerated truck there,
but when he arrived there, the truck had already been sold. He decided to
drive back to California, but needed someone to rent a car because he had
no credit card, he testified. Gonzolez said he lied about having the
money because he feared carrying large amounts of cash could be illegal
and he hid it in the cooler because he was afraid it might be stolen. He
testified that he didn’t reveal the drunk driving
arrest because he didn’t think drunk driving was a
crime.

Gonzolez’ tale may have been barely credible, but any positive
evidence linking his stash of cash to drug trafficking was hard to come
by. Still, the appeals court overturned the original decision. “We
believe that the evidence as a whole demonstrates… that there was a
substantial connection between the currency and a drug trafficking
offense,” the court wrote. “We have adopted the commonsense view that
bundling and concealment of large amounts of currency, combined with
other suspicious circumstances, supports a connection between money and
drug trafficking.”

That wasn’t good enough for dissenting Judge Donald
Lay, who argued that there was no evidence linking the cash to drug
trafficking. “At most, the evidence presented suggests the money seized
may have been involved in some illegal activity — activity that is
incapable of being ascertained on the record before us,” Lay wrote.

But what about the drug dog alerting on the cash and the car seat?
“Finally, the mere fact that the canine alerted officers to the presence
of drug residue in a rental car, no doubt driven by dozens, perhaps
scores, of patrons during the course of a given year, coupled with the
fact that the alert came from the same location where the currency was
discovered, does little to connect the money to a controlled substance
offense,” Lay reasoned.

San Diego attorney Donald Yates, who represents Gonzolez, told the
Associated Press they would appeal the decision. People who do not have
credit or bank accounts and who must do business in cash are being
treated unfairly, he said. “They do not allow for anybody to have a
lifestyle different from the average person in Nebraska.”

Source: http://stopthedrugwar.org

Federal Appeals Court: Driving With Money is a Crime Eighth Circuit
Appeals Court ruling says police may seize cash from motorists even in
the absence of any evidence that a crime has been committed.

A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that if a motorist is carrying
large sums of money, it is automatically subject to confiscation. In the
case entitled, “United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency,”
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit took that amount of cash
away from Emiliano Gomez Gonzolez, a man with a “lack of significant
criminal history” neither accused nor convicted of any crime.

On May 28, 2003, a Nebraska state trooper signaled Gonzolez to pull
over his rented Ford Taurus on Interstate 80. The trooper intended to
issue a speeding ticket, but noticed the Gonzolez’s name was not on the
rental contract. The trooper then proceeded to question Gonzolez — who
did not speak English well — and search the car. The trooper found a
cooler containing $124,700 in cash, which he confiscated. A trained drug
sniffing dog barked at the rental car and the cash. For the police, this
was all the evidence needed to establish a drug crime that allows the
force to keep the seized money.

Associates of Gonzolez testified in court that they had pooled their
life savings to purchase a refrigerated truck to start a produce
business. Gonzolez flew on a one-way ticket to Chicago to buy a truck,
but it had sold by the time he had arrived. Without a credit card of his
own, he had a third-party rent one for him. Gonzolez hid the money in a
cooler to keep it from being noticed and stolen. He was scared when the
troopers began questioning him about it. There was no evidence disputing
Gonzolez’s story.

Yesterday the Eighth Circuit summarily dismissed Gonzolez’s story. It
overturned a lower court ruling that had found no evidence of drug
activity, stating, “We respectfully disagree and reach a different
conclusion… Possession of a large sum of cash is ‘strong evidence’ of a
connection to drug activity.”

Judge Donald Lay found the majority’s reasoning faulty and issued a
strong dissent.

“Notwithstanding the fact that claimants seemingly suspicious
activities were reasoned away with plausible, and thus presumptively
trustworthy, explanations which the government failed to contradict or
rebut, I note that no drugs, drug paraphernalia, or drug records were
recovered in connection with the seized money,” Judge Lay wrote. “There
is no evidence claimants were ever convicted of any drug-related crime,
nor is there any indication the manner in which the currency was bundled
was indicative of drug use or distribution.”

“Finally, the mere fact that the canine alerted officers to the
presence of drug residue in a rental car, no doubt driven by dozens,
perhaps scores, of patrons during the course of a given year, coupled
with the fact that the alert came from the same location where the
currency was discovered, does little to connect the money to a controlled
substance offense,” Judge Lay Concluded.

Source: US v. $124,700 (US Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit,
8/19/2006) http://www.thenewspaper.com/

New DUI DWI (DRUNK DRIVING) Laws for 2006

State by State Listing

Alaska Bill Number: HB 136 Enacted This bill would limit the authority
of a court to suspend execution of a sentence, or grant probation, in
prosecutions for driving while under the influence as well as
prosecutions for refusal to submit to a chemical test.

Arizona Bill Number: SB 1240 Enacted Would establish a special
ignition interlock drivers license. Arkansas Bill Number: HB 2041 Enacted
Would require the completion of an alcohol education program for certain
DWI violations.

California Bill Number: SB 547 Enacted This bill would establish a
pilot program in Sacramento County that would authorize, until January 1,
2009, the impoundment of a person’s vehicle by a peace officer for a DUI
offense that is undertaken in combination with an intervention and a
referral of the person to a driving-under-the-influence program, as
specified, if the person has one or more prior DUI convictions within the
past 10 years. The bill would implement the program only to the extent
that funds from private or federal sources are available to fund the
program and only if the Board of Supervisors of Sacramento County enacts
an ordinance or resolution authorizing the implementation of the pilot
program in the county. The bill would require the county to report to the
Legislature regarding the effectiveness of the pilot program, as
specified.

Florida Bill Number: SB 530 Enacted Would require placement of
ignition interlock devices on vehicles operated by any person convicted
of committing certain DUI offenses; specifies duration of each
installation period based upon number of DUI convictions; requires
installation of ignition interlock if court fails to order mandatory
placement of device or fails to order placement for applicable
period.

Florida Bill Number: HB 19 Enacted Provides for 6-month vehicle
registration for persons reinstating driver’s license that has been
suspended for DUI; requires HSMV to issue 6-month vehicle registration
certificates & validation stickers; requires persons whose license or
registration has been suspended or revoked due to violation of DUI to
maintain, for 3 years, certain noncancelable liability coverage. Florida
Bill Number: HB 233 Enacted Includes the death of an unborn child under
DUI manslaughter defines offense as “vehicular homicide”; provides that
killing an unborn child by injury to the mother that would be murder in
any degree if it resulted in death of the mother is murder in same
degree; provides that death of mother does not bar prosecution under
specified circumstances.

Hawaii Bill Number: HB 437 Enacted Clarifies that the term of
imprisonment for violation of section 291E-61(b)4) HRS, shall not exceed
the maximum term provided in subsections (b)1) (b)2) and (b)3)
respectively.

Illinois Bill Number: SB 1495 Enacted Provides that, if a defendant is
convicted of aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or
intoxicating compounds because his or her DUI violation was the cause of
the death of one or more persons, the defendant shall be sentenced to a
term of imprisonment, unless the court determines that extraordinary
circumstances exist and require probation.

Illinois Bill Number: HB 1562 Enacted Amends the Renter’s Financial
Responsibility and Protection Act. Provides that a vehicle rental company
may void a damage waiver with regard to damage or loss occurring while
the rental vehicle was operated by a driver under the influence of
alcohol, drugs, or intoxicating compounds, in violation of the DUI
provisions of the Illinois Vehicle Code.

Illinois Bill Number: HB 3648 Enacted A person involved as a driver in
an a fatal accident or an accident involving severely bleeding wounds,
distorted extremities, or injuries that required the injured party to be
carried from the scene (rather than any person arrested after being
involved as a driver in a fatal accident or an accident involving
personal injury) is deemed to have consented to undergo chemical testing
for alcohol, drugs, or intoxicating compounds.

Illinois Bill Number: HB 887 Enacted Proposes that a local government
unit may not enact or enforce any rule or ordinance, the violation of
which would constitute a felony under the Vehicle Code provision
prohibiting driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or
intoxicating compounds. Also proposes that a municipal attorney may not
prosecute, and a State’s Attorney may not allow a municipal attorney to
prosecute, any ordinance violation that would constitute a felony under
the DUI provision of the Vehicle Code. Provides that a municipal attorney
must notify the State’s Attorney if a driver’s alleged conduct would
constitute a felony under the DUI provision.

Illinois Bill Number: HB 1081 Enacted This bill proposes that if a
defendant is convicted of aggravated DUI of alcohol, drugs, or
intoxicating compounds because the defendant’s DUI violation was the
cause of the death of one or more persons, the defendant shall be
sentenced to a term of imprisonment, provided that the court does not
determine that extraordinary circumstances exist and require
probation.

Illinois Bill Number: HB 396 Enacted Amends the Illinois Vehicle Code.
Sets the maximum duration of the first judicial driving permit issued to
a person whose driver’s license has been summarily suspended under the
DUI provisions of the Code at 45 days. Allows for an extension the
original permit by the court after 30 days, and provides that the
extension of the permit may be for any length of time, up to the
remaining duration of the statutory summary suspension.

Illinois Bill Number: HB 657 Enacted Amends the Illinois Vehicle Code
by increasing the penalties for driving under the influence of alcohol,
drugs, or intoxicating compounds while transporting a child under the age
of 16 years.

Iowa Bill Number: HB 726 Enacted This bill allows a physician
assistant or an advanced registered nurse practitioner to certify a
person’s unconscious state or other incapacitated condition, for purposes
of chemical testing of a person suspected of driving while
intoxicated.

Kansas Bill Number: SB 148 Enacted This bill proposes striking the
5-year limitation on the increase in repeat DUI penalties. Kansas Bill
Number: HB 2385 Enacted This bill addresses tests for alcohol and drugs
when a person is suspected of DUI.Corrections and Juvenile Justice.

Louisiana Bill Number: HB 281 Enacted Provides for admissibility of
state police crime lab BAC test results in civil cases.

Maryland Bill Number: SB 650 Enacted This bill proposes specified
enhanced criminal penalties which may be imposed when a person is
convicted of a specified alcohol, or drug, related driving offense and
the trier of fact finds that such person knowingly refused to take a
specified sobriety test.

Maryland Bill Number: HB 103 Enacted This bill proposes specified
enhanced criminal penalties which may be imposed if a person is convicted
of specified alcohol or drug-related driving offenses, and the trier of
fact determines that the person knowingly refused to take a specified
test. Also requires that a police officer advise a person of the enhanced
criminal penalties under specified circumstances.

Missouri Bill Number: HB 2A Enacted The bill changes the laws
regarding driving while intoxicated to expand the definitions of
“aggravated offender,” “chronic offender,” and “intoxication-related
traffic offense” to include murder in the second degree where the
underlying felony is an intoxication-related offense.

Montana Bill Number: HB 374 Enacted This bill proposes increasing the
penalty for drunk driving when a person under 16 years of age was in the
vehicle at the time of the offense.

Montana Bill Number: HB 99 Enacted This bill would increase the
penalties for driving with a suspended or revoked license when the reason
for suspension or revocation was that the person was convicted of DUI or
refusal to test for alcohol or drugs when requested by a law enforcement
officer to do so.

Montana Bill Number: SB 423 Enacted This bill revises ignition
interlock laws by requiring certain driver’s licenses to convey the terms
of probation imposed on the licensee.

Montana Bill Number: HB 374 Enacted Proposes increasing the penalty
that may be imposed upon a person for driving while under the influence
or with an excessive alcohol concentration if one or more of the
passengers in the vehicle is under 16 years of age at the time of the
offense.

Nebraska Bill Number: LB 594 Enacted This bill proposes changes to the
provisions and penalties for driving under the influence.

Nevada Bill Number: AB 256 Enacted This bill proposes establishing the
crimes of vehicular homicide for driving a vehicle under the influence of
alcohol or certain substances which causes death under certain
circumstances.

New Hampshire Bill Number: HB 125 Enacted This bill proposes the
requirement of an ignition interlock device on any vehicle registered to
a person who drives after his or her driver’s license has been suspended
or revoked for a DWI offense, or registered to a member of that person’s
household.

New Mexico Bill Number: SB 109 Enacted Requires juvenile offenders to
obtain an interlock ignition device for one year after a conviction for
DWI or an offense relating to drugs or alcohol.

New Mexico Bill Number: HB 282 Enacted Requires all DWI offenders to
have ignition interlock systems in their vehicles.

North Carolina Bill Number: HB 35 Enacted This bill would increase the
fees paid by DWI offenders to attend alcohol and drug education traffic
schools.

North Dakota Bill Number: HB 1396 Enacted This bill proposes changes
to the fines for driving under the influence.

North Dakota Bill Number: SB 2372 Enacted Proposes the creation of a
Responsible Choice Commission as well as a comprehensive program aimed at
addressing impaired driving, alcohol and drug abuse, and other
destructive behavior.

Oregon Bill Number: SB 114 Enacted Proposes increasing the fees for
screening interviews of persons convicted of driving while under
influence of intoxicants and diagnostic assessments of persons entering
diversion agreements.

Tennessee Bill Number: SB 2249 Enacted Revises provisions governing
ineligibility for pretrial diversion and judicial diversion for persons
convicted of DUI offenses.

Tennessee Bill Number: HB 1566 Enacted Deletes separate offenses of
child endangerment, aggravated child endangerment, and especially
aggravated child endangerment and makes them sentence enhancements for
DUI violation; requires law enforcement and judges to report information
of person committing DUI accompanied by child under 18 to children’s
services as other cases of suspected child abuse or neglect.

Tennessee Bill Number: HB 642 Enacted This bill permits a law
enforcement officer to arrest, without warrant, the driver of a motor
vehicle who leaves the scene of an accident, and who is apprehended
within four hours of the accident, when the officer has probable cause to
believe the driver drove under the influence.

Tennessee Bill Number: HB 581Enacted Present law requires that any
person convicted of DUI be confined in jail for at least 48 hours. This
bill would authorize substitution of 48 hours roadside cleanup in lieu of
the 48-hour confinement.

Tennessee Bill Number: SB 60 Enacted Present law provides that any
person who drives a motor vehicle in this state is deemed to have given
consent to a test for the purpose of determining the alcoholic or drug
content of that person’s blood. This bill would revise the above
provision to specify that drivers will be deemed to have consented to a
test to determine the alcohol content of that person’s blood, a test to
determine the drug content of that person’s blood, or both such
tests.

Texas Bill Number: SB 217 Enacted This bill proposes reporting
positive alcohol and drug tests of holders of commercial driver’s
licenses.

Utah Bill Number: HB 65 Enacted This bill proposes that the Driver
License Division shall immediately take action on a driver license when a
person has operated, or been in actual physical control of, a motor
vehicle while the person’s driving privilege is suspended due to an
alcohol related offense.

Utah Bill Number: SB 42 Enacted This bill modifies the Motor Vehicles
Code and the Public Safety Code to amend provisions relating to certain
persons operating a vehicle with any measurable or detectable amount of
alcohol in the person’s body.

Virginia Bill Number: HB 2786 Enacted This bill provides that the
defined term “motor vehicle,” including mopeds operated on the public
highways of this Commonwealth, applies to all of the provisions of the
article of the Code establishing the DUI laws.

Virginia Bill Number: SB 1093 Enacted The bill spells out the
procedure for charging a person with refusal and states that a first
violation of the refusal statute is a civil offense and that subsequent
violations are criminal offenses. A law-enforcement officer will have to
read the refusal form only to persons who refuse to take a blood or
breath test.

Virginia Bill Number: HB 2655 Enacted This bill clarifies provisions
in the driving under the influence laws, particularly in the refusal
statute. The bill spells out the procedure for charging a person with
refusal. A law-enforcement officer will have to read the refusal form
only to persons who refuse to take a blood or breath test.

Virginia Bill Number: HB 2668 Enacted This bill proposes that if a
person arrested for DUI is taken to a medical facility for treatment or
evaluation of his medical condition, the arresting officer at a medical
facility may issue, on the premises of the medical facility, a summons
for the DUI violation and for refusal of blood alcohol tests in lieu of
securing a warrant. Currently, the summons is authorized only for a
refusal.

Virginia Bill Number: HB 1674 Enacted This bill would include juvenile
defendants in existing provisions that allow localities to seek
reimbursement of expenses related to providing an emergency response to
certain traffic and DUI incidents. Virginia Bill Number: HB 1896 Enacted
Makes driving under the influence of any illegally possessed drug a
violation of DUI statute.

Washington Bill Number: HB 1266 Enacted This bill relates to positive
drug or alcohol test results of commercial motor vehicle operators.
Wisconsin Bill Number: AB 92 Enacted Under this bill, the fact that a
person had an alcohol concentration that is over the legal limit may be
admitted as prima facie evidence that the person was under the influence
of an intoxicant, regardless of the number of prior OWI related
convictions.

Source: Legislative Tracking
Database

Mexico City to Relax DUI Program for Holidays
City to give drunk drivers ‘noche libre’
December 19, 2005

The capital will suspend its “alcoholimetro” program. Public safety
officials in Mexico City last week announced that they would suspend the
capital’s drunk driving vigilance program for the nights of Christmas Eve
and New Year’s Eve. They added, however, that the “alcoholimetro” program
would be stepped up during all other days of the holiday season.

The suspension of drunk-driving vigilance for Christmas and New Year’s
celebrations is a tradition in the capital, where the practice is known
as a “noche libre,” or “free night.”

And while the idea has its critics, city officials point to statistics
to defend the practice. Last Christmas Eve, when drunk drivers were also
given a “free night,” there were three fatal car accidents, and on New
Year’s Eve there were two. The average day in the capital sees four fatal
accidents, according to the Public Safety Secretariat.

However, city statistics also show that there were 50 reported car
accidents in all last Christmas Eve, far more than the daily average of
26.

Source: The
Miami Herald

Legalization Increases Drug Use by Colombians

BYLINE: Ken Dermota, Special to The Christian Science Monitor
EST. PAGES: 2
DOCID: CHSM52534
SOURCE: Christian Science Monitor; CHSM
COPYRIGHT: (Copyright 1995)
EDITION: All 07/03/95; SECTION: INTERNATIONAL; PAGE: 6
ORIGIN: BOGOT, COLOMBIA

ANGEL GONZLEZ, a Bogota drug pusher, says his life isn’t any easier
since the Colombian government decriminalized drug use.

“They can’t get the users, so the cops come down on us all the harder,
and the ‘taxes’ are worse than ever,” says Mr. Gonzalez. He is bitter
after spending the previous night in jail – he didn’t have money for the
bribes the police call “taxes.” It has been a year since Colombia’s
Constitutional Court ruled that drug users may carry a personal dose of
marijuana, cocaine, methadone, or hashish. The sale of drugs and use by
minors or in public places is still prohibited.

In the past year, use of these drugs has risen, while the age of the
users has fallen, says Gonzalez. Emergency-room physicians and drug
consellors rehabilitation councilors agree.

Many Colombians deny theirs is a society of drug takers and blame the
United States and other consuming countries for Colombia’s drug problems.
The US Drug Enforcement Administration says Colombia produces 80 percent
of the world’s cocaine and a thirdits heroin.

But the proportion of addicts in Colombian cities is approaching that
of the US. Since the personal dose was legalized a year ago, more youths
are treading Gonzalez’s path.

The idea behind the Court’s legalizing a personal dose was to force
the government to find more effective methods than law enforcement for
fighting drug abuse, such as education programs in the schools, says
Constitutional Court Justice Carlos Gaviria, who wrote the decision.

“Drugs should be regulated in the same way as alcohol, which is not
sold to minors,” says Judge Gaviria. And no studies have been done that
show that drug consumption has risen since he wrote the opinion, he
points out.

But Camilo Uribe, head of toxicology at Bogota’s Health Secretariat,
says one reliable statistic shows that medical emergencies and deaths
caused by overdoses have risen dramatically in the past year.
“Previously, a death from an overdose was fairly exotic. Now there are
three or more per month,” he says.

Decriminalization of the personal dose is one cause, Dr. Uribe adds.
The other is the international war on drugs, which causes more of the
product to be kept in Colombia and sold domestically at ever-lower
prices.

Maria Isabel de Lince, director of a rehabilitation clinic in
Prometeo, disagrees strongly with Gaviria’s opinion that legalized drugs
can be kept out of the hands of youth. Although she has not noticed a
rise in applicants during the last year, her clients are younger.

“The more restrictions we have, the less likelihood that they will try
them for the first time,” she says. “I have two girls – 15 years old, who
came in their high-school uniforms – who told their parents they needed
money for a present for the teacher and to replace lost books, but they
came to me when they ran out of excuses.” The girls were using a
Colombian brand of “crack” cocaine – bazuco.

Many Colombians, such as former Prosecutor General Gustavo de Greiff,
support worldwide decriminalization, which would eliminate the violent
distribution chain. Legalized drugs mean lower prices and an end to the
wars among distributors.

As for Gonzalez, he has had access to drugs all his life. “I was born
into a world of drugs, and I fell into a world of drug addiction.”

He would like to stop dealing drugs to take drugs, but says that is
unlikely as long as Colombia cannot provide rehabilitation for all of its
citizens. “If there were a cheap rehabilitation program, I would be
there,” he says. “But for the poor, the only rehabilitation center is
prison.”

Jail Sought for Reporter Over Drunk Driving

The Yomiuri Shimbun

Prosecutors have demanded 10 months’ imprisonment for a 36-year-old
employee of The Chunichi Shimbun in Nagoya for allegedly driving drunk
without a driver’s license in March.

The former reporter at the newspaper company was indicted by the
Nagoya District Public Prosecutors Office on suspicion of violating the
Road Traffic Law.

In November 2004, his driver’s license was suspended after he was
involved in a traffic accident that caused property damage, and in
January last year, his license was revoked for two years.

The company suspended him for three months on March 15 and removed him
from his post as a reporter during its regular personnel change in
August.

According to the company, at about 11:30 p.m. on March 3, while
working as a reporter for the company’s lifestyle department, he drove
drunk without a driver’s license. Police detected 0.15 milligram or more
of alcohol per liter of his breath.

After he left the office, he drove alone to a restaurant in Nagoya
near his home and drank four 180-milliliter bottles of wine, according to
the police.

(Sep. 3, 2006) Source: http://www.yomiuri.co.jp

Chunichi Shimbun reporter suspended after being caught drunk driving
without a license NAGOYA — A Chunichi Shimbun reporter has been
suspended from duty for three months and transferred out of its editorial
division for drunken driving without a license, company officials said
Saturday.

The 36-year-old man is standing trial at the Nagoya District Court for
violating the Road Traffic Law.

“We take the incident extremely seriously as it was an act unworthy of
a newspaper company employee. We’re determined to try to restore the
public’s confidence in us,” managing editor Mikitoshi Kato said.

The employee was indicted after a massive amount of alcohol was
detected in his breath during a traffic stop by police late on March 3.
He was out driving in Nagoya after drinking at a restaurant, according to
the newspaper publisher.

Prior to the incident, his driver’s license was revoked after he was
repeatedly caught speeding, parking his car in no-parking zones and
committing other traffic offenses. (Mainichi)

Source: http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp

August 27, 2006

Last night I was at a party and was talking with an American who lives
in Koba, Japan. He told me what happened to a group of his friends who
had visited the ’19th’ hole after playing a round of golf in Koba.

After 18 holes of golf four golfers went into the clubhouse and had
ONE beer. As they were leaving the course they were immediately stopped
by the police. The driving was subsequently arrested for drunk driving
fined $1,800 (equivelant) the three others were also fined ($1,300) and
the driver lost his license for one year. After one year license
suspension the driver would get his license back but it would be a
license that would have to be renewed every year for seven years,
depending on his driving during that period of time.

More information on Drunk Driving in Japan.

Driving under the influence of alcohol, drunk driving, or
drink-driving, is the act of operating a motor vehicle (and sometimes a
bicycle or similar human-powered vehicle) after having consumed alcohol
(ethanol) or other drugs, to the degree that mental and motor skills are
impaired. In addition to driving under the influence of alcohol and
driving under the influence of other drugs, a third “DUI” offense
consists of driving under the combined influence of alcohol and other
drugs. The drugs causing or contributing to the impairment need not be
illegal, but can consist of lawfully prescribed or over-the-counter
medication. Anti-drunk-driving advertising campaigns have aimed to raise
awareness of the legal situation and the dangers of driving while
intoxicated. Drunk-driving is responsible for a very large number of
deaths, injuries, damage and accidents every year.

The specific criminal offense may be called, depending on the
jurisdiction, driving while intoxicated (DWI), driving while impaired
(also DWI), operating while intoxicated (OWI), operating a motor vehicle
while intoxicated (OMVI), driving under the influence [of alcohol or
other drugs] (DUI), driving under the combined influence of alcohol
and/or other drugs or drunk in charge [of a vehicle]. Such laws may also
apply to boating, or piloting aircraft.

Historically, presumptive guilt was established by subjective tests of
the driver’s impairment, such as difficulty reciting the alphabet or
walking a straight line. Starting with the introduction in Norway in 1936
of the world’s first per se law which made it an
offense to drive with more than a specified amount of alcohol in the
body, objective chemical tests have gradually replaced the earlier purely
judgmental ones. The statute usually specifies that it is illegal to
drive with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) exceeding a value
specified in the statute. BAC is most conveniently measured as a simple
percent of alcohol in the blood by weight. It does not depend on any
units of measurement. In Europe it is usually expressed as milligrams of
alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. However, 100 milliliters of blood
weighs essentially the same as 100 milliliters of water, which weighs
precisely 100 grams. Thus, for all practical purposes, this is the same
as the simple dimensionless BAC measured as a percent. Since 2002 it has
been illegal in all 50 US states to drive with a BAC that is 0.08% or
higher.

Driving while consuming alcohol is generally illegal, though driving
after drinking remains legal. In some jurisdictions it is also illegal
for an open container of an alcoholic beverage to be in the passenger
compartment of a motor vehicle or in some specific area of that
compartment.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_the_influence

Drunk driving is not tolerated by Japan, and certainly not by IUJ!
Those involved in drinking and driving incidents run the risk of losing
their scholarship, being suspended or expelled from IUJ – or both. And of
course the legal implications are severe. Those who allow friend to drive
drunk are held responsible.

Recently monetary penalties have been raised up higher due to
alteration in traffic regulations being effective as from 2001. While you
are durunken driving with the fact that alcohol content in your breathe
test is minimum 0.15mg/L (used to be minimum 0.25mg/L), you will be fined
to pay the monetary penalty in the range from minimum 100,000 yen up to
maxmum 500,000 yen or imprisonment in the range from minimum 6 month to
maxmum 5 years in jail.

DON`T DRINK AND DRIVE!

No Need to Drink and Drive This area of Japan has a great service
known as “Daiko”. Daiko is a special taxi service that brings you, your
friends, and your car back to campus at the cost of just over a taxi
fare. So don’t drink and drive – don’t put yourself in danger and
jeopardize your status at IUJ – use the Daiko Service.

Source: http://www.iuj.ac.jp/web/iuj_section.cfm?item=090806

2003 JAPAN LAW: TRAFFIC LAW
Keywords: Alcohol, Driving, Driver, License,
Bicycles, Pedestrians, Parking, Ambulance, Mitsubishi Motors
Copyright 2004. All rights reserved Attorney Roderick H. Seeman

Traffic Law? Traffic Law? Who cares about Traffic Law you say! Cell
phones do not kill. Even drunks do not kill. Two tons of steel traveling
at high speed kill. With over 100,000 people killed on the roads of
America since September 11, 2001, compared to the fewer than 3000 killed
in that admittedly tragic event, it should be given consideration. Those
3000 had led to a world turned topsy-turvy while the 100,000 are
ignored.

Yet look at Japan. A great power. Obviously a master of automobiles in
its own right. How does Japan perform?

During 2003 deaths from traffic accidents were running at an annual
rate of 7,000 with those from drunken driving running at an annual rate
of 750. With a population roughly half that of the USA. Thus from
September 11, 2001 the number of deaths in Japan would be significantly
less than 20,000 compared to 100,000 in the USA. How does Japan do this?
Draconian traffic laws is one reason. Easy access to alternative means of
transportation is another critical factor. When you are drunk in Japan
you can easily take a train or subway home and taxis, while expensive by
international standards, are not unreasonable compared to other prices in
Japan.

In 2001, the maximum penalty for death from dangerous driving was
raised to 15 years. In 2002 the amended Road Traffic Law increased the
penalty for RECKLESS DRIVING to a maximum of 2 years in prison or 500,000
yen (about $5000). Increased penalty points for drunken driving initiated
in June 2002 resulted in 15,000 fewer DRUNK DRIVERS in 2002. During 2002
people having their license revoked for drunk driving reached 54,000 (an
increase of 65%) while those with their licenses suspended more than 90
days topped 166,000, an increase of 36% as the government strengthened
moves against drunk drivers. Now blood alcohol levels as low as 0.15 mg
can result in a drunk driving conviction.

The National Police Agency is seeking now seeking new legislation for
prosecuting RECKLESS DRIVERS. The problem being that obtaining the
cooperation of victims is a virtually a requirement and they now seek a
revision permitting prosecution even where there is no victim,
particularly where the are groups involved such as the notorious
“bosozoku†motorcycle gangs.

A loophole crippling the prosecution of DRUNK DRIVING cases is also up
for revision. Although the levels of alcohol for blood alcohol has been
reduced, it became less costly to simply refuse the breathalyzer as
compared to drunk driving convictions. Presently the maximum penalty for
refusing the breathalyzer is a fine of up to 50,000 yen compared to up to
300,000 yen for drunk driving. Thus the National Police Agency is seeking
to revise the legislation, making the penalty for refusing the
breathalyzer the same level as for drunk driving.

The National Police Agency is also seeking new legislation which would
impose hefty fines for driving while using their CELL PHONES, whether for
voice calls or text messaging. The agency wants a fine of 50,000 yen
(nearly $500) for such violations

Source:

DRIVING IN JAPAN: MY EVIDENCE, STATS, AND FLAME
REBUKE

(Originally posted to Fukuzawa and Friends Wed,
Dec 20, 1995, modified August 28, 2002)

EFFECT: EVIDENCE THAT ACCIDENT RATES ARE HIGHER IN JAPAN THAN THE
US

Of course, we could choose to compare Japan positively with Egypt,
India, or Brazil, but let’s talk OECD here. The ability for a rich,
developed society to secure (and enforce) safety for its citizens is
another social indicator. I choose Nichibei because I have stats on them.
Points:

a) There are more fatalities per driven distance in Japan than
America. Ed Lincoln already provided some stats to say that per distance
driven, the US has 1.8 deaths per 100 million vehicle-miles vs 2.7 deaths
per the same in Japan. This is an extra person dead in Japan for the same
distance traversed. Moreover, since as Kaz noted, Japan only counts the
death as a traffic fatality if it is within one or two days of the
accident (vs within 30 days in the US). The Japanese numbers may in fact
be significantly depressed.

b) But not all accidents result in death. Let’s look at some stats I
dug up for fender benders and the like:

“All motor vehicle accidents” US: 19,500,000 in 1991

SOURCE: World Almanac 1993

“douro koutsuu jikou suu” Japan: 643,097 in 1992, and rising

SOURCE: Hokkaido Nenkan, 1994 (Hokkaido Shinbunsha)

Now allowing for the same ratios that Ed used in his calculations for
fatalities, the average American drives around 2.4 times farther than the
average Japanese. However, even then, the adjusted number of
fender-benders for Japan (around 1,537,333) looks to be about one-tenth
of America’s. Even discounting the number of fake whiplashes counted as
accidents in America, this evidence doesn’t support my case that Japan
has worse drivers.

But let’s look at it this way: more Americans have accidents yet more
Japanese die from theirs. The point is that if a Japanese has a road
accident, statistically he’s less likely to walk away from it. Given that
Japanese generally drive far slower than Americans (higher urban
concentration and congestion, lower speed limits, etc.), this suggests
something is systematically wrong–that something is, if I may be
flippant, killing the Japanese motorist far more effectively than the
hyped guns and the drunk drivers on American roads.

ROADS:

This has given Hokkaido the dubious distinction of having the most
traffic fatalities. Yet Hokkaido’s death rates (10.35 per hundred thou
population in 92) are only about the midpoint of the rest of the country.
That can hardly be attributed solely to the weather–even the more
tropical places (Saga-ken at 11.01, Yamaguchi at 13.26) are higher. So
that points towards drivers as the cause. Let’s move on to that.

UNENFORCABLE LAWS

DRIVERS HERE GET USED TO IGNORING THE LAW.

A law’s usefulness comes into question if nobody obeys it. The speed
limits (30 KPH, not mph, in residential areas, 40 to 60 in other areas.
80 tops on the expressways.) are not obeyed by many except the toro toro
ojisan and the learner drivers. Following the flow (not just in
Hokkaido–I’ve driven in Touhoku too) generally gives speeds of at least
20 kph over the limit. And once you get used to breaking the law a
little, it’s only a matter of degree before you start unconsciously
breaking the law a lot. Other minor infractions include extra lights on
fenders (which seem to be on “brights” at all times, leaving you with
dazzled imprints for several dangerous minutes), and the lack of red
markings on projectiles off the back of trucks (shish-kebab,
anybody?).

DRIVERS HERE CAN GET AWAY WITH A SURPRISING AMOUNT LEGALLY

Traffic police try to find blame on both sides in any accident, and
assign insurance company liabilities so that both have to pay. That is a
well-established expectation.

Evidence: so far, I have had two accidents, one serious (a guy ran a
red light and clipped the back of my Civic–sending me spinning into
traffic), one not (a storm drain popped up and jammed itself into my
suspension). In both cases, the cops tried to assign blame to me–in a
20-80 sort of way (since it was obviously his fault) 1) because I should
have looked both ways before entering an intersection tho I had a green
light, and 2) I should have anticipated that storm drain (anzen
fukakunin, he said). I was lucky–I got zero liability both times because
in 1) the driver took pity on me (dazed and confused after hitting my
head on the window) and capitulated, and 2) I argued with the cop. But
nobody has ever heard of this happening before.

So what’s the point? In the US, there are automatic punishments; a
rear-ending, say, is the responsibility of the person in back. Always. In
New York State, anyway. In Japan, a driver doesn’t have to be quite so
careful because he’ll never have to pay for all of it. Moreover, if he
argues well, he might even get 50-50! (happened to a fellow teacher
rear-ended by some young punks, and to the former Sapporo Consul when
some twerp U-turned in front of him on black ice). If every accident
becomes open to negotiation as to who’s to blame, the yakuza-types are
gonna get a lot more carefree.

STATS FOR DRIVING ACCIDENTS

JAPAN:

TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATHS:

• 11,086 (1989)
• 11,227 (1990)
• 11,105 (1991)
• 10,942 (1993)
• 11,024 (Dec11,1995)

TOTAL NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS:

• 661,363 (1989)
• 643,097 (1990)
• 662,388 (1991)
• 724,675 (1993)

TOTAL NUMBER OF INJURED PERSONS:

• 814,832 (1989)
• 790,295 (1990)
• 810,245 (1991)
• 878,633 (1993)

CAUSES OF FATAL ACCIDENTS IN JAPAN (1991)

SPEEDING: 2404 deaths (22.8%)

VIOLATION OF SAFE DRIVING PRACTICES: 3692 (35%) broken down into:

• Driver Error 5.7%,
• Careless Driving 8.4%,
• Not keeping the eyes on the road (wakimi) 8.4%,
• Not confirming 5.2%, sono ta 5.8%

DRUNK DRIVING: 525 (5.0%)

NOT STOPPING PROPERLY: 490 (4.6)

GOING THROUGH RED LIGHT: 470 (4.5%)

PEDESTRIAN INTERFERENCE (hokousha bougai): 387 (3.7%)

RIGHT-OF-WAY INTERFERENCE: 402 (3.8%)

TRAFFIC ZONE VIOLATION: 370 (3.5%)

PASSING: 171 (1.6%)

PEDESTRIAN CARELESSNESS: 602 (5.7%)

OTHER AND UNCLEAR: 1034 (9.8%)

Sources: Japan Almanac 1993, Daily Yomiuri Dec 13, Imidas 1995

UNITED STATES:

TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATHS WITH MOTOR VEHICLES INVOLVED (1991): 57,800

DEATH RATES (per 100,000 pop.) 18.9 (1989) 8.6 (1990) 17.2 (1991)

TOTAL NUMBER OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS: 19,500,000 (1991)

CAUSES OF FATAL ACCIDENTS IN THE US (1991)

TOTAL MOTOR VEHICLES: 43,500 deaths

COLLISION BETWEEN MOTOR VEHICLES: 18,500

COLLISION WITH FIXED OBJECT: 12,100

PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENTS: 7000

NON-COLLISION ACCIDENTS: 4500

COLLISION WITH PEDALCYCLE: 800

COLLISION WITH RAILROAD TRAIN: 500

COLLISION WITH ANIMALS, ANIMAL DRAWN VEHICLES, STREET CARS: 100

ALCOHOL-RELATED FATALITIES: 22,083 (50%)

Source: World Almanac 1993

DRUNK DRIVING IN JAPAN: rules are tougher than you think
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 95

There are two types of drunk driving (inshu unten): 1) The more
serious type is called “juki obi unten”, which means that there’s an
alcohol content of more than 0.25 ppm in your blood.

It’s “shuki obi unten” and it is the lesser of the two charges.

Blood alcohol is ABOVE 2.5ml, and you lose your license for 30 days.
The fines and prison term (if any) are determined by the court, according
to the officer at Aichi Prefecture Police, but the cop didn’t know the
fine print of the law.

2) The less serious type is called “sake yoi unten”, which means
there’s an >alcohol content of less than 0.25 ppm in your blood,

This is the more serious charge, and blood alcohol doesn’t matter. The
criteria is apparently your inability to safely operate the car. It is a
15 point charge, so if you have no prior offenses (no points against you,
in other words) you lose your license for one year. If you do have
points, you could lose your license for up to three years. Fines and
prison terms are up to the court. The copy told me to look it up the
limits myself! > >If you’re caught, it is also apparently standard
practice for the police to >report it to the papers and even your
workplace. This could even result >in your salary being lowered.

In Aichi they don’t contact your employer, and they don’t hand out
names to the papers, unless they deem it necessary, like when a drunk
caused a big accident, crashed into a show window or something. And then
it’s not because it was a “drunk driving” case but because it was a
crime, and a big incident.

Moreover, if you drink and drive you’re arguably more likely to get
caught here. There are certain funnel roads round here where you face
booze checkpoint charlies, stopping every car one by one in the middle of
the night to smell your breath and give you the balloon.

Your cops must work harder than ours. Our checkpoints generally last
only from 7 to 9. And judging from the number of drunks on the road, it
doesn’t take much imagination to avoid the checkpoints on the nights they
do it–generally Fridays, and days before holidays.

But you DO have to be careful how you get home after a night on the
town. My friend purposely left his car at home and came on his bike.
Round about midnight on his way home he was stopped by a patrol car at
the bottom of a long hill (he was exceeding the speed limit on his
BICYCLE). Cop told him to be more careful because he could also be cited
for driving under the influence on his bicycle!

“Nomu nara, noruna. Noru nara, nomuna!”

Mark CW
Nagoya

(Further Epilogue: Things did not go all that peachy, it turns out,
for two years later I was not only stopped repeatedly for speeding, but
also lost my licence! Fascinating story of how I got it back is available
here)

Sections Copyright 1995-2002, Arudou Debito/Dave Aldwinckle, Sapporo,
Japan

Source: http://www.debito.org/drivingjapanapologia.html

Police target drunk drivers / NPA plans nationwide crackdown
after series of accidents
The Yomiuri Shimbun

The National Police Agency is planning a nationwide, weeklong special
crackdown on drunk driving from Tuesday in the aftermath of an
alcohol-related traffic accident in Fukuoka last month in which three
children lost their lives.

It is the first nationwide crackdown campaign exclusively targeting
drunk driving.

Although fatal accidents caused by drunk drivers have been reduced by
more than 30 percent due to the imposition of harsher punishments for the
crime, they are expected to increase again this year as drivers seem to
have returned to their careless habits.

In advance of the crackdown, the police have intensified
investigations over the responsibility of restaurants and fellow
passengers who allow drivers to drink.

A 48-year-old company employee stopped by the police for drunk driving
said: “Since the fines increased, I’ve made it a rule not to drive my
motorbike home when I drink. But I was careless this time.”

He paid a branch of the Osaka Sub-District Public Prosecutors Office
specializing in traffic accidents in Yodogawa Ward, Osaka, a 100,000 yen
fine, adding: “It was painful to pay that much, but better than causing
an accident. I learned a valuable lesson.”

The December 2001 revision of the Penal Code established new
punishments regarding dangerous driving resulting in death or injury.

After the June 2002 revision of the Road Traffic Law increased the
maximum fine for drunken driving from 100,000 yen to 500,000 yen, drunken
driving accidents resulting in death fell drastically.

According to the NPA, alcohol-related road accidents in 2001 dropped
by 34.5 percent from 1,191 to 780 in 2003. However, the number has not
fallen much since 2004.

As of the end of July, there were 419 drunk driving accidents
resulting in death, an increase of seven from the same period of the
previous year.

In Kagawa Prefecture, 21 such accidents had occurred by the end of
August, up from four over the same period last year.

“It seemed the harsher punishments increased awareness of the laws for
a while, but as time has passed, drivers have become careless again,”
said a senior officer of the Osaka prefectural police, which have seen
drunken driving accidents stay at the same level for the past three
years.

In May, the Hyogo prefectural police searched a ramen shop in
Fukuchiyama, Kyoto Prefecture, on suspicion of serving beer to a truck
driver on duty in assisting him in violating the Road Traffic Law.

Many customers at the shop located along the busy National Highway
Route 9 are long-distance truck drivers.

An employee of the shop, whose case was sent to prosecutors, told the
police that if he did not serve beer to drivers, it would hurt the shop’s
sales.

On Aug. 25, a car carrying a family of five was rear-ended by another
vehicle on a bridge in Higashi Ward, Fukuoka, causing it to fall into
Hakata Bay, killing the three children inside.

The driver of the vehicle that hit the car, Futoshi Imabayashi, 22, an
employee of the Fukuoka municipal government, had been drinking at a
hostess bar with a fellow passenger just before the accident.

Five days after the accident, the NPA issued an urgent notice to
police headquarters nationwide advising them to strictly investigate
fellow passengers and restaurants in an attempt to pursue the
responsibility of those who may have allowed drivers to cause
accidents.

A senior NPA official said, “To change the climate that has allowed
drunken driving, we’ll punish those who serve alcohol to drivers as
severely as the drunk drivers themselves.”

During the crackdown week, police headquarters nationwide will deploy
many officers on road inspections and in other prevention efforts.

The Wakayama prefectural police will request the cooperation of
restaurant associations by giving them stickers with a message appealing
for the prevention of drunk driving.

The Hiroshima prefectural police will be on the lookout for cars
moving at unnaturally slow speeds, as drunk drivers are likely to be
overly cautious in observing speed limits for fear of being noticed by
the police.

Tomomi Imanari, a representative of Alcohol Yakubutsu Mondai Zenkoku
Shimin Kyokai, a Tokyo-based nonprofit organization tackling problems
regarding alcoholism and drug addiction, said: “Under the influence of
alcohol, regardless of its amount, our brains are likely to lose control.
More efforts should be made to stop others from driving drunk.”

(Sep. 10, 2006)

SAFER ROADS:
Traffic Deaths Fall to All-Time Low in 2002
March 18, 2003

Japan had 8,326 traffic fatalities in 2002 according to figures
released by the National Police Agency, the fewest since the present
statistics began in 1966 and less than half the peak in 1970. (In Japan,
a traffic fatality is defined as a death within 24 hours of an accident
as a result of injuries sustained in the accident.) The decrease is
largely attributable to the new, more stringent penalties for drunk
driving introduced in the Revised Road Traffic Law that went into effect
in June 2002. Other factors include an increase in the proportion of
people wearing seat belts and the production by automakers of safer
cars.

Stiffer Penalties Take Effect Traffic fatalities actually were on an
upward trend during the first half of 2002, defying expectations that a
December 2001 law setting the penalty for reckless driving resulting in
death at a maximum of 15 years in prison would produce immediate results.
In January 2002 there were 643 traffic fatalities, up 3.9% over the same
month in 2001, and April also saw a 2.9% increase. The law’s introduction
appeared to have made no obvious difference.

Things changed, however, with the implementation of the Revised Road
Traffic Law in June. There were 42 fewer fatalities in June 2002 than the
year before and 93 fewer in July. In the end, the toll in 2002 was down
by 421 compared to 2001. Under the revised law, a motorist can be fined
as much as ¥500,000 ($4,166 at ¥120 to the dollar)
for driving while drunk – five times more than before – and the maximum
fine for the lesser charge of driving under the influence of alcohol has
increased sixfold to ¥300,000 ($2,500). Many analysts believe
that the heavier penalties had the desired effect of curbing drunk
driving and reduced the frequency of serious accidents. Moreover, the
standard for applying the charge of driving under the influence has been
lowered from 0.25 milligrams per liter of air in a breathalyzer test to
0.15 mg per liter, meaning that it could apply to a driver who has drunk
only one glass of beer. This seems to be putting positive pressure on
drivers as well.

The effect of seat belts cannot be overlooked, either. While 63.4% of
drivers were using them in June 1992, a decade later the figure had grown
to 86.9%. In addition, automakers have been making great efforts to
improve the safety of their vehicles. Both factors have helped reduce the
number of deaths, which accounted for 1.05% of all passengers injured in
traffic accidents in 1992 but comprised just 0.49% of injuries in
2002.

Despite the general decrease, though, the number of traffic fatalities
among people aged 65 and over rose by 128 to a total of 786. This can be
traced to an increase in the number of seniors overall, and as Japanese
society is expected to continue aging at a fast pace, improved
traffic-safety measures aimed at this group are urgently needed.

Making Every Effort While penalties are being toughened and police are
cracking down on offenders, local governments and private companies are
also making efforts to prevent traffic accidents. One of the measures
being tried out is to use headlights at all times. The first firm to
implement this policy was a major delivery company that began a trial
with its fleet of 20,000 vehicles in January 2002. The firm experienced
30% fewer accidents that month than the year before, so it made the
policy permanent that March. Accidents between March and December were
down 20% over the same period the previous year. Employees and observers
alike have noted that using headlights in the daytime makes it easier for
pedestrians and other vehicles to notice the delivery trucks, and some
have also suggested that the policy has raised the safety awareness of
the drivers.

Since March 2002 the Nagano Prefectural Police has been conducting a
daytime headlight program involving more than 10,000 vehicles operated by
participating taxi companies and other firms, and in June Nagasaki
Prefecture followed suit with its 600 public vehicles. At present, over
160 municipalities throughout Japan are making similar efforts.

Meanwhile, steps are being taken to reduce the number of accidents at
railroad crossings. The East Japan Railway Co. (JR East) is changing the
colors of its railroad crossing barriers from black and yellow to red and
white stripes. Cars often move into crossings even after the barriers
start to come down, and while some drivers knowingly force their way
across, many simply do not notice the bars descending. In an effort to
prevent cars from breaking the barriers, JR East has introduced the red
and white pattern at four crossings to test its effectiveness. The number
of broken bars at those intersections dropped by 75%. Drivers have
commented that the barriers stand out more than before and that it is
easy to tell when they are coming down. Deregulation in the spring of
2002 has allowed railway companies to freely choose the colors they wish
to use on barriers, so it seems likely that repainting will become
commonplace.

Copyright (c) 2003 Japan Information Network.
Edited by Japan Echo Inc. based on domestic Japanese news sources.
Articles presented here are offered for reference purposes and do not
necessarily represent the policy or views of the Japanese Government.

Source: http://web-japan.org/trends01/article/030318soc_r.html

The drunk driving laws in Japan are among the strictest in the world.
In the US, the amount of ethanol per liter of blood before a citizen is
legally drunk varies by state. On average, Americans are still considered
sober if they have less than 1 milligram of ethanol per liter of
exhalation. In Japan, citizens are consider drunk once their exhalation
surpasses 0.25 milligrams of ethanol per liter. Penalties for drunk
driving include in an immediate loss of license, a large fine, and
potential jail time. Any police officer arrested for drunk driving is
immediately removed from the force.

Source: http://www.princeton.edu

2003 JAPAN LAW: TRAFFIC LAW
Keywords: Alcohol, Driving, Driver, License,
Bicycles, Pedestrians, Parking, Ambulance, Mitsubishi Motors
Copyright 2004. All rights reserved Attorney Roderick H. Seeman

Traffic Law? Traffic Law? Who cares about Traffic Law you say! Cell
phones do not kill. Even drunks do not kill. Two tons of steel traveling
at high speed kill. With over 100,000 people killed on the roads of
America since September 11, 2001, compared to the fewer than 3000 killed
in that admittedly tragic event, it should be given consideration. Those
3000 had led to a world turned topsy-turvy while the 100,000 are
ignored.

Yet look at Japan. A great power. Obviously a master of automobiles in
its own right. How does Japan perform?

During 2003 deaths from traffic accidents were running at an annual
rate of 7,000 with those from drunken driving running at an annual rate
of 750. With a population roughly half that of the USA. Thus from
September 11, 2001 the number of deaths in Japan would be significantly
less than 20,000 compared to 100,000 in the USA. How does Japan do this?
Draconian traffic laws is one reason. Easy access to alternative means of
transportation is another critical factor. When you are drunk in Japan
you can easily take a train or subway home and taxis, while expensive by
international standards, are not unreasonable compared to other prices in
Japan.

In 2001, the maximum penalty for death from dangerous driving was
raised to 15 years. In 2002 the amended Road Traffic Law increased the
penalty for RECKLESS DRIVING to a maximum of 2 years in prison or 500,000
yen (about $5000). Increased penalty points for drunken driving initiated
in June 2002 resulted in 15,000 fewer DRUNK DRIVERS in 2002. During 2002
people having their license revoked for drunk driving reached 54,000 (an
increase of 65%) while those with their licenses suspended more than 90
days topped 166,000, an increase of 36% as the government strengthened
moves against drunk drivers. Now blood alcohol levels as low as 0.15 mg
can result in a drunk driving conviction.

The National Police Agency is seeking now seeking new legislation for
prosecuting RECKLESS DRIVERS. The problem being that obtaining the
cooperation of victims is a virtually a requirement and they now seek a
revision permitting prosecution even where there is no victim,
particularly where the are groups involved such as the notorious
“bosozoku†motorcycle gangs.

A loophole crippling the prosecution of DRUNK DRIVING cases is also up
for revision. Although the levels of alcohol for blood alcohol has been
reduced, it became less costly to simply refuse the breathalyzer as
compared to drunk driving convictions. Presently the maximum penalty for
refusing the breathalyzer is a fine of up to 50,000 yen compared to up to
300,000 yen for drunk driving. Thus the National Police Agency is seeking
to revise the legislation, making the penalty for refusing the
breathalyzer the same level as for drunk driving.

The National Police Agency is also seeking new legislation which would
impose hefty fines for driving while using their CELL PHONES, whether for
voice calls or text messaging. The agency wants a fine of 50,000 yen
(nearly $500) for such violations.

Source:

United States
Main article: Drunk driving (United States) All states have an
illegal per se limit of 0.08%. Some states also include a lesser charge
— often known as driving while impaired — at a BAC of around
0.05%. Also, in all states, drivers under the drinking age of 21 have
committed a drunk driving offence if they have any alcohol in their blood
(set at .01% or .02% to be meaningful). DUID is driving under the
influence of drugs. A third possible charge is driving under the combined
influence of alcohol and drugs; this requires no particular blood-alcohol
level, but only impairment as the result of the combined effects of
alcohol and drugs (which may be legal or illegal).

The limit for aircraft pilots is 0.04%, and for commercial drivers
0.04% or 0.05% depending upon the jurisdiction.

A current punishment for drunk driving is already under way in the
state of Ohio, and is being looked at in California for DUI offenders to
purchase a “scarlet letter” that is placed over the offender’s license
plates. This identifies them as a DUI offender, and must be purchased for
all their household car’s plates. This penalty is in addition to the
regular DUI and court charges.

The effects of any alcohol consumption are exacerbated depending upon
the physiological condition of the individual because of such factors as
fatigue, lack of sleep, and the bodies ability to dissipate alcohol at
any given time.

Penalties include fines, incarceration and license suspension.
Severity of the penalty is based on the circumstances surrounding the
violation.=

Canada
Driving under the influence is a generic term for a series of offences
under the Canadian Criminal Code. The main offences are operating a motor
vehicle while the ability to do so is impaired by alcohol or a drug,
contrary to section 253(a) of the Criminal Code, and operating a motor
vehicle while having a blood-alcohol concentration of greater than 80
milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, contrary to section
253(b) of the Criminal Code.

The offences are usually investigated by the police coming across a
driver with either an erratic driving pattern or who has been pulled
over. The police make a demand that the driver give a sample of his
breath into an approved screening device, which will determine the
driver’s blood-alcohol concentration on a preliminary, non-evidentiary
basis. If the police believe on reasonable and probable grounds that the
driver is committing an offence under section 253 of the Criminal Code,
the police can demand that the driver go to the police station to give
samples of his breath for an approved instrument test, which would be
used to prosecute the driver.

The punishments for impaired driving or driving over 80 are:

For the first offence: $600 fine, 1-year driving prohibition;or jail
time For the second offence: 14 days jail, 2-year driving prohibition;and
time in jail For the third or subsequent offence: 90 days jail, 3-year
driving prohibition. On Dec 15, 2005, Charly Hart of Watford, Ontario, a
man with a 35-year history of impaired driving which included thirty-nine
convictions, was on the occasion of his latest such conviction sentenced
to six years in prison, the most severe penalty ever handed down in
Canada when the offence did not involve a fatality, and the maximum
sentence permitted under the law.[1]=

Australia
Road laws are state based

Australian Capital Territory
0.02% for “professional” drivers (taxi, bus, dangerous goods vehicles,
heavy vehicles over 4.5 tonnes, Commonwealth vehicles) and learner and
P-plate drivers 0.05% for experienced drivers (that is drivers over 18
years of age who have been driving for more than 3 years and are not
classed as “professional” drivers)

New South Wales
Zero for Learner and Provisional licences and 0.02 % for Drivers of
vehicles of “gross vehicle mass” greater than 13.9 tonnes, vehicles
carrying dangerous goods or public vehicles such as a taxi or bus. 0.05%
for all other drivers

Queensland
A Zero limit applies to the drivers of trucks, buses, articulated
vehicles, vehicles carrying dangerous goods, pilot vehicles, and taxis.
It also applies to all learner drivers and provisional drivers under 25
years of age. 0.05% for other drivers.

South Australia
Zero limit for learner, provisional, probationary, heavy (greater than
15 tonne) vehicle, taxis, licensed chauffeured vehicles, dangerous goods,
and bus licences. 0.05% for all other drivers.

Tasmania
Zero limit for learner, provisional, truck, bus, and taxi licences.
0.05% for all other drivers.

Victoria
Zero limit applies for unlicensed drivers and holders of Learner permits
and Probationary licences, as well as any ‘professional’ drivers –
including tram drivers. Also for certain relicensed drink-drivers. 0.05%
for most other drivers. Licences cancelled for certain serious
drink-driving offences may only be reissued after obtaining a court
order. In such cases, the relicensed driver is subject to a zero limit
for 3 years following relicensing or for as long as the person is
required to use an alcohol interlock. Alcohol interlocks are required
whenever a repeat drink-driver is relicensed. In addition, a court may
impose an alcohol interlock when relicensing a first offender in certain
serious cases (generally when the offence involved a BAC of 0.15% or
higher). Zero limit for “prescribed illicit drugs”, namely
methamphetamine, THC (Cannabis) and, from 1 September 2006, the drug
generally known as “ecstasy” [the full chemical description of ecstasy is
“3, 4-Methylenedioxy-N-Methylamphetamine (MDMA)”]. Random testing of
drivers is in force for alcohol and for prescribed illicit drugs.

Western Australia
0.03% for provisional (probationary) licence holders.
0.05% for all other drivers.
In Australia, there are laws that allow for a police officer to stop any
driver and perform a random breath test, without needing any reason. In
addition, in South Australia and Victoria, any driver can be required to
perform a random saliva test for a prescribed illicit drug (i.e.
methylampetamine and cannabis). Also, in Victoria, if a doctor sees any
patient who is 15 years old or older as a result of a vehicle accident,
the patient must allow the doctor to take a blood sample for testing for
alcohol and drug content in a way that preserves the chain of evidence,
regardless of whether the patient claims to be the driver, a passenger or
any other circumstances. The results can be used as evidence in
subsequent court proceedings.

Europe
Austria	0.05 % and 0.01 % for drivers who have held a licence for less than 2 years and drivers of vehicles over 7.5 tonnes
Belarus	0.05 %
Belgium	0.05 %
Bosnia-Herzegovina	0.05 %
Bulgaria	0.05 %
Croatia	Zero
Czech Republic	Zero
Denmark	0.05 %
Estonia	0.02 %
France	0.05 %
Finland	0.05 %
Germany	0.05 % and zero for drivers conducting commercial transportation of passengers
Gibraltar	Zero
Greece	0.05 % and 0.02 % for drivers who have held a license for less than 2 years and bus drivers
Hungary	Zero
Iceland	0.05 %
Ireland	0.08 %
Italy	0.05 %
Latvia	0.02 % for drivers with less than 2 years’ experience and 0.05 % for those with more than 2 years’ experience
Liechtenstein	0.08 %
Lithuania	0.04 %
Luxembourg	0.08 %
Malta	0.08 %
Netherlands	0.02 % for drivers with less than 5 years’ experience and 0.05 % for those with more than 5 years’ experience
Norway	0.02 %
Poland	0.02 %
Portugal	0.05 %
Republic of Moldova	0.03 %
Romania	Zero
Russia	0.02%
Slovakia	Zero
Slovenia	0.00 % for drivers with 2 years or less experience and professional drivers, 0.05 % for all others
Spain	0.05 % [2] and 0.03 % for drivers with less than 2 years experience and drivers of freight vehicles over 3.5 tonnes, and of passenger vehicles with more than 9 seats
Sweden	0.02 % (up to 6 months imprisonment), 0.10% (up to 2 years imprisonment)
Switzerland	0.05 %
Turkey	0.05 %
Ukraine	Zero
United Kingdom	0.08 %

Americas
Argentina	0.05 %
Argentina	0.05 %
Belize	0.08 %
Bolivia	0.07 %
Brazil	0.06 %
Canada	0.08 %
Chile	0.049 %
Colombia	0.04%
Costa Rica	0.049 %
Cuba	Zero
Dominican Republic	No Limit and 0.05 % for professional drivers
Ecuador	0.07 %
El Salvador	0.05 %
Guatemala	0.08 %
Guyana	0.01 %
Honduras	0.07 %
Jamaica	0.035 %
Mexico	0.08 %
Nicaragua	0.08 %
Panama	Zero
Paraguay	0.08 %
Peru	0.045 %
Suriname	0.08 %
United States	0.08 % or lower; varies by state
Uruguay	0.08 %
Venezuela	0.05 %

Africa
Algeria	0.01 %
Benin	0.05 %
Cape Verde	0.08 %
Central African Republic	0.08 %
Comoros	No Limit
Congo	No Limit
Equatorial Guinea	Zero
Eritrea	Zero
Ethiopia	No Limit
The Gambia	Zero
Ghana	0.08 %
Guinea	Zero
Guinea-Bissau	0.05 %
Kenya	0.08 %
Malawi	Zero
Mauritius	0.05 %
Namibia	0.05 %
Niger	0.08 %
Nigeria	Zero
Seychelles	0.08 %
South Africa	0.05 % and 0.02 % for professional drivers (trucks over 3.5 tonnes, and vehicles carrying passengers for reward) National Road Traffic Act, 1996
Togo	No Limit
Uganda	0.08 %
Tanzania	0.05 %
Zambia	0.08 %

Caucasus
Armenia	Zero
Azerbaijan	Zero
Georgia	0.03 %

Middle East
Iran	Zero. Drinking alcohol is illegal in Iran
Israel	0.05 %
Jordan	Zero
Kuwait	Zero. Drinking alcohol is illegal in Kuwait.

East Asia
China	Varies. “Drinking and driving” and “driving while intoxicated” carry different penalties.
Japan	0.03 %
Republic of Korea	0.052 %

Western Pacific
Australia	Zero for L and P-plate drivers, 0.05% for full licence
French Polynesia	0.05 %
Micronesia	0.05 %
New Zealand	Has a limit of 0.08% for drivers over 20 years, 0.03% for those under. LTSA website
Palau	0.01 %

Central Asia
Kyrgyzstan	0.05 %
Mongolia	0.02 %
Turkmenistan	0.033 %

South Asia
India	Zero; no such law
Nepal	Zero
Sri Lanka	0.06 %

South-East Asia
Cambodia	0.05 %
Laos	No Limit
Malaysia	0.08 %
Philippines	0.05 %
Singapore	0.08 %
Thailand	0.05 %

Philosophical perspectives
An overview of the philosophical approach to DUI, especially with
respect to ethical and pedagogical concerns, is James B. Gould’s “A
Sobering Topic: Discussing Drunk Driving in Introductory Ethics” in
‘Teaching Philosophy’ 21:4 (December 1998), 339-360.

Gould’s central point is that drunk-driving offers an ethical case
that, for most people, is clear-cut in the fundamentals, familiar from
everyday life, and extraordinarily complicated in the details. In other
words, it’s ideal for philosophical analysis at the introductory
level.

He cites the few articles by academic philosophers that he could
find:

Douglas N. Husak, “Is Drunk Driving a Serious
Offense?” ‘Philosophy and Public Affairs’ 23 (1994).
Bonnie Steinbock, “Drunk Driving.” ‘Philosophy and Public Affairs’ 14
(1985).
James D. Stuart, “Deterrence, Desert and Drunk
Driving,” ‘Public Affairs Quarterly’ 3 (1989).

See also

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_the_influence

Before the accident, the driver drank beer and shochu at one
establishment and brandy at another. His car was doing nearly 100 kph
when it smashed into the SUV.

To discourage drink driving by civil workers the Kochi prefectural
government in 1997 decided in principle to fire all employees and
officials shown to have driven under the influence of alcohol. After the
Aug. 25 accident, Fukuoka Mayor Hirotaro Yamasaki announced a policy of
dismissing city workers and officials even if they are arrested on
suspicion of driving under the influence. The Nagasaki city government
and the Kanagawa prefectural government followed suit with similar
announcements.

The number of fatal traffic accidents caused by drunk drivers and the
percentage of drunk-driver involvement in all fatal traffic accidents in
the first seven months of the year have gradually increased over the past
three years: from 401 (11.2 percent) in 2004 to 412 (12.5 percent) in
2005 and 419 (13.6 percent) in 2006. Because cases of drunk driving
continue to make headlines, the National Police Agency fears that the
2001 inclusion of “dangerous driving” as a crime into the Criminal Law,
and the 2002 enactment of the revised Road Traffic Law with harsher
punishments may be losing their deterrent effect.

The Fukuoka accident prompted the NPA to launch a nationwide crackdown
the week of Sept. 12 on drinking and driving. Such crackdowns should be
carried out more often, and without prior warning. Doing so would help
change the attitude of those who drink and drive thinking that they will
not be caught by the police. Another measure might be to place warning
notices on actual alcohol containers and inside businesses with liquor
licenses that list the legal punishments for driving under the influence
of alcohol. Public-service announcements could also be broadcast on
television and radio to warn of the dangers of drinking and driving. In
addition, a system that automatically locks a vehicle’s ignition when a
certain level of alcohol is detected in a driver’s breath should be
developed and introduced.

After the Fukuoka accident, a taxi company in Kitakyushu, Fukuoka
Prefecture, mandated that its drivers take a breath-analyzer test at the
start of their shift instead of punching a time card. This meaningful
effort only cost the company about 300,000 yen, a small price to pay for
making the roads safer.

The Japan Times
(C) All rights reserved
Source: http://www.japantimes.co.jp

Supporters: French Citizen Shouldn’t be Deported Over
Conviction

Oct. 02, 2005

Associated Press

LOUISVILLE, Ky. – A French citizen who has made a living in Kentucky
as a filmmaker is facing deportation after he was detained for a
six-year-old DUI conviction.

Marcel Cabrera was returning to the United States on July 7 from
Canada when he was stopped by federal agents who checked his criminal
record, found his conviction and took him into custody.

The crash occurred when Cabrera, a 48-year-old artist and filmmaker
who moved to Louisville in 1989, lost control of his Jeep on a curvy road
after having a few drinks. The crash severely injured his
then-girlfriend, a passenger in his car.

But Cabrera nursed her back to health and pleaded guilty to DUI,
wanton endangerment and assault.

He served out his probation, which included a 90-day jail term last
year for violating its terms.

“I paid my dues,” said Cabrera, 48. “I thought I was in the
clear.”

He has been held without bail since Aug. 17 at a maximum-security jail
in Illinois. The government is trying to deport him under a law that
allows immigrants who are not naturalized citizens to be removed for
violent offenses.

Cabrera, who is living in the U.S. on a green card, says he has served
his time for the crime, which he and supporters say was an accident and
not a violent offense.

“I had alcohol in my blood, but I didn’t try to kill my passenger – it
was an accident,” Cabrera said in a phone interview from jail with The
Courier-Journal last week.

He is scheduled to appear Oct. 25 before an immigration judge in
Chicago.

His friends and supporters say it would be unjust to deport Cabrera,
given the nature of his crime, the fact he’s served his sentence and his
filmmaking contributions.

Cabrera’s lawyer, Dan Owens, says deportation should be reserved for
more deliberate acts – “like hitting somebody over the head with a
baseball bat.”

Twenty supporters have written to the immigration court on his behalf,
including the woman injured in his DUI crash, Ann Harpole.

The president of the Louisville chapter of Mothers Against Drunk
Driving, Carolyn Scharf, has even said Cabrera shouldn’t be deported.
Scharf said that while she believes drunk driving is a violent crime, “I
personally feel the government is going too far in deporting somebody for
it.”

Cabrera owns a movie lighting business and has shot numerous
commercials and feature films, including “Assisted Living.”

The 1996 immigration law under which he could be deported allows
non-naturalized citizens to be removed years after their crimes, no
matter how long they have lived in this country, for violent crimes that
are considered aggravated felonies.

According to court records, Cabrera was driving about 50 miles per
hour when he crashed and critically injured Harpole, then 49. In a letter
urging probation, she later described it as an “isolated” incident and
said Cabrera was “the best possible nurse” and “a kind and gentle
person.”

After Cabrera pleaded guilty, a judge issued a seven-year sentence but
placed him on probation for five years instead of sending him to
prison.

See Article: www.kentucky.com

Information from: The Courier-Journal, http://www.courier-journal.com

$6000 Fine for Drunk Driving
By fijivillage, Sep 4, 2006

A man has been fined $6000 for Driving under the influence of alcohol
and dangerous driving by the Suva Magistrates Court this morning.

The court heard that Lai Dickson drove his vehicle while under the
influence of alcohol on 17th February this year resulting in a collision
with a van at Wailoku road.

In the first ruling of this nature, Magistrate Viliame Nadakuitavuki
fined him $5000 for Drunk driving and $1000 for dangerous driving, or in
default 6 years imprisonment.

He has also been banned from obtaining any license for the next 5
years.

Magistrate Nadakuitavuki also issued a bench warrant against Dickson
as he was not present in court.

Source: http://www.fijivillage.com

Deportation for Drunk Drivers Limited by U.S. Supreme
Court

Nov. 9 (Bloomberg) — A drunken-driving accident doesn’t necessarily
provide grounds for U.S. immigration officials to deport an alien, the
U.S. Supreme Court ruled.

The justices unanimously overturned a federal appeals court decision
that Josue Leocal could be deported to his native Haiti. The court said
Leocal’s conviction for a 2000 drunken-driving accident in Florida
doesn’t qualify as a “crime of violence,” a status that would authorize
deportation.

The opinion was written by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who
hasn’t been at the court since his Oct. 25 announcement that he is being
treated for thyroid cancer. Justice John Paul Stevens, who presided as
the court heard arguments in two cases today, said Rehnquist would take
part in the cases by reviewing legal briefs and argument transcripts.

In the drunken-driving case, Rehnquist said the Florida law under
which Leocal was convicted requires only that prosecutors prove
negligence, not that they show recklessness or an intent to injure
someone. Rehnquist said that didn’t fit the category of “violent, active
crimes” that Congress sought to punish through the deportation law.

“Drunk driving is a nationwide problem, as evidenced by the efforts of
legislatures to prohibit such conduct and impose appropriate penalties,”
Rehnquist wrote. “But this fact does not warrant our shoehorning it into
statutory sections where it does not fit.”

The accident injured two people. Leocal pleaded guilty to two counts
of causing serious bodily injury while driving under the influence of
alcohol. He was sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison.

The case is Leocal v. Ashcroft, 03-583.

Last Updated: November 9, 2004 12:26 EST