Louisiana legislators have reinstated driving while intoxicated (DWI) sentencing options to state judges.

A 2001 law required judges to suspend the majority of jail time for third and fourth time DWI offenders. Those arrested on their fourth DWI received a maximum of only 60 days in jail. In exchange for the reduced sentence, repeat offenders were required to participate in substance abuse counseling and treatment. The author of the 2001 bill, Representative Ken Odinet, argued that the intent was to focus on rehabilitation of chronic DWI drivers as a way of making the roads safer.

The recent legislation gives judges the option of handing out one to five year sentences to those arrested for their third DWI and ten to thirty years for a fourth DWI. The bill’s author, Senator Joel Chaisson, agreed that rehabilitation was beneficial but thought certain DWI situations warranted lengthy sentences. The new bill gives judges the option of offering treatment to those with repeat DWI arrests or imposing tough jail time.

The South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the State Law Enforcement Division(SLED) violated the law by failing to keep adequate maintenance records on breath machines used to test for drunk driving.

The case stems from the 2002 South Carolina DUI arrest of Ronald Landon. Following an auto accident, Landon was given a breath test and subsequently arrested for DUI when the results showed a blood alcohol content of 0.14. The legal limit at the time was 0.10. South Carolina DUI defense lawyers challenged the findings, citing that despite state laws requiring the keeping of maintenance and testing records on the DataMaster machines, poor records were kept.

By not indicating how often the machines required repair, the machines gave the false impression that they were reliable. South Carolina DUI Defense attorneys questioned that reliability, citing that the equipment periodically broke down or provided false readings, making the blood alcohol content findings inaccurate. Indeed, SLED indicated that the breath test machine used in the Landon arrest had failed several times during 2002. Circuit Judge G. Thomas Cooper found the lack of maintenance records violated the law and he dismissed Landon’s blood-alcohol evidence.

The five-member South Carolina Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the record keeping system was flawed but put the burden on DUI defense attorneys to prove there were problems with specific breath test equipment in specific cases. They also thought the breath test evidence in the Landon trial should not have been suppressed and they ordered a new lower court hearing in that case.

As a consequence the ruling will probably not affect pending DUI cases in the state. Still, DUI defense attorneys cited a need for fairness when it comes to evidence presented during a trial.

Legislation aimed at strengthening California DUI laws has become mired in parliamentary procedure. The measure called for allowing a field officer to compel a driver to submit to a blood alcohol content(BAC) test in situations where a traffic accident resulted in a fatality.

Senate Bill 176 had bi-partisan support, being authored by Senator Jeff Denham (R-Merced) and co-authored by Senator Tom Torlakson (D-Antioch) and Assemblyman Dave Jones (D-Sacramento). The drunk driving legislation had been approved twice in both Senate and Assembly policy committees and it was unanimously approved in not one but two full Senate votes.

Members of the Assembly Appropriations Committee, however, rejected a call last week to submit the bill to a vote by the entire Assembly. Instead the measure was placed on the ‘Suspense File’ where it may die procedurally without requiring a vote. Senator Denham cited the influence of the ACLU and trial lawyer lobbies.

The "bill would have helped determine whether someone was driving under the influence(DIU) when a fatality occurred and would have allowed for proper punishment of more drunk drivers," Denham said.

The Assembly Appropriations Committee has demonstrated a reluctance to enact past tough drunk driving laws, such as permanent revocation of a driver’s license after three DUI arrests.

There is no question that drunk driving can lead to injury and even loss of life, and that should be enough incentive to take responsibility. The Kansas Legislature recently enacted measures designed to further deter drunk driving by raising fines and mandating harsh penalties.

For the first Kansas DUI arrest there is a $500-1,000 fine and automatic jail time. The fine increases to a minimum $2,500 fine by the fourth DUI offense. That fourth DUI arrest can also mean the permanent suspension of a driver’s license.

While the first and second DUI convictions are still misdemeanors, subsequent DUI arrests will be prosecuted as felonies.

There is a new $1,500 fine and at least 90 days of jail time if you refuse to submit to a breath test or provide a blood sample.

A Kansas DUI arrest also incurs financial burdens in the form of safe driving programs, court costs, counseling or rehabilitation, auto insurance, car impound and attorney’s fees.

Your arrest record will now remain in the public domain too. A Kansas DUI attorney could get those records sealed five years after an offense. The new legislation takes away the possibility of getting prior convictions expunged.

Blog Readers: We encourage you to copy this article and email it to all your Texas friends. This information needs to be shared, especially as it could help someone avoid serious consequences.

It is now a crime to have a covering that obscures any part of the Texas license plate.

Statute §502.409 of the Texas Transportation Code states so. Since being passed by the Texas State Legislature in 2003 it has only been randomly enforced, partly because the legality of the statute was being reviewed by the 5th Circuit Appellate Court in New Orleans. But that changed last May when the federal court ruled that a person commits an offense if a vehicle:

1) has an attached illuminated device or sticker, decal, emblem or other insignia that is not authorized by law and that interferes with the readability of the letters or numbers on the plate or the name of the state in which with vehicle is registered; or

2) has a coating, covering or protective material that:

a. distorts angular visibility or detectability; or

b. alters or obscures the letters or numbers on the plate, the color of the plate, or another original design featureof the plate.

Note that this includes any obstruction of any of part of the design features of a license plate. It doesn’t have to be something as extreme as a colored plastic cover; you are in violation of the law if even part of the word ‘Texas’ is covered. The frame put on your car by the automobile dealership or that salute to your favorite sports team could earn you a traffic ticket.

As frustrating as that may be, it could be only the beginning of your problems.

We need to preface the next bit of news by saying that we do not condone drunk drinking. It is a criminal offense and a threat to public safety. Unfortunately responsible social drinking is increasingly becoming criminalized too. Shawn Brown, a San Antonio Texas DWI defense lawyer, cites as many as 40% of his clients were under the legal limit for blood alcohol content when they were stopped for suspicion of DWI. Their breath tests confirmed a BAC under .08, yet they were still arrested.

This stems from a liability concern on the part of the police. If the presence of any alcohol is detected, they are hesitant to release a driver and later learn of an alcohol related accident. Somewhat understandable, but certainly a nightmare for the innocent drivers ensnared by this approach. And don’t try to distinguish yourself from the image of an alcoholic on the road; in today’s world you can be arrested for even the slightest presence of alcohol.

You probably are wondering what this has to do with license plate frames, but another piece of information needs to be added first. Texas law enforcement agencies are increasingly developing Selective Traffic Enforcement Programs (S.T.E.P.) that create drunk driving task forces. These programs use federal funds to pay for extra police cars, special equipment and overtime pay for officers who volunteer to be a part of a drunk driving campaign. They have turned into quite a cash bonanza for police officers, as evidenced by the Houston officer who earned over $100,000 in extra income last year. Under the program, the officers not only get extra pay for being on extra patrols, they earn a minimum of 3 hours of pay at 1.5 times normal salary for each court appearance involving a DWI arrest. The result is the more DWI arrests an officer makes, the more pay he receives.

So police involved with S.T.E.P. task forces are looking for every opportunity to stop a driver. And that includes something like an illegal license plate cover. Do not forget this; if any presence of alcohol is detected during a traffic stop, the odds of being arrested are high. Even if it starts with a simple or routine stop, even if your BAC is under .08 and even if there are no signs of driving impairment, if they smell alcohol, you probably aren’t going home that evening.

Fair or not, it certainly doesn’t help to know that the arresting officer will likely make extra money for each such arrest.

So don’t give an police officer any reason to stop you. Yes, drink responsibly but also remove those license plate frames.

Over six months police in Dalworthington Gardens have taken blood samples from 32 motorists stopped for suspected drunk driving. The small police department in the Tarrant County, Texas suburb of Fort Worth, Texas initiated the controversial strategy after training its officers to draw blood to test for blood alcohol content (BAC).

For drivers who refuse to cooperate, Deputy Chief Jerry Vennum says a local judge is on-call to sign a warrant requiring the blood sample. Vennum says that of the 32 drivers stopped for suspicion of DWI, all agreed to give blood. "There’s been no wrestling with someone to take their blood or anything like that."

The legality of the program is based on a 20-hour training course police officers took in order to become certified to draw blood. Section 724.017 of the Texas code requires that, "Only a physician, qualified technician, chemist, registered professional nurse, or licensed vocational nurse may take a blood specimen at the request or order of a peace officer…. ‘qualified technician’ does not include emergency medical services personnel."

The policy of requiring drivers stopped for suspicion of DWI to provide a blood sample is also employed by police in Fort Worth and the North Texas counties of Montague, Archer and Clay. In Fort Worth the police do not actually draw the blood though they do use the threat of force and employ warrants to secure samples. Results show that innocent drivers have been required to provide blood.

The police departments are attempting to use the blood tests to counter growing evidence that breathalyzer tests are inaccurate, which has been DWI defense attorneys strategy in courtroom challenges. The new policy calls for taking DWI suspects to a police station and asking them to voluntarily provide a blood sample. If they refuse, a judge can issue a warrant allowing police to draw blood, including by force. Even if not formally charged with or convicted of a crime, those refusing a blood test will lose their driver’s license for six months.

There has not been a legal challenge yet to this practice.

A decision made by a New Mexico Appeals Court has improved the chances of a successful DWI defense in cases where the blood alcohol content is close to the legal limit.

The court overturned the DWI conviction of John Day based on evidence that his BAC may have been less than .08 at the time of his arrest. Day was stopped for a burned out lightbulb over his license plate. There was no sign that he was driving while impaired. Police noticed an open beer in the car and subsequently ordered Day to perform a field sobriety test. He was arrested and taken to a police station for booking. It was then that a breath test was conducted showing Day was right at the legal threshold of .08 BAC. He was convicted in court based on that evidence.

Day’s New Mexico DWI defense attorneys cited in their appeal that 66 minutes had passed between the initial traffic stop and the time of the breath test. Since blood alcohol readings increase as alcohol is absorbed into the bloodstream, defense attorneys argued that the .08 did not accurately reflect Day’s BAC at the time he was driving. The appeals court ruled that that evidence should not have been ignored by the prosecution during Day’s DWI trial and they overturned his conviction.

"We hold that absent scientific evidence of the alcohol absorption and elimination processes tied to facts that must be considered in scientifically evaluating the alcohol absorption rate of a particular driver, the jury could not have rationally inferred that defendant had a .08 alcohol content at the time of driving," Judge Jonathan A. Sutin wrote for the court in a 3-0 decision.

It was recommended by the judges that a "retrograde extrapolation" equation be used to estimate blood alcohol levels that account for the time of alcohol consumption and other relevant factors. This places a new difficulty of proof on prosecutors that may impact New Mexico DWI arrests and DWI defense procedures across the state.

New York State lawmakers have made drinking and driving a boat equal to drinking and driving a vehicle. Each now has a legal threshold of .08 blood alcohol content, and if charged with a Boating While Intoxicated (BWI) the penalties are same as being arrested for DWI.

The new law is aimed at reducing the number of alcohol-related accidents on New York’s lakes and waterways by aggressively going after drunken boat operators. State Senator John Flanagan, one of the bill’s sponsors, said people "don’t stop to think that BWI has the same lethal potential as DWI."

Deputy John Whitehair of the Monroe County Sheriff Marine Patrol said, "For the longest time, I think there’s been a misconception that boating and drinking go hand and hand. I’ve investigated numerous crashes and most of them involve alcohol."

A first conviction BWI is now considered a misdemeanor, with a potential prison term of up to one year and a fine of up to one thousand dollars. A second offense could yield a felony charge with up to a four year prison term and a one thousand to five thousand dollars fine. A third conviction could result in up to seven years in prison and a maximum fine of ten thousand dollars. Previously, a boating while intoxicated conviction meant a ticket, a maximum of 90 days in jail and a $500 fine.

"Were in the business of trying to ensure everyone’s safety on the water and we’ll go to any length to do that," said Whitehair.

Police across the state of Illinois have a new tool to detect drunk driving. High tech flashlights.

Though they look like the regular police issue flashlights they are equipped with special sensors that can detect alcohol. Operational when within a foot of a driver suspected driving while intoxicated (DWI), a green light indicates no or a low presence of alcohol. A red light means a strong odor of alcohol.

The devices do not indicate blood alcohol content and the findings are not admissible in court. They are intended to provide a reference point for police when trying to determine if a driver should be subjected to field sobriety tests or a breathalyzer.

The flashlights each cost $750 and the Illinois Department of Transportation has purchased and distributed 100 of them to police departments.

The flashlights will be put to use during the state’s 17 day crackdown on drunk driving this coming Labor Day holiday. Law enforcement agencies have authorized 2,500 hours of overtime for that effort and have planned sobriety checkpoints at unspecified locations and saturation patrols that focus exclusively on DWI detection. According to Department of Transportation spokesman Eugene Brenning, the campaign, paid for with federal funds, will be "the largest crackdown we’ve ever had in the state of Illinois over Labor Day weekend."

A Mandeville, Louisiana woman, who has potentially fatal wounds from a DWI accident, walked out of the St. Tammany Parish Hospital yesterday. Her location remains unknown.

Destiny Moore, 26, was charged with her fifth DWI after being involved in an auto accident last Friday that left four people injured. She disappeared from the hospital around 7:00 pm Wednesday, dressed only in a surgical gown. Moore had her spleen removed as a result of the auto accident and, without proper medical care, the incision could become infected. In addition, she had an intravenous line attached to her neck, which could prove fatal if removed incorrectly.

In addition to Moore’s injuries, her young daughter and the driver and passenger of the other car were injured in last week’s DWI accident. Moore’s 14 year old daughter received bruises to her head, neck and knees from an improperly installed child safety seat, though she did not require admission to the hospital.

The daughter remains with Child Protection services after no one appeared at a Tuesday court hearing on her behalf.

Moore’s husband has been taken in for questioning and the Covington, Louisiana police department hopes someone in the community will come forward with information.