November 29, 2011 - 11:31 am
Drunk driving enforcement in this country has become a racket. It’s not about safety, it’s about money. Actually, the drive over the past two decades to lower the legal limit of alcohol for drivers has likely made traffic less safe. It has undoubtedly, though, put millions of dollars into the coffers of various jurisdictions via fines and vehicle confiscation. Additional millions have lined the pockets of police officers via overtime pay to appear in court and to man sobriety checkpoints.
Continue reading the complete post here.
When he’s not busy doing custom machine embroidery at Autothreads Ronnie Schreiber edits Cars In Depth and contributes to The Truth About Cars and Left Lane News
I read the article and I tend to agree. I “drove drunk” often for 30 years and never had an accident. I had to make an emergency run to Home Depot one night for a plumbing problem. I pulled out of the parking lot with my headlights still off and it cost me $3800 in fines and other fees. I blew a .149 so it wasn’t a felony. Another .001 and it would have cost me double.
I’m not condoning drunk driving and .149 is too high, but I think that people who roll through stop signs and run red lights are actually more dangerous.
I dunno, I drive just fine drunk. My blood test while being charcoaled one time 8 hours after my last drink was .43. The car was perfectly positioned in the tight garage.
Everyone is different. The idea that .08 or .06 is too much is insane.
How about all the jerks who can’t drive sober, either?
You’ve hit the nail on the head. The worst part is, the entire government apparatus, at all levels, has become a money scam. We are all criminals by 9AM each day. All the government has to do is see which one of 200,000 idiotic laws we’ve disobeyed. We are now merely suffered to live in order to supply them with cash.
It used to be called “slavery”. I’m so glad it’s been outlawed. Just not for us.
Speeding tickets have been a racket for a long time. Ever notice how the speed traps ratchet up when a jurisdiction is approaching the end of its fiscal year.
I live in Pennsylvania, where local cops don’t have radar. Every once in awhile, a state legilator will make noises about giving it to them. Having also lived in Virginia, many Pennsylvanians don’t know what a nightmare it is to have local sherrifs and policemen running around with radar. They don’t make the roads any safer, but the speed traps certainly make it a pain in the rump to drive, having to be constantly on the lookout for a cop who wants to make his quota. Some people here don’t know how good they’ve got it.
As for drunk driving, back in my younger (and dumber) days, we used to ride around blasting the stereo and drinking beer a LOT. I was never in an accident, and I never got a DUI, but I wouldn’t recommend it. Some people can’t handle their drink, and others don’t know when to stop. The law doesn’t stop people from doing it, but it does provide a mechanism to get them off the road. It’s too bad some municipalities see it as a piggy bank instead of a tool.
Everyone is different when it comes to “impairment” at various BAC levels.
A regular drinker who has built up a tolerance can function as well at 0.1% as someone stone cold sober.
A 25 year old at 0.08 can easily still have better reaction times than a stone cold sober 85 year old.
So yes, the DWI industry has become a racket, and a scam, and a witch hunt. It has become mostly about more money for government and attorneys, more votes for politicians, pandering to the neo-prohibition movement, and making criminals and pariahs out of otherwise law abiding citizens.
Further, it does little to deter the hard core drunk drivers who eventually do kill someone. Reported fatal accidents routinely indicate the drunk driver has several previous DWI convictions at BAC levels two or three times the legal limit.
Also, the statistics on “alcohol-related” accidents and fatalities is deliberately misleading. Any level of alcohol, not just over the legal BAC, in any driver involved in the accident makes it an “alcohol related” accident. An accident where the stone cold sober driver T-bones and kills a driver at 0.01% — not even close to the 0.08% legal limit — who has broken no rule of the road is an “alcohol related” fatality. Reported reductions in fatalities over the years are skewed by the fact that automobiles have become much safer, a fact never mentioned by the DWI crusaders.
If the concern was really about safety on the road the same folks screeching for tougher DWI laws would be also supporting serious crack downs on all dangerous driving practices, such as tailgating, especially at high speeds, and reckless driving by EVERYONE. And they would be more interested in cracking down on drivers who cause fatal accidents when stone cold sober, who kill more people than the “alcohol related” accidents.
Racket? So are traffic cams, traffic lights set to impede traffic rather than optimize traffic flow, and various other scams.
Cities setting traffic lights so as to goose revenue have been known to kills thousands each year and the studies go back to the 1970′s that I’m aware of. But cities “need the money”, and police need in ensue their pensions.
One more thing.
In my experience almost every time I see someone driving as one would expect an alcohol imparied driver to drive, if I get near enough to see the driver they are invariably holding a cell phone to the side of their head.
Yet there is little or no movement to ban cell phone use while driving. Further evidence the great concern for DWI has less to do with overall traffic safety and more to do with something else.
Actually there are lots of efforts to ban cell phones in cars.
It’s all misplaced — cite drivers for poor driving, which is the real issue.
True, there are some efforts to ban cell phone use. But for the most part they have not gotten very far. Even where cell phone use is banned no one will be handcuffed, hauled to jail, finger printed, hand cuffed, required to post bond to go home, and have their license summarily suspended if they are caught using a cell phone while driving.
My point was there is little or no effort to address impairments due to cell phone use *relative* to the massive effort the DUI crusaders have expended over at least three decades.
My point was to illustrate the hypocrisy of those advocating increasingly severe and draconian DUI penalties and limits while “relatively* ignoring how cell phone usage affects driving and safety on the roads.
My point was that much of the DUI crusade is not really about increasing safety on the roads. The crusade is very much about things other than safety. If the DUI crusaders were really primarily interested in making the roads safer they would be more consistent in addressing the many other *potential* causes of traffic accidents.
California banned driving while talking on a cell phone last year. You can use a hands-free bluetooth earpiece. The law is lame and completely ineffective, but the political push to ban cell phone use in a car is there. Nanny Staters Rejoice!
John J. I agree. there are too many laws. I propose an old and simple one: Do Not Get Drunk. Not in your house, not with a mouse, not in the street, not in cold or heat, do not get drunk Sam I Am, and it’s one less reason for jail doors to slam.
I’m sorry to disagree, but you’re all (politely) nuts. While there is no question local PD’s have taken DUI enforcement to new and ludicrous levels (it beats finding really mean bad guys), DUI checkpoints keep people safe. The very existence of them deters drunk driving. And when i grew up, a drunk going thru a crosswalk was not unusual. He often got off because he was “drunk” and deemed not to have inteded the injuries he caused. The threat of time in the tank keeps even the most well-heeled drivers in line most of the time. I for one do not want drunk drivers–even ones who think they drive “just fine” on the road when my kids are crossing crosswalks. Sorry to be the party pooper.
Those holding a CDL, (Commercial Drivers License) the limit is 0.02! That can be as little as one beer!
I can’t believe the remarks of the commentators or of the author. DWI enforcement a racket? OMG! You should be made to attend the carnage on the road after a drunk driver has had an accident. Funny, they usually walk away unscathed after killing or maiming others. Try knocking on the door of the victims relatives to explain they have been killed by a drunk.
Wake up guys, it’s not all about you!
Maybe that would be an answer to impaired driving: Make the driver accompany the cop to notify the family… Too horrible to contemplate? Then driving safety is too important to diminish, at all.
This article fails to prove the assertion that DUI laws are “a racket”. First, the article repeatedly states that the opportunity cost of of establishing or manning sobriety checkpoints keeps police from doing more valuable police work. That’s a fine theory, but it would be more convincing if the author bothered to demonstrate that sobriety checkpoints misallocate police resources, rather than just asserting it.
Second, the author claims that DUI laws are enforced in bad faith – that the motivation is fundraising. Again, that may be true, but all criminal laws that result in forfeiture or fines raises funds. What is uniquely sinister about DUI enforcement that makes it a racket?
Forget it, Chris. They already tried that one back in the 1920′s and 1930′s.
I’m not a heavy drinker, but I’ve always been exceptionally careful when going out – cutting myself off well before leaving, sleeping it off in the car, or – when the bar’s close enough – walking home and getting my car the next day. So I’ve never been pulled over for a potential DUI, and have never even paid much attention to BAC tables. But on my last night out I checked to see what the BAC would be for my a man of my weight (195 lbs) who’d had as many drinks as I’d had (3-4). It came to all of 0.06%. Nevertheless, I couldn’t imagine driving feeling as intoxicated as I was, and find it really hard to believe anyone who claims 0.1% or more to be safe.
“In my experience almost every time I see someone driving as one would expect an alcohol imparied driver to drive, if I get near enough to see the driver they are invariably holding a cell phone to the side of their head.”
I just assume they are talking on their phone- especially early in the day.
You can really tell a cell phone driver because they can’t steer that well- they are really dangerous in parking lots.
I notice now that a lot of women chit chat during their morning commutes- kill two birds with one stone- but dangerous as heck.
Point oh eight is a political and not a scientific standard. The purpose of .08 is not to get drunks off the road but to get as many convictions as possible and as much money as possible. Those without a financial stake in the current system want the actual drunks off the road. Those with a stake in the current system claim to also want drunks off the road, but their words are worth nothing. It is their actions that count, and by their actions they show they would rather create havoc for those who might have shared a bottle of wine over dinner with their spouse, than do the real work of catching real drunks who actually are a danger to others.
Drunk driving standards used to be determined by empirical accident data. Using that method the correct standard was set at .15. But there just weren’t enough convictions so it had to be lowered. Since science gave way to politics the accident rate for drunk driving has not decreased, it has increased. I believe it is because cops are no longer targeting actual impairment, but rather spend their time arresting those with a BAC level determined exclusively by politics. These are people who present no danger to anyone and had they been left alone would have proceeded on their way without harming anyone.
Most culpable in this travesty of justice are the cops who sanctimoniously defend .08 and then stop by their favorite cop bar after their shift and drive home with a BAC over .08 knowing that their brothers in blue will not subject them to the same rough treatment they regularly dish out to citizens.
Since I’m pretty critical of the current system it might be thought that I have a personal axe to grind, and perhaps I do, but it’s not from a personal DUI. I have a near perfect driving record, no tickets for anything in years, and certainly no drunk driving arrests nor do I drink at all when I’m going to be driving. I simply don’t want to become one of the victims of this vicious system.
Dangerous driving is dangerous driving…no matter if the driver is distracted by a cell phone, searching for a radio station, finding a tissue or if he is impaired by booze. Injuries don’t hurt more if the driver is using a cell phone. Nor do they hurt more if the other guy was drunk.
I used to be a DUI prosecutor for the government. The racket is actually much bigger than you describe.
After a person is arrested, he must pay his lawyer. He must attend alcohol counseling classes and pay a counselor. MADD and similar pressure groups get a cut out of court fines.
The “crime” of DUI is committed by many middle class people who have lots of money. DUI is the bread and butter of criminal defense lawyers. A good criminal defense lawyer would rather represent a middle class person for DUI than a scumbag criminal with no money who commits a murder. The middle class person doesn’t want to face a mandatory driving suspension or have a criminal record. For a higher fine, the prosecutor will reduce the charge to reckless driving and dismiss the driver’s license suspension.
For those who can’t afford to have the have suspension thrown out: BAIID device manufacturers have lobbied so that a person with a suspended driver’s license can drive with a BAIID device attached to his car.
Cops and defense lawyers shake hands with each other in court. The cop is paid overtime to come to court; the defense lawyer is paid for the representation, and everyone sticks their fingers in the pockets of motorists. Everybody is on the same side, despite a fancy show to the contrary.
DUI arrests have fallen enormously since the Great Recession started because fewer people with money are getting arrested. The can’t pay the fines, so police departments get less money, so the cops don’t get overtime, lawyers don’t get paid; so what is the point in arresting people?
A good criminal defense lawyer would rather represent a middle class person for DUI than a scumbag criminal with no money who commits a murder.
I will testify to that.
A client of mine, a retired university professor of pharmacology, made a very good income as an “expert witness” for the defense in DUI matters. He was an expert in (a) the correct procedures that should be used on the breathalyzer machine when administering a test; (b) the rates of metabolism in the body of alcohol consumed over various periods of time by people of various weights etc.
I never knew him to lose a case where he testified. His testimony “kept the cops honest” because it exposed the shortcuts and bad administration practices of the breath machine technicians: everything from poor training, to malfunctioning machines which were “fiddled” by the cops in the public interest.
There’s a simple way to figure out if DUI (and red-light cameras and speeding tickets, etc) are about safety or revenue. Send all the revenue from fines – 100% of every dime paid by the person cited (including court costs and including any asset forfeitures) – back to the taxpayers of the state in the form of an annual rebate.
Then see if the cameras and the checkpoints remain in operation. If they do, hey, it really was about safety. If they don’t, guess it was about revenue after all.
It’s really simple. Frankly, the idea that we continue to allow revenue generation from law enforcement activity is about as stupid as you can get. It’s just begging for corruption. And it’s no good trusting the cops to be honest – crooked politicians will eventually hire a crooked Chief to run the department and he’ll require corruption.
I served on a jury once wher the criminal case started out as the State Trooper doing some extra HOV lane enforcement towards the end of the month. The defense attorney asked the Trooper (on the stand, under oath) if he was evaluated by his superiors based on how many traffic citations he wrote (a quota). You could tell the guy was really uncomfortable answering, but he was under oath and, yes, his department used a ticket quota as part of their job reviews. And yes, it was the end of the month and he was short of his quota, and yes the location he was at was known as a place to write a lot of tickets quickly.
The entire case was a waste of taxpayer’s time and money. Our time, the court costs, the salary of the Trooper while he was testifying, the prosecutor’s time, the defendant’s time and legal expenses, all of it could have been avoided if the State Patrol didn’t treat their troopers as Revenue Enhancement Officers instead of Law Enforcement Officers.
Just a question. If you can make road block traffic stops of people without cause with the object of arresting drunks, why can youuse those same stops to find and arrest illegal aliens? Both or neither should meet Constitutional standards.
In many states DWI etc. is considered a crime of moral turpitude. Committing a crime of moral turpitude is reason enough in law for USCIS to deny documentation and eventually proceed to remove one from the country.
It behooves this government for example to remove a foreign national business executive working for a large multinational company because he drove DWI, than round up those who never had status in the US in the first place.
Its an odd allocation of priorities in my opinion. My wife works in immigration law and sees these sort of cases every week. A taxpaying otherwise law abiding Canadian or Frenchman or Dane is worth less to this government than a wet back river crosser.
Actually, DUI enforcement is very costly when you figure all the officer down time during the arrest and chemical processing and testing and subsequent court time, the custodial jail time for the drunk miscreant is expensive, which costs can be further jacked up if the drunk vapor locks in custody and he or she (especially with a baby on board!) becomes a medical emergency at the public agencies expense. However, what’s a real money maker is writing tickets, movers and parkers. Hey, if you got a budget shortfall in parks and rec, just up the daily officer performance goals under movers and parkers and no more budget short fall. As long as it’s a personnel performance goal and not a ticket writing quota everything is cool.
This article was clearly written by someone who doesn’t know much about the actual process of a DUI arrest. They are quite complex, and involve far more work than other types of traffic tickets. They are also more likely to involve lengthy court hearings than other types of tickets. The fines are higher, yes, but they’re expensive in time and money to successfully prosecute. If it were all about revenue, speed enforcement would be a far more efficient means of raising it than DUIs ever would be.
The only people who make any real money off DUIs are private practice defense attorneys. Which is why DUI defense is a huge sector of the criminal law profession.
Unfortunately, almost all of this could apply to Law Enforcement in general. There’s very little difference between them and the Mafia running a protection racket.
Except of course at least where I live (St. Louis), the Mafia keeps the street crime down. About the only place where crime isn’t rampant is the Italian district.
I mean, the saying that everyone loves a cop when they need one is true. But they don’t stick with that.
I wanted to compose you that tiny note to give many thanks over again for your superb tips you’ve shared above. It was particularly generous with people like you to convey unhampered all that a number of us could possibly have advertised for an e-book to make some bucks for themselves, even more so given that you might have tried it if you wanted. The advice likewise served to become good way to recognize that most people have the same interest really like my personal own to learn very much more when it comes to this issue. I think there are a lot more pleasant occasions in the future for those who look into your website.