Showing posts with label MADD. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MADD. Show all posts

Monday, October 26, 2015

MADD OFF COURSE


Mothers Against Drunk Drivers started out as a good thing. There was a sincere concern that there needed to be more attention focused on the dangers of driving while intoxicated in order to prevent more deaths. What has happened; however, over time is not. A campaign which originated to encourage responsibility has morphed into an anti-drinking campaign at all costs. Now there are cottage industries economically dependent upon the number of DWI convictions, such as the interlock, home monitoring, and SCRAM companies. It is these industries that are writing and passing the DWI laws in legislatures all across the country. It is no surprise that the laws they pass require more of their products even when it makes no sense. For example, why should a citizen convicted of DWI under the intoxicating influence of a drug or medication be subjected to an alcohol interlock device?

The State of Texas is also dependent upon the DWI surcharges to the tune of billions of dollars in order to keep out of the red (although only a fraction of people ever pay it, which has created more uninsured drivers on the roads). Judges and elected District Attorneys feel pressured to cater to the demands of MADD lest they receive bad press. This affects judges’ decisions, district attorneys’ policies, and police priorities. Have the DWI fatalities gone down? Yes, but the numbers of arrests have gone up exponentially and disproportionately. “Tough on crime” advocates argue that the ends justify the means. They argue that it is ok if a few innocent suffer if it benefits the many. This circular logic is unconstitutional. 

Our system of laws guarantees that every citizen is afforded the protections of the Constitution and its laws. DWI victims are often paraded around by MADD as a battle cry in justifying the present day war on social drinkers. No one would ever justify the sufferings of any DWI victim. In that same vein, no one should justify the sufferings of a citizen accused where there is unjust punishment.

In 20 years, I have had misdemeanor and felony clients so stricken with grief and shame that even though their arrest did not involve a victim, nor had they been convicted yet or even received due process, they took their own life. Some of the many real repercussions that my clients suffer due to their arrests and subsequent convictions include: job loss, divorce, loss of housing opportunities due to a criminal record, loss of insurance, forced career changes, permanent unemployment, depression, anxiety and attendant health problems. These costs are often borne by not just the DWI accused but their families, friends, loved ones, employers, and of course the taxpayers. The 1.4 million DWI arrests in the US every year compared to the approximate 11k DWI fatalities do not add up. If the death penalty was the law for every DWI in which a victim died, this still would not prevent DWI deaths. Draconian judicial measures only serve to penalize the unwarranted.

The “one size shoe” policy does not fit all. Most first time misdemeanor DWI offenders never re-offend. They self-punish. The costs of putting all of them on traditional probation or incarceration is not justified when put on the scales, nor does it accomplish anything. The same for felony offenses. Some offenders require a different approach for corrective measures than others. To punish all for the deaths of an irresponsible few is not what our Founders envisioned when they created a system of “Innocent until proven guilty” and an 8th amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. 

I deal with the repercussions of this systematic knee jerk reaction of “tough on DWI policies” every day. I have seen countless lives destroyed in so many different ways, all without necessity where better means could be employed. It is time for judges, jurors, and prosecutors to take to heart that every case is different. Every person has a different way of being reached and many teach the lesson of having made a mistake to themselves. We need options available in the judicial system that treat each case appropriately. There needs to be diversion programs which result in dismissals that can be fully expunged. There needs to be different levels of probation from unsupervised, to deferred to long term probations with treatment. Not every social drinker who made a mistake is a future killer on the road.

It should be a given that where the police made an unconstitutional stop without probable cause, that case will be thrown out. It should go without hesitation where there is a reasonable doubt about the case, regardless of purported alcohol level, the law will be followed and a Not Guilty returned. We don’t live in a true democracy when people fear following the law due to political hype. If MADD was truly a charitable organization it would promote following all laws, not just seeking convictions. MADD has no business has no business supporting campaigns like: “Buzzed Driving is Drunk Driving” and “Drink. Drive. Go to Jail.” when this is not the law. A society ruled by passion rather than laws finds itself ruled by lawlessness.

I think often about my few clients who took their lives. I wish I could go back and reassure them that everything will be okay. I think back to my conversations with them and my staff, my availability after hours, how everyone gets my cellphone , how my staff passes out my “compassion letter” and “challenge letter” which emphasizes hope. What I keep coming back to is the need for the system to change. Good people should not feel desperate over a DWI in a country with the best Constitution in the world. It is time we start placing the law, wisdom, and prudence above politics and furied passion. MADD’s victims are not the only victims. It is time we stop creating more unnecessary ones.

Sunday, September 20, 2015

False "Science": DWI Hypocrisy


Where do I begin? Judges, jurors, district attorneys, cops, MADD? Let's start where it belongs: the National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA). Back in 1977, the government gave NHTSA a grant to create some roadside tests for DWI arrests. Dr. Marcelline Burns, who holds a Ph.D in psychology was given carte blanche authority on this project. She came up with the field tests we know today. Her research was so bad (flunking on both the validity and reliability scales researchers measure tests against), that she reattempted her same research in 1981 with the same scientifically unacceptable results. This time she refused to release the validity data. Same story-  when the feds lowered the legal limit from .10 to .08 she conducted three "studies" (San Diego, Colorado, and Florida) in an attempt to justify her tests to the lower legal limit. It was such a massive failure she refused to release the validity or reliability data. Federal judge Grimm in an exhaustive review of her data and current scientific peer review research held in U.S. v. Horn, 185 F. Supp. 2d 530 (D. Maryland 2002),  that what law enforcement calls as the "standardized" field sobriety tests are unsuitable for use. Yet, law enforcement all across the country continue to use these substandard tests and imprison people on this basis. Throughout the years, although the tests have not changed (that is why they call them "standardized") NHTSA has removed critical limiting language. For example, the portion that warns that the "validity of the tests may be compromised" if the tests are not given in a standardized manner has been removed. In a brazen move, they have even now inserted a provision that these tests are not affected by varying environmental conditions. It does not take a Ph.D in psychology to know that ice, wind gales and wet, slippery surfaces will affect the tests despite their catchall disclaimer.


I am ashamed we have a federal agency that is so dishonest. I am ashamed that law enforcement does not reject research and tests that do not meet basic mathematical and scientific peer review standards. The fact we allow our fellow citizens to be arrested, convicted and have their lives ruined on this is unacceptable.  This is reality. This is truth and this is wrong.


* I have a paper and presentation both published and presented nationally on this subject. Feel free to request a copy.

Thursday, March 19, 2015

DWI Asleep & Parked in Your Car


You decide you have had too much, and you feel the right thing to do is pull over and sleep it off. Is this a DWI? According to a Tarrant County judge in a bench trial in case number 1366316, decided on February 12, 2015- yes it is. Do I respectfully disagree with the decision? Yes.

Here are the facts: my guy (Mr. "H") was asleep in his legally parked car at a QuikTrip in Keller, Texas. No one saw him drive. No one called the police on him. The QuikTrip attendant had no idea as to how long he had been there, but it had been "a while." The seat was in recline with Mr. H fast asleep. After waking him up, the police interrogation went like this:

Mr. H:    "I personally think I did the best thing."
Cop:       "What's the best thing?"
Mr. H:    "Where I'm at right now."
Cop:       "Which is what?"
Mr. H:    "Well, it damn sure ain't drinking, damn sure ain't pulling somebody over and hitting 'em head on collision, right? You're really going to take me to jail for DWI?"

In Texas, DWI stands for intoxication "while operating a motor vehicle." Funny thing is, the Texas Penal Code does not define "operate a motor vehicle"- the juries and judge get to decide. The Court of Criminal Appeals (highest Texas criminal court) has laid out the parameters of the definition in Denton v. State (911 S.W.2d 388): "The totality of the circumstances must demonstrate that the defendant took action to affect the functioning of his vehicle in a manner that would enable the vehicle's use." There are a few cases where the appellate courts use common sense and hold the following:

Texas DPS v. Allocca (301 S.W.3d 364, Tex. App. -Austin 2009):
Asleep with the seat in recline and vehicle in park although running is not operation

Murray v. State (07-13-00356-CR, Tex. App. - Amarillo 2014):
Asleep, truck parked off the roadway although running with no evidence as to how long the driver was there is not operation

The issue of admission to the act of operating a motor vehicle is a legal one. Under corpus delecti, the law requires additional evidence beyond the defendant's admission. This is a basic safeguard in our law. This prevents a conviction based on accusation alone or a confession. The premise is to prevent a false conviction based on a false accusation, forced confession or false confession. Whether or not the admission is true is not sufficient in and of itself to provide the corpus or "all" of the evidence. There must be more. A driver, such as Mr. H, cannot legally provide all the evidence to his own conviction (here the issue of operation).

So what is the big picture? Napoleon once remarked, "In politics stupidity is not a handicap." Gaining as many DWI convictions as possible is good for campaign statistics to pander to the "tough on crime" voters and insatiable members of MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers who are influential in drafting DWI legislation). It makes no logical sense to convict someone of DWI when the evidence is a parked car showing no evidence of intent for movement (e.g. flickering brake lights, vehicle in gear). Is the State of Texas so desperate for the $3-6k DWI surcharges that accompany each DWI conviction, that it is willing to convict people who are not even legally operating their vehicle? There are currently 1.3 million Texas drivers who do not have valid insurance because they are a part of the 60% who can't afford the $1.7 billion Texas DPS surcharge.
 
Sure, in a perfect world no one would drive while intoxicated. The argument that one should not drive while intoxicated to begin with does not negate that is responsible and logical to pull over in a safe place and sleep it off when one finds one's self intoxicated. To do otherwise, is to risk harm to one's self and others. Shame on the society which would rather argue semantics for financial and statistical gain over being concerned about others' welfare. A simple fix since the law is not defined?

Operation should be "causing a vehicle to function in the manner in which it was intended to function." Who buys a vehicle to use as a motel room? If the law is not fixed, every running RV parked at Nascar or a camping ground with alcohol involved is a possible DWI. It is time for some common sense in our court system when it comes to DWI. Long overdue.

Do you want to know who is a DWI hypocrite? Someone who wants DWI enforcement to "keep the streets safe" yet at the same time would rather have a DWI conviction opposed to actually keeping the streets safe. Society is better off and lives will be saved if people who are driving while intoxicated will pull off the road and do the right thing. The only way we can do this is not convict people who are doing the right thing in these circumstances. Shame on illogical law enforcement decisions.