Lowering penalties for marijuana possession and ramping up punishments for DUI

denverpost.com - Sentencing laws and prison costs
As legislators prepare to act on a state commission's proposals, officials first must determine how they'll affect overall costs.  Lowering penalties for marijuana possession and ramping up punishments for repeat drunken drivers are both promising ideas that ought to be considered as part of state sentencing reform.

We're glad to see the Colorado Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice pursuing these changes. But before the ideas get too far along, it will be important to get a handle on the economic impact of such a restructuring.

Would the overhaul result in overflowing jails? Will counties have the resources to accommodate changes? Is there any way to realize some savings in prison expenses?

Prison cost reduction is one of the main reasons the commission was formed. As corrections eats up an increasing portion of the state's general fund, it is imperative to figure out a way to slow the growth.

The commission is set to finish its work by the end of December, and then it will forward suggestions to the governor. Ultimately, restructuring sentencing laws will fall to legislators, who convene in January.

State lawmakers need to quickly get their arms around the financial implications of sentencing reform because anything with a significant price tag is going to be a waste of their time given the budget situation. Ideally, they'd realize savings.

The last sentencing reform bill, introduced in the waning days of the last legislative session, was shelved in part because no one knew how it would affect the budget.

The measure, sponsored by state Sen. John Morse, D-Colorado Springs, and Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder, offered some good ideas with its reduction in sentencing ranges for non-violent, property and some drug crimes.

It seems like the commission, which most recently met last week, is considering some of the same directions.

Commission members voted to recommend dialing back penalties for marijuana possession. Those caught with up to 4 ounces of marijuana would face a petty offense instead of a criminal misdemeanor. Possession of 8 to 16 ounces would become a misdemeanor instead of a felony.

Those changes are in keeping with trends around the state as voters have been taking a more lenient view about marijuana use.

The commission still is contemplating whether to ratchet up punishment for repeat drunken drivers. We hope there is a way to do this without causing budgetary problems.

On the table is a proposal for drunken drivers to be jailed for at least 30 days on a second offense and 60 days on a third offense.

Arapahoe County Sheriff Grayson Robinson, who headed the commission's DUI committee, also suggested getting repeat offenders counseling while they're dry and in jail, which is an excellent idea.

We're also glad to see the commission is revisiting its prior decision to loosen up penalties for those caught driving without a valid license. A recent legislative audit report saying more than 225,000 people are driving illegally in the state and are involved in a quarter of the state's fatal wrecks was a shocker.

Clearly, easing penalties is the wrong way to go on this problem.

The progress of the state's sentencing reform commission has yielded some encouraging initial progress. We look forward to the finished product.

Confession of a DUI Driver

thefrisky.com - When I heard this weekend that Shayne Lamas, the gal who snagged Matt Grant in season 12 of “The Bachelor,” was the latest reality star to get busted for behind-the-wheel booziness, I groaned but was hardly surprised. Her arrest was as predictable as Stephanie Pratt’s a mere few weeks before. Yet reading both girls’ shocked, defensive responses to their ordeals—But I only had two drinks!

I was practically sober!—I found myself cringing with a pang of empathy. See, a few years ago, just shy of my 21st birthday, I got pulled over for a broken taillight after having a not-yet-legal glass of wine at a dinner party. When the officer asked if I’d be drinking, I reacted the exact same way these two did. As a Dean’s List student at a top college who volunteered at the local children’s hospital, I thought I could do no wrong. I rattled off these accomplishments to the cop, sure that he’d let me off the hook. “Basically,” I said, no doubt looking and sounding like the naïve blonde sorority girl I was, “I am not the type of person who drinks and drives.” Except that, according to the Breathalyzer, I was.

After blowing a .02, the officer promptly placed me under arrest for violating Delaware’s Zero Tolerance Law. As someone who’d never so much as been grounded before, I was at a loss for words. Something else that was lost in the hoopla of my night in jail? The fact that I had done something not just illegal but truly dangerous. While the details of my unlikely arrest circulated around my hometown, I clung to the claim that I had been virtually sober. From my years of high school and college parties, I was convinced that the “designated driver” was the person who drank the least—not one who abstained completely. I still thought I had done nothing wrong.

It was only recently, at age 26, that I stopped making excuses and started focusing on the facts. At the risk of sounding like a M.A.D.D. presentation, driving performance degrades after just one drink. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Association, by the time someone has three drinks in an hour—the amount that Stephanie Pratt must have had in order to blow a .08—they are 11 times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than someone who has had nothing to drink. Add that to the fact that 21-to-24-year-olds have the highest involvement in alcohol-impaired driving fatalities, and it’s clear that the celebutante D.U.I. is more than just a young Hollywood rite of passage; it’s indicative of a larger national epidemic.

In the end, my arrest—and its accompanying barrage of paperwork and mandatory court appearance—was a royal pain in the arse. And a sobering dose of reality, reminding me that laws are put in place to save lives. I’m now diligent about not drinking and driving. But I have to wonder how much longer the D.U.I. trend will be fashionable for celebrities—and more importantly, at what cost to the rest of us?

Defining Highway - Defining “Highway” for Purposes of a DUI

 Yodle Local Articles - Claiborne Ferguson is THE Memphis DUI lawyer, with his practice, the Claiborne Ferguson Law Firm in Memphis, Tennessee, devoted to DUI defense and capital murder cases. Both require a vast knowledge of science and law, which is why he has extensive training in both areas. In this article, he talks about what constitutes a “highway”, for purposes of DUI.

Typically, in order to be in violation of DUI statute, a driver must be operating his vehicle not only under the influence but on a highway or other road open to public use. A highway is typically defined as the entire width between boundary lines of every roadway which is open to public use for purposes of vehicular traffic.

“Highway” can also be interpreted to include malls, parking lots, and apartment complexes, so long as these areas are open to each and all public use. In general, the roadway must be open to public use and not limited to a limited group of individuals such as private businesses or any area that requires special license or privilege to enter.

For example, the parking lot of a private corporation which requires the driver to pass a manned security gate showing a badge to enter into that parking lot would not be defined as open to the public, and therefore not driving upon said lot would not be subject to DUI prosecution.

Parking lots or apartment complexes are generally considered open to the public and fall under the definition of public use even if they are restricted to the tenants and their guests. At times, parking lots to private clubs, restaurants, churches and banks have been held subject to DUI laws.

However, testimony concerning those private businesses, restrictions and exclusions of the private citizen in general may show that those roads were not sufficiently open to the public use to come within the definition of “highway” for purposes of DUI prosecution. Clearly, private residential driveways should not be considered open to the public.