Sunday, December 27, 2009

Police: Drivers use Twitter, texting to avoid sobriety checkpoints | Should they be Illegal?

















mcclatchy.com - FRESNO, Calif. — In a ritual nearly as familiar as Santa Claus and crowded stores, police agencies again have stepped up enforcement of drunken-driving laws this holiday season, setting up sobriety checkpoints that studies show reduce alcohol-related crashes because drivers who've been drinking stay off the road, fearing arrest.

But some public-safety officials say those efforts are now being thwarted by technology, with drivers now using text messaging, Twitter and other tools to keep each other informed about the location of sobriety checkpoints.

There's even an iPhone application specifically designed to identify checkpoints, according to Sgt. Dave Gibeault, head of the Fresno Police Department's traffic unit.

Gibeault says his own daughter often sends him text messages about where she's heard he's running checkpoints.

On Twitter, a free electronic message service that runs on both cell phones and computers, drivers can warn each other with "tweets" listing intersections where police have set up checkpoints.

Fresno attorney Brian Andritch sees nothing wrong with efforts to spread the word about checkpoints.

Andritch, who used to prosecute drunken drivers when he worked in the Fresno County District Attorney's Office, now defends them -- and warns others about sobriety checkpoints on Twitter.

"I don't see how it's any different from what police are doing in promoting checkpoints," he said in an interview.

Gibeault said it's one thing to spread the word about checkpoints in general, which police want. It's quite another to provide information that might encourage people to drive drunk, he said.

Wayne Ziese, a spokesman for the California Office of Traffic Safety, said he's heard a lot of stories about young people using technology to avoid drunken driving arrests.

"Young people continue to be the most dangerous drivers," he said. "They will continue to drink and drive until they have families and realize they have something to lose."

Ziese said law enforcement hasn't figured out how to respond to the more immediate and precise information about checkpoints circulating on the Web and via cell phones. The Office of Traffic Safety provides funding to help with such enforcement, including more than $5 million to Fresno County agencies in the last five years.

"New technology brings us new challenges, whether it's warfare or DUI," Ziese said.

Fresno police are known for their innovative approaches to DUI enforcement, and will likely figure out an appropriate response, Ziese said.

But changing the checkpoints can be a problem, Gibeault said. Police can't easily move them once their location has been broadcast, because of legal requirements and the large number of officers and equipment involved, he said.

In any case, the purpose of the checkpoints isn't to take drunken drivers off the road, Gibeault said. The point is preventing them from getting in the car in the first place. In 2001, experts convened by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reached the same conclusion. The group concluded that checkpoints reduced alcohol-related accidents by an average of 20%.

"Although checkpoints may remove some drinking drivers from the road, their primary goal is to reduce driving after drinking by increasing the perceived risk of arrest," the researchers said.

Saturation patrols -- in which police focus on troubled areas with a lot of officers on the move -- are more effective than checkpoints at catching drunken drivers, Gibeault said.

In the last three winter holiday seasons, more than 18,000 vehicles have passed through checkpoints in Fresno and Madera counties, according to the Office of Traffic Safety. Only 1% of the motorists were arrested for driving under the influence.

By contrast, saturation patrols conducted during the same time produced seven times as many arrests for driving under the influence. Valley's young drivers use technology to avoid DUI checkpoints

"I was a hard sell on checkpoints," Gibeault concedes. "I wanted to put drunk drivers in jail."

But he said he learned over time how effective checkpoints are.

He said he remains a strong supporter of checkpoints, even though the number of drunken-driving accidents has gone up during winter holidays in Fresno.

Last winter holiday, motorists charged with driving under the influence were involved in 49 crashes, compared to 36 five years earlier, police figures show.

Some of the increase is likely due to population gains, and the jump would have been higher if not for checkpoints, Gibeault said.

Clovis Police Chief Janet Davis said more people would have been hurt or killed if checkpoints weren't set up, and police must continue the effort.

"We're still doing these campaigns because people aren't getting it," she said.

Should Radar-Detecting Phone Apps Be Illegal?


DESCRIPTION  
 
The Trapster app can alert drivers to speed traps.
A few months ago, Washington’s chief of police, Cathy Lanier, said in The Washington Examiner that people who used smartphone applications to avoid red-light cameras, speed traps and sobriety checkpoints were “cowardly.”

A police spokesman said Chief Lanier was misquoted. But new twists in the interpretation of the law raise the question of whether people using the apps are criminals.

An unchallenged quote from the police chief said that applications like PhantomAlert and Trapster were “designed to circumvent law enforcement — law enforcement that is designed specifically to save lives.”
Is it possible that the phones could be designated as radar detectors, which are illegal in Washington and Virginia, and temporarily confiscated just as stand-alone radar detectors are?

According to the Virginia code, it is illegal for any vehicle to have “any device or mechanism, passive or active, to detect” radar. The question is, what does detect mean?


If your phone warns you that you are nearing a speed trap, does that count as detection? It might. But the same code also says “provisions of this section shall not apply to any receiver of radio waves utilized for lawful purposes,” which might also describe a phone.

The definition would appear to be untested in court.
“I’m not aware of any case law that would determine what is a radar detector or not a radar detector,” said Gregory R. Hough II, a Washington lawyer specializing in traffic violations.
Chief Lanier discounted any effort to outlaw software. “With the Internet and all the new technology, it’s almost impossible to stop the flow of information,” she told the Examiner.
However, a new tactic may prove her wrong.


On Sept. 24, the F.B.I. raided the home of Elliott Madison, who had used Twitter to disclose the location of police officers to protesters at Pittsburgh’s Group of 20 summit meeting. Mr. Madison was arrested and charged with, among other things, “hindering apprehension or prosecution,” according to an article in The New York Times.

That description, “hindering apprehension or prosecution,” would appear to apply to using a phone to alert other users how to avoid speed cameras and sobriety checkpoints as well.
“This is a completely new wrinkle, I don’t see it heading that way,” said Joe Scott, chief executive and founder of PhantomAlert, whose Android phone application warns drivers of the presence of traffic enforcement.
If lawmakers try to suppress apps like his, he said, “it’s going to make them look like they are out there to make unsuspecting drivers into criminals and fleece them.”
So what do you think? Should these warning apps be illegal?

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Confession of a DUI Driver - I was Forced to Drink


community.fox4kc.com -Society has paved the way for alcoholism. Our judicial system promotes alcoholism as well. I’ll explain how.

My name is Chris , and I am an alcoholic.
I feel as if I was forced into alcoholism by the judicial system and the adolescent need for “alteration of the mind.”

I was 17 years old and succeeding in high school in Lee’s Summit, Mo. I had better than average grades and nearly 100% attendance. I had already lettered in Drama and Cross Country. However, during this time I wasn’t drinking with friends. I hated alcohol! I hated the taste, the feeling it gave me and what it did to my peers.

I chose to alter my sobriety with marijuana. Some friends looked down on me because of my choice of substance. Most of society did as well. But I knew I enjoyed marijuana and I could still function and make sensible decisions. I wasn’t slacking in school, sports, or life, like so many of my friends that drank.

Life was going well. I was all set to graduate a semester early when my life turned upside down. I decided to ride with a friend, who was drinking and driving to a party. We were stopped by police for suspicion of DUI. I had marijuana and he was drunk. That said, we went to jail.

Hundreds of dollars later, after hiring a lawyer, I was put on probation and into the judicial system. A few months into probation, I failed a urine test and tested positive for marijuana. I went back to court and was ordered into drug rehab for my “addiction to marijuana”. I could no longer smoke marijuana at this point. (Marijuana can stay in your system for up to 30* days) It was just too risky!

I decided at this point that I had been making a stupid decision smoking marijuana and that drinking alcohol wouldn’t get me in trouble with the law. So slowly I began to drink alcohol. It didn’t seem to be a problem at first. People didn’t look down on me, it was legal and it was acceptable nearly everywhere.

Beers turned into shots, shots turned into keg stands. I began fighting, skipping school, drinking until 3am. This was okay to people. This was what teens did. My probation officer didn’t seem to care if I drank alcohol, even underage. I got my first DWI right before my 18th birthday and I only got a warning from probation. At this point alcohol no longer bothered me and it seemed the trouble was less. More DWI’s, fights and social problems were to follow and my drinking led to me dropping out of school. Tens of Thousands of dollars went to lawyers and courts keeping me out of jail. I spent 34 days in jail for testing positive for marijuana during the alcohol probation.

In October of 2006 I was arrested for my 6th DWI. I was driving on a hardship drivers license. I knew how the system worked at this point and my lawyer got this DWI nearly tossed out of court, yes, # 6! How was I not in a prison cell?! Because I was able to buy my way out of alcohol problems, I continued drinking. Although I knew I had an addiction and a problem long before this.

New Years Eve 2006 into 2007 I woke up naked next to my best friends wife. I had no idea how I got there or how I even made it to their house. My friend woke me up and when I realized what was going on, I cried and broke down. This had to be my rock bottom. What had I done?! What can I do?! What do I do?! Well this wasn’t enough for me and I continued drinking.

January 16th, 2007 3:15am. I’m headed home on I-70 from Whiskey Tangos in Grain Valley with 2 friends. It’s icy and sleeting. I’m drunk, speeding and feeling untouchable. I come up fast behind an SUV that is driving cautiously because of the weather, when I decide to change lanes abruptly and it sends my Jetta into a spin. We slide off the interstate narrowly missing a bridge post. The front tire dipped into a rut and sent us into a flipping barrel roll. Nobody was wearing a seat belt. Witnesses reported my Jetta flipping at least 7 times and seeing a body tossed from the car. The “body” was my sunroof. When the car came to a stop I just knew my friends had to be dead. I yelled and yelled, “are you all okay?!” They both answered yes. As we stumbled out of the mangled car in extreme pain and confusion, I knew this had to be the end. The end to my alcohol experiences and addiction.

I managed to stay sober until February 25th, 2007. I was in a friends wedding in Florida when the urge came over me to drink. I drank a beer, took a shot of tequila and I felt myself slipping back into alcohol. I realized that wasn’t the route I wanted. I’ve been sober ever since. I have a beautiful family, a successful business and a home. Life is good.

I still smoke marijuana on occasion. The only troubles that ever came with marijuana were the laws that prohibited it. Marijuana never influenced me to make stupid decisions or act like a fool. Alcohol did, and that’s socially alright. Our society and judicial system let me drink and drink and drink with *zero consequences. Yet when I chose the safer, less toxic option, I was ridiculed, looked down upon and thrown in jail.

This is what happens to many Americans. Many are basically "forced" to be alcoholics! And alcoholism is okay.

Thanks for reading MY story. If you choose to alter your state of mind, I hope you choose the safer alternative, marijuana. It’s time to end the ridicule. If marijuana were legal, I don’t think I would be an alcoholic. I’m sure the same goes for millions of others as well.

Sunday, December 6, 2009

Who Cares About the Rights of Those Accused of DUI?

Posted by Lawrence Taylor on December 5th, 2009




















For many years now I’ve written and lectured extensively on drunk driving litigation –on the science of blood and breath alcohol analysis, the flaws in breathalyzers, the ineffectiveness of field sobriety testing. In recent years, however, my focus has increasingly shifted to the gradual erosion of constitutional rights in DUI cases.

So who cares about drunk drivers and their constitutional rights?


You should care

The importance of what is happening in DUI law and procedures can be summarized in one word: precedent.

We are a nation of laws, more specifically, the common law system inherited from the British. Unlike most nations, which use some version of the French civil law where laws are found in codes, we look to the precedent of judicial decisions interpreting statutory law. When a court looks at the facts in a specific case, it applies not only statutes but decisions in appellate court cases to determine what the law is. The genius of this common law system of precedent is its flexibility; its flaw is what many call "judicial legislation".

The flaw becomes particularly noticeable when dealing with politically unpopular subjects. And few topics are as politically "incorrect" as drunk driving. Judges and politicians are, after all, politically sensitive animals who want to be reelected. Put another way, it is very easy for judges to rule in favor of the prosecution in DUI cases — particularly when powerful pressure groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (annual revenues of over $52 million) are so vocal in elections and in legislatures. There are few advocates for the accused or the Constitution during election campaigns.

This judicial attitude is not limited to judges considering re-election. A majority of the U.S. Supreme Court has been consistent in depriving the accused in DUI cases their constitutional rights. To mention just a few examples:

Michigan v. Sitz.The Court held that sobriety roadblocks were permissible — despite the fact that there is no exception in the Fourth Amendment for stopping citizens without reasonable suspicion.

South Dakota v. Neville. The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was held inapplicable in drunk driving cases (refusing to submit to testing).

Blanton v. North Las Vegas. Even though punishable by six months in jail, fines and diver’s license suspension, there is no Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial in a drunk driving case.

California v. Trombetta. Although police normally have to save evidence, they do not have to save breath samples in DUI cases (even though it is easy and inexpensive to do so).

So…we have seen a steady flow of appellate decisions at all levels taking away the constitutional rights of those accused of DUI. Again, so what?

Again, precedent: What happens today to a citizen accused of DUI can happen tommorrow to a person accused of any other crime. If police can set up roadblocks to check everyone for intoxication, they can set them up to search for drugs (which, incidentally, has already happened). If a citizen accused of DUI has no right to a jury of his peers, then the precedent exists to deny the right to citizens accused of possession of marijuana, tax evasion or any other offense.

The danger of precedent in the DUI field is not limited to judicial decisions. Legislatures are also guilty of passing unfair and/or unconstitutional — but politically popular — statutes. Politicians fall over each other in their rush to appear "tough on DUI" to their constituents. We have certainly seen a seemingly unending series of unfair and unconstitutional statutes across the country in recent years: immediate license suspensions at the police station; double jeopardy/punishment (license suspension and criminal prosecution); so-called per se laws (.08% blood-alcohol is illegal, even if sober); presumptions of guilt (if .08%, presumed to be under the influence; if .08% when tested, presumed to be .08% when driving); ad nauseum. And having passed such laws relating to DUI, they are less reluctant to do so in other areas as well.

So who cares about DUI? To paraphrase, "First they came for the drunks, but I was not a drunk so I did not speak up….."