Lawmakers split on DUI bill
The number of Ohioans with five or more DUIs now tops 33,000, and despite several new laws in recent years to crack down on drunken driving, the level of alcohol-related accidents in Ohio has remained steady.
But will the House and Senate come to an agreement on the best next step to curb those who insist on driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs?
The Senate is moving a bill that prohibits repeat DUI offenders from refusing to take a blood-alcohol test. But a key House Republican wants to prevent even first-time offenders from turning on a car before they take a breath test.
Law-enforcement officials, prosecutors and anti-DUI crusaders have been frustrated for years that drivers can potentially avoid a DUI conviction by refusing to take a blood-alcohol test, such as blowing into a Breathalyzer.
Attorneys regularly advise clients that the instant one-year license suspension that comes with a refusal is better than handing over evidence proving their blood-alcohol level is more than 0.08 percent, the limit in which a person is considered to be driving drunk in Ohio.
"The penalty is meaningless to those who have been convicted of multiple DUI offenses," Summit County Prosecutor Sherri Bevan Walsh told a Senate committee.
Under Senate Bill 17, which is getting final tinkering in committee, no one with two or more DUI convictions in the previous six years would be allowed to refuse an officer's request to take a blood-alcohol test.
Walsh compared it to obtaining fingerprints from a burglary suspect, or DNA from someone accused of rape -- they are not allowed to refuse.
But Jon Saia, a Columbus defense attorney who specializes in DUI cases, said the bill is reminiscent of the Soviet Union.
"It's pretty frightening that they can hold you down and put a needle in you for a traffic offense," he said. "This is action without a court order. This is allowing police on the street to make that determination with Gestapo-type tactics.
Other proposals in the bill, sponsored by Sen. Timothy J. Grendell, R-Chesterland, would require multiple DUI offenders to wear a "smart bracelet" to monitor blood-alcohol levels and would make it easier to prove a person is criminally liable for loaning a vehicle to someone who is drunk or has no driver's license.
In the House, Rep. Bill Seitz, R-Cincinnati, argues that increasing penalties and requirements on those who refuse to be tested is an idea "that has gone nowhere (in) the last four years, and I don't think it will go anywhere again."
Instead, Seitz is crafting his own DUI bill that would require even first-time offenders to install an ignition interlock device, which prevents a car from starting unless the driver breathes into it to prove he or she was not drinking.
Seitz called it a "far preferable and more effective way of dealing with this problem."
Grendell disagrees. "We have room for interlock, but in and of itself, it is not enough of a deterrent," he said, noting that offenders can beat the system by having someone else breathe into it.
Seitz said his bill will be modeled after a 2005 law passed in New Mexico. But New Mexico's system isn't as effective as some might think, said Linda Atkinson, executive director of the DWI Resource Center, an Albuquerque-based group focused on reducing the impact of drunken driving.
"I think it's a great tool, but I don't like it being sold as a panacea," Atkinson said of interlock devices. She noted that alcohol-related fatalities there fell only a little, from 194 in 2005 to 191 last year.
In New Mexico, she said, the law is enforced by an overwhelmed court system. "Our lower jurisdiction courts don't have the personnel to oversee these," she said.
Doug Scoles, executive director of Ohio Mothers Against Drunk Driving, said that ignition devices could stop the first-time offenders who too often repeat their crimes.
"The generation of interlocks has come so far. We think it's the way to go in the future in mandating these for all DUI offenders," he said.
Seitz said his bill also will propose increasing license suspensions but lessening jail time.
"Jail is not a very effective deterrent for first- and second-time offenders, and it's expensive to the counties," he said.
"Jail is not a very effective deterrent for first- and second-time offenders, and it's expensive to the counties."
R-Cincinnati
posted by RonL at 11:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home