Hypocritical Tyrant or Drunken Bigot? You be the Judge...

Meet Curtissa Cofield. She is cited as Connecticut's first black female judge in this article from the Hartford Courant, although no other qualifications for the job are mentioned. If being a black female is in fact her only qualification for service as a judge, that might explain a lot about her behavior on October 9th of last year.

It all started with a traffic accident. Somehow her honor allegedly failed to notice a parked police cruiser in a construction zone, and sideswiped his vehicle. This caused damage to both vehicles as well as injury to the officer. If this is starting to sound like the kind of dangerous driving behavior that judges normally lecture defendants about from their lofty perches atop the bench, wait 'til you get a load of her subsequent misconduct.

According to the article, Judge Cofield then distinguished herself even further by acting like a drunken lout at the police station. For starters, she referred to African-American State Police Sgt. Dwight Washington as a "nigger", and started addressing him as "Mr. Negro Washington" and "negro trooper." All the while, Curtissa was complaining that she was being treated "like a negro from the hood." Hmm... I guess she must think that when white folks sideswipe a parked police car in a construction zone and then blow a 0.17% BAC, they just get a ride home and a pat on the back. Her comments make one wonder how she customarily treats a real "negro from the hood" in her courtroom.

Sgt. Washington should have known that he was dealing with a sharp minded lawyer/judge who would beat the rap. Judge Cofield even gave him clues as to her legal brilliance, stating "...it comes down to the bottom line, who's smarter — me or you? We'll figure it out, won't we?" Despite her claim of higher intelligence, she was stupid enough to provide a urine sample which revealed her to be way, way, way over the limit for DUI (most judges are smart enough to "just say no"). She then let him know that she had no fear of any legal repercussions, stating "...we'll see what they say in court, won't we, Mr. Washington?" Strangely enough, she was right! Judge William Bright Jr. of Manchester admitted Curtissa to an alcohol education program above the objection of the trooper whose vehicle she hit.

If she completes the program, the charges will be dismissed. According to news reports, Trooper Michael Kowal suffered neck and back injuries as a result of the accident. Judge Bright did not hear anything about her behavior at the station when he heard the case on November 24th. He only briefly referred to it in passing on December 8th when he accepted her application for the alcohol education program. Apparently, he wasn't interested in the details.

Huh, that's kinda funny. Judges usually want to hear all about the details when a defendant fails to act polite and cooperative during a traffic stop or arrest. It almost makes you wonder if this judge wasn't getting special treatment. Of course, her troubles aren't quite over yet. According to Rep. Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven, co-chairman of the Legislative Judicial Committee, Judge Cofield now faces a hearing before the Connecticut Judicial Review Council. She is currently facing five charges of violating the judicial canons of conduct.

Incredibly, these charges do not include making a false official statement to the police as part of their investigation. Judge Cofield apparently lied when she stated "I had no alcohol to drink, Mr. Washington." Gosh, that sure is strange. Because over three hours after the accident, Curtissa submitted a urine sample that was over twice the maximum legal limit for DUI. How did all that alcohol get into her bloodstream if she wasn't drinking? Was she partaking in alcohol enemas? Well, she did also state "I'm a crack addict", and who knows what these crackheads will do to get a buzz.

The bottom line: Judge Cofield blamed illness for her behavior - she stated that she was suffering from "negro-itis". This was after telling the Trooper "I'm humiliated by your fucking attitude." His attitude? Sounds her honor (or her dishonor) might need some time in prison to figure out why people are disgusted with the attitude of some judges who act as if they are above the law while constantly dumping on those who are unfortunate enough to appear before them.

From the videotape and behavior reported in the latest articles, it sounds like Curtissa Cofield might be a disgrace to the judiciary, a liar, a boorish lush, an unqualified race-baiting product of "reverse" discrimination, and a good example of why DUI laws are meant to fail. Feel free to write Rep. Lawler at MLawlor99@juno.com and share your opinion as to the appropriate sentence for Curtissa Cofield. You be the judge - because it sounds like she isn't fit for the job.

Another Prosecutor Refuses to Provide a Breath Sample

Meet Hamilton County, Ohio prosecutor James Schaefer. Or as he's known during his service in the reserves, Lieutenant Colonel Schaefer. This guy knows something about prosecuting DUI cases. He's spent 14 years prosecuting cases, and his specialty is drug courts. That's kind of ironic isn't it? A guy who makes his living pointing the finger at people because of recreational substance abuse winds up on the wrong side of the law for making a bad decision after enjoying America's favorite recreational substance of abuse... alcohol.

But make no mistake, Schaefer has learned from his many years prosecuting cases. He refused to provide a breath sample when arrested for DUI. That might have had something to do with the sweet plea deal he got. Two counts of child endangering were dropped even though both of his children were riding with him. And a charge of driving the wrong way down a one way street was also dismissed. He didn't get any jail time, and he might even be able to keep his job. If he does get fired, I hope he takes up the cause of his fellow sinners and starts doing defense work for those who find themselves buzzed and busted. He might be happier just quitting and using his talents to help people who find themselves in the same situation instead of hurting them. He might feel a lot better about what he does every day. I know I love defense work, and I no longer feel like a fascist applying the government's overwhelming power against my fellow man.

What do these cases say about our society's war on drugs or the campaign against drunk driving? Why not just end DUI forever by installing ignition interlocks on all cars? I don't know whether this prosecutor was guilty or not, but I do know that he did what most prosecutors, cops, judges, and legislators do when arrested for DUI. They refuse to blow. Do they know something the rest of America doesn't? Good luck LTC Schaefer - your service to America should count for something and earn you a break. How about giving one to others?

Massive Government Conspiracy to Drive Drunk? Or just more DUI Judges, Cops, and Lawmakers...

Wow. This weekend I have compiled a tremendous list of examples that show why DUI laws do not and cannot work. We have a list of distinguished judges, police officers, and elected or appointed officials with a few prosecutors thrown in for good measure. This is Susan Hamilton. She is the commissioner of the "troubled" DCF, Connecticut's "beleaguered child welfare department". I have no idea whether she is good at her job or whether she is stuck with a rotten bureaucracy. But one thing is for sure - she is really good at apologizing!

In an letter to the governor, she stated "It is with overwhelming remorse and embarrassment that I must inform you that I was arrested last evening in my personal vehicle at approximately 7:00 pm for driving under the influence. My behavior was inexcusable, and I deeply regret and apologize for violating your trust and faith in me. My actions reflect poorly on your office, the Department of Children and Families, my family and on me personally and professionally, and there are no words to express how truly sorry I am.... As you know, I have never had any prior arrests or engaged in any criminal behavior in the past, and I promise you and the citizens of this state that I will take all necessary steps to prevent this from ever happening again. Please know that the guilt and shame I feel will not dissipate, and I will do everything I can to rebuild your trust in me."

She has never engaged in any criminal behavior in the past? Or has she just never gotten caught? She looks like a nice lady in this photo from the official state website. I hope she keeps in mind that she is working for the largest conspiracy to distribute recreational narcotics in the state - the state government which controls and profits from all alcohol sales.

Now let's turn to former prosecutor Lydia Wardell, who escaped a "mandatory" jail sentence this week. Instead of serving the statutory 10 day jail sentence in an actual jail, Ms. Wardell will spend some time in an inpatient treatment program. Her admission to the treatment program is thanks to judge Lawrence Lefler exercising his discretion to count such treatment in lieu of jail time. She refused to provide a blood sample.

Apparently Ms. Wardell is pretty familiar with the law on DUI. How? Well for starters, this ain't her first ride on the merry-go-round. In 2005, she was convicted of DUI after being caught driving drunk with her two children in the car, aged 3 and 6. She blew a 0.23 that time - looks like she learned from that mistake that you should never give the police a breath or blood sample. Somehow she didn't get any jail time for that offense either, serving 18 months of probation instead of real jail time. But her knowledge of DUI law is not just a result of her numerous drunk driving busts. According to news reports, "she was known for her aggressive prosecution of DUI and other cases as a misdemeanor court supervisor for the Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney's Office". A tough prosecutor would have played back tapes of her arguments in sentencing hearings when she had advocated for jail time instead of treatment while she was a prosecutor.
And in the latest case of a judge refusing to provide a breath sample (and then getting off of a DUI charge), we have His Honor Judge James Heath of the Warren County, OH Court of Common Pleas. After allegedly running a red light (charge later dropped), Judge Heath refused to provide a breath sample. His attorney was later reported to have admitted that the judge had consumed "a few glasses of wine." Instead of getting hammered for DUI, Judge Heath was convicted only of the lesser charge of reckless driving. Refusing to provide a breath sample was a smart move on the part of Judge Heath. Another Judge, John F. Kelly, of Pima County Arizona, recently made the news because he provided a breath sample, and was lucky enough that it only registered .063% BAC. In many jurisdictions such as Virginia, a driver can be convicted with a reading as low as .05% BAC. Congratulations Judge Kelly! You won the DUI lottery. One must wonder how nervous the good judge was as he waited for the results of the blood test.
Another refusal case involved Pekin, Illinois Patrolman Andrew J. Thompson. He was stopped after an auto accident which was not his fault on December 19th. He refused to provide a breath sample, but Tazewell County State’s Attorney Stewart Umholtz stated that after a careful review of videotapes, his office (not him personally, mind you, but his office) determined that there was no basis for proceding against the officer, or even to impose a summary suspension of his license. That's a nice break. Mr. Umholtz did, however, have some advice for the rest of the motoring public. "If any citizen is asked by a police officer to take a breath test or a field sobriety test, they should take that test to remove all doubt."
Gee, that's great advice. If you're trying to put people in jail for DUI. If you are experienced in DUI law and practice like Judge Heath, Officer Thompson, and Prosecutor Lydia Wardell, you know that providing a sample for the government to use against you in court is foolish. You might get lucky like Judge Kelly, but if the machine used to convict you is off by even a small amount, you could wind up in jail even though you were in fact innocent. But if you don't provide a sample, you can't be convicted by machine - accurate or inaccurate.

Another Judge Convicted of DUI... meet Sheila McGinnis

OK folks, it looks like we have another stirling example of why the DUI laws fail over and over and over. Oh, and make the government a lot of money. Oh, and also keep a lot of state judges on the bench with nice comfy salaries. This is Sheila McGinnis, a/k/a "her honor" Judge McGinnis. And friends, she is a real prize. Judge McGinnis was convicted of DUI this week, but unlike most defendants, she was spared (at least some of) the harsh glare of the media spotlight. According to media reports, she was "weaving from lane to lane, flashing her bright lights and honking the horn just before the accident." What accident you ask?

This is the good part. The "honorable" Judge McGinnis slammed into a minivan with five people. That's sounds like something straight out of a MADD commercial demonizing drunk drivers. Assistant Attorney General Daniel Nikolic really turned up the heat on Judge McGinnis, arguing "Not only was she driving under the influence of alcohol, she caused an accident." Uhh, wait a minute, he didn't exactly blast her. That is actually an extremely weak indictment of this law enforcement officer turned criminal. He should have pointed out the hypocrisy in a judge who regularly sentences DUI defendants to jail having rear-ended a minivan full of children who could have been injured or killed thanks to her honor's arrogance and recreational substance abuse.

One blogger stated "I have personally observed her demeanor and conduct on the bench and find her to be arrogant, incompetent in having a poor understanding of legal principles, and unwilling to hear pro se defendants." 'Nuff said. But not all said. Another blog reported that "her DUI case was transferred to the Markham courthouse after her attorney successfully argued it would have been 'embarrassing' for McGinnis to stand trial in the courthouse where she worked." Uhhh, wait a minute... isn't embarrasing the defendant one of the main techniques the courts use to battle drunk driving? Isn't that why some jurisdictions post all DUI mugshots?

But precious Sheila McGinnis was spared as much shame as possible. After sentencing, she slithered "out an employees' entrance at the Cook County Courthouse in Markham". Oh, and her trial was held at the same time as Barack Obama's inauguration. Funny timing. It's almost like she was married to Mayor Daley's nephew or something. Oh wait, she is. Her sentence? Court supervision for 18 months (yeah, they are going to be really hard on a judge down there at the Court Supervision office - she'll have to suffer through all the Bureaucracy and everything - NOT) and a $1,000 fine (wow, they really set her straight there - less than half the maximum). One blogger stated "I didn't have any prior convictions either, when she threw me in Cook County Jail for 4 days, and denied me a public defender, saying that if I had money for bail ($2,000 borrowed from my sister), I had money to pay a lawyer. (I'm a single parent with 4 kids.)"

Sounds like somebody could use a stiff taste of her own damned medicine. Continuing a common theme, Judge McGinnis refused to participate in any field sobriety tests or to provide a breath sample. Judges know these rituals are purely theatrical and are designed to convince uninformed defendants that they must be guilty, and that they should therefore plead guilty and forget trying to hire a lawyer to defend their rights. Another lesson: sometimes even if you can win based on the facts, a good guilty plea is better than a conviction after a contested case - at least you know what you are getting. If you can live with it, you're in good shape.

What is it with Aussie Cops? Another one Busted for DUI

Well, it's happened again. We recently reported the case of unfortunate veteran cop Rebecca Harrison, who got busted down under for driving drunk. In her patrol car. While on duty. Obviously that makes for a kind of weird situation when you get back to the office on Monday.

But apparently senior constable Harrison is in pretty good company. She was recently joined in the ranks of drinking and driving cops by one of her fellow law enforcement officers. The latest DUI cop has been spared the indignity of having his name published in the newspaper, but that probably won't last for long. What do we know so far?

Well, according to published reports, the officer is a 41 year old male, and is "believed to be" a uniformed officer. Fortunately he was not on duty at the time, which is more than can be said for fellow DUI cop Ms. Harrison. What lesson should we take away from this latest case of DDC (Drunk Driving Cop)?

The same lesson that becomes apparent every time a cop is arrested for DUI; alcohol is a drug, and if the government is going to sell it to people for recreational use, society must expect that they will make bad decisions once the drug has taken effect and their judgment has been reduced.

It's not because they are criminals, it's because they really believe that they are perfectly OK to drive. To act as if the drinking driver is to blame is intellectually dishonest and ignores the government's obligation to stop DUI's the easy way: by installing an ignition interlock on every new car.

Latest Judge Arrested for DUI Provides a Good Example

Meet Johnny Seiffert. Or as he is also known, "Your Honor." Justice of the Peace Seiffert was convicted of DUI on Friday after entering a no contest plea according to this article in the Great Falls Tribune. Judge Seiffert had originally entered a plea of Not Guilty, but he changed his plea before visiting judge Michele Snowberger. I wonder if Snowberger lectured him the way I frequently hear judges lecturing people who appear before them for drunk driving. I also wonder whether there was a plea agreement in the case.

Judge Seiffert got a ten day suspended jail sentence, which means that he won't serve any active jail time. That's not a bad deal on a DUI charge - some defendants get a jail sentence on their first DUI, even if their BAC level was right at the minimum required to convict. Was that part of a deal with the prosecutor or did he plunge headlong into the abyss without knowing what he was about to receive?

Part of the sentence included a BS alcohol class that most DUI defendants have to suffer through as part of the usual routine. If Judge Seiffert figures out in the first five minutes that it is a total crock and a waste of time, will he keep sentencing defendants to attend the same course?

The bottom line is that Judge Seiffert made a very wise decision when approached by a trooper from the Montana Highway Patrol. He refused to perform any field sobriety tests or provide a breath sample. His fatal flaw: talking to the cop who arrived at the scene after the one-vehicle rollover. He should have refused to speak to the trooper and left the door open as to who was driving, when the driver was last operating the vehicle, and whether the driver had consumed any alcohol after driving.

Refusal is a common theme when judges and police officers are arrested for DUI. They almost never provide a breath sample or do field sobriety tests. Why not? Well, for starters, they know that both of these "scientific" tests are about as accurate as a Ouija board. As a former Yellowstone County deputy and Red Lodge police officer, Judge Seiffert must have known that the only point of such "tests" is to give the police evidence against you, and that the police can and will determine that you have "failed" no matter how well you do on the tests. Rather than stick his own neck in the noose, Judge Seiffert did the smart thing and followed Nancy Reagan's advice: "just say no".

Judge Seiffert looks like a really nice guy. I'd probably enjoy hearing some of his stories about life out west and his career in law enforcement. We could probably talk at length about DUI cases while enjoying a couple of cold beers and a nice Montana steak. I just hope we would both be able to make it home afterwards without any harassment from his friends on the Highway Patrol. Hopefully Judge Seiffert will take his experience at the hands of the justice system into account when he is hearing cases alledging drunk driving in the future. He still has an appeal pending, and it sounds to me like he might have a decent chance of acquittal on appeal. Best of luck, Your Honor.

Finally, somebody gets it.

I don't know Martin B. Hamilton, but I sure do like the way he thinks. Mr. Hamilton advocated for universal ignition interlocks in a recent editorial in the Johnstown Breeze. Even better, he has picked just the right time to make this argument. Why not, he asks, tie the bailout of the automakers to a requirement that every new car come with an ignition interlock? This is brilliant, but of course our elected representatives will probably fail to implement this obvious solution to the problem of drunk driving.

Hamilton's argument is simple. "At the inconvenience of including people who don’t drink at all, these devices would ensure no one drives drunk. It would make society suffer for the sins of a few, but the added cost would surely offset the amount of lives saved." And how much would it cost? Well, not a whole lot. These devices could easily be manufactured for less than $50 if they were produced on a tremendous scale that the US auto industry offers. And yes, it would require that we breathe into the machine before turning the key. But we have to breathe anyway! So why not save lives and money while doing what we have to do to keep our hearts beating?

Clue: some people would lose money. Auto manufacturers would sell less cars because people wouldn't wreck their vehicles while driving drunk. Insurance companies would derive less revenue because there would be less risk to insure. The goverment would sell less alcohol and get less tax and sales revenue, not to mention the fines from drunk driving convictions. The police would have less work to do and their employment numbers would decrease. MADD would go out of business and their fat salaries would be history. So think about it and decide for yourself - should we save lives or help Jack Daniels and his friends make more money?

Three Beers, Five Years.

A recent article about Clyde D. Covington, Jr. tells a sad tale in which there are no winners. Mr. Covington was convicted of aggravated involuntary manslaughter, driving under the influence, and failing to comply with a traffic signal in Virginia Beach this past week. Unfortunately, he blew a 0.09% BAC after an accident in which another driver died. According to his attorney, he had consumed three beers at dinner with friends before the accident. If you are thinking "Wow, three beers isn't much, I'm lucky I've never been in that situation", you're not alone.

Deaths caused by driving under the influence are a tragedy. There is absolutely no reason for drunk driving to continue to rob us of our loved ones and to cause otherwise good people to be branded as criminals. Our society is technologically advanced enough to stop drunk driving by placing ignition interlocks on all new cars so that they will not start unless the driver is sober. But the insurance companies, auto makers, police, alcoholic beverage sellers, restaurants, and government agencies aren't about to let go of the money they make from drunk driving.

Am I crazy for suggesting that we should all have to blow into the machine before starting our cars? Well, I might be crazy, but not because of that. What's crazy is Clyde D. Covington, Jr. serving five years in prison because of a tragedy that could easily have been prevented. What's crazy is the death of a woman who would still be with us if the government and MADD were courageous enough to actually stop drunk driving instead of engaging in profitable finger pointing. My thoughts and prayers are with the families of both of these people, because both are victims of the ongoing parade of DUI tragedy.

What not to do when the cops are investigating you for DUI...

According to a story in South New Jersey's Courier Post Online, Matthew Tubertini, 29, of Mount Laurel New Jersey, was arrested at 3:10 AM after getting himself into an accident. Of course, it really makes for a rotten day when you wreck your car. And when it is a single vehicle accident as reported in this case, it's pretty hard to blame the other guy.

But one very important thing you should always remember after having such an accident is that the police who respond are not your friends. They may be concerned for your welfare, they may be polite and professional, but you have to keep in mind that every cop is looking to charge you or any other stranger they encounter with a crime. That's their job. It's what they get paid to do. In fact, officers frequently receive overtime pay for the hours they spend in court - so the more charges they rack up, the more they get paid.

So what should you do when the police start asking questions? You should shut up. Very rarely do suspects take advantage of the very powerful right to remain silent. But the ironic truth is that practically every DUI suspect talks himself or herself into a DUI. I once had a client that blew a .25% BAC after wrecking his car. I was able to walk him out of court without a DUI conviction, without an ignition interlock, without license suspension, without a 15 day "mandatory" jail sentence, and with only a minor fine on a reduced charge. How? Easy. He was too drunk to talk.

Because he couldn't answer the officer's questions about what time he had wrecked the truck or whether he had consumed any alcohol after the accident, there was no way they could convict him. I was able to get the prosecutor to agree to a guilty plea on a much lower charge because they knew I would be able to suppress the results of the Breath Alcohol Test. Unfortunately Mr. Tubertini took another course. After being arrested for DUI and released, he returned to the police station with a baseball bat, allegedly to "to damage police vehicles and confront officers at the station." Not good. Don't.

Oops! Another cop busted for... DUI.

Meet James Allen Post. This unfortunate driver was arrested for DUI in Myrtle Beach SC on Friday. Getting busted for DUI can really ruin your weekend. But when it gets you immediately fired as well, it's a real double whammy. Officer Post had the misfortune to be stopped by a South Carolina State Trooper. One can only wonder whether he would have been arrested if a fellow Myrtle Beach Police Department officer had stopped him.

Officer Post was a rookie with less than two years on the job. How many people did officer Post arrest for drunk driving? And did he needle them at the traffic stop like we always see on "Cops". You know the episodes I'm talking about. Where they act in a very patronizing manner and lecture the defendant about drinking and driving. Spare me.

Police officers are agents of the state. They like to act as if they are brave warriors, helping to fight the war on drugs and keep us all safe from drunk drivers. That is absured. As agents of the state, they help support a (legal) conspiracy to distribute narcotics (booze). Can you imagine what would happen if a bunch of teetotallers decided to try and revive prohibition by blocking access to state owned liquor stores? The cops would immediately drag them away and jail them despite the fact that they were trying to keep people from using drugs (beer, wine and liquor).

I feel sorry for Officer Post. That mug shot says "I'm sorry". Maybe he's innocent. I hope he gets a very good attorney, and if he somehow gets acquitted and returns to duty, I hope he has compassion for the people he stops under suspicion of drunk driving.

Latest "Drug Warrior" to get arrested for DUI...

The War on (some) Drugs makes the prohibition of the 1920s look like a raving success. No health problem has ever been solved by treating it like a criminal problem. But the fallacy of the distinction between legal and illegal substances of abuse continues to elude many of our government servants.

Take Elvin Martinez of Florida for example. According to an article in the St. Petersburg Times, Mr. Martinez was arrested on January 2nd and charged with DUI. Unfortunately, Mr. Martinez was suspended from his job representing the Hillsborough State Attorney's Office on numerous local boards.

That's a drag, which is compounded by the fact that he was turned in by... his wife. No wonder they call dogs man's best friend. At least your dog will never rat you out. The kicker is Mr. Martinez has served as chairman of the Hillsborough County Anti-Drug Alliance. Huh? Doesn't he know that alcohol is a deadly and addictive drug?

As a government employee, he could be considered a co-conspirator in the distribution of (legal) narcotics in the form of alcoholic beverages which are controlled by the state of Florida. Of course the Board is involved in all sorts of ridiculous anti-DUI propaganda, which is about as effective as those stupid TV commercials sponsored by the so called Partnership for a Drug Free America. What a waste of taxpayer money.

It never ceases to amaze me when I see one of our nation's brave drug warriors caught driving drunk. As always, when a member of the government is caught driving drunk, this case highlights the fact that we cannot sell people a recreational drug that reduces judgment and inhibition and then expect people to make good decisions after consuming the drug we just sold them in the manner in which it was intended to be consumed.

When a bad day gets worse...

Don't you hate hangovers? The headache, nausea and general malaise have convinced many a tippler to slow things down or walk away from the bottle permanently. But sometimes a hangover is just the beginning of a bad day. Take Billy Joe Huffman of Strasburg, VA for example.

According to news reports, Mr. Huffman was arrested in Warren County on January 1st and charged with a DUI. ($) Making his day even worse, he allegedly had two prior DUI's making this a felony third DUI. ($$) Even worse, his truck was damaged after crashing into a house there. ($$$) Ouch. But it gets worse.

Two people in the house were injured and as a result Mr. Huffman was charged with attempted malicious wounding and attempted malicious wounding of a family member. ($$$$) Family member? Was it his own house that he crashed into? ($$$$$) He'll probably also face a civil suit for the injuries to the folks in the house. ($$$$$$)

Mr. Huffman might have a chance, though. The article indicates that the DUI took place on December 16th, but it wasn't until "the truck was later seen" that he was arrested January 1st. Without any blood or breath evidence, it should be tough to convict him of DUI, although there could conceivably be witnesses who can testify as to his level of intoxication at the time he plowed into the home.

Unfortunately for Mr. Huffman, as of 1/08 there is nobody listed as his defense attorney on the Courts website. Maybe he'll make a good decision and hire a competent DUI attorney - good luck frequently comes as a result of good decisions, and this poor guy could use some good luck.

Latest Celebrity DUI - Rip Torn... again

Looks like Rip Torn's been charged with DUI again. His last two arrests were in New York, his most recent in Connecticut. Police allegedly caught the famous actor driving in the breakdown lane with a Christmas tree tied to the trunk of his '94 Subaru. He refused to participate in field sobriety tests or to provide a breath sample.

If you think Rip hasn't learned anything from his previous DUI arrests, you are dead wrong! In 2004, Rip was charged with DUI in New York, but he refused to provide a breath sample and he beat the rap. In 2007, he was charged once again with DUI after refusing to provide a breath sample, but he pled guilty. So what was the celebrity actor's lesson? Not to submit a breath sample when ripped, perhaps.

He appears to have a 50/50 record so far after refusing, with the third charge yet to be decided. Without that evidence, it is frequently difficult for the cops to pin a DUI charge on you, as Rip has apparently learned. As usual, I am mystified when a wealthy person drives after drinking. With his fabulous finances, I would imagine Rip could hire a rollback to drive him and his hoopdie back home after he gets rip-roarin' torn-down drunk (or not - let's remember, the guy may be completely innocent). Best of luck to him with his defense - let 'er rip!

Latest Cop Arrested for Drunk Driving - from Down Under, Mate

Rebecca Harrison, a 32 year old policewoman is the latest example of a law enforcement officer being arrested for driving under the influence. This latest example is according to news reports from Margaret River, Austrailia. No rookie, the intoxicated cop is referred to as a "senior constable" in news reports. Most telling of all, not only was she on duty, she was driving her patrol car.

One might be tempted to wonder why a law enforcement officer would be driving under the influence of alcohol. As usual, the government will try to pretend that this is a shocking and unexpected development. In reality, the government's legislators, police, and judges have conspired to distribute and derive funds from the sale of narcotics. This particular drug, alcohol, causes the user to experience reduced judgement and inhibitions. Then these same drug dealers act as if it is surprising when people get behind the wheel after consuming the drug that helps pay their salaries.

What's the solution? Easy. Stop putting cars on the street without ignition interlocks. It's impossible to make a good decision about driving when you are under the influence of alcohol. If it was impossible to start the car until the driver was sober, DUI wouldn't happen.

Latest Celebrity DUI: Pulitzer prize winner Sam Shepard

Proving once again that people from every walk of life are subject to arrest for DUI, actor and playwright Sam Shepard blew over twice the legal limit in Illinois this weekend. This is going to be a tough case to wiggle out of, even for a celebrity. But don't count him out just yet. A good DUI attorney can be worth his weight in gold, and celebrities usually choose to invest in the best.

The basis for the stop was allegedly speeding (46 MPH in a 30 zone). That's a great basis for a stop and rarely gets overturned by the courts. Then there's the behavior at the stop. Although the news reports don't contain the usual police allegations of bloodshot eyes, odor of alcohol, and difficulty balancing, they do indicate that Shepard pulled onto the sidewalk when he was stopped.

If that's on tape, it serves as additional evidence of intoxication. Unfortunately for Sam, the BAC of 0.175% that registered on the breathalyzer according to TMZ will probably be enough to get him a DUI conviction if not some jail time. It always mystifies me when wealthy people are arrested for DUI. Why drive at all when you could be chauffered everywhere you go?

Why MADD doesn't really have any intention of stopping drunk driving

Well, for starters, how about $46,959,181? That's the amount that MADD paid out in total salaries and benefits during fiscal years 2002-2004 according to a review of their tax filings by getmadd.com. If you were receiving big fat paychecks in exchange for exploiting the pain and suffering of the victims of drunk driving, would you want to put a stop to all that income? Not likely if you were making over $200,000 per year, which was the fantastic salary pulled down by at least one MADD executive during several reported years.

MADD no longer puts corporate tax returns on their website according to the report. Huh? Corporate return? Do you mean MADD is a corporation? Yep. Just like GM, AIG, and Brown-Forman (maker of Jack Daniels). All of these corporations benefit financially from drunk driving and would earn less if drunk driving were eliminated. So one really has to ask the question, how hard would it be to eliminate drunk driving? As it turns out, not very.

Some time ago, a little device was developed that would be attached to the ignition of a car. In order to start the car, you would have to blow into the device. If you were drunk, the car wouldn't start, but if you were sober, it would operate normally. Ingenious huh? So why don't we put one on every new car sold in America? Simple. That would affect the paychecks of all the people who profit from drunk driving, and that's one heck of a lot of people.

Take me for example. Lots of folks hire me to defend them on DUI charges, and they have to pay me good money for that service. That's simple enough, but what about General Motors? How do they profit from DUI? That's actually pretty simple too. What do you think happens when someone wrecks their car in a DUI? They go out and buy a new one in accordance with the terms of their insurance. This happens every day due to the magic of actuarial science.

But aren't the insurance companies losing money from DUI because they have to pay out claims? No, they actually make even more. Huh? The insurance companies bring in more premiums to cover the cost of damages caused by DWI. More premiums means more profit. Obviously the alcohol and restaurant industries profit from a system that allows and encourages people to have a few drinks with dinner and drive home. Even MADD isn't really looking to prevent drunk driving (and give up their big fat salaries) - just to punish drunk drivers after the crime has already been committed and it is too late to stop them.

Don't believe me? Try this. Call MADD headquarters and explain that you sometimes like to enjoy a glass of wine or two with dinner or a couple of beers at the ballgame. Then ask them if they would foot the bill for an ignition interlock for your car. The answer will be no. How do I know? I tried it. I'd love to have a car that couldn't be driven under the influence. And of course I've never intentionally driven under the influence, but nobody ever plans to drive under the influence. When you drink, your judgment is reduced and your inhibitions are lowered, so how are you supposed to be able to tell whether you are under the influence or not?

MADD knows that punishing drunk drivers will only have a marginal effect on drunk driving without eliminating their paychecks. In a recent report, MADD claimed to have "partnered with leaders in the traffic safety and auto industries to further explore the possibilities of eliminating drunk driving through... advanced vehicle technologies" such as "Advanced breath testing... for alcohol in the vehicle" Hmm. Sounds like a pretty cozy partnership. It's worth noting that these technologies are proclaimed as a panacea by MADD when they get legislation passed requiring ignition interlocks for convicted drunk drivers. Six states passed such laws to kick off 2009. But don't count on MADD getting these devices installed in every new car any time soon. "It's amazingly inconvenient," according to David Malham, of the Illinois chapter of MADD. As Upton Sinclair once said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

More proof that DUI laws were made to fail...

A 76 year old member of the Suffolk Substance Abuse and Youth Council is the latest example of our nation's failed efforts to prevent drunk driving. Marion Matthews was arrested on Christmas day and charged with DUI and refusing to take a breath or blood test.


This latest example of a government official being charged with drunk driving highlights the reasons why this nation's war on drunk driving will never work. Ms. Matthews is obviously no supporter of substance abuse. Why then would she be the subject of a DUI charge? The answer is simple.

Alcohol is a drug. It is deadly, addictive, and when consumed in the manner intended causes the user to lose his or her judgment. Not only that, it is sold to the user by the state! The official governmental seal of approval is put on alcohol - literally. Unlike a driver's license, there is no education required to drink. One doesn't need a license, any training, or even so much as a warning label on the product that the state sells us knowing that it causes intoxication.

Does this mean we should outlaw this toxic and habit-forming substance of abuse? Of course not. This nation tried prohibition and found that it only led to the rise of Al Capone and his ilk of drug dealers. Ironically, the world still falls for this scam in the form of the ongoing failure known as the war on drugs. But we can still take action to stop drunk driving.

The solution is technology known as an ignition interlock. It's simple - if you are drunk, you can't start the car! Why isn't this technology attached to every new car? The answer is simple: because the people who profit from drunk driving can't have that. The alcohol and restaurant industries profit from a system that allows and encourages people to have a few drinks with dinner and drive home. The insurance companies bring in more premiums to cover the cost of damages caused by DWI. Even MADD isn't really looking to prevent drunk driving (and give up their big fat salaries) - just to punish drunk drivers.

Maybe Marion Matthews is innocent of the charges. But regardless, the laws that are intended to prevent drunk driving have failed, and continue to fail to prevent the dangers of impaired motorists. When we sell people a drug that causes them lose judgment, we have to expect that they will get behind the wheel - to pretend that any other result will occur is dishonest and disgraceful.