Update – DUI Judge Hit State Trooper, Spewed Racial Epithets, Claimed She Hadn’t Been Drinking, and Blew a 0.17 BAC; Gets 8 Month Slap on the Wrist

According to this article, allegedly sauce-saturated Judge Curtissa Cofield spewed racist belligerence at police in Connecticut upon being arrested for DUI, but she walked away with a mere 8-month suspension issued by the Connecticut Judicial Review Committee (JRC). This is quite a break, considering her BAC was more than twice the legal limit, not to mention that she allegedly verbally harassed the officers who apprehended her and threatened their careers.

Incredibly, the JRC seemed to overlook the fact that she had claimed not to have been drinking any alcohol at the police station, then testified under oath that she had consumed only two drinks (this before blowing a 0.17% BAC), and then retreated from that claim stating that she didn’t “have an accurate recollection.” It is insulting to lie to someone’s face, and Judge Cofield seems to be all over the map as far as how much she had to drink that night. What value do we place on truthfulness among the members of the judiciary?

During her 8-month suspension, Judge Cofield will have ample time to ponder the reasons why she was cut such a break. A lot of people believe that any individual other than an African-American judge would have been convicted of DUI, served five days in jail, and would have been treated much less respectfully and courteously than Judge Cofield. A white judge never would have gotten away with the racially-disparaging comments Cofield made. The result certainly would have been removal from the bench and possibly disbarment. Most individuals other than judges, however, don’t realize the basic fact underlying this case: DUI cases can be won, especially by those with connections or the funds to mount a full and effective defense.

You can Beat the Ignition Interlock... Meet the Rental Car Booze-Bandit

According to this article, what seemed like a way around the interlock system proved to be a way into a telephone pole. A man from Long Island with a history of intoxicated driving attempted to beat the system, only to wind up in more trouble than before. Marvin Rice, Jr. had rented a brand new Volkswagen Jetta, allegedly to avoid driving his own vehicle, which is equipped with a court-mandated Interlock breathalyzer system.

It seems as if the gentleman had a few cocktails and decided to take the wheel. Some have suggested that Mr Rice, realizing his own vehicle would not offer such opportunities, decided to use an alternative mode of transportation. Upon acquiring the Jetta, the 27 year-old embarked upon a journey that landed him first in the hospital, then in jail. To be totally fair, Mr. Rice's brother went on record in a subsequent article and said that Marvin had been forced to rent the car because his own vehicle had been wrecked in a snow related crash - not just to avoid his car's ignition interlock.

At around 6 a.m. on February 15, the allegedly intoxicated driver smashed the rented vehicle into a telephone pole, breaking both of his legs as well as his pelvis, and totaling the brand-new car. Upon being cut out of the mangled car, police issued a DWI, and the gentleman was airlifted to the hospital. Giving Marvin the benefit of the doubt, he might have been innocent of the charges, and has not yet been tried. I'd like to know exactly what evidence they have on the DUI charge. Did they draw blood at the hospital? Or are they relying on a cheap handheld breathalyzer?

Will we start seeing some changes in the application/approval process for renting vehicles? Certainly the rental car companies would fight this - they want to rent as many cars as possible. Insurance will cover the damages when a drunk totals the car. How about putting ignition interlocks in all cars? Wouldn't we all be better off if nobody could drive drunk?

MADD would fight that tooth and nail. Their model of dealing with the problem is guaranteed to fail - and it is intended to fail. MADD takes a fascist approach - they want to punish people who drive drunk to teach them a lesson and to provide an example to the rest of society: see what happens when you drive drunk?!

If their approach worked, people would "learn their lesson". DUI defendants would feel the pain of their penalties and never drive drunk again. The rest of society would see them get punished and realize that they will get caught if they drive drunk and the penalties will be steep. Of course, this is circular logic: people won't drive drunk because they will know penalties are steep because they will see the punishment of the people who drive drunk. MADD's model of stopping drunk driving depends on continued drunk driving. It doesn't work because it is not meant to work. It makes the laughable assumption that people under the influence of alcohol are going to make a good decision about taking the wheel!

Whenever you see a model of government action that does not work, you can always figure out why by following the money. MADD is the only organization in America that tries to set policy on DUI laws. They have a practical monopoly. In order to keep getting contributions and paying themselves massive salaries, they have to have people continue to get caught driving drunk. They have to have people getting injured or killed so that the sympathy is generated that brings in continued donations.

But don't take my word for it. Call MADD yourself and explain that you like to take advantage of your legal right to enjoy alcohol and ask them to provide you with an ignition interlock for your car so that you can make the right decision every time. They have millions of dollars, and they supposedly want to stop drunk driving, so it should be no problem, right? Wrong. They will say no. They would rather spend their money ratcheting up the penalties for those who involuntarily keep them in business (people who have been caught driving drunk) after the damage has already been done.

Are Interlock Systems Effective... or Just a Band-Aid Applied too Late?

According to this article, two residents from the Hampton-Roads region were on a walk one morning when they made an interesting discovery. A gentleman had stopped his vehicle at a traffic light, and as the light turned green, remained stopped. The witnesses approached the vehicle to find a man passed out behind the wheel, vehicle running and foot on the break. They woke the driver up, and he stammered out of the vehicle in an agitated fashion. A third bystander had witnessed the event, and had contacted local authorities. The driver, upon realizing the situation, reentered the driver’s seat and sped off, police in pursuit.

Delegate Sal Iaquinto, a Republican from Hampton Roads, views ignition interlock systems as a measure of prevention of these events. That's true, but only for the small fraction of DUI motorists who have already been caught. The interlock is a device which measures the driver’s blood-alcohol content, and is installed in a vehicle. In order to start the vehicle they must blow into the machine, and if it registers above 0.02, the vehicle will not start.

In order to avoid false-starts, the machine requires frequent retests while driving. Virginia currently is one of 10 states that implement this tactic for both repeat DUI offenders and those convicted with high BAC levels. Eight states currently mandate the system for all DUIs. The problem with the system is that it is rather costly, about $65 to install and $65 a month for calibration. This comes to $455 for six months, and $910 if the offender owns two vehicles.

However, there are numbers to support the theory that the system does save lives. New Mexico, for example, saw a 60% decrease in repeat offense rates when offenders were required to install the interlock system. So why not install interlock systems on all vehicles and take care of the problem before it occurs? Representatives for MADD, which relies on legal fascisim to solve this public health problem, apparently feels that this idea is good in theory, but that the devices are "amazingly inconvenient". Is that because universal installation would put them out of business?

Richmond Man Runs Truck Into Ambulance Building in Alleged DUI

If you have to wreck your vehicle while driving drunk, there are worse places to do it. According to this article, a Richmond resident slammed his vehicle into the Richmond Ambulance Authority Building while driving under the influence. Police report the gentleman went through an intersection, across the building’s parking lot, and smashed into the side of the building. The event happened at around 2 a.m. on January 29.

Once stopped halfway into the building, the driver then proceeded to exit his truck and attempted to escape on foot. He was soon apprehended, and had suffered a few scrapes and bruises. He is expected to make a full recovery. The building, as well as his truck, however, suffered extensive damages. An estimate was not offered regarding the damages to either the building or the truck, and no comment was made by the driver.

This is a prime example of how to make a bad situation much worse. Someone who is too inebriated to avoid a building in a vehicle is clearly in no position to attempt to elude officers on foot. This simply gives the officers incentive to use force to apprehend the suspect, and tacks more charges onto driving under the influence. He should have just moved into the passenger seat and refused to answer any questions when the police arrived. If they can’t prove you were driving, they can’t convict you of DUI.

Virginia Sheriff's Deputy Charged with DUI... and Refusal

According to this news report, Lt. Jonathan Matthew Lowe, 36 was charged with DUI and refusal after a single car accident. He was told to provide a breath sample so the prosecution could use it against him. Like almost every judge, cop, prosecutor and politician who is charged with DUI, he refused. According to his boss, Sheriff H.S. Caudill, "He knew better."

Once again, a law enforcement officer has provided the rest of Virginia's motorist's with a very good lesson: don't ever provide a breath sample during a DUI investigation unless you know you are sober. The refusal charge may or may not result in a conviction - often it is dropped if there is a guilty plea to the DUI charge.

But a driver who submits a 0.15% BAC sample or above is virtually guaranteed to spend at least five days in jail under the Virginia mandatory minimum law for aggravated DUI. Lt. Lowe was just exercising good judgment when he refused the breathalyzer. He must know that jail is a waste of time, and he also knows that his boss would have been even more unhappy with an aggravated DUI charge against one of his deputies.

No driver ever has any idea what will register in the breathalyzer machine. Why take the chance on getting an aggravated DUI charge when there is no need? Follow Lt. Lowe's example and refuse. At least you won't be looking at a mandatory minimum jail sentence.