An ignition interlock is a machine that tests alcohol levels in a motorist. A driver blows into the equipment before starting a car. If the driver registers any alcohol in his or her system, the vehicle will not start, even if the alcohol is below the legal limit for driving. Currently, Pennsylvania requires the interlock only for people who have had a second or subsequent DUI conviction. In Pennsylvania, the interlock is required for the first twelve months after a convicted drunk driver has had his or her driver's license restored.
]]>The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) studied driver records in Washington state before and after it required interlocks for all DUI offenders. The agency found that interlocks reduce the number of repeat DUI offenders. The vice president for research of IIHS made a statement: "An interlock law that covers all people convicted of DUI reduces recidivism by 11-12%."
Some organizations oppose Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's interlock proposals. Not surprisingly, the American Beverage Institute (ABI) feels that installing ignition interlocks in offenders' cars is not very helpful. The ABI argues that because a DUI offender is required to use the equipment for a limited period of time, recidivism can occur as soon as the interlock device is removed from the vehicle. What may be surprising is the stance taken by The American Probation and Parole Association on this issue. The American Probation and Parole Association says that requiring ignition interlocks for DUI offenders is not cost-effective. The organization has determined that installing interlocks for first-time offenders would cost states around $432 million. In Pennsylvania, however, cost is not an issue for the government. In Pennsylvania, the offender himself must pay for all costs associated with the interlock system. If he cannot afford the equipment, he simply cannot drive legally.
Ultimately, each state will have to reach its own decision on the issue of interlock systems, as DUI is a matter of state law. Although the federal government has no constitutional authority to enact DUI laws on non-federal land, the federal government could, however, pressure the states to require interlock systems in vehicles owned or operated by convicted drunk drivers. Such pressure could be exerted by threatening to withhold federal highway grant money from states, which do not require an interlock system for convicted drunk drivers. The federal government used this very approach to entice all 50 states into raising their drinking ages to 21 and to lowering their legal alcohol limits for driving to .08.
Source: USA Today, "Safety group seeks ignition interlocks for all DUI offenders," Larry Copeland, Mar. 5, 2012
]]>In 2007, Pennsylvania police arrested less than 1 percent of over 181,000 motorists stopped at sobriety checkpoints. Other states have similar findings. For example, in California, over one million vehicles went through 1,469 checkpoints in 2008. Of the motorists stopped, police arrested 0.3 percent. Additionally, from October 2010 to September 2011, West Virginia state police organized 258 sobriety stations. Of the 130,000 vehicles observed, authorities made only 189 arrests for DUI. This was only 3.2 percent of the 5,900 DUI arrests made statewide.
That is a lot of taxpayer money for very few arrests.
]]> With this recent data, some states are in the process of trying to pass laws to eliminate sobriety checkpoints. Why waste resources on something that is not really helping? Leaving aside the fundamental questions about whether checkpoint stops and arrests for DUI are valid, checkpoints are easy to evade. Roadblocks are usually discernible at a distance. Furthermore, people can warn each other of the various checkpoint locations. It just takes a simple phone call, Facebook post or text message to caution drivers of a checkpoint.A standard roving patrol reportedly costs only about $300 a day. Checkpoints are much more costly, do not produce substantial results, and the bill is footed by the taxpayers. With this in mind, maybe it is time to evaluate whether setting up checkpoints is a valid DUI deterrance.
What do you think? Should law enforcement agencies in Pennsylvania halt all DUI checkpoints?
Source: TheNewsStar.com, "Checkpoints not effective," Feb. 18, 2012
]]>Recently, a man was charged with homicide by vehicle and involuntary manslaughter in Centre County. According to police, the man was driving about 60 mph in a 25 mile per hour zone. Near a bend, he lost control of his vehicle, which veered off the road and collided into a pole and fire hydrant. The driver's friend, a passenger in his back seat, died from injuries sustained in the accident. At the defendant's preliminary hearing, a witness said she saw the vehicle speeding shortly before the fatal crash.
]]> The defendant's attorney argues that the crash does not warrant criminal charges, instead categorizing it as a civil matter. He explains, "Let's assume for now that this accident occurred because my client was going too fast around a curve. Speeding in itself is not a crime." The defense attorney feels that the accident was a product of ordinary negligence. In order for a person to be convicted of homicide by vehicle, the Commonwealth must prove that he engaged in "gross negligence" or "recklessness" not mere "ordinary negligence." Cases of ordinary negligence are handled in the civil justice system, where the decedent's family can sue the defendant for monetary damages for the loss of their loved one. Only car accidents resulting from gross negligence or recklessness can warrant both criminal charges as well as a civil law suit.If this case is not resolved by a plea agreement, then ultimately either a judge or jury will have to determine whether this is a case of ordinary negligence or gross negligence. Usually, both parties would have to base their cases around the testimony of an accident reconstructionist, which is a type of expert witness. Most accident reconstructionists for the prosecution are Pennsylvania State Police troopers, while most defense accident reconstructionists happen to be retired State Police troopers. If the defense's own expert report suggested that the defendant engaged in gross negligence, then it is incumbent upon the defense attorney to try to get the best possible plea agreement for his client. This case will likely go to trial only if the defense's expert report suggests mere ordinary negligence, while the Commonwealth's expert report suggests gross negligence.
Source: Centre Daily Times, "Bellefonte man faces trial in passenger's death," Matt Carroll, Feb. 23, 2012
]]>
If you are facing criminal charges, it is extremely important that you are aware of any potential defenses you may have. Even in cases where there is no viable defense, there may be factors, which could lead to reduced charges or a reduced sentence. If you are convicted of a crime, you will face both direct and collateral consequences. Many convictions can lead to hefty fines, court costs and jail time. Even if you avoid incarceration with a sentence of probation, you will still have a criminal record, which could make it difficult to get a job and it may adversely affect your reputation in the community.
]]> Two recently arrested Pennsylvania men could potentially face some of these direct and collateral consequences as a result of felony drug charges. According to law enforcement, a State College man was recently charged with 20 drug felonies related to alleged drug dealing.Undercover agents form the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office allege that they bought cocaine from the man on seven separate occasions between November 2011 and February 2012. Authorities claim that the cocaine was brought to the area from New York. The suspect was allegedly dealing in the State College area.
At the time of the arrest, agents seized from the man's apartment a quarter pound of cocaine, which had a street value of $13,600, although the alleged street values of illegal drugs are routinely overly inflated by law enforcement in press releases. Agents also seized a 2005 Chrysler and $17,000 in cash. The suspect's brother, who allegedly delayed officers while the primary suspect flushed cocaine down the toilet, was also arrested.
In this case, Agents from Attorney General's Office conducted a search and seizure of the suspects' residence. Therefore, the suspects' attorneys must first determine whether the search was legal pursuant to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. If the agents obtained a search warrant based upon drug purchases recently made by agents within the residence, then the search would usually be legal. If on the other hand, authorities failed to obtain a search warrant and lacked exigent circumstances to conduct a warrantless search and seizure, there is a good chance that the search was illegal. When law enforcement conducts an illegal search, any evidence unlawfully discovered can be "suppressed," meaning that the Commonwealth cannot use it in its case against a defendant. Usually, the granting of a suppression motion effectively ends the prosecution of a drug case.
Source:
Centre Daily Times, "Cocaine, car, cash seized in bust," Matt Carroll, Feb. 11, 2012]]>