I don't think the alphabet test is actually used.

 

Here are the standardized field sobriety tests used.

 

U.S. Department of Transportation - NHTSA - Development of a Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) Training Management System - Appendix A - DOT HS 809 400 - November 2001

 

I know for a fact it is still used in some departments. ( Not from personal experience lol) . It may not be standardized but I've seen it on police reports in the not to distant past.

 

I know for a fact it is still used in some departments. ( Not from personal experience lol) . It may not be standardized but I've seen it on police reports in the not to distant past.

 

My guess is it's not the alphabet test you are thinking of.

 

 

If the officer was unable to conduct any of the three standardized tests—for instance, because the defendant truly has a bad knee and thus can’t do the One Leg Stand and Walk and Turn—the officer should be free to use other tests—reciting the alphabet from, say, D to M, counting in multiples of 10 from 20 to 100, or similar observations.

 

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/enforce/GuideforOfficers/pages/Testimony-1i.html

It's saying the alphabet backwards from one letter to the other.

It's saying the alphabet backwards from one letter to the other.

 

I'm going to let guru or rocket confirm but I'm pretty sure that test is a myth.

Dui's are one of the only laws on the book where some people want to punish for what could happen instead of what did happen. I'm just not comfortable with that.

 

You've never had scrape the victim of a drunk driver up off the road (pardon the harshness, felt it was needed to make the point) while he walks away without a scratch.

 

There is absolutely no reason to drink and drive. If a person makes that decision, they should face the full force of the law.

I didn't say 170 lives was Ok. But there isn't some sort of rising epidemic. That calls for massive change.

 

If there isn't a rising epidemic I normally rule on the side of not giving the government more power to put citizens in jail longer.

 

The "alcohol counselers" comment is dealing with these law firms that give the "alcohol classes" to the offenders. The classes are a joke and the whole system revolved around it smells shady.

 

No I don't think .08 is drunk. I can already see from your stat you are putting .05 in there. So now I'm guessing you want to go lower.

 

The whole DUI enforcement is a joke. If we wanted to eliminate DUI's we could tomorrow. Make every car come with a breath analyzer and boom no driving drunk .

 

Every bar and restaurant on a Friday and Saturday parking lot is full and if you come back at 4am they are empty I'm sure most of those drivers didn't drink.

 

I know this is going to anger some but it's true. When it comes to laws follow the money. This so called problem could be eliminated tomorrow but we choose to keep punishing citizens harsher and harsher.

 

How about we have some personal responsibility? Drunk driving is a CHOICE.

How about we have some personal responsibility? Drunk driving is a CHOICE.

 

So drinking affects your driving but not your decision making that makes sense.

You've never had scrape the victim of a drunk driver up off the road (pardon the harshness, felt it was needed to make the point) while he walks away without a scratch.

 

There is absolutely no reason to drink and drive. If a person makes that decision, they should face the full force of the law.

 

No I haven't. Again it's called aggravated circumstances and they are punished.

 

Where have I said DUIs shouldn't be punished. I don't think it's crazy to say I don't think penalties should become even harsher.

I agree that too many charges get dealt down. In some cases it's lazy prosecutors that would rather cut a deal and be done than pursue the correct charges. In some cases it's just those with connections getting reduced sentences while others get full sentence.

 

I agree with this. Too many plea deals.

If you make an offer too good to be true in any case the person charged will gladly accept it.

As someone who has clients charged with DUIs on a daily basis, my initial thought is that the change I wouldn't be too distraught over would be changing it so that a 3rd offense in 5 years would be a felony, as opposed to a 4th offense.

 

With a 2nd, the person is required to under go a minimum of 6 months of alcohol and drug education. That 6 months can be extended by the counseling location into an additional time of up to 6 months if they see that it is needed. Using logic (with is a dangerous proposition in the legal system) If someone is going to spend 6 to 12 months in counseling and then go pick up an additional charge less than 5 years later, perhaps they need a "felony wake-up call."

 

Most defense attorneys want nothing to do with taking a DUI 2nd or 3rd to trial. DUI 2nds or 3rds are bifurcated trials. The initial trial is whether or not the defendent is guilty of DUI, the second step is whether or not it is a 2nd or 3rd offense and then sentenced based on that decision. (FWIW, DUI 4ths are trifurcated: guilty of DUI, is it a 4th offense, then a separate sentencing vote). When a jury finds out that the person they just convicted of DUI has priors in the past 5 years, they tend to come down hard. I watched a DUI 2nd trial a few months ago and the person received 5 months of jail time to be served.

 

It pains me to say it, but if one of my clients doesn't learn from a DUI 2nd, they won't learn from a misdemeanor 3rd either.

 

One other addtional thought. It is pretty much near impossible to get insurance after a DUI 3rd, if they ever get their license back, but what concerns me is the fact of knowing that they will probably be driving without insurance. I shouldn't have to rely on my insurance for their mistakes.

Without speaking on the penalties in terms of punishment, I think that some of the things you read and hear in regards to things like "drug and alcohol counseling", random drug and alcohol testing, and interlock devices, while well intentioned, can also get quite shady.

 

Example, and I can't remember the State (which wasn't Kentucky), but another State had a senator push hard for mandatory interlock devices in the cars of anyone accused. That sounded well and good, and was something the public got behind. What soured people on it, however, was the fact that a close relative of his happened to own a company that manufactured the interlock devices that the State was going to make anyone who was punished pay a hefty price for.

 

There was a Judge in Pennsylvania (I'm thinking it was PA) about a year or so ago who'd been found guilty of a kick-back scheme with sentencing juveniles to a certain facility. The heat was brought on him when a kid who possessed a small amount of marijuana for personal use, something that would usually lead to nothing more than a few hours in jail for a first offense, was sentenced to 6 months incarceration at the facility. He was a kid who had a lot going for him, as he was an All-State wrestler, seemed to be well on track for a college scholarship, etc., but once he lost all of that, he wound up killing himself (with the conditions there seeming to exacerbate some issues he might have been having). The Judge ended up the target of a federal investigation and is now serving time himself.

 

There's also situations where, as part of the conditions of sentencing, people are sentenced to random drug and alcohol tests and/or rehabilitation programs. Again, in and of itself, that isn't bad, but it becomes sticky when you think about some of the selections for the mandated tests or rehabilitation in terms of enterprising and costs. For example, usually it costs the person to enroll in them and/or to pay an agency to perform the test. It's not unheard of to hear of people being subjected to quite a few tests, at their own expense of course, and makes you wonder what they are actually getting out of it versus whose pockets could possibly be getting lined given that they are usually told the facility/facilities that they'll have to use, etc.

 

Like it or not, some just use the system as a way of further benefitting themselves by using it as an opportunity to squeeze money out of an offender. No good solution for it really. Money corrupts, and I'm not arguing that their shouldn't be interlock devices, treatment centers, or random testing. I'm just saying that while the ideas seem great on paper, sometimes their implementation isn't really doing what people who support them might have imagined.

 

Again, I'm not saying that those things are bad, or that we should just up and stop looking at things like interlocks, random testing, or rehabilitation as legitimate means to an end. I'm just saying that for at least some of these concepts, there are people who could probably care less about the success of the person whose behavior landed them there. Looking at it even more cynically, you might even say they don't really have a huge incentive to make sure that everyone is completely "fixed", otherwise they'd eventually be out of work themselves.

 

There, that's my spiel on part of the problems with corruption in the American legal system. Everyone can now go ahead and say I hate all lawyers and Judges too.

Without speaking on the penalties in terms of punishment, I think that some of the things you read and hear in regards to things like "drug and alcohol counseling", random drug and alcohol testing, and interlock devices, while well intentioned, can also get quite shady.

 

Example, and I can't remember the State (which wasn't Kentucky), but another State had a senator push hard for mandatory interlock devices in the cars of anyone accused. That sounded well and good, and was something the public got behind. What soured people on it, however, was the fact that a close relative of his happened to own a company that manufactured the interlock devices that the State was going to make anyone who was punished pay a hefty price for.

 

There was a Judge in Pennsylvania (I'm thinking it was PA) about a year or so ago who'd been found guilty of a kick-back scheme with sentencing juveniles to a certain facility. The heat was brought on him when a kid who possessed a small amount of marijuana for personal use, something that would usually lead to nothing more than a few hours in jail for a first offense, was sentenced to 6 months incarceration at the facility. He was a kid who had a lot going for him, as he was an All-State wrestler, seemed to be well on track for a college scholarship, etc., but once he lost all of that, he wound up killing himself (with the conditions there seeming to exacerbate some issues he might have been having). The Judge ended up the target of a federal investigation and is now serving time himself.

 

There's also situations where, as part of the conditions of sentencing, people are sentenced to random drug and alcohol tests and/or rehabilitation programs. Again, in and of itself, that isn't bad, but it becomes sticky when you think about some of the selections for the mandated tests or rehabilitation in terms of enterprising and costs. For example, usually it costs the person to enroll in them and/or to pay an agency to perform the test. It's not unheard of to hear of people being subjected to quite a few tests, at their own expense of course, and makes you wonder what they are actually getting out of it versus whose pockets could possibly be getting lined given that they are usually told the facility/facilities that they'll have to use, etc.

 

Like it or not, some just use the system as a way of further benefitting themselves by using it as an opportunity to squeeze money out of an offender. No good solution for it really. Money corrupts, and I'm not arguing that their shouldn't be interlock devices, treatment centers, or random testing. I'm just saying that while the ideas seem great on paper, sometimes their implementation isn't really doing what people who support them might have imagined.

 

Again, I'm not saying that those things are bad, or that we should just up and stop looking at things like interlocks, random testing, or rehabilitation as legitimate means to an end. I'm just saying that for at least some of these concepts, there are people who could probably care less about the success of the person whose behavior landed them there. Looking at it even more cynically, you might even say they don't really have a huge incentive to make sure that everyone is completely "fixed", otherwise they'd eventually be out of work themselves.

 

There, that's my spiel on part of the problems with corruption in the American legal system. Everyone can now go ahead and say I hate all lawyers and Judges too.

 

If you read my earlier posts I had some of the same concerns about the rehab/counseling places apart of DUI punishment. Many come off as cash grabs more than a solution. So I agree with you .

It's not even close to the same. Hyperbole at it's finest. Drunk driving is taken very seriously in this country it's why we have so many laws and punishments on the books already. I'm sorry if I don't feel more jail time or even crazier penalties is a solution.

 

Like I said people with multiple DUI'S have a disease and aren't getting behind the wheel with an intent to do harm we as society need to find better solutions. A person firing a gun randomly in a parking lot has an intent to do harm.

 

Again if the government wanted to stop DUI's they have a tool that would cripple the numbers and it's to require car companies to put breathalyzer into every new car.

 

Your last line sounds great , have one drink and don't drive. But being a realist the government knows that would do major damage to a certain industry.

 

Actually no, my comparison is not hyperbole, it's the exact same line of thinking/reasoning that you used for punishing people for DUI if they did n't cause an accident. While admittedly my example might be out there a bit and maybe a little crazy, it would be crazy to NOT punish people who have driven drunk...and punish them severely, even when no property or lives were damaged.

 

And no, DUI is NOT taken nearly seriously enough in the country. That's one reason why it's still a big problem.

 

I don't usually like looking to other countries to help solve problems here...but in this case I will. You do NOT want to get a DUI in Germany and several other Euro countries. And you definitely don't want to have a wreck and hurt someone with as little as .03 BAC.

 

How To Germany - DUI - Not a Good Thing

 

DUI Laws in Germany | eHow

 

What you don't know about German DUI law

I understand the complaint about people paying for rehab services or testing as part of their agreement.

 

I was sitting in court one day and two women were complaining that their son/brother was going to have to pay $45 per day to be on home incarceration. Their thinking was that since a local store had charged him with shoplifting that the STORE should have to pay for his home incarceration! They then looked at me (not knowing why I was there) and asked if I didn't think that was fair, that if the store wanted to prosecute him they should have to pay for his home incarceration. I told them they didn't have to pay it. The mom asked me, "Why is there a program to pay it for us?" I laughed and said "No, but he can go to jail for free" that ticked them off. Then they really got ticked when I got up and went to the bench when their family members case was called and stood with the prosecutor.

 

If people don't want to pay for rehab or get weekly/random testing they almost always have the option of staying in jail for free.

So drinking affects your driving but not your decision making that makes sense.

 

It's a persons CHOICE to drink that much in the first place.