In most states, if you happen to kill someone while driving drunk with a BAC over .18, the standard lowest punishment is 1 to 3 years in a state prison. But in Jackson County, Kansas, that’s not what happened in the case of Robert J.K. Domsch, 27, a KU law student who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter after killing Marco G. Vendetti, 25 of Kansas, MO. in a crash where Mr. Domsch’s BAC registared three times the legal limit. Mr. Domsch was sentenced to just 120 days and 5 years probation

The prosecutors in Jackson County stated that the fact that Domsch had no priors played a role in the lenient sentence handed down. Obviously, Domsch as a recent graduate of Kansas University with a degree in business and law had standing in the community. But when a life is taken and the BAC of the offender is so high, those facts should be given consideration as well.

Domsch’s BAC was .242 and that test was administrated four hours after the crash. So his BAC at the time of the crash could have registered as high as .322. The unwritten law that rank has its privilege is glaring in this case. Evidently, the victim didn’t have the same prestige or level of support that Mr. Domsch did in the community.

What this case illustrates is the need for uniform federal laws on how and what DWI offenders are charged with. Just because Mr. Domsch happened to drive on the wrong side of the highway while extremely intoxicated in a state that has no guidelines for consideration in those factors, shouldn’t allow him to get off so easily. In New York State, a driver with  a BAC higher than .08 is automatically charged with a felony DWI even if there were no injuries.

In a society where we all have to share the same roads, we as a society should all share in a justice system that treats these serious circumstances equally. Cases like Mr. Domsch should be the poster child for federalizing DWI penalties and changing the hodge-podge patchwork of state laws which produce these uneven, unfair and unjust outcomes.

Doris Aiken, RID President

Note: Thanks to Bill Dikant for bringing this case to RID’s attention.

RID Citizen Action Network

Empowering and Connecting with Victims

What inspired Doris Aiken to start RID (Remove Intoxicated Drivers) the first grass roots, Anti-DWI organization in America? It was the news of two dead sibling teenagers killed by a drunk driver in her home town of Schenectady, NY.

The victims, Timothy and Karen Morris were the same ages (19 and 17) as her own children. She couldn’t fathom the loss which their mother, Bonnie Morris was dealt. Aiken was angry when she called the district attorney on behalf of Ms. Morris. But she really hit the roof when the district attorney told Aiken to “mind her own business. That phone call was the genesis of RID.

When Doris Aiken held her first RID meeting at the SchenectadyUnitarianChurch, the response of victims was overwhelming. Aiken recognized the power victims’ had with their stories of loss without receiving justice. Aiken, who has never been a victim of drunk driving herself, has led RID with the idea of empowering the victim. She was responsible for helping get the first victim impact statements in New YorkState to be read at sentencing of the defendant. Her most active chapter leaders were victims of drunk driving. Aiken has been quick to put the focus on their stories as the catalyst driving legislation and changing the attitudes toward drunk driving.

RID-CAN is the latest plan of attack to empower the victims of drunk driving by providing victims with the contact information needed to pursue justice. Each county has a Judge, District Attorney, Court Clerk, Police Chief and in some states a stop-dwi coordinator. Through RID-CAN, victims can be informed as to who they should call and what role these different officials have in relation to their case.

On September 25, 2012 the Supreme Court heard arguments on a Missouri DUI case that could set a new precedent to expand law enforcement powers to gather BAC evidence from suspected drunk drivers.

The defendant, Tyler McNeely was pulled over for speeding in 2010 by a state highway patrolman in southeast Missouri and refused to take a breath test after failing field sobriety tests. The officer then took McNeely to a nearby medical laboratory, where a technician drew blood over the suspect’s objection.

There are 27 states that currently have laws barring nonconsensual blood draws in the absence of a warrant. However, according to FBI statistics 1.4 million people are arrested for driving under the influence, so in the remaining 23 states that don’t have protection from warrantless DUI searches, the ruling of this case could have huge ramifications.

The ACLU is representing McNeely. The Supreme Court last ruled on the issue of drunk driving in 1966 on a similar issue of consent and searches. Remove Intoxicated Drivers position is there is already a well-established protocol for alleged drunk drivers who refuse a breath test. This penalty is an automatic one year suspension of driving privileges in most states. However, the penalties do very from state to state and RID would support a uniformed federal system that would treat everyone the same who refuses a breath test.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Missouri such a decision would further complicate the role of law enforcement to seize DUI evidence.  As RID supports a federal system of laws for refusing a breath test, RID also would like the rules of gathering DUI evidence to be federalized as well. We can take a page from our recent history by revisiting the path taken to get all the states on board with the 21 drinking age. Highway funds were tied to the passage of that age
restriction. Similarly, federal highway funds to be allocated based on  the enforcement of rules for DUI breathe tests, penalties and procedures.

We shall see how the Supreme rules. A decision is expected by this Summer.

Doris Aiken, President

Remove Intoxicated Drivers

Budweiser indeed has a problem!.  The parents of young people are finally getting it that beer is an illegal drug for youth. No matter how “Cool” Hip hop music aimed at youth is, it should not be passed around at concerts to experiment if certain tastes of beer are most stimulated by music.

Parents are the first and finest curb to youth experimentation with alcohol beverages and “cool” music combos. Underage children are being more cognizant of the drug alcohol which is connected to being the leading killer of youth in America. That’s a good thing.

Budweiser is attempting to capitalize on the enomous popularity of JZ  by merging his appeal to kids to encourage drinking their product. If Marlboro attempted to sponsor JZ’s tour, that would trigger a national outcry and such an endorsement would be stopped in its tracks. However, I learned about this dangerous campaign through reading the business section of my local newspaper and the reporter, Tim Logan,- of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch,  never broached the idea that this business venture could have dire consequences  for youth.