DWI and DWAI: The Consequences of Drinking and Driving in NY

By Fay Wein

Drinking and driving is a serious offense and the consequences are far reaching. In NY, drinking and driving is known as either DWI or DWAI, depending on the amount that one drinks. In this article we’d like to focus on some of the FAQs and the consequences of DWI and DWAI.

What is the DWI and DWAI?

DWI is Driving While Intoxicated, otherwise known in most states as DUI (Driving Under the Influence). DWAI is driving While Ability Impaired, which is a much less severe than drunken driving (DWI).

How many drinks will get me to DWI/DWAI?

In general, a sophisticated system of measuring the BAC, or Blood Alcohol Content, of the driver is used in order to determine the level of impairment. There are many factors that affect ones BAC including, body mass, amount of time that has elapsed since imbibing the drinks, and how much food was consumed along with the drinks, among other factors. The BAC level for DWAI is 0.05%, while for DWI it is 0.08%.

For the average male weighing approx 160 lbs, how many drinks would be DWAI/DWI?

According to basic figures, an average male having one drink of alcohol, would amount to a BAC of only 0.02%. A drink is considered one of the following; a 12 Oz bottle of beer, a 5 Oz glass of wine or a 1.5 Oz shot glass of hard liquor. This amount is not yet considered DWI, or even DWAI, unless the driver is less than 21 years old, in which case there is a zero-tolerance law in effect prohibiting any amount of alcohol consumption. A second drink would bring the BAC up to 0.04%– still under the radar. A third and fourth drink would make it DWAI (0.06%) and DWI (0.08%), respectively.

What are the financial consequences of drunk driving?

For a first time offense, a DWAI violator will be fined between $300 and $500 in civil penalties. For DWI, the penalties start at about $500 and can go up to $1,000 for a first offense. A second offense is going to cost $500-$750 for DWAI and $1,000 to $5,000 for DWI. In addition to these fines, $750 needs to be paid to the DDP (Drinking Driver Program), $250 per year, over a period of three years.

What other consequences are there?

Plenty; here are some of them:

• First, there is license suspension or revocation. For DWAI, a first offense will cause your license to be suspended for 90 days and a second offense will have it revoked for 6 months. For DWI, a first offense gets your license revoked for 1 year and up to 4 years for a second offense within 10 years.

• Then there is jail time. First time DWAI offenders can spend up to 15 days in jail for a 1st offense, 30 days for a 2nd offense, and 180 days for 3rd time offenders. DWI violators really get to experience prison life with one-year, four-year and seven-year terms respectively for 1st, 2nd and 3rd time offenses.

• If you refuse the breathalyzer. Refusing the breathalyzer or chemical test is a severe infraction and carries a $500 penalty, license revocation for up to one year and $100 to reinstate your license.

• Drivers under 21. Drivers under 21-as mentioned- due to the prevalence of drunk driving in younger drivers, along with the additional risk factor of inexperience and recklessness, are hit with additional consequences. On top of all the above, they may have an Ignition Interlock device (IID) installed by the DMV in their vehicle after the termination of the license suspensions. This device will disable the ignition if alcohol is detected. A probational period will need to be satisfied in order to regain full driving privileges.

• Criminal record. DWI, and reckless driving that often goes along with it, have the potential of ruining an individual’s driving and personal record for years to come and sometimes even permanently. It may hurt the drunken driver unexpectedly when it comes up in a job background check, causing much embarrassment and anguish.

• Insurance premiums. It goes without saying that DWI-related violations will significantly increase your auto insurance premiums. According to some studies, the rates may go up by as much as 19% for a first time DWI offense!

Do I need to go to court?

If you have been pulled over and charged with DWI, you will need to go to court in order for the judge to determine the fines, jail time and other penalties. These will be decided based on a myriad of factors and cannot be done by mail or online. Often the assistance of a qualified attorney is recommended, especially if there is manslaughter or reckless driving involved, which are criminal offenses. Be sure to reach out to an attorney experienced with DWI in NY.

Conclusion:

We need to remain aware of the dangers of drinking and driving. Always make sure to assign a friend or your spouse to do the driving and make sure the car keys are out of reach of guests that have been drinking.

About the author:  Fay Wein is a content specialist at The Law Offices of Zev Goldstein Law, a NY attorney specializing in traffic tickets and other driving-related crimes. Fay loves cooking, blogging, and spending time with her family.

Our long-time supporter, Stanley Eisenberg sent me this report from the New York Times about the havoc alcohol has wreaked on college campuses. Here’s the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/15/us/why-colleges-havent-stopped-binge-drinking.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share

I recommend reading it as this story offers some answers as to why colleges  have been unsuccessful in reining in this problem on their campuses even though the harms of alcohol have been well-known for decades. Since RID’s formation, we have had a difficult time getting the NYT to cover our press conferences or even do basic reporting on this enormous societal problem. The NYT receives a lot a revenue in alcohol ads. In addition, they own eight television stations which are heavily subsidized through alcohol ads as well. So it’s refreshing to see such a thorough and well-researched story from them. Thank you, Stanley.

                       FINDING CLOSURE: FOR MOST VICTIMS, IT’S DIFFICULT, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE

      RID reached out to three different victims of alcohol-impaired drivers to address the issue of closure. What we learned is that attaining closure for them is an extremely difficult process that is never fulfilled.

     Linda Campion’s daughter Kathleen died in March of 1989 when she was hit by an alcohol-impaired driver in Saratoga County. Linda feels the use of the term closure is insulting to many victims she has come to know over the past 25 years. She writes this:

“Closure is a word used by those who hope that if they were ever placed in a similar situation of losing a loved one to an-alcohol-impaired driver, that there will be closures of some kind.”

   Yet, Linda has taken her anger and channeled it into positive action. She and her family founded the Kathleen A. Campion Foundation to spread awareness of the dangers of drinking and driving. She has advocated for and improved victims’ rights in the court of law. While she may never find closure, Linda has turned her loss into the motivating factor for prevention and education so others won’t have to experience the devastation of losing a loved one to drunk driving.

     Jared Spinola lost his companion, Laurie Tavares to a drunk driver on November 27, 2003. Jared suffered through a litany of emotions First, Shock as he couldn’t believe that this amazing person he had come to love was gone and their future together was stolen by a drunk driver. Then depression came as he spent the first couple of months sleeping more than he ever had in his life. The worst emotion for Jared was regret to which he struggles with to this day.

    Jared found some relief from his pain when he attended the trial of the defendant. He viewed him a pathetic human being.  While he could feel bad for him, he can’t forgive him for what the drunk driver took from him and Laurie’s family. The anxiety this tragedy has brought upon Jared is the only lingering emotion that he feels just as strong s he did ten years ago. Jared writes:

    “If there is one piece of advice I could give anyone coping with a sudden, tragic loss of a loved one it would be to seek others who had the same experience. I spent weeks being consoled by friends and family , all of whom had loved ones, but none of them experienced losing someone so close, so sudden and so tragic. I have been through both and I promise there is a HUGE difference! I wasn’t the only one with those regrets. That was the most helpful thing I did that helped me cope and find some closure. You must seek others out who have experienced the same as you, so you may learn that you are not alone.”

   35 years ago, Bill DiKant lost his first wife and two of their children when a drunk driver plowed into their vehicle, killing the drunk driver as well. Bill has been a forerunning advocate to get drunk drivers off the road ever since. His tireless energy spirited message as a motivational speaker has been heard by thousands of convicted drunk drivers covering four counties in the Capital region. He also spreads his message about the hazards of drunk driving to school children. Bill Writes:

    First off it was how to deal with this; I lost my wife and daughter, then I had to decide to take my oldest son off life support, what’s to become of my youngest son? I’m being driven to frustration because of selfishness and greed. I’m thankful that the man (drunk driver) died.  I kept thinking on how should I get even with him? There is no closure on this; it continues to be with me. I re-married and my wife was an EMT with the local ambulance, so I joined to assist the community. I made contact with Remove Intoxicated Drivers and did what I could to help them. I also try to speak to other Victims’ of these domestic terrorists trying to encourage them in dealing with this “Non Violent” crime as stated by the Second Court Circuit.”

     I would like to thank Linda Campion, Jared Spinola and Bill DiKant for sharing their thoughts and experiences in such a poignant manner.  We welcome your comments and feedback.

The recent sentence of probation for a Fort Worth Teenager for killing four people in DWI crash outraged the victims of that tragedy. The defense offered by Ethan Couch’s lawyer was a new term, “affluenza”. They argued that Couch was too spoiled by his rich parents to know right from wrong. It’s a laughable defense but one that the Texas Juvenile Judge Jean Boyd took hook, line and sinker.

To get to this point, the defense lawyers were successful in having Couch tried as juvenile. Juveniles are charged all the time as adults. Boyd showed she was not crime on crime when she sentenced a poor black kid to 10 years for causing the death of a man when he punched him and the victim hit his head on the pavement. So why did the judge buy into this absurd defense?

She hasn’t offered any public explanations, but she did announce that she isn’t seeking another term. On CNN, Defense Attorney Mark Geragos stated that this judge is a well respected judge, not some lune. Well, actions speak loud in this case and the fact that Judge Boyd has decided not seek another term is troubling and only adds to the angst felt by the victims in this case. That this could happened in the Lone Star, law and order state of Texas is proof that this kind of lunacy can occur anywhere.

Changing Attitudes Towards Drunk Driving

You know, when cars first started to appear on roads in the late 1800s, mankind just wasn’t quite ready for such an awe-inspiring invention. We looked at the fantabulous contraptions and thought of just how ripping it would be to be able to putter along in a horseless carriage with a pair of goggles on our face. But what we didn’t understand was that inherent in the design and the power of the infant automobile was danger that had yet to be comprehended. Given enough speed, the car stops being a vehicle and instead becomes a weapon that kills through the power of momentum. The first car-related fatality ever recorded occurred when the scientist Mary Ward was thrown from the passenger seat of a steam powered automobile and was crushed under the wheels, and since that time countless lives have been lost as a result of the unsafe use of cars. Nowhere is this more prominent than in relation to driving while intoxicated.

These days, there is a definite and well deserved stigma associated with drunk driving. After all, those who choose to slide in behind the wheel of a car after kicking back some alcohol are risking more than just their own lives; they could potentially be endangering every other person on the road (and possibly even the people who aren’t on the road). As such, it’s pretty universally agreed that if you chose to drink and drive, you are a terrible, terrible person (unless you’re a Hollywood celebrity, in which case the world can forgive you of almost anything).

However, our current attitude towards drunk driving is a relatively recent development. For starters, drunk driving has been around for much longer than cars have existed. For the greater part of history, alcohol was much cleaner and safer to drink than whatever water happened to be available. As a result, many peoples throughout the ages have basically gone through their daily tasks with a BAC that would get them arrested today. The difference was that the vehicles they drove (if any), were generally animal powered.

That means that not only were they seldom traveling fast enough to cause any significant damage, but also that the animal in question could exercise it’s own initiative and swerve to avoid obstacles (even if its driver was passed out in a drunken stupor while riding).

The first arrest associated with driving an automobile while intoxicated occurred in London, England in 1897. George Smith crashed his vehicle into a building, and faced criminal charges as a result, but as the automobile found its way to the United States, very little was done to regulate its use.

Even once laws prohibiting drunk driving began to surface, the BAC limit was set dangerously high at 0.15%, thus allowing drivers to ingest copious amounts of alcohol without technically qualifying as ‘drunk.’ And even as new laws began to take effect, there was a tendency to view drunk driving accidents as unavoidable.

One startling example includes Margaret Mitchell, celebrated author of the book Gone with the Wind, who was was run over by a drunk driver in 1949 while crossing the street. The driver, who had already had 22 previous arrests for various driving violations, was not generally held accountable. He served a sentence and paid a fine, but the general attitude of the public was that these things happen, and that everyone involved had simply been unlucky.

Unfortunately, this mindset is still occasionally embraced in the modern world. DUIs are viewed as an annoyance by many, with various groups campaigning to reduce DUI penalties or alter the conditions in which an officer may test someone for alcohol.

Still, we’ve come a long way from the time when a person could start up a car and go barreling across the country with no formal license or registration and a jug of moonshine in his hand.

Even though the current BAC limit in the United States is 0.08% (which is still high enough to result in a substantial buzz for the drinker), it’s a step in the right direction from the previous 0.15%. Still, many other countries are taking more drastic steps, increasing penalties and reducing the BAC limit to 0.02% (such as in Sweden). And there are still times when drunk drivers are able to avoid punishment due to other circumstances (such as what happened with Ethan Couch, who only received 10 years probation for causing an alcohol related accident that claimed four lives).

RID (Remove Intoxcated Drivers) a group of volunteers without any money from the alcohol industry turned the tide against DWI in 1980 in New York State, by curbing plea bargains out of alcohol link in DWI arrests. Most states copied RID’s lead by passing similar legislation. RID challenged the all-lawyers members in the NYS codes committee to face a lawsuit on a personal interest conflict on plea bargaining if they chose to kill the RID supported bill. For the first time in 20 years, this bill wasn’t killed. RID was instrumental in turning public opinion against DWI with serious penalties including felony convictions of repeat offenders as well as those who injured or killed their victims.

Still, on the whole, America is beginning to recognize drunk driving for what it is: a dangerous and irresponsible use of deadly machinery. As such, it should be treated with harsher penalties than community service and traffic school. If a person were to begin blindly firing a gun in a public place, you can be sure that the penalties he would face would be more strict than a small fine and suspended gun license, whether or not anyone became injures as a result. But even if we have a ways to go before we can really view drunk driving as the crime that it is, at least we’ve made some progress, because the first step towards eliminating drunk driving, is to stop tolerating it.