It is with great sorrow that the passing of Robert Meacham came on February 14th. He succumbed to his injuries due to being hit by a drunk driver 30 years ago. He was 45 years old. The drunk driver crossed a double yellow line and caused four other injuries in the crash. No one was ever charged in this case. Our sympathies go out to Robert’s family and his mother, Mardy Meacham, who became an effective activist for victims of drunk driving and served as her son’s giver all these years.
Category Archives: RID-Blog
CA bill to extend alcohol sales is dangerous
The Bill, SB635 by California Sen. Mark Leno to extend serving alcohol until 4a.m. puts profits for bars ahead of potential lives lost due to DWIs. Sen. Leno claims his bill “imposes nothing on anybody; it merely authorizes the opportunity.” The Senator is unaware of all the alcohol related problems London, England experienced after that city raised its closing hours from midnight to 4a.m.
Here in New YorkState, in towns and cities that have a 4a.m. closing policy there are endless stories in the media involving alcohol-related crimes after the bars close. Those municipalities have decided
to continue this destructive policy despite the enormous costs to society. If this bill passes, good luck with getting it repealed. If Sen. Leno is serious about the safety of his constituents, he should include a provision which would evaluate the 4a.m. policy to analyze the cost and impact onSan Francisco.
One of the reasons New York City manages its 4a.m. bar closing policy is that it has the infrastructure to offer transportation all over the city. Another amendment to this bill should be an increase to the public transportation hours to handle people coming out of the
bars at that hour.
Sen. Leno’s bill has to address the larger implications and issues beyond creating jobs and profits for businesses. There is plenty of data to suggestion that extending the hours of alcohol sales results in an increase in assaults and DWIs. There need to be some safe guards included to reduce the negative consequences of SB635. Without them this is a dangerous proposition for all Californians.
SUPREME COURT HEARS IMPORTANT DUI CASE ON WARANTLESS SEARCHES
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
JZ, Budweiser Bad Mix for Youth
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.
President’s Prespective: DUI Stats Misleading
The recent good news that deaths caused by drunk drivers have declined should be tempered by the fact that NHTSA (the National Highway Traffic Safety Association) failed to use the statistics on impaired drivers who had a BAC under .08. Hundreds of Americans are injured or killed by drivers in this catagory which NHTSA chose not to include in their annual report.
The fact is a driver is very impaired at .04 BAC and should be included in the official data presented by NHTSA to the general public. According former Surgen General Kopp, who recommended that the entry level for DWI should be .04, you begin to lose your peripheral vision at .04 and he suggests that the Congress should reduce the DWI threshold from .08 to .04. Concerned citizens can contact NHTSA (202-366-4000) and demand that the total content of impaired drivers causing death should be included in their reporting.
Texas Judges inclined not to send repeat DWI offenders to jail
This article was written by NBC Channel 4 WOAI Investigative Report Brian Collister on August 2, 2012.
SAN ANTONIO – Lisa Smith choked back tears after jurors last month sentenced the drunk driver who killed her daughter Erica in 2007 to two years in prison.
“No, I do not certainly believe that it was enough time,” Smith said. “I hope someday I will find forgiveness in my heart but it is very difficult.”
The trial of 32-year-old Jenny Ybarra was what most people expect from a high-profile drunk driving case resulting in death – intense media coverage and a dramatic trial capped by a jail sentence handed down by 12 jurors. But that’s not how the overwhelming majority of felony drunk-driving cases are handled in Bexar Country courts.
Most felony DWI defendants have not killed anyone and rarely get prison time. In Bexar County, the majority of those charged with DWI for the third time or more are still most likely to again be placed on probation, despite having been put on community supervision for prior DWI convictions.
An analysis of three years worth of court records obtained from the Bexar County District Clerk reveals 52 percent of felony DWI offenders across all Bexar County District Courts get probation in cases where the sentence is decided by a judge.
| Court | Judge | Probation | Sentence % | Total Cases |
| 144th | Catherine Torres-Stahl* | 60% | 40% | 139 |
| 175th | Mary Roman | 42% | 58% | 137 |
| 186th | Maria Teresa “Tessa” Herr | 63% | 37% | 162 |
| 187th | Raymond Angelini | 60% | 40% | 141 |
| 226th | Sid Harle | 44% | 56% | 156 |
| 227th | Philip Kazen | 53% | 47% | 133 |
| 290th | Sharon McRae* | 47% | 53% | 147 |
| 379th | Ron Rangel | 59% | 41% | 145 |
| 399th | Juanita Vasquez-Gardner | 42% | 58% | 142 |
| 437th | Lori Valenzuela** | 39% | 61% | 46 |
| ALL COURTS | 52% | 48% | ||
| This data is reflective of District Court felonies in Bexar County for the offense classified as DWI 3rd (meaning 3rd or more) from January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2010 | ||||
| Source of the raw data is the Bexar County District Clerk. The percentages represent cases where a judgment was entered by the court. | ||||
| * No longer in office | ||||
| ** Appointed 12/15/09 | ||||
“I’m surprised to see this number. It’s disappointing to see that more people are getting probation versus being sentenced to the fullest extent of the law,” says Jennifer Northway, executive director of Mothers Against Drunk Driving-South Texas. “Because at this point it’s been moved up to the district court, and it should be considered a very serious, egregious problem that needs to be nipped in the bud.”First and second DWI misdemeanors are handled in County courts. A third DWI charge becomes a felony taken up in District courts.“I sent most of them to prison,” says District Attorney Susan Reed, a former judge, referring to convicted drunk drivers in her court. “There still has got to be a consequence. That’s what we try to insure when we look at recommendations we make.”The court data also gives a glimpse into how each District judge handles these types of cases, including which jurists hand out the most prison time. The toughest on third-time offenders are Mary Roman in the 175th District Court and Juanita Vasquez-Gardner in the 399th, with both sending 58 percent to prison.Maria Teresa “Tessa” Herr in the 186th hands down the least amount of prison time for DWI convictions, putting only 37 percent of felony offenders in her court behind bars. The judge with the second lowest rate is Raymond Angelini in the 187th, who sends 40 percent of DWI convicts in his court to jail.
“I would like to know a little bit more, especially for those courts where we do see that there is over a 50-percent probation rate,” Northway says. “I would really like to know what’s going in the 144th, 187th, and 186th.
Defense attorney Nico LaHood, who represents defendants in drunk-driving cases, isn’t surprised by the variances in sentencing. “There is no cookie cutter way to handle a DWI third,” he says.
LaHood points out third-time DWI offenses come with the possibility of two to 10 years in prison, or as much as 10 years of probation, as well as a fine of up to $10,000.
“That’s a big range of what can happen. So what they’re telling us is that not every situation is the same,” he says. “There’s so much more to this story than just saying judges are too easy, or this should be different, because it’s not a black and white answer.”
District judges contacted for this story did not respond to requests for comment. But a judge who asked not to be identified because he still presides over DWI cases explained how sentences in DWI cases are usually decided.
“One of the things you look at is, when did the first two convictions occur? That’s the first thing you look at,” the judge says. “Was he on probation when he committed the third offense? Was it 10 years ago or 15 years ago?”
The judge explains he’s more likely to hand down prison time to those who’ve gotten caught driving under the influence again not long after their second conviction.
“Those guys make me nervous,” he says. “I would be less inclined to grant probation on somebody like that, unless the state is recommending it because there is some underlying problem with the case, or unless there is some really compelling arguments on why you’d want to do that – because they are the most dangerous. They are getting [convictions] back to back, and there’s no intervention or no stopping it.”
Every drunk-driving defendant who lands in District court goes through an intense evaluation conducted by Bexar County probation department to determine if there is an alternative to incarceration. For those deemed not to be a threat to society, the recommendations usually include ignition interlocks and alcohol treatment, and they are required to wear ankle bracelets that detect alcohol if they drink.
“They’re nonviolent offenders and we have ways to control them on the outside,” says Sheri Simonelli, president of the Bexar County Probation Officers Association.
That’s the approach favored by Jamie Balagia, a defense attorney known as “The DWI Dude.”
“We are creating criminals, and we don’t have to,” Balagia says. “As a taxpayer, I don’t want to pay $60,000 a year to keep [someone] who would otherwise be a productive citizen locked up when we could have him out here paying taxes and working.”
Reed has a virtual zero-tolerance policy on drunk driving. But in an effort to clear misdemeanor DWI cases clogging dockets in County courts, she established an alternative offense in 2008 called “obstruction of a highway – intoxication” for first-time offenders. That charge comes with rigorous conditions of probation. But Reed believes repeat offenders – whom she has targeted with mandatory blood draws in cases where they refuse a sobriety test – should do time.
“I think it is necessary when you have repeat offenses to increase punishment as you go,” said Reed. Asked if that meant prison time for third-time offenders, she replied: “I think it should.”
Although the current statistics are alarming to some, the number of cases in which defendants only get probation has dropped over the last decade. A similar analysis I conducted back in 2002 revealed 58 percent of felony DWI convicts at the time got probation – 6 percentage points higher than we find today.
Defense lawyer Shawn Brown thinks he knows what’s caused the decline in in cases where a judge gives probation.
“The numbers are coming down in Bexar County, and I think a lot of it is the media telling stories of accidents,” Brown says. “People are upset about it and the courts are feeling pressure.”
But as with most discussions of prison sentencing in Texas, the issue ultimately comes down to availability of prison space. “We’re seeing judges take into consideration the jail overcrowding issue, and trying to figure out what they can do to still put some sanctions in place but not have to ‘burden’ the jails,” Northway says.
But it’s the certainty of time behind bars that MADD believes would make many drunk drivers think twice.
“So people are being able to skirt around [prison sentences], because of time served or what have you,” Northway says. “But at the end of the day it’s still not enacting a strict sanction, which is ultimately what is going to change people’s behavior.”