PROVIDENCE — A state prosecutor and a former House speaker last week debated whether new, harsher penalties apply to those who refuse to take Breathalyzer tests — or whether the penalties enacted in 2006 were wiped out when the governor signed a budget bill containing the law’s old language.

The arguments, which took place before the Rhode Island Supreme Court, prompted one justice to say, “The public should not know how sausages or laws are made.”

Before the penalties changed, nearly 85 percent of motorists suspected of drunken driving in Rhode Island were refusing to submit to a Breathalyzer test, while the national average was 25 percent.

But in 2006, the General Assembly passed a law aimed at cracking down on those that refuse to take the tests. For first offenses, the law doubled the minimum license suspension to six months, and it made subsequent offenses criminal rather than civil. For second offenses, the law provided penalties of up to six months in prison, fines of up to $1,000 and up to 100 hours of community service.

Governor Carcieri signed the bill on June 28, 2006. And two days later, the governor signed the annual budget bill, which added a $200 assessment for refusing a Breathalyzer test but did not include the stiffer penalties contained in the other legislation.

Three men charged with Breathalyzer refusal — Theodore H. Such Jr., Eric Ahlborg and Robert MacDonald — asked then-Superior Court Judge Stephen J. Fortunato Jr. to declare “which of these amendments would control in penal actions brought by prosecutors against them.” And in January 2007, Fortunato, who has since retired, ruled that the budget bill was “the controlling statute.”

The Supreme Court put that ruling on hold, pending the appeal that was argued on Wednesday.

John B. Harwood, a Pawtucket lawyer and former House speaker, argued on behalf of Such, and Tiverton lawyer Richard S. Humphrey argued on behalf of Ahlborg. They said the budget bill was signed into law after the Breathalyzer refusal bill and therefore amended the penalties back to their prior level — except for adding the $200 assessment.

“A law doesn’t become a law until it reaches the governor’s desk,” Harwood told the high court.

Supreme Court Justice Francis X. Flaherty asked, “Aren’t you ceding legislative control to the governor?” Harwood said, “Absolutely not.”

Harwood said legislators could have “taken 10 minutes,” said “we made a mistake” and amended the budget bill to include the harsher penalties. But they didn’t, so the old penalties apply, he said.

Prosecutors disagreed. Special Assistant Attorney General Michael W. Field told the Supreme Court that “in a perfect world” the budget bill might have been amended to reflect the new penalties. “But in the world of the General Assembly or any legislature… ,” he said, without finishing the thought.

Flaherty then paraphrased Otto von Bismarck, saying, “The public should not know how sausage or laws are made.”

Field emphasized that under House rules, words are underlined or placed in italics to show how a bill amends a law, and words are crossed out to show what is being deleted from a law. The remainder of the law is reproduced merely to show the context for the changes.

In the budget bill, the only underlined words regarding Breathalyzer refusals had to do with the new $200 assessment, Field said. The language about other penalties was not underlined or crossed out, “so it indicates no intent to amend or repeal it,” he said.

Supreme Court Justice Paul A. Suttell, a former state representative, said members of the House are free to ignore their own rules.

“We suggest they have done that now and again,” Supreme Court Justice Maureen McKenna Goldberg added wryly.

Flaherty said, “We used to have a [House] Speaker who would turn the clock back so it would never hit the 61st day.”

“Present company excluded,” Goldberg added, indicating Flaherty was referring to another former House speaker and not Harwood.

Harwood looked up, saying, “I may have done that.”

Field said legislators passed the Breathalyzer-refusal bill after they had approved the budget bill, so the budget contained the Breathalyzer-refusal language as it stood at the time.

When Field began addressing when the governor signed the bills, Supreme Court Chief Justice Frank J. Williams interjected, saying the governor has a lot of public bill-signing ceremonies that “don’t mean a tinker’s damn” from the perspective of the legal questions the court is facing in this case.

After the hearing, Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch issued a written statement, saying, “For too long, Rhode Island has had the disgraceful but unfortunately well-deserved reputation as a leader in the percentage of DUI-refusal cases and total deaths caused by drunk drivers. The bill that the governor and I introduced before the 2006 session of the legislature, and that became law in June of 2006, however, is working, and the public should realize that we are holding drunk drivers more accountable.”

The percentage of motorists refusing Breathalyzer tests has dropped from about 85 percent to about 50 percent, Lynch said. “The reason is, if they refuse a Breathalyzer and are convicted, they’ll lose their license for twice as long — for at least six months and potentially for as long as a year,” he said.

Full story

Seniors at Whitnall High School in Wisconsin have to pass a breathalyzer test to be allowed into the prom.

Video

Raleigh, NC — A North Carolina State University student had apparently been celebrating his 21st birthday, investigators said, when he struck a bicyclist near campus late Wednesday morning.

According to a Raleigh police report, Brian Anthony Reid, 21, of Graham, admitted he had been drinking. He registered a .12 blood-alcohol concentration on an alcohol breath test.

Reid was charged with one count each of driving while impaired, felony assault by motor vehicle and failure to reduce speed.

The crash happened shortly before 11:00 am, police said, when the Ford F-150 Reid was driving struck Nancy Antoine Leidy near N.C. State at Nazareth Street and Crusader Drive.

Leidy, 60, was taken to WakeMed in Raleigh with life-threatening injuries. She was listed in critical condition Wednesday afternoon, but died Wednesday night.

She was riding on the right-hand side of the road and was wearing a helmet, police said.

Reid, a junior engineering major at N.C. State, was in the Wake County Jail Wednesday afternoon under a $10,000 secured bond on the assault charge and a written promise to appear in court on the DWI.

His first court appearance is scheduled for Thursday.

At the Wake County magistrate’s office Wednesday afternoon, Reid’s father called the crash “an unfortunate accident” and said “our prayers are with the family.”

Full story

Lawmakers want to require repeat DUI offenders to prove they can drive before turning on the car.Now, lawmakers want interlock devices instead of just as an option. The device costs about $60 a month and requires a driver to blow into a Breathalyzer.

“This is something that courts can do now, but aren’t, for one reason or another. I’m not sure why they aren’t ordering a lot of these,” said representative Neil St. Onge, Ballwin (R).

He said that for every 100 drivers out on the road, three of those drivers have had multiple DWI convictions. In Missouri, there are 118,000 people with multiple drunk driving convictions. More than 40,000 have three, and 7,300 have five or more.

“If you look at it another way, by having one of these on your car, it allows a person to get back to driving safely without drinking, and it allows them to continue to be a useful member in society,” said St. Onge.

Some believe this effort to keep the roads safer is simply not worth the cost.

“Well, I think that the trend around the country has been to push this expensive hardware,” said representative John Burnett, Kansas City (D). ”I don’t think that hardware is an answer to alcohol treatment for people that have alcohol problems. I dont think that you can make them blow in machines and stop drinking.”

Representative St. Onge hopes to push this bill through both chambers before the end of the session on May 16.

Full story

Law enforcement work daily to combat crimes that involve alcohol, drunken driving and underage drinking. Now there’s a new pill on the market that could throw off police officers and possibly hide an alcohol-related crime.

Anti-Poleez claims to be a mint that erases all traces of smells on your breath associated with alcohol and cigarettes.

Columbus police said that those who think they can drink and drive and fool police with the product are wrong. Police aren’t going to base a charge of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated on breath alone. They will pull drivers over for other actions like swerving and speeding.

The Ohio Department of Public Safety Investigative Unit worries that the product could hide kids’ illegal practices from their parents.

NBC 4 contacted the maker of Anti-Poleez. They said the name of the mint is meant to be controversial in order to create sales in the breath mint market — but in no way is it meant to condone illegal activity.

Full story

Kids routinely exhale into Breathalyzers on their way into high school dances. Or after their cars are stopped by the police. How about a breath test for alcohol after they home Friday night?

“All I care is people know there’s a tool out there,” Ms. Craig said. “People should know.”

Full article

The BACTRACK is a very sharp-looking personal breathalyzer, one of the newest models available. Full operational review will come soon, but for now take a look at these features:

-No mouthpiece required
-Inverse LCD Display — White digits on a black background make test results easy to view in daylight and at night
-Accuracy to +/- 0.01 %BAC from 0.00 - 0.40 %BAC

Pictures speak for themselves:
<<

DENVER (AP) — Police say the Denver Nuggets’ Carmelo Anthony was arrested early Monday on suspicion of driving under the influence.

Detective Sharon Hahn says Anthony was arrested at about 4 a.m. on Interstate 25. Hahn says an officer pulled him over for weaving and failing to dim his lights.

Hahn says Anthony failed a series of sobriety tests. He was ticketed and released at the scene, but Hahn says she does not know how he got home.

He is due back in court on May 14.

The Nuggets issued a statement saying they are aware of “the situation involving Carmelo Anthony” but declined further comment.

Full article

The Supreme Court of Canada on Thursday ordered a new trial for a Nova Scotia man charged with impaired driving while operating his all-terrain vehicle after drinking beer about five years ago.

In doing so, the court struck down the arguments of Robert Gibson and an Alberta man who were both charged with impaired driving in their home provinces. Both said they didn’t drink enough to be drunk, despite failing breathalyzer tests

At his trial in Kentville provincial court in 2004, Mr. Gibson was found not guilty of driving while his blood alcohol level was over the legal limit. Judge Alan Tufts acquitted him, saying he had a reasonable doubt about whether the Kings County man was legally drunk at the time of his arrest.

Mr. Gibson had testified at trial he had 10 beers over seven hours when he was stopped by the RCMP in July 2003. He said he had five of them shortly before being pulled over at about 9 p.m.

In a split decision, the judicial panel ruled 7-2 to uphold breathalyzer results in Mr. Gibson’s case and that of Martin MacDonald of Alberta. Their arguments were hooked to the so-called two-beer defence, an avenue for defence terminated earlier this year by the Harper government.

The men argued that based on factors such as body weight, the amount and pattern of alcohol consumption and age, they had metabolized the alcohol and their levels straddled the legal limit of 80 milligrams, CBC News reported.

Mr. Gibson of Canning, who was 36 years old when he was stopped by police near Harbourville, had his case set aside by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, which ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court confirmed the order for a new trial.

Mr. MacDonald of Calgary failed a breathalyzer test at a police checkpoint in 2003. He has said he drank six cans of beer over more than four hours. Mr. MacDonald was convicted.

At trial in Kentville, “the arresting officer testified that he saw Mr. Gibson driving his all-terrain vehicle on the highway, that he stopped him . . . on July 13, 2003, that Mr. Gibson’s breath smelled of alcohol and that his speech was slurred,” the Supreme Court’s judgment says.

“The officer administered two breathalyzer tests, which showed that Mr. Gibson’s blood alcohol content was 120 milligrams at 10:12 p.m. and 100 milligrams at 10:21 p.m.”

According to The Canadian Press, an expert testified that “based on average alcohol elimination rates for someone of Mr. Gibson’s weight, his blood alcohol concentration would have fallen in a range that may or may not have been over the legal limit.” In other words, the expert said, he straddled the line.

Defence lawyer Chris Manning said in 2004 that Judge Tufts’ decision shows there are times when a driver can be legally sober while driving but found guilty when his intoxication level increases in police custody.

But Susan MacAskill, MADD Canada’s Atlantic region manager, said the Supreme Court recognized breathalyzer results are essentially infallible.

She said the attitudes of people who continue to drink and drive, despite all the information available on impairment and about risk to drivers and others, must be changed.

Ms. MacAskill of Windsor lost her 68-year-old father to a drunk driver in a crash in 1993.

She said Canadian courts “need to recognize the fact the person has said they’ve consumed an excessive level of alcohol (and) technology has said that they’re legally impaired.”

“The courts should support the fact that that behaviour needs to be appropriately addressed.”

Full article

LOUISE, Texas — In a little town called Louise, good people brag about great memories.

“It’s nice because everybody knows each other,” Flora De Leon said.

But along with the good memories, they also have the bad.

De Leon’s son, Dusty Ochoa, died riding in a car with a drunk driver nearly two years ago.

“It’s going on two years already, but it’s still hard,” De Leon said. “It’s hard on everyone that was close to him.”

That includes his classmates, who on Friday were decorating their school gym for prom night.

“He was a friend. A great guy to hang around with,” junior Matthew Blumrick said.

Louise school administrators are taking an extraordinary step to make sure Ochoa’s classmates who go to prom make it home safely.

“I’ll have a deputy here, the breathalyzer people will be here. I’ll have the drug dogs up front,” Louise ISD Superintendent Andy Peters said as he toured the location of the dance.

This year, anyone who goes to the prom will be required to pass a breathalyzer test.

It’s an idea that’s drawn mixed reactions from students.

“I think it’s a great idea,” junior Rachel Aguirre said.

“Everybody is kind of ready for it. They know what to expect,” student Brittney Taylor said.

“We feel they don’t trust us. That we have to prove ourselves,” student John Duke said.

Parents who plan to attend the prom will have to pass the test too.

“If we are going to test our kids, I think we need to be the first ones in the door,” parent Debbie Koudela said.

In fact, Dusty Ochoa’s mom is going to the prom and plans to take the test herself.

In another effort to crack down on drunken driving, HPD and 15 other police agencies have launched a campaign to deal with the number of local car crashes.

They are posting the faces of DWI violators on the Internet in the hopes they can save a life – a life like that of Flora De Leon’s son, Dusty.

Full story