Yet that is more or less what two New York legislators proposed to do with their proposal for a "three strikes and you're out" law for driving while intoxicated.

The proposal would make charges of New York repeat offenses for drunk driving subject much more serious. If convicted of a third DWI, a driver could never get a license again in New York. The new would apply not only to DWI, but to driving while ability impaired.

If it is passed, Charlotte's Law would require that a person's driver's license be revoked permanently upon a third conviction for DWI. It would not, however, increase jail or prison time or add additional fines.

Under current New York law, someone who gets a third DWI conviction is eligible to get his or her license back after a year.

As legislators consider the Charlotte's Law proposal, they should keep in mind that there are other ways to respond to repeat DWI besides permanently taking away a license. Ignition interlocks and required treatment programs are only two of these.

In other words, "three strikes and you're out" could be a swing and a miss, if there are actually better ways to address repeat DWI offenses.

Source: Rochester Home Page, "Three strikes law proposed for drunk drivers," Mark Gruba, Feb. 17, 2012

A 13-year-old female passenger remains in critical condition in the hospital after the accident. Reports indicate that three cars laden with teenagers had traveled together to the party, where the driver ostensibly became inebriated.

The group of teenagers had apparently lied to their families about their whereabouts, telling their parents that they were staying over at another friend's house. Instead, they headed to a nearby party location where drugs and alcohol were present. The teens reportedly connected over social networking sites on the Internet to plan the trip.

Other Facebook users who attend such parties say they are usually held at youngsters' homes, especially when their parents are out of town. Teenagers are particularly susceptible to pressure to attend these parties, experts say, because they are hesitant to think about the consequences of their actions, and instead prefer to obtain immediate gratification.

The community has shown an outpouring of support for the 13-year-old victim, who remains in a coma at the Women and Children's Hospital near Brant.

Source: WIVB.com, "Teen faces charges in tragic crash," Rich Newberg, Feb. 10, 2012

The defendant had been pulled over on suspicion of DWI. He refused to take the Breathalyzer test before talking to his attorney. At the station, the defendant tried but could not get in touch with his attorney. After half an hour, he told the officers again that he would not submit to a Breathalyzer test without first speaking with his lawyer.

He appealed, claiming that the officers never told him that they would construe his wanting to speak with his attorney as a refusal to take the test. He lost the appeal, so he took it to the state's high court. That is the decision that came down -- in the defendant's favor -- this week.

In the decision, the court said that the officers never told the defendant that he had to take the tests immediately, nor did they tell him he had only 30 minutes to make that decision. All the officers had to do was to alert the defendant that "his time for deliberation" was up. So, if they had told him he had to make a decision right then or they would consider the delay a final refusal, the defendant would have been able to decide, once and for all, if he wanted to refuse the test.

Source: ThomsonReuters News & Insight, "Refusing to submit to breathalyzer without counsel not grounds for reversal: court," Feb. 16, 2012

Before the sentencing, the defendant spoke to the family. He apologized to the victim's family and said that he hoped, "God willing, that they can forgive me."

Police were at a loss until the victim's family asked the public for help. Investigators called dealerships' parts departments to ask if front-end replacement parts had been purchased in the days following the accident. The inquiry led to a repair shop in Niagara County. Soon thereafter, the defendant's passenger told police that he and the defendant had been drinking and using drugs for several hours before the accident.

Authorities say the defendant took his SUV to the shop the morning after the accident. They add that he did not report the accident because he was afraid he would have to go to prison.

At the sentencing, the judge noted that the defendant was "no stranger to the system" and told the defendant his actions were "inhumane and despicable" and "unconscionable." He added that it was unfortunate that the maximum sentence was only seven years.

The defendant's record includes convictions for a handful of felonies and misdemeanors. Those charges involved attempted forgery, unauthorized use of a vehicle, marijuana possession, harassment and disorderly conduct.

Sources:

Buffalo News, "Driver in fatal hit-run gets prison," Patrick Lakamp, Feb. 2, 2012

WKBW.com, "Man Charged in Deadly Hit and Run Upset at Prison Time," Kendra Eaglin, Feb. 2, 2012

This is one of the biggest drinking days of the year -- right along with St. Patrick's Day, Halloween and July 4. Safety advocates and law enforcement alike are asking everyone to be careful on the roads before and after the game.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, alcohol-impaired drivers were involved in 40 percent of all fatal crashes on Super Bowl Sunday 2010. Every 52 minutes, someone died in an alcohol-related accident.

Avoiding an accident and jail time can be as easy as arranging for a designated driver. The Traffic Safety Coalition reports that 175,000 people across the country have volunteered to be Super Bowl designated drivers.

Other measures include making sure everyone knows how he is getting home before the party starts. Hosts can arrange rewards for designated drivers. Host can also make sure guests understand they can stay overnight if they're not sober enough to drive.

Safety advocates recommend hosts stop serving alcohol during the third quarter; they should serve coffee and dessert, or put out pitchers of water instead. As a host, too, you should always have taxi phone numbers handy, and try to make it fun for people to stay while they wait for the cab.

Finally, as a host or a relative or a friend, do everything possible to take someone's keys away if you think they shouldn't be driving.

It may be difficult, but everyone will be grateful.

Source: Washington Post, "Super Bowl Sunday brings drunk-driving warnings," Ashley Halsey III, Feb. 3, 2012

Last April, the defendant was driving a motorcycle that belonged to his passenger (and girlfriend) when another car entered his lane. He laid the bike down to avoid a collision. Just as he and his passenger stood up, a pickup truck rounded the blind corner. The pickup struck and killed the 51-year-old woman.

Defense counsel said the victim had asked the defendant to drive because she was more intoxicated than he was. Tests indicated her BAC was 0.16 percent at the time of her death.

The victim's children, once close to the defendant, accused him of driving too fast and not thinking twice before he agreed to the ride. The defendant agreed. In a statement to the family and the court, he said he did not consider his actions ahead of time.

For defense counsel, the defendant's true punishment will be remembering the accident for the rest of his life. The attorney said he had struck and killed a pedestrian about 20 years ago. He admitted that he still has nightmares and still relives the accident.

The judge could have sentenced the defendant to four years in prison, the maximum allowed.

The pickup driver was not charged.

Source: Buffalo News, "Motorcycle driver gets 1 to 3 years in incident that led to girlfriend's death," Thomas J. Prohaska, Jan. 20, 2012

While the decision was unanimous, four justices believed the Court's analysis didn't go far enough. According to the opinion, when the police planted the GPS device on the suspect's car after their warrant had expired, they violated the suspect's Fourth Amendment rights; it was an unconstitutional search. The four justices -- joined by Court commentators -- agree, but their response is less "So be it" than it is "And...."

During arguments in November, the justices focused almost exclusively on the privacy issue. They referred to "1984" and Big Brother numerous times. So commentators were surprised by the narrowness of this decision.

Source: Washington Post, "Warrants needed in GPS tracking," Robert Barnes, Jan. 23, 2012

Recently, the wife of New York Rep. Maurice Hinchey was arrested for allegedly drunk driving. Police claim her blood alcohol content was .14 percent when they arrived at the scene of an accident on a Wednesday night in January. No one was injured in the accident and police said there was minimal property damage.

In a statement released through the woman's workplace, she said she is "committed to addressing this both legally and personally." She also apologized to her colleagues and friends in the statement.

Just hours before the arrest, her husband announced his retirement from Congress after 20 years of service. The 73-year-old had recently been declared cancer-free by doctors after battling colon cancer.

Source: Politico, "Rep. Maurice Hinchey's wife arrested for drunk driving," Seung Min Kim, Jan. 19, 2012

The doctor now awaits trial on charges of second-degree vehicular manslaughter, second-degree manslaughter, leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death and two counts of tampering with physical evidence. Among the evidence against him are the results of a blood test obtained by the police with a court order.

After the defendant's initial refusal, police drew up a search warrant application and a court order. For a judge to approve a warrant, police must show probable cause. In this case, officers stated that the suspect had asked "How's the girl? Is she dead?" and had said, later, "I hit something, but I'm not sure what." The application also included an officer's assertion that he smelled "an odor of alcohol" about the suspect and observed that the suspect's eyes were glassy and bloodshot.

The court approved the warrant. Several hours after he walked in to the station, the defendant was escorted to a nearby hospital where several vials of his blood were drawn. Police say the test showed a 0.10 BAC.

The case against the defendant turns on the test results. Without evidence that the doctor was driving while impaired, prosecutors cannot move ahead with the vehicular manslaughter charge. A conviction requires proof that driving drunk was the direct cause of the victim's death.

Defense counsel argued that the police lacked probable cause to obtain the blood sample. The odor of alcohol and "glassy, bloodshot eyes" weren't enough for a DWI. He added that the blood draw itself -- three vials -- exceeded the scope of the court order, which approved one blood draw.

The trial judge explained that the questions about the blood draw were really for a jury to decide. The jury, then, will know the results of the BAC test but will also hear defendant's arguments about probable cause.

The trial is scheduled for April.

Source: Buffalo News, "Corasanti blood test ruled OK in fatal hit-run," Patrick Lakamp, Jan. 14, 2012

Opponents say the MADD proposal is too strict. As we discussed in our last post, alcohol affects people differently. Mandates take the judge out of the equation, and that seems unfair. The first-time offender who is a sip over her limit is treated the same way a 10-drink binger is treated.

The ABI responds that the idea is noble, but it's flawed. For example, setting the maximum BAC will be tricky, because there is a delay between drinking five shots, say, and hitting the 0.08 limit. There are questions, too, about the air samples measuring passengers' intoxication rather than the driver's.

Still, the association has not come up with an equally effective alternative. The devices have been more successful than other approaches at lowering re-arrest rates and keeping drunk drivers off the roads. MADD and the CDC plan to take advantage of the opposition's lack of other options.

Source: MSNBC, "Curbing drunken drivers: Should ignition interlock be required on every car?" Jim Gold, Jan. 5, 2012

Not everyone is as keen on the idea as Mothers Against Drunk Driving or the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. The American Beverage Institute has serious qualms about mandates. The ABI is a restaurant trade association that, according to its website, "protects the on-premise dining experience and defends the right to drink moderately and responsibly prior to driving."

Light drinkers metabolize alcohol differently from heavy drinkers, according to the association. There is a difference between a 120-pound woman's response to two glasses of wine with dinner and a bar fly on a binge. If the state mandates ignition interlocks at all, it should be for the drivers who are well over the limit. The ABI maintains that a judge really should be involved in cases involving drivers who are at or just over the limit.

There's also the potential for a Big Brother adoption of ignition interlocks, and that opens up a whole new can of worms.

We'll finish this up in our next post.

Source: MSNBC, "Curbing drunken drivers: Should ignition interlock be required on every car?" Jim Gold, Jan. 5, 2012

The state is one of just 15 that mandate interlock devices for offenders who tested at 0.08. Other states require the devices for hard-core and repeat offenders. Some states require devices similar to but less sophisticated than interlocks. But, if Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are successful, every state will adopt a law as strict as New York's.

An ignition interlock works like a Breathalyzer. The driver blows into the device, and the device measures the blood alcohol content. If the BAC exceeds the set limit -- often below the state's legal limit -- the car won't start. As technology has advanced, the devices have become harder to trick. The point for MADD and the CDC is that the law assures that an intoxicated driver doesn't get behind the wheel.

Neither the devices nor the mandates have met with universal approval, of course. Critics have a number of concerns, and we'll get into those in our next post.

Source: MSNBC, "Curbing drunken drivers: Should ignition interlock be required on every car?" Jim Gold, Jan. 5, 2012