Massachusetts Cop Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
MassCops Angel
Joined
·
121,497 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Massachusetts lawmakers seek compromise on drunken driving bill

Lawmakers in Massachusetts are headed to the negotiating table to settle on new rules to get chronic drunken drivers off roads in the state.

The state Senate approved a drunken driving bill after reinserting provisions from the original bill that were dropped in the House-approved version.

Melanie's Bill - named for a 13-year-old-girl who was killed by a repeat drunken driver two years ago - targets drivers who try to avoid conviction by refusing to take breath-alcohol and field sobriety tests when stopped by police.

Senators restored wording to use ignition interlock devices that require drivers to blow into a mouthpiece, which measures the amount of alcohol on a person's breath. If the driver blows clean, the car will then start; if not, it won't budge.

The bill would create a criminal penalty for anyone who tampers with the device.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, about one-third of all arrests or convictions for DUI come from repeat offenders.

The Senate version would also allow judges to impound a vehicle after a fourth drunken driving offense.

In addition, prosecutors would also be able to submit certified records or prior drunken driving convictions in court, rather than having to prove prior offenses again - as they are now required to do under Massachusetts law.

The House version would first require the state's Supreme Judicial Court to rule it was constitutional.

The measure now heads to a House-Senate conference committee that will work on hammering out a compromise version to send to Gov. Mitt Romney for his signature.
 
G

·
kwflatbed said:
In addition, prosecutors would also be able to submit certified records or prior drunken driving convictions in court, rather than having to prove prior offenses again - as they are now required to do under Massachusetts law.
That right there reveals their true motivations.

The ONLY possible reason a member of the Legislature would try to scuttle that provision is so they could continue to plead-down cases for the clients of their real job....defense attorney.
 
G

·
Delta784 said:
That right there reveals their true motivations.

The ONLY possible reason a member of the Legislature would try to scuttle that provision is so they could continue to plead-down cases for the clients of their real job....defense attorney.
Not to mention, many of these esteemed legislatures are the ones being stopped as they swerve among the marked lanes.
 
G

·
MSP75 said:
Not to mention, many of these esteemed legislatures are the ones being stopped as they swerve among the marked lanes.
Who then ask for a bench trial, where they are invariably found not-guilty, regardless of the mountain of evidence against them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
84 Posts
I can't believe this State! Why would anyone want to have drunks on the road? These lawmakers are third and fourth offenders, maybe this is the problem. I am sick and tired of locking drunks up and getting slammed on the stand because the BT logs were off or my FST weren't fair.....come on people..lets get with the program.....you drink and drive you lose..right? Wrong!
Regardless of the outcome, I will continue to lock these people up!
 
G

·
When I am on the stand the only slogan I see is "You Drink, You Drive, Your Attorney Makes The Cop Look Like An Idiot"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
who is surprised that it is the Democ rats that are undermining this oui bill. ALL who vote for a Democ rat are either a flaming liberal or a total fool.
 

·
Thread Killa
Joined
·
6,056 Posts
SO what happens if you get your friend to blow into the thing?

o

kwflatbed said:
Massachusetts lawmakers seek compromise on drunken driving bill

Lawmakers in Massachusetts are headed to the negotiating table to settle on new rules to get chronic drunken drivers off roads in the state.

The state Senate approved a drunken driving bill after reinserting provisions from the original bill that were dropped in the House-approved version.

Melanie's Bill - named for a 13-year-old-girl who was killed by a repeat drunken driver two years ago - targets drivers who try to avoid conviction by refusing to take breath-alcohol and field sobriety tests when stopped by police.

Senators restored wording to use ignition interlock devices that require drivers to blow into a mouthpiece, which measures the amount of alcohol on a person's breath. If the driver blows clean, the car will then start; if not, it won't budge.

The bill would create a criminal penalty for anyone who tampers with the device.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, about one-third of all arrests or convictions for DUI come from repeat offenders.

The Senate version would also allow judges to impound a vehicle after a fourth drunken driving offense.

In addition, prosecutors would also be able to submit certified records or prior drunken driving convictions in court, rather than having to prove prior offenses again - as they are now required to do under Massachusetts law.

The House version would first require the state's Supreme Judicial Court to rule it was constitutional.

The measure now heads to a House-Senate conference committee that will work on hammering out a compromise version to send to Gov. Mitt Romney for his signature.
 
G

·
SOT_II said:
SO what happens if you get your friend to blow into the thing?
My understanding is that it's much like a home breath test for people on probation for alcohol-related crimes. The thing you blow into resembles a cross between and oxygen mask and a diver's mouthpiece that has a built-in audio receiver/transceiver. The person is asked to repeat some words several times while they have the mask tightly against their face, in order to establish a voice-print, which is then matched against what they have on-file. Assuming the voice matches, the machine (without warning) will suddenly ask for a blow, and there is no time whatsoever for someone to pass-off the mask to anyone else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
456 Posts
Delta784 said:
My understanding is that it's much like a home breath test for people on probation for alcohol-related crimes. The thing you blow into resembles a cross between and oxygen mask and a diver's mouthpiece that has a built-in audio receiver/transceiver. The person is asked to repeat some words several times while they have the mask tightly against their face, in order to establish a voice-print, which is then matched against what they have on-file. Assuming the voice matches, the machine (without warning) will suddenly ask for a blow, and there is no time whatsoever for someone to pass-off the mask to anyone else.
Would that mean that another family member or friend couldn't drive the car? [voice-print not on file]

I'm not sure how practical this is for implementation in the real world.

My prefered punishment for 1st offenders is community service in an ER where htey get to see 1st hand the carnage that drunk/drugged driving results in! If that doesn't scare them straight, nothing else ever will. Not to mention that the typical ER can always use the help (I'm talking about really making them work, for nothing).
 
G

·
LenS said:
Would that mean that another family member or friend couldn't drive the car? [voice-print not on file]
I'm not really sure, but anything is preferable to just giving them their licenses back, unrestricted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
456 Posts
Delta784 said:
I'm not really sure, but anything is preferable to just giving them their licenses back, unrestricted.
When I went thru the R/I Academy, our Ch. 90 instructor was a very sharp RMV Deputy Commr (I think that was his rank, long time ago). He told us that people regularly drive to the RMV to turn in their DL (suspension/revocation), then get back in their cars and drive home!

In recent years I've heard a number of ~300K people in MA driving with suspended/revoked/expired/uninsured!

Restricting family members won't really solve any problems. But I honestly don't know what will work other than perhaps "scaring them straight" by working in an ER as I noted above.
 

·
Chapter 90 Enforcer
Joined
·
3,299 Posts
I think at the 3rd Offense the vehicle becomes a police seizure and its automatically surrendered.

Senators restored wording to use ignition interlock devices that require drivers to blow into a mouthpiece, which measures the amount of alcohol on a person's breath. If the driver blows clean, the car will then start; if not, it won't budge.
Anybody see the movie 40 year old virgin? That was hilarious!! (for those whom have not seen it, there is a part in it with this blowing device.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
456 Posts
MSP75 said:
They should be lucky they get to keep the car. I think the vehicle should be a mandatory donation to a charity.
And maybe we can do a summary execution? :wink:

Unless you are going to incarcerate them forever and put them and their families on the public dole, I doubt this would be effective in stopping their lifestyle of the drunk and stupid!

If you can't scare them straight, I doubt that anything else will work other than a ball and very short chain. [Don't get me wrong, I have no sympathy for drunk drivers! I just don't have any bullet-proof answers either.]
 
G

·
LenS said:
And maybe we can do a summary execution? :wink:

Unless you are going to incarcerate them forever and put them and their families on the public dole, I doubt this would be effective in stopping their lifestyle of the drunk and stupid!

If you can't scare them straight, I doubt that anything else will work other than a ball and very short chain. [Don't get me wrong, I have no sympathy for drunk drivers! I just don't have any bullet-proof answers either.]
A summary execution of violators after a jury by their peers, of course. That would solve some problems and leave some elected posts available.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
456 Posts
MSP75 said:
A summary execution of violators after a jury by their peers, of course. That would solve some problems and leave some elected posts available.
I think you were reading my mind! :yes:

And for that reason, the law would never allow for this . . . their peers protect their own!
 
G

·
It does blow my mind how little press this really gets considering the LE community, MADD, and concerned voters are really interested in tougher measures. It just shows how corrupt Beacon Hill is and how the public lets it be that way.
 
G

·
MSP75 said:
It does blow my mind how little press this really gets considering the LE community, MADD, and concerned voters are really interested in tougher measures. It just shows how corrupt Beacon Hill is and how the public lets it be that way.
The Patriot Ledger has traditionally been no friend of ours, but I have to say they've done a fantastic job in highlighting the absurdity of Massachusetts OUI laws. They have an outstanding expose series, dating back 2+ years and still going, about Melanie's Law. Check it out;

http://www.southofboston.net/specialreports/drunkendriving/index.shtml
 
G

·
Thanks, that is a great series. Now if only the Herald would put real news like that on the front page daily, instead of going after sensational headlines like the SP Academy. Something that already was being dealy with.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top