Intoxalock®?

[A930Rocket]

I got the tires rotated and balanced on my F150 today, and as I was leaving, I saw this sign on the window of the shop. I had to Google it and see what it was. It’s a device that you have to blow into, checking for alcohol, in order to start your car. And in order to keep the car running, you have to blow into it every so often.



After thinking about it, there was a guy at work who had one in his truck, but I didn’t know what it was. He had two DUIs and a drinking problem

https://www.intoxalock.com/offers/south-carolina-ignition-interlock

These girls sure seem happy with theirs.

[juanbenae]

Have known a couple people who've had those over the years. Expensive unit, monthly subscription charges, and then it has to be recalibrated a few times a year. Don't know if it's in real time, or they can download data at the recalibration appointments, but the one I know of most recently would tattle on you if you blew in it and failed due to consumption of booze.

Good tool in keeping the rest of us a bit safer on the road. If I were in that situation, and thankfully I'm not I'd prefer that over the ankle monitor that can read blood alcohol and snitch you out to your PO.

[A930Rocket]

In this day and age, with so many options for transportation, I think if you get busted for DUI, you lose your license.

[masraum]

Very common as part of a DUI/DWI "sentence". Have to have it added to the car, and then, I think, have it read periodically, while paying the place that installed it and does the reading. A work colleague got a DUI and had one so he could drive to/from work.

[berettafan]

a buddies ex had one and she got her pre-teen son to use it to start the car. this was years back.

someone nearby has one in her G wagon.

[pavulon]

DUI should be jail for a year and loss of driving privileges for another year after that plus rehab with proof and random testing. Do it again and and it's 2 years and no more driving ever. 3rd time, 10 years in jail. Play stupid games with other people's lives, lose real chunks of yours.

[wdfifteen]

Just don’t put one on the bathroom.

[Rick Lee]

They are easily defeated.

[Tobra]

So easily as to be worthless

[matthewb0051]

There is a new watch that detects transdermal alcohol levels. Very new. I've had a few courts order them when the Defendant doesn't have a vehicle. Looks just like an Apple watch.

https://www.tracmonitor.com/tracwatch

Jeez, some of you have some draconian potential sentences. Maybe I'm jaded. I recently had a case for a guy with his 7th DWI and also one on 4th. Both felonies. One received probation the other was dismissed as he was below legal limit.

For the guy that got probation, I argued that for misdemeanors, no one ever goes to jail and typically get probation or deferred adjudication. They only go to jail for a week or two if they don't want probation for a year, which is very rare. Then you hit a 3rd DWI and it is 2 to 10 year felony. Its like we went from zero to 100 without passing go or collecting $200.

However, there was a guy in a nearby county that just got a massive sentence on his 6th DWI.

https://www.fox7austin.com/news/fox-7-focus-joseph-haren-life-in-prison-sixth-dwi-comal-county-texas

[Dixie]

The ex-husband of a friend was riding his motorcycle to the bars because the court ordered this device installed on his car.

He spent the last month in ICU after a near fatal single-vehicle motorcycle accident. The accident cost him his right foot. He had a blood alcohol of 2.9 in the ER. Still, he insists it's bad road design, not drinking, that's to blame for his accident.

[Jeff Higgins]

DUI has devolved into no more than a money grab, an industry feeding the coffers of cities, towns, and counties across the nation. Not to mention the lawyers with practices devoted solely to DUI defence. None of the players involved really want it to stop. It's very, very lucrative to them.

Having discovered that, many states are now looking at lowering allowable blood alcohol levels to ridiculously low levels. I've seen as low as .02% recommended (most are now between .10% and .08%). That simply cannot be justified as a "safety" measure. Just a shameless money grab.

There does need to be more severe sentencing for those that are truly sloppy drunk, repeat offenders, and all of that. Then there needs to be some clear delineation between them and some poor guy who blows at the low end of the scale and exhibits no discernable impairment, someone who can actually make it home safely. But, well, there is money to be made...

[Rick Lee]

When I drove for Uber and Lyft, I obviously had plenty of fares who were suspended. And because they couldn't drive, they just drank more, often getting in my car with a road soda in hand. Several told me about their very shaky cases, but that Phoenix was not giving deals on ANY DUI cases because Uber and Lyft were simply taking too much revenue out of the system and thus the City needed to squeeze every dime out of the cases they got. Yup, it's all about safety and the law.

[Rick Lee]

I gave a ride to a guy who had had multiple DUIs, but the one that sent him to prison for a year was when he was asleep in the passenger seat of a running car. It was super hot summer temps outside and his friend, the driver and owner of the car, was inside the gas station buying stuff. Cop tapped on the window, guy was drunk, but running car meant he was in control. Yup, all about safety and the law.

[matthewb0051]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

DUI has devolved into no more than a money grab, an industry feeding the coffers of cities, towns, and counties across the nation. Not to mention the lawyers with practices devoted solely to DUI defence. None of the players involved really want it to stop. It's very, very lucrative to them.
..

Totally agree with this. I don't take retained DWI clients and begrudgingly take them as court appointments.

Texas also has a "superfine" for DWI that is administrative and not criminal. It's debatable when it kicks in but most people believe if you serve a jail sentence then it applies. And this is in addition to any fine or fee applied by the Court in a criminal case (B misdemeanor is $2,000 fine; A misdemeanor is $4,000 fine). Then you add in the fee paid to the probation department for your monthly visit, up to $75, cost of ignition interlock $150/month, DWI classes; it can get very expensive.

There is also automatic administrative license suspensions that vary from 60 days to 180 days. You can have a hearing on the suspension but people charge around $1,500. If the officer shows up you basically lose the hearing. Then there is a $125 license reinstatement fee.

Superfine amounts:
1) $3,000 for the first conviction within a 36-month period;

(2) $4,500 for a second or subsequent conviction within a 36-month period; and

(3) $6,000 for a first or subsequent conviction if it is shown on the trial of the offense that an analysis of a specimen of the person's blood

[Bill Douglas]

Two days ago at about midday there was a DUI checkpoint around the bays. Middle of the day they must have a very low opinion of us beach people. It was a small handheld device and I just had to say my name and address not blow through it. I later thought I should have said "Your name and address." but these are not the guys to annoy.

[matthewb0051]

Originally Posted by Arizona_928

How often do you challenge the lab?

My DoD projects were just about every analytical chemistry test available and the amount of worthless data was astonishing. Just for gc-ms i would get over hold times, failed internal calibrations, failed dilutions, inability to provide CoC on the NIST calibration compounds, etc. Hell, i had NIST calibrated compounds that did not have the accurate concentrations. Just by the pure statistical nature of analytical chemistry, a result often has high and low bias. Nothing is ever 100%.

I'm assuming that was directed my way.

Really, the case is more focused the traffic stop or whatever serves as the initial reason for the police to interact with the defendant.

The lab issue we have here is if/when the D has BAC under the legal limit, the DA will send the blood off to a lab in Pennsylvania for drug testing. That lab will not send someone to testify if it turns into a trial and even if they did, it would have to be the exact person that did the testing. That person typically does not posses the knowledge necessary to say what the results have to do with intoxication or impairment as required by appellate case law.

[fastfredracing]

https://youtube.com/shorts/H5Bxt6D9ihQ?si=U4gSDjQr0wZNcZ-K

[Mike Andrew]

Drunk driving is a serious problem and needs penalties that discourage additional instances. Too many lives ruined or lost due to f-d up people behind the wheel. My take is that most repeat offenders have alcohol addiction issues and need treatment starting with the self admission that they have a problem. I can understand one DUI as a matter of bad judgement - like leaving a wedding and thinking you are okay. Arrest, court, punishment and lesson learned; won't happen again. Chronic offenders require severe punishments.
However, I also believe that this has turned into a revenue source for a lot of localities. Perhaps that is part of the below the legal limit is not DUI but "impaired" offense rationale. Still provides revenue. Have a few friends who have fallen into this trap after trying to be responsible, had a couple of beers/ drinks in the course of an entire evening and done a rolling stop or did not signal early enough at a corner and gotten nailed for impaired with just a trace of alcohol on the breathalyzer after passing the roadside sobriety tests. Easy money.
A thought -if a driver demands a blood test and it returns negative for intoxicants, is the arrest voided and who pays for the test?

[Jeff Higgins]

Yes, that whole "below the legal limit but still impaired" nonsense has gotten to be an even bigger trap than a full fledged DUI. I have lost track of the number of coworkers and friends that got nailed by this. They blow a .01 or a .02 and still get popped because "in the officer's discretion" they "appeared impaired". Even fighting a charge like that can easily approach $10,000 in legal fees and court costs.

And yes, the "true professionals" need to get hammered (pardon the pun), and hard. BA levels in the .20 to .30 and higher, repeat offenders, and all of that. No leniency on these. Yet so many appear to get away with it time and time again.

While we are at it, who now kills and injures more drivers than these drunks? Distracted drivers on their cell phones. The supporting data has been available for some time. Why are we not hammering these people just as hard? Mandatory court appearance and loss of driving privileges on a first offense. A week or two of jail time on a second offense. A year or more on a third offense.

As an avid motorcyclist, let me tell everyone, I cannot tell if a driver is drunk. But I can tell if they are yammering on their phone. In this modern world, virtually 100% of the time I suffer a near miss that is the case. I think this should be a new law: If there is a bullet hole in their cell phone that corresponds to the one in their head, it's a righteous kill and no one gets charged. That would soon put an end to it...