The local affiliate of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers said it is “troubled” by allegations Arcola police officers are booking drunk drivers for public intoxication instead of DWI.
Hope Rangel, executive director of MADD’s Southeast Texas affiliate, said drunk drivers need to be prosecuted fro DWI. Failure to do so simply allows habitual offenders slip through the cracks of the judicial system and continue to present a danger to themselves and other motorists.
“We want anyone who is intoxicated to be prosecuted to the full extent to the law,” Rangel said. “It’s hard to explain to the families of victims (of drunk drivers) that the person responsible was not held accountable.”
Rangel pointed out that penalties substantially increase for repeat offenders, so it is important that each case be prosecuted as a DWI.
“If there’s no prior DWI record, it looks like a person’s first offense when they go to court,” Rangel said. “When they become a repeat offender, things like (a public intoxication conviction) don’t show up in the record, so it looks like a first offense.”
Rangel also said MADD supports the efforts of law enforcement officers and understands the pressures they work under, but DWI enforcement should always be taken seriously. She also said MADD occasionally hears about isolated cases like Arcola.
“Every once in a while we run into this,” Rangel said.
Rangel added she hoped the community would come together and demand the police department crack down on drunk drivers.
“There needs to be a united effort by the people. They need to send a clear message that they won’t put up with DWI,” Rangel said.
The issue came to light after a several individuals contracted FortBendNow with complaints that Arcola police officers were letting drunk drivers slide with only citations for public intoxication. Arcola City Administrator Arnold Brown said Police Chief James Bartley reviewed police records and found no evidence of the practice.
“The chief found no cases where a suspected DWI was arrested for public intoxication,” Brown said. “In fact, our officers are required to charge intoxicated drivers with DWI through the county (courts system).”
Brown also said there was no policy, written or unwritten, that police officers should charge suspected drunk drivers with public intoxication.
However, an investigation into Arcola Municipal Court cases by FortBendNow found numerous cases in which drivers were charged with public intoxication after being stopped for traffic violations. In those cases, the drivers were cited for the traffic charge and public intoxication on the same citation. Several involved drivers who had been involved in an accident, and at least one involved a hit-and-run case.
Several city insiders said Arcola officials were turning a blind eye to the practice because public intoxication offenses were prosecuted in municipal court, with fine revenue going to the cash-strapped city’s general fund. DWI cases are prosecuted in county and district courts, with fine revenues going to the county and state.
The cases found by FortBendNow occurred during 2007 and 2008 and involved a number of different officers.
Messages left requesting comment from Arcola Municipal Judge Bonnie Fitch were not returned.
2. January 2009 at 8:57 am
Excellent & notable facts, KP. I just hope the readers take time to digest your post.
MADD is the current version of Carrie Nation’s hatchet-using Women’s Christian Temperence League, which, in 1919 was responsible for the passing of the 18th Amendment (Prohibition), subsequently annulled by the 21st Amendment in 1933. Murders, gangsterism and corruption dominated this 14 year period. Also, it issued in the Speakeasy and Flapper girls.
MADD, go sit in the corner. You need a “time-out”.
2. January 2009 at 7:41 am
“We do not want a police state, and it seems we are on the precipice of becoming one in the name of DUI.”
- Martin v. Commonwealth
************************
Bad Drunk Driving Laws, False Evidence and a Fading Constitution “It is the responsibility of the patriot to protect his country from its government.”
- Thomas Paine
**************
“Every once in a while we run into this; There needs to be a united effort by the people. They need to send a clear message that they won’t put with DWI”
“It’s hard to explain to the families of victims that the person responsible was not held accountable.”
- Hope Rangel, MADD Executive Director, Southeast Texas (PAID MADD AFFILIATE)
*********************
A Closer Look at DWI/DUI Fatality Statistics
For years now the “DWI/DUI crackdown”, along with the accompanying loss of constitutional rights, has been justified by the numbers of deaths on the highways caused by drunk drivers.
As the U.S. Supreme Court in Michigan v. Sitz said, for example, DWI/DUI “sobriety checkpoints” appear to violate our Fourth Amendment right to be free of suspicionless stops by the police — but this illegal intrusion on our privacy is “outweighed” by the “carnage” on our highways of 25,000 deaths caused each year by alcohol.
From where did these statistics come?
Years ago, the statistics kept on traffic fatalities included a category for “alcohol-caused” deaths. To justify such things as sobriety checkpoints, lowered blood alcohol levels and automatic at-the-scene DWI/DUI license suspensions;
however,
these statistics were subtly changed to “alcohol-related”. Not “caused”– but related.
This meant that a perfectly sober driver who hit and killed an intoxicated pedestrian, (for example) would be involved in an “alcohol-related” incident. Similarly, a sober driver who is struck by another sober driver carrying an intoxicated passenger chalked up another “alcohol-related” death.
Further, if the officer believes the driver to be intoxicated but chemical tests show he is not, the death is nevertheless reported as “alcohol-related”.
In fact, if the tests indicate the presence of any alcohol at all, say .02%, the fatality will be chalked up as “alcohol-related”.
In 1999, the federal General Accounting Office (GAO) reviewed these figures from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration — and issued a report stating that they “raised methodological concerns calling their conclusions into question “.
The statistics, the GAO report said, “fall short of providing conclusive evidence that .08% BAC laws were, (by themselves) responsible for reductions in alcohol related fatalities.” In other words, the statistics weren’t even valid when applied to alcohol-related fatalities, much less alcohol-caused deaths. :-(
So what are the real numbers?
The Los Angeles Times also decided to investigate the validity of these statistics. In 2002, NHTSA’s figures claimed 18,000 deaths on the nation’s highways attributable to drunk driving. The Times found that only about 5,000 of these involved a drunk driver causing the death of a sober driver, passenger or pedestrian. :-(
(Research by other groups, such as “Responsibility in DUI Laws, Inc.”, indicate the figure is actually under 3,000 – 5,000) A fraction of the number being used by the government and political pressure groups like MADD. :-(
Despite this “irritating little truth” — MADD, law enforcement and federal and state governments continue to use the same false statistics to justify the passage of unfair and unconstitutional DWI/DUI laws. :-(
Political Sidebar
******************
[…] Over the years, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) has pushed for ever-lower blood-alcohol limits, harsher punishments, .08% “per se” laws, sobriety checkpoints, “zero tolerance” (.01%) for drivers under 21, immediate license confiscation — and destroying many constitutional rights in the process.
[_} MADD recently advocated the reduction of blood-alcohol levels from .08% to .05%; “zero tolerance” for adults is on the political horizon.......
“A Closer Look at DWI/DUI Fatality Statistics“, legally indicate none of this has had anywhere near the reduction in accidents claimed by MADD.
[_] Ironically, cell phones are a far greater threat to our highway safety than drinking drivers. When MADD’s official first President, Candy Lightner finally emerges to champion this cause– the cell phoe industry will be the new target of the crusaders.
[_] MADD and NHTSA until then continue to manipulate statistics to further their objectives of prohibition on the highways. :-(
1. January 2009 at 7:16 pm
With all due respect, Ms Rangel seems to be grandstanding. It’s easy to say the things for which she’s quoted, but bromides and aphorisms are lame. Let’s hear Ms Rangel discuss the point.eight (.08) fallacy. This low, low blood alcohol level is a travesty. No figures, nor response is ever forthcoming on those drivers who are seemingly incapacitated with blood alcohol levels between .08 and 1.0%. The reason is obvious. No one is impaired at .08, .09, nor even 1.0. This is nothing but a “cherry-on-top” for LEO’s to get easy arrests, meet their quota’s (or at least get performance points) and abuse social drinkers.
I dare say, there’s hardly anyone who can go out to eat, have a beer or two, a drink or after dinner liquour or a glass or two of wine who wouldn’t blow a point.0eight.
Ms Rangel, quit being a drama queen and get a life! People who have no business being arrested and abused and forfeiting tens-of-thousands of dollars on attorney fees, which causes a cloud on their name and reputation for the rest of their lives don’t deserve your admonishment.
1. January 2009 at 1:13 pm
It’s pretty obvious “political” agenda override any reasonable consultations to citations legally written in the Texas Law. Appalling, by the very nature that a Judge shall rebuke lack of legal evidence that everyone here including Hope Rangel, et al fails to both legally analyze or comprehend. Revenue is not the factor generating public interest here, rather the utter profound affiliation to pursue an unrational desire to “persecute” citizens for even drinking 1 drop of alcohol.
Consequently, MADD never has proven their affiliation to “repeat offenders” would be more profitable whereby saving lives where known “repeat offenders” actually are known to rehabilitate— in AA! Alcoholics Anonymous clinics aka alcohol rehabilitation clinics would prove to be MADD’s most genuine asset to pursue.
Oh, but then what would oppression be without stiffling ALL of our freedoms to persecute. Nevermind what Texas Law says.
“Book ‘em all Danno! I’m just in it for the revenue, and plus my job is due up for a promotion!”
31. December 2008 at 9:37 pm
Wow, where does one begin here… “troubled”? Troubled that MADD’s vow to society is to overindulge their vengeance to ultimately crucify a driver with PI? OMG!! Reasonably one may assume a driver receiving that DWI ticket ultimately does pay his debt to society. What makes MADD angry is that Public Intoxication is a “subjective” term and ultimately their own blind-eye turns away from rationally assuming some drivers are not drunk. How is a driver drunk if they are not proven to be drunk at that time of citation? How many actually had the chance to blow?
“City Arcola Administrator Arnold Brown said Police Chief James Bartley reviewed police records and found no evidence of the practice.”
It’s troubling that MADD never mentions that aspect to blowing…they just want everyone, drunk or not drunk to pay for their family members death. That’s not rational.