On a mission for the boys
January 15, 2013 at 12:00 am in Grand Forks Herald
The parents of two young Texas boys killed when a pickup truck ran over their tent in a Lake Metigoshe campground last summer have returned to North Dakota to urge a toughening of state DUI laws. Continue Reading
It will interesting to see if the legislature has the cojones and the stomach to take a leadership role in toughening up DUI laws. Wonder if Al Carlson will restate his concern of “hurting bars by overdoing DUI laws”. If folks have figured out the designated driver thing by now, that’s too bad.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
9
should be haven’t figured out.
Like or Dislike:
6 
7
Lets get serious. Here’s my suggestion…
First Offense – 30 days in jail/$1000 fine
Second Offense – 90 days in jail/$3000 fine
Third Offense – 1 year in jail/$5000 fine
And none of this suspended bs, make them sit and think about it.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
Isn’t an interesting that if you break a DNR law such as taking a deer out of season, that you surrender not only your gun, but your vehicle as well (since the vehicle “was used in the crime”). Start taking away vehicles with DUI arrests and folks would really get with a designated driver program.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
41 
9
Isn’t IT interesting (sorry for slopping editing!)
Like or Dislike:
7 
6
Great idea scooter.
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
10
I’ve always been a big supporter of harsher penalties and stiffer sentences for all criminals and requiring people to be held responsible for their actions.
Lawyers are the problem, and no one wants to accept that fact.
If you have money and you get in trouble you will walk free. (Lindsey Lohan anyone???)
Once you get to the violent criminals its time to make the death penalty a much more used form of punishment. No more life in prison being a useless eater and air breather. Jail is for criminals, Death is for those who have no hope of joining society ever again.
A person should NEVER see the courtroom for a fourth DUI.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
If laws were the answer, this would no longer be a problem. Does anyone else see the folly in addressing a problem with “tougher laws”? If regular old laws were so effective, they’d have prevented this tragedy. But they didn’t, because laws by themselves don’t fix problems. And yet, we keep going back to the same crap filled well to fix problems by making already existing laws tougher…as though by the simple mention of “tougher” they’ll somehow magically work. Ugh….
Hot debate. What do you think?
27 
17
You are only half correct: laws can only go so far. It is the enforcement that needs addressed. ND has one of the most permissive attitudes towards DUI of any state in the union. This has been shown time & time again. It is simply part of the culture up here.
When I worked at the main healthcare provider in GF we had a guy come in after a shingle vehicle, single occupant rollover. Drinker than a skunk. BA was greater than 250 (.25).
Both the GF Sherrif & Highway Patrol refused to cite him for DUI (he got reckless driving & driving too fast for conditions). The reason: since he was ejected, they could not prove he was the driver. He was the sole occupant.
You address the problem by mandating enforcement. In California if you get hooked up for DUI you will spend a minimum of four hours in a holding cell to “sober up.” If it is felony DUI you will have your car impounded (you have 30 days to retrieve it before they can sell it).
For a while ND was one of a handful of states that did not require arrests in domestic violence cases. It was up to the officer & whether or not the aggrieved wanted to press charges. Now: you hit her- you go to jail. She hit you- she goes to jail. You hit each other- you both go to jail. No choices & no willingness to press charges. The state will do it for you.
ND needs to quit acting like DUI is normal. A misdemeanor at best. Hardly worth mentioning. It is attempted murder every time a drunk gets behind the wheel. It needs to be treated as such.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
7
One of the problems is defining what drunk driving is. There’s are huge difference between someone with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 and the 0.25 you referred to. Treating them the same way with the same fine, same jail sentence, etc. is no different than fining someone who is driving 5 mph over the speedlimit the same as someone driving 50 mph over the limit. Every serious accident that I’ve read about that is being used as a reason to increase the penalties for DUI was caused by a driver with 2 to 3 times the 0.08 level.
Like or Dislike:
14 
2
THANK YOU. That’s the message I’ve been telling for years, and no-one cares.
0.08 is not drunk. 0.15 is drunk. Enormous difference, nobody’s interested. Courts and Legislators will fight tooth-and-nail to persecute 0.08 because it’s PROFITABLE, not because it improves “safety”.
Like or Dislike:
10 
4
I don’t see a problem. You just fashion the law accordingly. Apparently studies have shown that .08 is impaired enough to make you an unsafe driver. Where as .25 would qualify you somewhere in the neighborhood of threatening the safety of others with an armed and dangerous weapon…like pointing a loaded gun at someone…Very serious.
Make the consequences reflect the seriousness of the situation. So even a worse DUI will get the “If you can’t do the time then don’t do the crime” adage to it. I think the sever penalties for poaching has really dropped the numbers in that crime….Same with DUI. It might not stop the drinking, but hopefully it’ll stop the drunk from driving if he or she realizes how much can be lost
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
In countrys’ where they have laws that actually have teeth (unlike ours), drunken driving is reduced to a fraction of what we have.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
5
How big are those countries; do they have mass transit?
Like or Dislike:
10 
11
http://www.drink-drive-lose.com/Article.aspx?a=87
Like or Dislike:
7 
5
Well here we are again with a lot of the same arguments, but regarding your stance about “Tougher laws” not being a solution…..Remember not even a year ago when that young guy hit a family head on and killed everyone? He had several DUI’s and driving under suspension (Which he was doing again) so apparently the laws weren’t really doing enough to discourage this fool from his dangerous behavior. Progressive and extreme sanctions would have had him locked up before he had th opportunity to continue doing the same thing over and over again until he killed someone.
Then again FM…..You say these are no solutions, but you never proposed something you think would be a better solution. Or are you saying to just leave well enough alone and things will take care of themselves?
Like or Dislike:
4 
6
I would like to see whiskey plates implemented for repeat offenders. The shaming plus the ability of law enforcement to pull you over at will anytime should have some effect on these individuals. The second time you make such a big mistake should have tougher consequences.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
6
What’s a whiskey plate?
Like or Dislike:
6 
2
In mn it is a white plate that starts with wh or wx. It is only required after habitual dui offenses. An officer can pull those vehicles over at any time day or night and do a spot check on the driver.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
2
That is bloody brilliant! I completely agree. I would not wait for habitual though. After the first you get a whisky plate for 5 years (that includes your wife’s car if it is in your name as well).
People need to quit looking at DUI as a minor offense and realize it is attempted murder. If a gang banger drives down your street and puts a few rounds into every house on the block as part of some initiation ritual he/she will get reckless endangerment at the least and quite possibly attempted murder for every occupant of every home he/she shot at.
Driving while drunk is the EXACT same thing. You are endangering anyone and everyone on the sidewalk or street you come across. It needs to be treated and charged accordingly.
After we legalize marijuana there will be lots of jail space for people who actually harm other people. Drunk drivers harm others. It is ridiculous to act otherwise.
Hot debate. What do you think?
22 
10
I thumbed you up Nurse.. But I disagree with ‘After we legalize marijuana’. I hope it is never legalized for anything other then medical use. And if caught driving under that influence, I hope the penalties are just as stiff.
Like or Dislike:
11 
10
What? You don’t like the idea of some people getting mellow and having munchies compared to drinking and getting loud and obnoxios? Hell…If they’d dropped this chicken crap years ago that baqsically started with Hearst pushing for anything that could be related to Hemp to be outlawed (Didn’t want to have competition for cheaper paper than his pulp mills were producing) there’d probably be less of a hard core drug problem in the country. It’s just been sold to the public as being far more harmful than it has ever been. I’ve been clean and sober since 1980 so I have no personal interest in the weed now days, but I’d have no problem with it being either decriminalized or allowed to be legal according to the way any state votes for it.
Like those kids (Well I was the same age at the time) said in the movie Woodstock after taking a toke “Marijuana….It makes people behave.” A few hundred thousand Hippies seemed to prove it at the three day event…..No fights or killings and hardly enough security to do anything about it if something did happen….Try to pull something like that off today…Just look at all the deaths around the new year from crowds suddenly stampeeding and such….Maybe a bit of weed would have mellowed those folks down…..Then again…There’s nothing wrong with complete abstinence either….I’m just saying…Pot isn’t the worse thing that could be out there…
Like or Dislike:
8 
4
The marijuana on the market today is super potent. Claims of over 25% THC are heard of.
The White Widow strain is considered the best canabis in the world. The buds have so much THC on them that you can’t see the green color of the bud at all. Many first-time users don’t realize they will probably pass out after smoking it.
It’s not the ditch-quality weed of your day Old Timer.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
Yes…Some did the ND ditch weed…..Some of us old timers did Thai Stick, Wowie Maui, Blonde Lebanese Hash, and South American cannibus that might not be quite as potent as some of the green house developments, but weren’t too much less…Thai and Hash could most likely stand toe to toe…..At one time it was extremely important for me to know the difference between the real deal and all the lower imitations…Anyway…Like anything else..Moderation should always be stressed…
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
So true.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
Just what we need, the roads filled with drivers that are all “mellowed” out to the point that they react slowly to every situation. Not only that but how would cops determine if they were bad enough to be considered under the influence? There is no test available therefore it would be at the officers discretion.
This sounds like a Lawyers wet dream.
People look at the difference and refuse to make the connection as to why its illegal.
Its not that its any worse than alcohol, its just that with alcohol we have the ability to determine how bad off you are.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I guess it sounded that way. My point was just a comparison in general….I really didn’t intend to make it sound like driving under the influence of pot was ok.
You’re right about reaction time, but then again most pot heads (Using only pot) generally aren’t putting the pedal to the metal and might actually be driving under the speed limit. But that’s not really some finding…just old observations from years ago. Non the less driving should always be done sober from everything
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
“An officer can pull those vehicles over at any time day or night and do a spot check on the driver.”
An officer can pull anyone over any time he wants to, with no other probable cause than what he believes.
Like or Dislike:
11 
2
You’re right, Gene. I’ve written in regard to this before. I’ve been stopped for a dirty license plate and for some reason that the officer never said. He just asked, “Do you know why I stopped you?” I said I had no idea. I had broken no laws. My plate was clean. My registration was up to date. I had insurance. I had signaled and was not speeding. In neither instance had I had a drop of alcohol. The “dirty plate” instance happened at a time of the night where there’s a high percentage of drunk drivers. The officer took a shot and missed. The second time wasn’t that late, but I was driving an old van. He took a shot and missed. Sometimes they take a shot and get lucky. What judge is going to believe someone’s word that he really did stop or signal when his/her BAC level is at or above 0.08? Some police routinely “profile.” It doesn’t matter how safely you are driving; they will find a reason to stop you if it’s late at night and especially if it’s dark and you’re driving a vehicle that might be used by an illegal immigrant.
I like the idea of the “whiskey” license plate, because it makes it easier for the officer. Maybe they’ll quit stopping me. Though, I will admit, both officers were courteous and respectful.
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
Then, of course, there are sobriety checks, which are little more than fishing expedition. They’ve been ruled constitutional, but then so has the demand you open your trunk on a hunch.
Like or Dislike:
9 
1
I see a
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Not sure what happened to get cut short there, but I was just going to say that I see a lot of vehicles these days pulled over and being searched. I don’t know the circumstances, but it generally makes me a bit uncomfortable to see what looks like police state tactics on the road like that.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
http://www.mankatodwi.com/whiskey-plates.php
Link to the Whiskey plate law in minnesota.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
I hope the legislature has the ‘stuff’ to toughen up the laws more then what Koppleman proposed. A democratic legislator has been trying to get these numbskulls to toughen the laws for years and has proposed what I would deem as a huge deterrent to drinking and driving in the state of North Dakota, but they have snubbed him at every turn.
The proposed $750.00 fine won’t be a deterrent to those who are the habitual abusers. Don’t be fooled by our ‘caught’ statistics. There are far more people out on the roads who are drinking and driving then are EVER caught. All you have to do is look at any parking lot of a popular ‘Happy Hour’ spot in this state to know that statement to be true.
Like or Dislike:
14 
3
Agree. The legislator is Ed Gruchalla and he was a highway patrolman. He knows first hand from being a first responder to way too many “alcohol was involved”, accidents.
Like or Dislike:
14 
1
I think there needs to be a category called “alcohol caused” rather than alcohol involved. Suppose someone has a BAC of 0.08 and is driving perfectly but is rear-ended in a blizzard by someone who doesn’t have the sense to not overdrive one’s vision. What does alcohol have to do with the accident? Yet it would still be called and “alcohol involved” accident. Why not have a “shoes involved accident”? If we aren’t careful about establishing cause-effect, we are going to adopt “solutions” that won’t solve anything and will punish people for things they did not do.
Like or Dislike:
9 
2
Gruchalla is a former highway patrol officer that developed a taste for pushing people around, and as a legislator, he can keep his hobby active.
Like or Dislike:
5 
3
I have no knowledge of him as a law enforcement officer. I do know that what he has proposed is very extreme and isn’t this slap on the hand garbage that is currently being considered.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
I have had a close relative killed by a drunk driver, so my family knows the tragedy too well.
Part of the problem, is the prosecutors and judges, too. I know of a fellow that has 7 DUI’s. Never spent a day in State Prison.
The judge will give this guy an option: state steel bar hotel or county jail with release for holidays (Thanksgiving, etc.).
The guy got released for a holiday, took his money and bought a four wheeler. He then went back into jail and worked off his fine. Why pay off the fine when you have the money, when you can buy a toy, that you should not be driving in the first place!
He has not killed anyone yet. If he does, the judge and prosecutor will be exposed for their leniency and plea bargains for a habitual drunken driver!
Like or Dislike:
10 
2
Texas and California have more drunk driving deaths then any other state. Both are death penalty states. I don’t know if they have ever handed out the death penalty for killing somebody while drunk driving but they could. How tough do you want the laws to be? If the chance of facing the death penalty doesn’t stop people then what will?
Like or Dislike:
7 
2
So what’s your solution?- prohibition
Like or Dislike:
7 
3
People who drive ‘buzzed’ never think they are out of control, or think that ‘they will hit someone’.. It is always the other guy. That is why your specific example isn’t a deterrent. They need to toughen up the laws that will make you go ‘geez maybe I should call a cab’.
While the laws they have are better then ours, honestly are not where I would like to see them. The laws need to take away vehicles, they need to take away the ability to legally drive and they need to hit the pocketbook in a very substantial way. I would like to see it somewhere in the neighborhood of two months pay based on your last tax filing.
Like or Dislike:
10 
3
Mandatory vehicle confiscation would go a long way. And you lose it whether you have a rusted 1971 Ford Pinto or a $65,000, 2013 BMW with 26 miles on it.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
2
It’s difficult to confiscate vehicles. Not all vehicles are owned outright by the driver. Many have loans which of course means banks have an interest in them. Also cities have to pay an impound lot to store the vehicles. It turns out they are unable to get enough money from the sale of the vehicle to recoup their costs. It’s all about the dollar bills which is why confiscating the license plate is a more viable option.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Changes in the law can accommodate that. When I was stationed in Germany we were informed that ‘we’ were responsible for our vehicles whether we were driving them or not.. IE I got a ticket in the mail from a road side speed camera that caught my buddy speeding.. (In town). The ticket was my responsibility to pay.
Banks might also be less inclined to give someone a loan for a vehicle if the have a DUI on their record, because it would prove that the person was an unacceptable loan risk.
All in all I consider all of that acceptable consequences of stricter laws. The onus needs to be put back onto the person drinking, not the person serving.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
Disagree. That’s just an excuse to not be responsible.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
None: you are playing fast and loose with the numbers. CA and TX have more drunk driving deaths because of the population. If you adjust for population, ND gets near the top. Most northern states do. It is our favorite past time.
Also, DUI is not eligible for the death penalty in either state. I would not complain if it was, but at the present time it is not.
Like or Dislike:
9 
3
The problem is when I went find the numbers the newest and most credible ones I could find were from 2009. That data is just too old when you consider the changes in western nd.
The dui laws in ND are already harsh enough in every case the person looses their license in one court then is sent to another and once again tried for the same crime. The second court usually sentences you to some fine starting around $500 an alcohol evaluation which will cost you another $100 and then you get the guilt trip classes whose only purpose is try and make you feel like you were a member of a German party during the 40′s which costs you another $250.
After you have paid that money completed any jail time that you are required to serve and community service. Your thinking you can get your license back nope guess what now the insurance company gets to make you pay for it for the next because you have to file SR-22 insurance with the state for 1 year and your insurance rates won’t return to normal levels for 5 years. SR-22 insurance is a whole other scam that I won’t even start on.
So after it is all said in done if your lucky you didn’t loose your job for misdemeanor crime. As many of you put when I said NDSU football players need to be suspended the same thing as a speeding ticket
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
“So after it is all said in done if your lucky you didn’t loose your job for misdemeanor crime.”
1. Attempted murder is not a misdemeanor.
2. I agree the classes are completely useless. I have never met anyone who said they benefitted from them or that they changed their behavior.
3. Ist DUI (no damage and no injuries) should be a minimum of 14 days jail time (work release) and loss of license for one year. 2 DUI you just earned yourself 60 days (work release) and 5 years. 3 time you are out. Minimum of 1 year in prison.
As we have discussed before, I am not a big fan of hitting flies with bricks when it comes to punishment. Jail/prison should fit the crime. I believe in front loaded sentences. The first time is bad enough you do not want to repeat it.
A friend of mine got a DUI. It cost him roughly 5000 when all was said and done. I tried to be sympathetic and failed.
My son was injured while riding in the car with a drunk driver. He was not driving. He was a passenger. I never visited him in the hospital.
I am very hard on this subject because I am tired of picking up dead bodies (or worse, those who live only to go to a nursing home for 10 years till they die).
DUI is most certainly not a misdemeanor
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
Before anyone goes there: I am well aware of the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony. I believe felony is way overused in our system. Felonies have severe consequences: no firearms (how many ND law and order types would have that second drink in one hour if they knew they would no longer be able to have their guns) and no voting.
I believe both of the above are silly. Once a debt to society is paid it is paid. Disenfranchising a person forever is simply a way for the ruling elite to keep those most likely to vote against them away from the poles. Same with guns. If you used a gun in the commission of your crime, maybe. Peeing on a sidewalk in front of school can be a felony. I find no reason to take your guns or right to vote for that.
Attempted murder is a felony. To say it is just a mistake is what gives people permission to do it.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
The guy who blows .09 is not guilty of attempted murder yet is held to the same standard as the guy who blows .2 and most likely would kill somebody.
The problem I have with the DUI in this country and state is you go to court TWICE for the same crime.
The first court is usually refered to as admin court where the suspend your license for 90 days on a first offense and and the burden of proof is on the defense. The only other court in this country that acts in this way only takes you to court once and it is the IRS.
If you (Flying Nurse) claim you have so much interest in history look into the case of Jim Trafficant. He fought for years to change the IRS and it’s corruption only to be thrown into jail because by the people he fought against.
The current DUI system is a JOKE hands down only because it focuses on humilation when nobody is injured and penalities that effect a persons ability to pay the fines opposed on them by a second court. Again this is the only crime where you can be convicted of twice in 2 different courts. This is very much the defination of Double Jeopardy.
Yet our own constitution that we hold so near and dear to our hearts says this isn’t possible. But for some reason beyond logic we can have trials for people and punish them twice because they drank too much and drove home.
Now don’t get me wrong here I’m not talking about getting to the point where you can’t see straight and you are in no position to walk let alone drive. I’m standing on the fringe and the people in the fringe aren’t the people driving the wrong way down interstate or the people who are running over camp grounds.
The thing is the anti drinking movement has taken things so far that anybody who has 2 shots in 30 minutes and then drives is gulity of murder.
Like or Dislike:
8 
3
First off none: the penalties between .09 and .2 are different. One is extreme DUI.
I disagree that .09 is not attempted murder. I would not have a hard time with stiffening the penalties like we talked about then moving the limit back to .1. You have to realize that as soon as you do that someone will come along and say “I did not commit attempted murder at .101.” No matter where the mark is set, someone will say that their case is different. They always have and they always will.
The FAA says no BA above .04. My employer say no booze within 24 hours. Since the pilots work 12 on and 12 off for seven days (7 on and 7 off), they cannot drink for 8 days at a minimum. Any detectable alcohol from stale booze on your breath to blowing a .01 will get you fired.
Why are the rules so tough? In my industry mistakes are very unforgiving and people end up dying (last month alone helicopter EMS had three fatalities, a hard landing which destroyed the helicopter and injured one, and an autorotation – engine quit and they had to gracefully fall to the ground – that destroyed the helicopter and injured four).
Despite all that, the most dangerous part of my job is still driving to the airport.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
“The thing is the anti drinking movement has taken things so far that anybody who has 2 shots in 30 minutes and then drives is gulity of murder.”
You are correct. Drinking then driving will have serious consequences. I am for making those consequences more severe.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
None: There is a difference between anti drinking and “anti drinking while driving”. Myself, I didn’t grow out of the mentality that I could drive “after a few”, until I was in my late 20′s. Had a close call and nobody got hurt. Drink 2, 4 or 29 shots if you like. Its a free country. But if you get behind the wheel with even an iota of impairment, then you are being selfish, reckless and irresponsible. How can anybody defend driving while impaired? It doesn’t hurt to think of others.
Like or Dislike:
6 
2
Raise the BAC limits and quit useing DUI’s as revenue enhancement. Get the legit drunks off the roads and quit harrassing those who had a couple of drinks with their meal. As previously posted…most alcohol fatalities involve BAC;s well over .10. I am not worried about being killed by someone with 2 beers in him swerving on the road at 25mph trying to get home.
Like or Dislike:
8 
10
A drink or 2 with a meal isn’t a problem. (perhaps the 2nd drink for a tiny 90lb woman might be). But “just had a couple of drinks, officer” (after one has had 5,9 or 10) is generally a cry of denial, disingenuousness and dishonesty from an alcoholic who does not accept that he/she has a problem. And that cavalier, uneducated and unfortunate attitude toward alcohol, is exactly why we have such a problem is this part of the country.
Like or Dislike:
12 
2
The problem isn’t the lack of strict laws, the problem is societal. How many conversations have I overheard where somebody knows someone that got a DUI..and they speak of it as though they fell on bad luck. There’s no “stigma” to the perpetraitor anymore… for that matter, there’s no stigma for pretty much any type of broken law short of rape or murder. Its a “we’re all victims now” society. What if, just once, a person were ostracized when convicted of DUI by their family and friends? After all, they broke a law of society. I wonder how many of you are willing to look a friend or family member in the eye and let them know you consider them dirt for what they’d done? Does anyone think those found guilty of DUI nowadays have a hard time finding a new ride to the bar when they lose their driving privelages? Nope… misery loves company in todays society. Make a law outlawing that and see how it goes.
Like or Dislike:
10 
1
” the problem is societal”
Of course it is. And as such, DUIs will not go away. Alcoholism and binge drinking in ND are viewed as a way of life. There will always be a rationalization. “It’s cold.” “There’s nothing to do, I’m bored.” “I want to be sociable.” Good Lord, UND will do absolutely nothing because they know their reputation as a party school is what brings in enrollment. And if the supposed “brains” of the state won’t act, why would anyone else?
Like or Dislike:
10 
2
“How many conversations have I overheard where somebody knows someone that got a DUI..and they speak of it as though they fell on bad luck. ”
FN will probably reply to this by saying “they’re just doing their job”, but I’m going to say it anyway. Next time someone you know gets pulled over for a DUI, have a conversation with them before AND after they speak to an attorney.
I’ve witnessed the attitude shift numerous times. The most recent was a person that spends the majority of weekends bar-hopping. Not a problem….unless the “hopping” is accomplished by repeatedly getting behind the wheel. After years of successfully dodging the enforcement bullet, this person was finally caught. In the immediate aftermath, there was crying, soul-searching, and confessing. This person said that they knew they’d been lucky all those times they hadn’t been caught, and that they were, in all honesty, overdue for GETTING caught.
Of course, that was all PRIOR to writing a check and seeking counsel from a defense attorney. It only took ONE visit to the lawyer’s office to have a new outlook on the whole situation. Suddenly, it wasn’t, “I’ve been lucky all this time, I SHOULD have been caught years ago”. It had morphed into, “That officer had no good reason to pull me over. I’ve been unfairly singled out…”
Yup. just doin’ their job.
The person in question *almost* learned the lesson they SHOULD have learned, but then it all swerved into a ditch and they learned a more important lesson….courtesy of the attorney.
Like or Dislike:
9 
1
People go to great lengths to excuse their sins. It is our favorite past time. The first response was honest, the second (he had no right to pull me over) just self serving.
Makes me think of “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lawinski.”
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
For the record. I do not mind, and in fact I encourage the cat and mouse game between prosecution and defense. That is what helps keep us free. Sometimes bad people get off. The system is designed that way. The founding fathers thought it better the guilty go free than the innocent go to prison.
With the exception of the death penalty in the 20 century, it has worked pretty well
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
Gene, you did not read my link. It clearly states the law is written that way but the officers have been instructed by the supreme court of mn to wait for a violation first so the charge will stick. This can be as minor as 1 mph over the speed limit or a slight roll through a stop sign. I like this law because it identifies these individuals to law enforcement and the public, and these are the most dangerous individuals on the road because they have been charge twice with a dui within ten years. These are the people we need to focus on and get off the road. The second they were caught, they gave up all of theyre privelages and liberties when it comes to driving. In my opinion a first offense should require whiskey plates for 4 years and a 2nd offense should be loss of your liscence for life.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
I certainly don’t disagree with the consequences, I just find it hard to believe that such a major shift will ever happen in ND. I’ve listened to my police scanner in GF, and the number of traffic stops on VIPs is surprising.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
S. I have obriety checks are a worthless waste of money. How often do we hear of people takin a different route because everyone at the bar was talking about where the checkpoint was located. Don’t get me started on how unconstituional they are. The officers would be better off driving around covering more ground and being a surprise to the drunks. I have no problem with being pulled over and warned for a minor infraction but I have a major problem with having to stopped at a checkpoint when I have followed the law
Like or Dislike:
4 
6
What I love is when they ‘announce’ they are having a sobriety checkpoint with the local media before they have it.. It is almost as they are saying…
‘Ok guys, we are going to have a checkpoint, so don’t go out and drink that night ok… We want our numbers to look good’
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
They have to announce them. As Gene said they were vetted by the Supreme Court as long as their position was made public. Otherwise it could be construed as unreasonable search and seizure.
It is perfectly legal for them to surround every bar in every direction with a checkpoint; as long as its position is known ahead of time.
Morning radio in Tucson used to announce where the radar vans were for the same reason.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
http://www.mankatodwi.com/vehicle-forfeiture.php
Confiscation of a vehicle for repeat offenders may not be that far fetched!
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
http://www.mankatodwi.com/recent-successes.php
This link is for you scott. These sc..um bag lawyers are bloating about how they played the system and got their clients charges dismissed. Life would be much nicer without lawyers.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
Its not the driving, its the drinking. Start at a young age, if you have ANY alchohol offense under 21, you cant drive. If you get a DUI, you cant legally consume alchohol, period. Get caught drinking, the ban extends.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
None, not all dui offenses are punished the same in north dakota. The blood alcohal content plays a role in the amount of jail time/susspension time. And as you become a repeat offender, the penalties become more severe with a class c felony and up to 5 years in prison for a 5th offender.
http://dui.drivinglaws.org/ndakota.php
I believethe current penalties punish a 1st time offender and should make anyone think twice before getting behind the wheel, but could be increased for people showing a blood alcohal content of .18 and higher. Where north dakota fails is the penalties for a second + time offender should be more severe and include forfiture of vehicle and liscense.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
I just heard that the Duluth paper has suspended their Talk About It sections. It might be time to send an email to the Herald asking them to keep this one going…..If it’s true that Fargo dropped theirs then this might be next. Anyway you might want to drop them a line to show support for this….Otherwise I guess there’s still WDAY & WDAZ sites with this
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Try the Daily Republic in Mitchell, SD. They are probably your best bet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Please stay on-topic, or the thread will be shut down, and nobody wants that.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2