MADD: Over 50% of convicted drunk drivers continue to drive on a suspended license
The gorgeous spring weather last weekend led to the usual increase in party behavior around town -- particularly in North Amherst -- and even more unfortunate, an increase in impaired drivers on our roadways.
Carl Howard, age 43, stands before Judge Estes
APD arrested two and UMPD arrested one. All of them first time offenders and all of them took the telling legally admissible chemical breath test, and failed.
Chandler Burnham, age 21, arraigned before Judge Estes
Click to enlarge//read
Mothers Against Drunk Driving is pushing a proposal in Massachusetts that would require interlock devices on cars for first time offenders. One way of helping ensure they don't become 2nd time offenders.
Or killers.
Brian Bevilacqua, age 21. All three had their cases continued to next month
10 comments:
"Chandler" has to be one of the most loathsome names ever. His behavior proves it.
Those who are against drunk driving and intellectually honest need to be mature enough to make a distinction between those who ought not have driven and those who are truly dangerous.
It's like with Radon -- sure, you'd like not to find any, but never forget that Granite is itself radioactive (it is -- slightly). And now that our sensing equipment has gotten this good, we can pick up trace amounts of Cocaine in drinking water -- amounts that are irrelevant.
0r lead water pipes -- the problem in Flint was the water that was so polluted that it was acidic enough to dissolve the lead. There are lead pipes in North Village....
It's like the argument against the NeoCons -- we can't invade every country where there is a dictator wearing a funny hat. And those who oppose drunk driving need to "pick their fights."
Though I heard something on the scanner about an DUI drugs arrest made by APD...miss that one Larry? Ya slippin'?!?
Yeah, it was pot.
One of these days I'm going to have to follow one of those through the system to see how they turn out. Breath Test was 0.0% because the BT can't measure for pot.
Maybe it's just the opposite way around-drunk D.U.I. drivers need to "pick their fights", not try to kill innocent-un-involved bystanders through criminal negligence-I didn't ask to become "Crippled for life" by the D.W.I driver who hit me-thinking otherwise is just clear cut mentally ill-and criminal-which is the social disease of alcoholism-get an "Education" and spare us-pleeease !!
12:18 -- what was the perp's BAC?
What's your name?
Larry, DMV used to deal with OUI/pot by suspending license on possession charge.
That worked -- the real sanction in OUI is loss of license.
Now possession is now legal, what are they doing, if anything.
Cop thought perp "impaired" -- every bit as dangerous, and now they want to legalize it?
Anon 412: The answer is nothing happens to a license in an OUI drugs case. Absolutely nothing. The courts have ruled that implied consent (what makes your license status an issue if you fail or refuse a BT) does not extend to a drug case. The only license suspension for a drugs case is upon conviction with a Guilty finding (cwof does not count). The chances of getting a guilty given the wording of the statute is near impossible. Contact APD. They have a couple of DREs IIRC (drug recognition experts).
Most cops just file for an immediate threat and put it in the hands of the RMV.
God help us if they legalize it without thinking about these issues. As Colorado or Washington state if they wished they had some foresight on the issue(s). I say legalize it but make it like booze…regulate, tax and limit. Smoke up all day long in your own home.
Fathers, i assume are also against drunk driving.
Post a Comment