Atlasian National DUI Bill (Amendment at Vote)

[Badger]

a.) Fritz, we need your vote!

b.) Mr. President?

Ah, sorry. Your question slipped my mind. I don't think I would veto the entire bill, as it's important that we have a national DUI policy, but I'd like to see what the final bill is before I make any judgment.

Mr. President, Mr. Vice President:

Though only a lowly regional Assemblyman, I have a decidedly unique perspective on the issue currently before the Senate. I would respectfully request that you both hold off making a decision on this bill before I have a chance to make several points that I believe may aid a fully informed decision on this matter. I only ask that you wait until tomorrow, Monday at the latest, as my wife and baby are coming home shortly from an overnight trip, plus I'm frankly tired. Your patience is greatly appreciated and will be, I hope, rewarded.

[Badger]

I thank you, members of the Senate, for allowing me the opportunity to address this august chamber. I would note that one of my primary motives to speak on this bill was regarding the amendment that was passed before I could speak, but as I supported the amendment this oversight is moot. :-)

I am an assistant prosecuting attorney and spend much of my job prosecuting DUIs. Although I much prefer my current role, I used to be a defense attorney and defended more than my share of DUI cases as well. I've argued dozens of such cases at jury trial and countless hearings on motion to suppress, and am proud to have the reputation as someone who prosecutes DUIs aggressively. Suffice to say I have little sympathy for DUI offenders.

That said, I have some concerns about this bill, even with the 0.08 BAC limit.

I do not believe the federal government can constitutionally impose a mandatory "surcharge" fine to a local/state/regional statute as this bill seems to do. While the bill certainly could effect anyone prosecuted under federal DUI statutes, keep in mind that 99.9+% of DUIs are prosecuted under state or local statutes in municipal/county courts. The rare exceptions prosecuted in federal courts are primarily persons caught driving under the influence on federal lands (such as on Wright-Patterson AFB which I know gets a few). I assume the Senate is content with this rather than wanting to vastly increase the federal judiciary staff (prosecutors, public defenders, judges, support staff) to federally prosecute most DUI offenses.

While I don't want to give the Senate any bad ideas, honesty compels me to admit the federal government could pass a law denying highway funding to any state/region that refuses to impose a minimum fine for DUI of (e.g.) at least $2,000, which is of course the way that the 0.08 BAC limit became a de facto national standard. That said I would oppose the Senate doing so as---even for someone who spends much of his job prosecuting DUIs, and sometimes sadly sees the wrongdoer get away with it---such a tremendous minimum mandatory fine for even a first offender is just way too draconian.

Take Ohio as an example: The current minimum mandatory fine for a first DUI within 6 years is $375, and even this is up 50% (from $250) since only 2 years ago. This proposal would increase the minimum mandatory fine over 500%! Heck, the mandatory $2,000 fine suggested here is about 150% the minimum fine Ohio requires for a felony DUI (i.e. a 4th conviction within 6 years, or 6th within 20 years). While one could argue if one does the crime they should do the time (or pay the fine) and DUI requires such a heavy crackdown, I submit that such a dramatic increase in mandatory penalties would push many DUI offenders to take their case to trial out of desperation rather than simply plead out. Similarly some prosecutors (not myself, but others I've dealt with) may be more inclined to reduce charges in close cases they might otherwise successfully prosecute if there is common perception the federal law is overly harsh and unwarranted.

While if the law is meant to apply only to the relatively rare federal DUI case, although I would personally not support it if I were a senator as being too draconian IMHO, I can't honestly say it would cause widespread problems in local judicial systems. I would, though, argue such a dramatic increase imposed nationwide could very well have this effect. Please remember we're talking about mandatory minimum fines; regional and state statutes provide for significantly larger potential maximum fines for a court to impose on a case-by-case basis when the individual facts justify it. I don't believe such a federal mandate could be imposed outside of tying it to continued highway funding, and even then one might convince me that a national minimum fine on a first offense should be as much as $500 (again, IMHO), but without further amendment this bill presents serious constitutional and federalist issues.

Thank you, senators, for the opportunity to be heard on this important matter. I am open to any questions or comments.

[Badger]

Thank you Badger, I hadn't considered the legal issues you present, and they are valid concerns.

I don't think the fine itself is too high personally, but I suppose that's up for debate

You're very welcome. The main thrust of my post was going to be in opposition to lowering the .08 limit to .05 (I had a lot of professional perspective I wanted to add, but VP Bacon King's passing the amendment made all that typing unnecessary---Thanks BK!)

My professional opinion is that neither a federally imposed national minimum fine applied to state DUI laws (as opposed to requiring changes in state/local DUI laws as a condition of continued highway funding) or trying to "nationalize" DUI prosecutions through vastly expanded US Atlasian Attorneys Offices are possible. The former is unconstitutional, the latter is grossly infeasible. Imagine making most local petty theft cases like shoplifting a matter for federal prosecution as opposed to handled in local municipal/county courts (shudder).

The opinion on the fine is admittedly more a personal view rather than firmly routed in my professional expertise, though I hope that using Ohio's DUI laws as an example, plus the opposition of someone who actively prosecutes DUI offenders for a living together might encourage the Senate to reconsider just how gargantuan the proposed mandatory $2,000 fine really is.

One final point: Mandatory fines are just that: They allow zero discretion by a court for the individual circumstances of an offenders case and circumstances. Don't get me wrong: I strongly support the minimum incarceration, fines, and license suspensions Ohio law provides for even on first offenders. But perhaps the Senate should consider requiring states (by constitutional methods like highway funding conditions) increasing the maximum possible fine for DUI offenders so courts can really hammer the worst offenders. Just thinking out loud, your worthies....

[Badger]

So, uh, the last vote on this amendment was a week ago. Is the voting done here or what?