Recent survey by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) showed that driving while using a cellphone has increased over the past year despite the fact that this has been banned by a large number of states. How widespread is this problem? According to reports about distracted driving, 18% of people surveyed by NHTSA admitted to having sent text messages or emails while driving and half of 21 to 24 admitted to driving while texting. This is a major problem.
Distracted driving is just as dangerous as DUI, but Pennsylvania lawmakers are turn a blind eye to it.
As everyone can see, this behavior is growing and the results are often devastating. According to NHTSA’s statistics, 9.4% of traffic fatalities were distracted driving related. According to many other studies, driving while texting is as dangerous or even more dangerous than DUI. The problem is, there is a huge hypocrisy in the way law makers treat both of these crimes.
Both DUI and distracted driving are crimes that are fatally dangerous. Both have claimed lives of innocent people with bright futures in front of them. However, DUI is treated as a serious criminal offense that results in jail time, license suspension, heavy fines and a permanent criminal offense while distracted driving is “penalized” with a slap-on-the-wrist $50 ticket or some such minor punishment.
The message I get from this hypocrisy is that lawmakers want to save the lives of those killed by DUI but don’t care about those killed by distracted driving. That’s the wrong message to send. How am I wrong?
While most of us will be enjoying the next few weeks as part of the holiday season, police all across Pennsylvania are gearing up for the DUI Checkpoint season. As a part of their DUI enforcement efforts, PENNDOT, Pennsylvania State Police and local police from all across the Commonwealth will be setting up more and more DUI checkpoints along Pennsylvania’s busy roadways.
But as taxpayers, aren’t we entitled to ask, “Are DUI Checkpoints worth the money?”
Police in Pennsylvania are gearing up for more DUI checkpoints over the holidays.
According to a recent article, ” Statistics don’t justify sobriety checkpoints“:
Consider that over 1 million vehicles went through 1,469 California sobriety checkpoints in 2008. Police arrested just one-third of 1 percent of those motorists for drunken driving. A similar analysis found that in 2007, less than 1 percent of the more than 181,000 drivers stopped at Pennsylvania checkpoints were arrested.
This is pretty consistent with the police reports in the local papers. The DUI arrests normally represent only 1% or less of the vehicles stopped. That’s 99 drivers being stopped, searched and being treated like a criminal for one POSSIBLE drunk person.
Not only are DUI checkpoints a bad idea statistically, but the economic costs are much higher than the alternatives. Once again the author of this article asks:
These exercises in futility are extremely expensive. Checkpoints can cost more than $10,000 each time they’re set up compared to $300 for each roving patrol. Considering how tight state and local budgets are in this dismal economy, is it really a wise investment?
The sad fact is, politicians don’t make laws based on statistics or the economic impact. They make DUI laws based on what lobbyists tell them to do. MADD and other powerful DUI lobbies are hard at work pushing their agendas and politicians fall in tow and dare not question the simulated reality.
This is why we need to wake up to these facts and continue to ask for a better way.
Pennsylvania Bans Driving while Texting
Pennsylvania driving while texting penalties underscore the political nature of criminal penalties in PA. Under the new measure, drivers found guilty of driving while texting (DWT) would face a $50 fine. Compare this to the penalties for DUI and you will notice a huge discrepancy.
Pa. Senate Approves Texting While Driving Ban
Governor Expected To Sign Measure
POSTED: 10:51 pm EDT October 31, 2011
UPDATED: 3:10 pm EDT November 1, 2011
HARRISBURG, Pa. — Pennsylvania is getting set to join more than 30 other states that ban all motorists from texting while driving.The state Senate on Tuesday voted 45-5 to approve an amended version of a bill it easily passed in June. The state House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved the bill on Monday.Gov. Tom Corbett is expected to sign the bill.
The bill would make texting behind the wheel a primary offense so that police can pull over motorists for that violation alone.The penalty is $50 but police may not seize the cellphone or other device.However, talking on a cellphone without a hands-free device remains legal for motorists after the House removed a provision that would ban the activity. Nine states have such bans.
Both acts are equally dangerous and can result in serious injuries and even death. However, there are powerful DUI lobbies like MADD and the PA DUI Association to push for more stringent DUI laws while there are powerful cell phone lobbies who push politicians to lighten cell phone related laws. Take a look at the video below and ask yourself is there really a difference?
One of the most blatant examples of “Policing for a Profit” are red-light cameras, so much so that when lawmakers discuss the benefits of installing them, the whole discussion focuses on revenue and not safety:
Pennsylvania DUI and Traffic Enforcement is Motivated by Greed not Safety
State sees green in red-light cameras
Six years ago, Philadelphia began using cameras at red lights to ticket dangerous drivers.
Will other towns and cities across Pennsylvania soon get the green light?
A panel appointed by Gov. Tom Corbett has recommended a statewide expansion of traffic-light cameras. The Transportation Funding Advisory Commission says it could generate more money for highway and bridge repairs, and it could make roads safer.
The proposal is sparking a sharp debate between transportation officials and critics who say the cameras don’t make roads safer.
While the question of safety is debated, there is growing evidence that the cameras can provide much-needed revenue.
“The goal of the governor’s commission is to find $2.5 billion in recurring revenue after five years, and that’s what we’re trying to do in part with this particular recommendation,” said Dennis Buterbaugh, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation.
“If any of these recommendations can also increase safety or driver convenience, then we’re really going after them,” Buterbaugh said.
The commission must issue its final report by Aug. 1. Any expansion of traffic-light cameras in Pennsylvania would require approval from the General Assembly and the governor.
Philadelphia began using cameras at stoplights for traffic enforcement in 2005. State lawmakers approved the program in 2002, but it was three years before the cameras went up.
The city employs 70 red-light cameras monitoring 15 intersections for speeders. Data from the Philadelphia Parking Authority indicates the strategy can be lucrative: Total revenues collected between April 1, 2009, and March 31, 2010, topped $11 million, with about $6 million in expenses.
The PPA issued more than 127,000 citations and nearly 6,000 warnings in that year. That’s up from about 90,000 citations issued in the previous two years and about 25,000 during the two years before that.
“If we’re going to look at this as a good revenue source [for the state], we certainly would have to expand the language and allow for more intersections,” Buterbaugh said.
The whole motivation is money, not safety. The supporting evidence is dollars signs not safety figures. Does this sound familiar? It should, because this is the exact same way DUI enforcement is treated. Here in Pennsylvania, DUI checkpoints are setup on roadways to rake in the profits from non-DUI equipment enforcement infractions or warrants being served, but does nothing to curb the drunk driving problem. Similarly, many very effective educational and treatment based programs are shunned in favor of those that generate more revenue.
Keep in mind, whether it’s speeding or drunk driving, it’s money not your safety that matters.
MADD money
Do you think it is proper for a court to order anyone to support a failing charity that is politically active that uses its political might to fund itself?
Well, that is what happens whenever you plead guilty or are found guilty of a DUI in every state. The Judge imposes fees, fines and costs as well as ordering that you have to attend a “DUI Victim Impact Panel.” You are court ordered to fund MADD every time this happens. MADD has a monopoly in some of these fees and have a total monopoly on the ”DUI Victim Impact Panel.”
MADD
They use the money to advance a wholly political agenda. A long time ago, MADD had a good and laudable goal that I believed in which is to stop drunk driving through education, not what it is now which I do not support and think is an abortion of the original vision and goal of the true charity. Now, its unabashed goal is decidedly a money game of supporting itself through court-ordered and federal/local funding with the veneer of trying to establish a neo-prohibitionist agenda to end all forms of social and responsible drinking. They now use their money and political might to elect politicians who then later pass the laws that require all those convicted of DUI to attend these panels and pay these fees to MADD, and also to elect (or have appointed by those who they helped get into office) judges who impose the sentence that requires from offenders money to feed (over $7,500,000.00) their further political and monetary self-serving goals. They use their money to fund federal elections to back candidates who in turn funnel federal money (over $8,000,00.00) to them.
What other “charity” does that? None.
Here is the proof from MADD’s own federal 990 form.
MADD money
According to Charity Navigator, they rate the MADD “charity” at 32.4 out of 100. According to their research, they name the CEO compensation for fiscal year 2009 as follows:
| Charles A. Hurley | Chief Executive Officer | $234,208 | 0.52% |
According to Wikipedia,
According to the Obama-Coburn Federal Funding Accountability Transparency Act of 2006, MADD received $56,814 in funds from the federal government in fiscal year 2000, and a total of $9,593,455 between fiscal years 2001 and 2006. In 1994, Money magazine reported that telemarketers raised over $38 million for MADD, keeping nearly half of it in fees. This relationship no longer exists. 2001, Worth magazine listed MADD as one of its “10 worst charities.” In 2005, USA Today reported that the American Institute of Philanthropy was reducing MADD from a “C” to a “D” in its ratings. The Institute noted that MADD categorizes much of its fundraising expenses as “educational expenses”, and that up to 58% of its revenue was expended on what the Institute considered fund-raising and management. Charity Navigator rated MADD at 36.72 on its charity rating scale for the 2006/2007 fiscal year, based on it efficiency and capacity.[19] MADD reported that it spent 16% of its budget on fundraising that year. Charity Navigator reported MADD’s total revenue for the year as $49 million (US). In 2009 MADD took in $41,006,038 and paid salaries of $20,537,936, over half of their income.
You can download and see for yourself MADD’s entire federal 990 form.
Anyone else want to form a “charity” with me?
Apple has agreed to remove apps that alert people to the location of DUI checkpoints. As we have written before, a group of four senators wrote letters to Apple, RIM and Google requesting the censorship of apps that can be used to alert users about DUI checkpoints. RIM removed two popular apps previously and Apple’s decision to also block DUI apps leaves Google as the only major smartphone company that has not blocked the use of these apps,
Google is the Only Major Smart Phone Company that is not Censoring DUI Apps
I find this decision by Apple to be very disappointing but not surprising. Powerful DUI lobbies like MADD can pose a serious threat to companies that disagree with its agenda. One of the most dangerous strong-arm tactics these lobbies use is spreading propaganda about the company and how it is “supporting drunk drivers.” Most companies would rather not have to deal with this type of negative PR and simply bow down to agenda being pushed forth.
One thing that they haven’t considered is that one of the necessary prongs to prove that a checkpoint is constitutional is that there must be advanced publicity of the fact that they are going to be held. Without this app, there is less publicity. Now, one means of free publicity of these sites to conform with constitutional demands is gone. Oh well.
In reality, these types of applications have a very good and legitimate use by allowing users to know where DUI checkpoints are set up so drivers can save time by avoiding them. Every time I approach one of these checkpoints in PA, I think to myself, “I really wish I had avoided this checkpoint and had taken another route instead.” Even though I have committed no crime and am perfectly sober, like many other drivers I also feel threatened at this checkpoints because I know about the arbitrary nature of the arrests made and the hostile behavior exhibited by many police officers.
Under the guise of “keeping the public safe from drunk drivers,” police departments in Pennsylvania and all over the country are set up DUI checkpoints with the real motivation being to rake in the proceeds. I recently found a great video by the Institute for Justice that explains policing for profit that highlights this point.
If you get stuck at a DUI checkpoint, please refer to my blog post “What to Do if You’re pulled over for DUI in PA” for important tips on how you can protect yourself against being charged for a DUI. If you are charged with a DUI at a Pennsylvania DUI checkpoints please contact an expert PA DUI attorney at 1-866-MCSHANE.
I recently came across media reports about a man who was jailed in Pennsylvania on charges of his ninth DUI. Since he has the right to be presumed innocent while is current case is on going I will instead refer to his history of eight DUI convictions. However, he is not the only one, many states have reported drivers who also have a high number of DUI convictions yet still re-offend. My complaint is that lawmakers are not doing the right things to keep problem drunk drivers off the road.
A man was jailed in PA for his ninth DUI. Are additional penalties working?
Politicians are being pushed by MADD and other DUI lobbies to enact stricter penalties for repeat DUI offenders. Currently, under certain circumstances, a person convicted of a third and subsequent DUI in Pennsylvania faces from 1-5 years in jail. There have been many proposals to raise the penalty range and even make a repeat DUI a felony in PA. Lawmakers supporting these bills believe that harsher penalties will deter people from getting behind the wheel while drunk. This, however, completely ignores the reality of DUI.
In many cases, especially when dealing with problem drinkers, these people are not thinking about consequences when they get behind the wheel. Beyond any amount of jail time is the very real possibility of death when driving drunk. If death is not deterring them, then it is highly unlikely that additional jail time will. Under typical circumstances, DUI is not a crime of premeditation and deliberation but one of poor planning and/or lack of judgement due to temporary impairment. Simply put, a person drinks too much to the point where they are too drunk to make a sound, rationale and fully conscious decision never thinking about the consequences of DUI.
Lawmakers need to focus on effective educational and treatment programs to help people with drinking problems overcome their addiction. Instead of being condemned out-right, and expensively warehoused, they should be treated like patients who need help. By showing concern for this person and helping them overcome their illness, lawmakers would be helping them as well as helping society. Increasing penalties isn’t solving the problem and it really never will.
As the premier DUI attorney in PA, I see it as my duty to zealously fight for the rights of all of the public and especially those accused of DUI in Pennsylvania. As a part of my commitment to public safety, I am currently involved in a battle over access to the DUI training materials used to trained Pennsylvania police officers:
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Pennsylvania’s state open records agency was ordered Tuesday to take another look at its decision to grant access to police drunken-driving training materials to a lawyer who specializes in DUI cases.
The state Commonwealth Court told the Office of Open Records to conduct a hearing that will more fully explore whether releasing course materials from Harrisburg Area Community College used to train police officers might endanger public safety.
The open records appeals officer also was directed to examine the records in question.
Harrisburg lawyer Justin J. McShane wants to see “any and all course materials and/or books, videos, manuals pertaining to DUI training.”
The people have the right to know what PA cops are taught about DUI.
First off, the notion that granting access to these course materials would create some type of public safety hazard is absolutely ludicrous. It is fantasy. For Pennsylvania to claim that they have some sort of “super secret DUI sauce” like the secret formula to Coca Cola or something and that only they can know about it or the roads will be full of DUI drivers is as silly as it sounds.
By and large DUI is not a crime of premeditation and deliberation but rather one of an unplanned poor choice. It’s not like drug dealing or complex securities fraud that requires a lot of planning.
Second, even if that were true that Pennsylvania had “the super secret sauce” and somehow or another Pennsylvania were to hold a top secret means of DUI detection and enforcement, why not share it with the other states and end the DUI epidemic in the US?
Third, if it is such a super secret, then why aren’t the materials collected after they are taught to the police officers. As this curriculum has been taught for decades, there have been a lot of officers who have copies of these materials. Some have retired. Some have been fired. These are uncontrolled documents. They are not picked back up after they are distributed. They are not treated consistent with the way anyone would keep secret documents such as serializing them, controlling them, tracking them, and having those who receive them sign any sort of acknowledgement that they are sensitive or secret. Who knows where they are. Surely, once they are distributed in class they can be copied and passed around to whomever. Well, that is except for a criminal defense attorney.
I am very familiar with the information that is included in these manuals like how to conduct and evaluate field sobriety tests, what are the symptoms of impaired driving and how administer breath tests. In fact I have more training in DUI detection and enforcement than perhaps any other active police officer and trooper in this state. None of this is new information and none of it can be used to pose a security risk.
I agree with Justice Dan Pellegrini in his dissent when he aptly wrote:
In no way can disclosure of course material related to DUI training possibly be a public safety hazard if released, so any hearing on remand would be futile.
The main motivation behind my challenge is to obtain the exact training manuals the police use for Pennsylvania DUI training so we can be sure of the exact instructions and procedures the police are trained to use. All we want to do is establish the facts so we can ask “why” when police deviate from their standard procedures to see whether or not it is legitimate. But you know what? The Right to Know Law is supposed to be set up so that no reason or explanation is requested. It seems as if I had been less than honest and had a straw person request it, there would not have been such a fight. All that is talked about by everyone is that I am a DUI specialist asking for these super secret materials. It is totally irrelevant under the law.
The public has the right to know the level of training police receive for DUI on Pennsylvania taxpayers dollars. The people have the right to know and the “establishment” is playing around with that plain and simple right.
This all leads me to ask: “What is the Government trying to hide?” BE OPEN.
Another week, another breath testing scandal. Whether it’s Philadelphia or our nation’s capital it seems like states and counties all over the country are reporting the same issue- faulty breath testing equipment leading to erroneous BrAC readings and false DUI arrests and even convictions. This week it’s Santa Clara’s turn.
The problem is not limited to these cities, it is a widespread problem that stems from the incorrect implementation of DUI breath testing devices. These devices do not measure alcohol directly and thus can flag naturally occurring substances in the body as ethanol. For example if a diabetic has a very low sugar level, or someone in a hyperglycemic state whose body transforms the ketones to isopropanol and/or naturally produced acetone can be flagged as alcohol. In some cases, the use of everyday items like a hand sanitizers has lead to a DUI breath machine reporting a false reading. You can even get a DUI for eating a sandwich. On top of that there are obvious design faults like in the scandal in Santa Clara County.
The icing on the cake is that individual police departments are responsible for maintaining and calibrating their own breath testing equipment, without any meaningful government oversight typically. Imagine an office manager asking an employee to perform a tedious task as per a set schedule and create reports that no one will ever check. What are the chances of this task getting done correctly? This is exactly what is going on in police departments all across the country. Officers with very little training are asked to calibrate their own DUI breath testing equipment without any regulatory body to check and see if they are in compliance.
The really sad part about all of this is that innocent people have been arrested and convicted of DUI violations based on this faulty evidence. They have suffered prison time, lost pay, license suspensions and the humiliation of being a convicted criminal all because of faulty breath testing.
This has really gone on long enough. How many innocent people have to suffer before our politicians wake up and find a better solution?
It’s really sad to see our legal values deteriorate before our very eyes. One of the underlying themes in criminal justice is the presumption of innocence UNLESS proven guilty. However, this currently does not apply to DUI!
That is because DUI is the most politically charged crime in the United States today and through the media, powerful DUI lobbies like MADD have lead a calculated disinformation campaign. Their propaganda is aimed at brainwashing the public to the point that anyone accused of a DUI is assumed to be guilty. On top of that, the ways the laws are structured cops don’t need any solid evidence to arrest and charge you with a DUI. It’s a perfect example of “You’re Guilty Because I Said So”.
Take this recent example:
GROVE CITY, Pa. — A citizen in a western Pennsylvania school district is threatening to sue to prevent a man from taking the superintendent’s job because he’s awaiting trial on charges he drove drunk while his blood-alcohol content was nearly four times the state’s limit.
The point here is the man is awaiting trial on Pennsylvania DUI charges- nothing has been proven yet. This citizen who is suing is making a broad assumption based on the DUI accusation without giving the man accused a chance to defend himself in court. Unfortunately, this type of rationale is prevalent amongst folks and this mindset spills over to jury members who walk into the courtroom assuming guilt in DUI cases. Of course, the media plays a big role in cultivating this mindset through sensationalist articles which do not mention all of the facts. For example, here in Pennsylvania local newspapers print the names of all the people arrested for DUI, publicly humiliating them, but never print a retraction or even a mention of the many people who go on to be acquitted of these charges. Once again it’s the presumption of guilt in DUI cases.
This is one of my main motivations behind this blog, to educate all people on the dangers of assuming guilt.
DUI defense lawyers are encouraged to post any interesting stories about the dangers of assuming guilt in the comments below.
Connect with us:
Connect with Attorney McShane
Attorney Profile on TheMcShaneFirm.com
Justin McShane on Avvo
Justin McShane on FaceBook
Justin McShane on Google+
Justin McShane on JustiaJustin McShane on LinkedIn
Justin McShane on Super Lawyers
Justin McShane on Twitter
National College for DUI Defense- The Truth About Forensic Science
Videos by Justin McShane
