THE DESIGNATED DRIVER: A DWI ROADBLOCK
by John Lee
Ignorance of the law does not prevent the losing lawyer from collecting his bill. --"Puck" magazine
A "designated driver" is someone who chooses to abstain from alcohol for the evening, then drives everyone else home. Surely this is the safest, most responsible, most sure fire method of avoiding an alleged DWI? Complete abstinence from all alcohol products, for your entire adult life, must certainly guarantee total freedom from ever having to worry about violating the DWI law? Carefully avoiding the breaking of any traffic laws will surely protect a citizen from ever having to worry about being involved in a confrontation with police, wouldn't it?
Four years ago, Jenny, 32, a store clerk, and her husband Bill, 30, spent the evening with friends after work. Bill enjoyed himself with his buddies, watching T.V., and by having a few drinks. Bill did not concern himself with any legal limit, knowing that Jenny would be driving home. Jennifer does not drink.
It was after midnight, as the young couple headed home. Driving through a rural county, they came upon a DWI roadblock conducted by the Tennessee Highway Patrol. They stopped for the mandatory police checkpoint. They had not commited any traffic violation.
Bill had a six pack of beer in a paper bag, in the floor by his feet. One beer can was open. (Tennessee's "open container law" does not apply to passengers.) Jenny had left her driver's license at home, so she gave the trooper, a captain, her name and address information, so that he could run a routine check.
Jenny's driver's license number allegedly pulled up as suspended or revoked on the government computer. She had no outstanding speeding tickets. Several years before, she had suffered a minor fender bender, and had to show proof of insurance. Upon sending the government her insurance verification, she assumed everything was okay. She never received notice that her license was (allegedly) suspended or revoked.
Jenny was asked to voluntarily agree to submit to a field sobriety test. She agreed, and passed perfectly. The patrolman asked her to volunteer to take the test a second time. Again, she agreed and passed perfectly. The officer advised her that she had "passed with flying colors."
The patrolman decided to take the couple down to the local jail, promising them it was just routine, everything was okay, and that they would get her driver's license information there.
Jenny and Bill were dropped off at the jail, and the patrolman went back to his roadblock. The jailer had no idea why these people were in his jail, and had to call the patrolman on the radio. That was when they learned that Jenny was being arrested for alleged DWI. Her husband was also being arrested alleged DWI by "consent," for allowing his "drunken" wife to drive his car, since the family vehicle was registered in his name. He was not for charged with violation of the open container law. The highway patrolman presumed that since Jennifer's license showed as suspended or revoked, she must have been arrested for a prior DWI (as if that made any difference), therefore she was now guilty of DWI again, regardless of any sobriety test results or whether any alcohol was involved. Jenny had never had a DWI. (There are many other reasons why the government computers lose a driver's records, and are discussed later.)
Jenny was asked to voluntarily take a breath-alcohol test (under threat of losing her driver's license). She agreed, and tested 0.00% BAC. Bill was not asked to take a breath-alcohol test. Both individuals were held in the jail overnight, and had to pay bond the next morning, $100.00 non-refundable cash each, in order to be released. They also had to pay for their car being towed, another $75.00.
Since they could not afford an attorney, they asked the judge for a public defender. Their government lawyer advised them they had a strong case against the government, and that they would transfer out of general sessions court, and would get a fair hearing in criminal court. The lawyer obtained their arrest reports, in which the police captain alleged that Jenny had failed the field sobriety test.
The day of their preliminary hearing arrived, three years after their arrest. Their government lawyer, instead of pleading their case before the court, spent his time hanging out with the police. He then advised his clients to plead "no contest," which allegedly is not exactly the same as "guilty"; Jenny was to accept her DWI, and agree to four days in jail (double the standard minimun sentence), and Bill was to accept a charge of "public drunkenness," with four days in jail. The legal minimum was only two days in jail. It was the best he could do, their lawyer assured them, and they had no other choice. Testifying to the court would only inflame the aggression of the district attorney even further, and lead possibly to a one year sentence for both of them, he advised.
Bill and Jenny accepted the plea bargain, without ever getting to tell their side of the story.
Jenny was ordered to attend DWI school, and pay $32.00 a month for probation, for the remainder of her one year suspended sentence. Her license to drive was revoked. When she attempted to get a restricted license for driving to work, court clerks refused to supply her with the necessary paperwork. Total fines and court costs were $1,000.00 for Jenny (plus monthly probation fees), and a $700.00 fine for Bill, plus he had to pay an additional $300.00 to the "drug program." Bill had not been charged with being under the influence of any drug, nor was he required to take any blood test. It is general knowledge among fellow judges, lawyers and court victims that "Crazy Judge Weiner" was an alcoholic who drank liquor in his courtroom while judging his fellow citizens, and who was allegedly arrested for DWI on numerous occasions. The Federal Bureau of Investigation in Knoxville, Tennessee, declined an investigation, alleging, "It's up to the voters to get rid of him. We don't do that kind of investigation." This is despite recent news headlines of Tennessee judges arrested for rape, dealing crack cocaine and stealing general sessions court funds.
Today, Jenny still cannot afford to have her driver's license reinstated, nor can she now afford the expensive high-risk vehicle insurance. So she just takes her chances on her long commute to work. Both work for a very low income; to pay an unexpected $3,000 to the government was devastating to their family's budget. Jenny keeps an eye on the local news, hoping for the day she see's the Highway Patrol captain again, killed in the line of duty. [Interview]
|
