Red flag laws but for DUI

[MillCreek]

https://mynorthwest.com/mynorthwest-politics/washington/4035481

A proposed bill in the Washington state legislature to have red flag laws but for drunk driving.  I will be interested to see how this goes.

[JN01]

I'd say it has a good chance of passing in authoritarian Washington, trying to make Minority Report a reality.

[AZRedhawk44]

There's already mechanisms to deal with this issue without changing the law, but again, no one wants to actually use the existing laws.

Having grounds for an IDPO would require some sort of proof.  Prior DUI(s), proof of prior vehicle damage or injuries to people, things like this.  These are also opportunities to just suspend a person's license or price him out of driving by making insurance prohibitively expensive.

Any judge authorizing these without signfiicant proof (in a one sided hearing with no defendant) should be disbarred or unbenched or whatever the term is.  Then held personally liable for damages.

[Kingcreek]

Removed

[AmbulanceDriver]

There's already mechanisms to deal with this issue without changing the law, but again, no one wants to actually use the existing laws.

Having grounds for an IDPO would require some sort of proof.  Prior DUI(s), proof of prior vehicle damage or injuries to people, things like this. These are also opportunities to just suspend a person's license or price him out of driving by making insurance prohibitively expensive.

Any judge authorizing these without signfiicant proof (in a one sided hearing with no defendant) should be disbarred or unbenched or whatever the term is.  Then held personally liable for damages.

Having been hit by an uninsured motorist driving on a suspended license, this is not the deterrent many people think it is.  And despite the fact that Oregon mandates at a minimum all drivers carry liability coverage, the state *also* mandates that all drivers carry uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage.

[AZRedhawk44]

AmbulanceDriver... would this Red Flag DUI system stop a driver?

Nope.  Just make it that much more extraspecialillegaler.

[AmbulanceDriver]

Oh, I'm not saying these "Red Flag DUI" laws are in any way useful.    Unfortunately the reality is that nothing short of incarceration/seizure of vehicles will prevent someone who is determined to drive from driving.   Yes, the law abiding won't drive on a suspended license.  Yes, the law abiding won't drive without insurance.   But they're not your problem, since they're also not the ones that are driving drunk!   

Which is the exact same argument we make regarding so called "gun violence prevention".  The law abiding, who are those that will be following whatever stupid regulations the leftists come up with, are not the ones out there committing the "gun violence". 

I agree that actual enforcement of existing law, with consequences commensurate to the crime committed, on the other hand, will have a significant impact on both those problems.   

It's hard to be a repeat drunk driving offender if you're serving a 10 year sentence for vehicular manslaughter (too light a sentence in my mind, but that's an example).

It's equally hard to be a repeat offender for a drive-by shooting if you're serving a 10 year sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm from the *last* drive by you committed.

[K Frame]

Sure, because other kinds of protective orders have been SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO very effective at keeping people from breaking the law...

The most effective method of preventing them from driving impaired is remove them from the public through incarceration. No access to alcohol (for the most part) but more importantly, no access to motor vehicles.

For those who TRULY show they don't give a *expletive deleted*it if they drink & drive, multi year sentences.


"Nope.  Just make it that much more extraspecialillegaler."

Thank you Judge Dean Wormer...

And after they get out, he can sentence them to Double Secret Probation!

[AmbulanceDriver]

Gal I dated about 25 years ago worked in the county court's DUII diversion program.  The number of chances our court system gives these idiots before they face any *actual* consequences is absurd.   Some people were on their third of fourth go round of this diversion program.  As long as they completed the diversion, the charge would drop off their record, they'd be "first time offenders" again and eligible for diversion again.  Because the way the law was written at the time there was no "one time only" shot through the diversion program.

And yes, that pissed her off to no end.

[MechAg94]

Gal I dated about 25 years ago worked in the county court's DUII diversion program.  The number of chances our court system gives these idiots before they face any *actual* consequences is absurd.   Some people were on their third of fourth go round of this diversion program.  As long as they completed the diversion, the charge would drop off their record, they'd be "first time offenders" again and eligible for diversion again.  Because the way the law was written at the time there was no "one time only" shot through the diversion program.

And yes, that pissed her off to no end.

That is done via plea deals for felonies quite a bit as well.  First time felon who has actually committed several but pleads guilty to lesser crimes to make the prosecutor's life easier.

[MechAg94]

The bill allows petitions for an IDPO to be filed by people close to the respondent — such as an intimate partner or family member — or even by law enforcement and prosecutors.
...........
To issue one, the court must determine the individual poses a serious risk of driving while intoxicated. And once granted, these orders pack a punch:

Ignition interlocks: Respondents could be required to install devices in their cars that won’t let the engine start if alcohol is detected on their breath.
Alcohol monitoring: They might need to wear devices that track alcohol consumption.
24/7 sobriety program: Daily or regular check-ins to ensure they’re staying sober could become part of their routine.
Mandatory evaluations: Courts could order substance use evaluations and treatment plans to help respondents get the help they need.

Since you call it a red flag law, does that mean this can be issued without the victim able to defend themselves?  I would like to know what evidence the judge will need to grant one of these orders.  Will they be granted just because someone makes claims?  Sounds more like a way to legally screw with people or family members you don't like.

Just like the gun stuff, I can see some of these getting pretty crazy.  And just like the red flag laws, I doubt judges will fail to issue one. 

[K Frame]

Unfortunately, it's apparently far from uncommon for someone to get around a DUI ignition interlock.

I'm not finding hard and fast numbers, but it apparently happens far more often than it should. And it appears that punishments for evading the interlock... aren't exactly stiff in many cases.