What's the point?

To secure a defendant's attendance at trial, a magistrate may impose any reasonable condition of bond related to the safety of a victim of the alleged offense or to the safety of the community. -- Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 17.40(a)

The other day I was sitting in court when the judge called up everyone making their first appearance. He had the prosecutor read the probable cause statement. On every DWI case he asked the prosecutor whether there was an accident or a breath test.

The first defendant was a young man (I'm guessing he was in his 20's, but as I'm getting older, my ability to guess ages is in rapid decline). There was no accident in his case - but there was a breath test. A breath test of .000. The arresting officer suspected he was under the influence of something other than alcohol so a drug recognition evaluation (more voodoo science for another day) was performed. Apparently our hero had taken a central nervous system depressant or two.

The judge order the young man to install an ignition interlock device in his car.

I found it to be quite odd - as did the attorney sitting next to me. It's not like an ignition interlock is going to detect the presence of CNS depressants (other than alcohol) in one's breath. If this young man had a problem, it certainly didn't appear to be with alcohol.

A couple of minutes later we had DRE number two on the morning. Again we had a breath test well under the legal limit. And, again, the judge ordered the defendant to install an ignition interlock device on her car.

The law says a judge shall order an ignition interlock device as a condition of bond for a defendant who has at least one prior conviction for driving while intoxicated. The law also says that a judge may order an ignition interlock device as a condition of bail in a case with a breath or blood test over .15.

So what's going on here? Ordering the installation of an ignition interlock when a person clearly was not intoxicated by consuming alcohol makes little or no sense. It certainly doesn't do anything to enhance the safety of the community.

All it appears to do is line the pockets of the companies that distribute, install and maintain the devices. I do wonder where that money goes.

Interlock bill would make a mockery of the 10th Amendment

According to my latest issue of Interlock Focus, published by Consumer Safety Technology, Inc. (the folks who make the Intoxa-Lock), los federales are looking to make (yet) another end run around the 10th Amendment.

Senators Tom Udall (D-NM) and Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) are sponsoring the "Drunk Driver Repeat Offender Prevention Ace of 2011." Unfortunately for the two senators, it doesn't look like they could come up with a fancy little acronym to make it sound more palatable. Better luck next time, guys.

The bill would require states to pass a mandatory interlock requirement on drivers accused of DWI with a prior conviction. The states would have until 2014 before los federales would start taking away highway funds. Sound familiar?

It should. This is the same formula Congress used to force states to raise their legal drinking ages to 21 and to lower the per se alcohol concentration to .08. The bill would dock any state who didn't go along 2% of its road construction funding. That rate would increase to 4% in year two up to a maximum of 8%.

Now here's a challenge for Sens. Udall and Lautenberg -- please point out to me where in the Constitution driving while intoxicated is listed as a federal crime. And you tea-drinking, limited government loving Republicans, do explain to me how this bill advances the agenda of limiting government intrusion in our lives.

Somehow I don't think I'll be getting any responses.

It's all about that filthy lucre

If you ever had any questions about how much of a moneymaker DWI is, this article should put them to bed. A lawsuit has been filed in federal court in North Carolina over the bidding process for supplying ignition interlock devices to the state. 

In its suit, Monitech Inc. says DMV Commissioner Mike Robertson broke state bidding rules by withholding the renewal of its state contract.

Since 1989 the company has been the state's sole provider of ignition interlocks, which test the breath of convicted drunken drivers for alcohol before they can start their vehicles. The devices are often mandated for people convicted of a DWI to keep their driving privileges.

First there was Monitech, Inc. who, since 1989, had an exclusive contract with the state to provide the devices. Then came a company called Law Enforcement Associates (with some seriously connected investors) who sought to purchase Monitech and its exclusive contract in 2004.  

Mobley has previously alleged he faced retaliation from DMV officials after he refused in 2004 to sell his business to Law Enforcement Associates, a firm whose investors included then-Senate Majority Leader Tony Rand. The Fayetteville Democrat was co-chairman of the Governor's Highway Safety Program, which oversaw DWI prevention programs.

A close political ally of Rand's, then-DMV commissioner George Tatum, also owned LEA stock with his wife. Tatum was the state official with the ultimate authority to renew Monitech's contract with the state.

More than a dozen elected officials and their family members have owned LEA stock, including former Gov. Mike Easley, current Gov. Bev Perdue and her husband. Records also show that state agencies purchased at least $192,683 in surveillance equipment from the small company, much of it bought without seeking competitive bids.

Monitech declined the offer and alleges the state has retaliated against it ever since. In the meantime, Smart Start got into the game and filed suit to open up the bidding process to other companies.

DWI is a moneymaker for the states and for the companies seeking to profit on the misfortune of others. The almighty dollar has caused lawmakers and judges to disregard the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments in their pursuit of the most draconian laws ever for an offense that is but one step removed from a traffic ticket.

Prosecutors recruit judges who volunteer to sit around and wait for search warrants for blood to come across their desk (usually at the jail or police station). The prosecutors prepare fill-in-the-blank form warrants replete with conclusory statements passing off as fact. The officer then hands it to a judge who looks for the signature line and signs it. Then it's off to the nurse to get a needle jammed up your arm.

The judge has ceased to be neutral and detached. The judge has become part of "the team."

Damn the Bill of Rights, keep those greenbacks coming.

Diverted from justice

While I was sitting in a courtroom at the Harris County Criminal (In)justice Center the other morning I couldn't help but listen in on the proceedings at the bench.

It seems that a woman who was charged with driving while intoxicated chose to enter the DIVERT program. As part of her "probation" she had an ignition interlock device installed in her car. It appeared that there were a few incidents in which the device detected alcohol levels greater than .02 on her breath. Someone (the DA's office, the probation department, pretrial services?) wanted to terminate her participation in DIVERT.

The judge looked at the printouts and asked the woman a few questions before telling her attorney that he would allow her to withdraw her plea, enter a new plea and leave her on probation instead of sentencing her to 30 days in jail. The attorney asked the judge what he was supposed to do.

The attorney pointed out that the pretrial diversion agreement was between the defendant and the DA's office. The judge pointed out that she had entered a plea of guilty in exchange for 30 days in jail as part of her entranced into the program. Per the contract, the 30 days was probated.

The attorney said he didn't think the DIVERT program was even legal.

The judge told the attorney that he had raised concerns about the legality of the program on prior occasions and that he made no attempt to hide his concern about defendants entering pleas of guilty as part of the program.

Keep in mind that these were just allegations that she had consumed alcohol while on probation. There was nobody present to testify that the device was working properly on the days in question. There were no maintenance or calibration records. There was no expert to testify that the interlock device was reliable. There was no one to testify as how the little box even works. How does it clean itself after a blow? What is the scientific basis of the box? How does it calculate an alcohol concentration?

It's a little box with a tube.

But the defendant was boxed in. She had already plead guilty. She was, to put it bluntly, screwed.

I have written many times about my concerns with the DIVERT program - and those concerns have to do with the practice of the defendant entering a guilty plea before the court. As I have stated before, DIVERT is not a pretrial diversion, or intervention, program; DIVERT is deferred adjudication for first-time DWI offenders. The program is not legal and it is questionable whether anyone who participates will be able to expunge the arrest from their records.