310-293-6963

NHTSA defines an “alcohol-impaired” accident as involving at least one participant with a BAC of 0.08 or higher. That includes drinking pedestrians and bicyclists struck by sober drivers. Note too that fault is not assigned; many alcohol-related crashes are caused by sober drivers.

Let me add some context: In 2006 for example, there were 10.5 million drivers in accidents in the U.S. Of those drivers, 14 hundredths of 1 percent (0.14%) were alleged drinkers (0.01+) in fatal accidents.

“The June checkpoint lasted for 2 1/2 hours with 406 vehicles passing through. Two of four people stopped for further testing were arrested on a charge of driving under the influence or driving while intoxicated.” (November 8, 2009).

That’s 406 drivers – plus their passengers – detained with no probable cause. “Detained” is really a euphemism for ‘arrested’ since the trapped drivers were not free to leave until a trooper decided they had not been drinking and all their papers were in order. Of the 406 drivers, 2 were charged with DUI or DWI, which is a mere 0.5 percent of the drivers stopped.

Equally important is the fact that 50 percent of the drivers subjected to more intensive testing were released after being forced to prove their innocence, which means the police guessed wrong in judging sobriety in half the cases and could be wrong in the other half.

It is not uncommon for police to exaggerate when filling out DUI reports or simply rubberstamp the forms, e.g., “glassy eyes” – check; “wide right turn” – check.

“Chicago police officer Richard Fiorito is now facing 37 lawsuits alleging he intentionally targeted gay and lesbian drivers to issue false DUI arrests.
The lawsuits claim Fiorito was looking to capitalize on overtime pay issued to police officers when they appear in court to testify in a DUI case. Fiorito made 313 DUI arrests between January of 2007 and June of 2008; the officer was even honored by MADD for his efforts. Most of these arrests were against gay and lesbian suspects. He supposedly targeted these individuals when they left gay and lesbian bars or frequented gay and lesbian areas.
New dash cam evidence is pointing to the fact these arrest reports may have been exaggerated if not totally falsified.”
http://www.duiattorney.com/news/6136-more-lawsuits-against-chicago-dui-cop-richard-fiorito

When conducting sobriety roadblocks, police are supposed to systematically check cars, e.g., every third vehicle or every fourth. But that doesn’t mean they don’t ignore the rule or that drivers won’t be subjected to harassment for “driving while black” or being a “long-haired hippie” or a “goth punk.” A driver could be subjected to excessive scrutiny based on profiling, e.g., a 24 year-old male in a pickup truck.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allowed roadblocks (Michigan v Sitz) was based on drastically inflated statistics. Chief Justice Rehnquist (and the justices who sided with him in the 6-3 ruling) weighed the greatly exaggerated numbers against what Rehnquist called the “slight intrusion” of being stopped. That’s tricky, twisted logic because he transformed the Bill of Rights (specifically the 4th Amendment) to a slight, insignificant inconvenience – then put his weightless creation on the balance scales against magnified figures taken out of context.

Drivers and passengers funneled like sheep through roadblocks are more than inconvenienced – they are being robbed of their rights.

Stephen Beck

That sentence sounds like propaganda lifted directly from MADD’s website – because it simply isn’t true. MADD efforts have done nothing but help the government create criminals by raising the minimum legal drinking age and lowering the definition of “drunk” to 0.08 BAC.

When MADD was a fledgling organization, NHTSA provided it with technical assistance and grants to create new chapters that peddled lying propaganda to the public and gullible legislators. With MADD’s support, our “representatives” in Washington then employed the criminal act of extortion to coerce states into raising the MLDA and redefining “drunk.”

In the interim, punishments for drunk driving increased, growing from harsh to sadistic. But now drivers with low BACs are subjected to draconian penalties once reserved for actual drunk drivers (0.15+ BAC). That’s not enough for MADD – it wants the limit set at 0.05 BAC – which would create more criminals.

“We believe that the best practice is not to drink and drive and that means zero. If that’s neo-prohibitionist, then we are,” declared MADD CEO Chuck Hurley.

The drunk driver problem is – and always has been – with drivers who have BACs well above 0.15, the former legal line. But MADD considers all drinking drivers, regardless of their BAC, to be “violent criminals.”

“Drunk driving is the most frequently committed violent crime in America,” said Hurley. “Law enforcement is out there protecting the public from people who, almost like terrorists, are killing and maiming far too many.”

If MADD has its way and one is “drunk” at 0.05 BAC, there will be even more “terrorists” on the roads. To combat Hurley’s delusional terrorist threat and effectively lower the legal limit to a “zero tolerance” level, MADD and NHTSA are diligently working on alcohol interlocks as standard equipment in all vehicles. If / when that happens, every driver will then be a victim of the MADDness, forced to prove they’re innocent of consuming alcohol.

The war against drinking driving – the MADDness – has produced victims we rarely hear about: Millions upon millions of drivers who have harmed nothing have been thrown in jail. For many, jobs have been lost, credit ratings ruined and homes gone. Thousands have committed suicide while behind bars on DUI charges. Cities use DUI arrests as a source of revenue – that’s highway robbery. Furthermore, every American is a victim since the Bill of Rights has taken a beating, e.g., unconstitutional roadblocks.

That’s what MADD’s efforts have accomplished.

Stephen Beck