Friday, February 5, 2010

Missouri chief justice calls for more focus on treatment of DWI offenders

Jefferson City, MO
Missouri's chief justice told lawmakers on Wednesday that putting more nonviolent offenders in prison is not the answer to the state's drunk driving problems.

"Perhaps the biggest waste of resources in all of state government is the over-incarceration of nonviolent offenders and our mishandling of drug and alcohol offenders. It is costing us billions of dollars and it is not making a dent in crime," Justice William Ray Price told the House of Representatives in the annual "state of the judiciary" speech. "We may have been tough on crime, but we have not been smart on crime."

Price's speech came hours before a major DWI bill received its first hearing. The bill, proposed by state Rep. Bryan Stevenson, R-Webb City, would require all courts in the state to enter DWI convictions into a statewide clearinghouse, making it easier for multiple drunken driving offenders to be prosecuted. The bill would also increase penalties for some multiple offenders and reduce the sentences of those who seek treatment while in prison.

Stevenson stressed that final provision in opening the hearing, with Price in attendance.

"This is directly in line with what Justice Price was talking about this morning," Stevenson said.

The issue of making various changes to the state's DWI laws promises to be one of the more high-profile debates of the 2010 legislative session.

In a series of stories in 2009, the Post-Dispatch found that persistent drunken drivers were routinely avoiding felony charges; plea deals were allowing many repeat offenders to avoid convictions; and drivers who refused blood-alcohol tests were not missing a day of driving.

Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat, called for reforms in the series' wake, and in December he proposed legislation that would crack down on the most severely intoxicated drivers and enforce better tracking of prior offenses.

Tracking of the offenses — and deciding which cases get moved from municipal courts to circuit courts — received much of the attention in Wednesday afternoon's hearing.

Trying to enforce Missouri's existing tougher laws on repeat offenders is difficult, said St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch, because some municipalities don't keep good enough records on first-time DWI offenders. Without those records, McCulloch said, it's impossible to impose tough sentences on the most dangerous offenders.

McCulloch testified that he was in favor of most of the provisions in Stevenson's bill, but he warned that moving too many cases to circuit courts, without increasing funding for the courts, would be problematic.

That point was part of Price's morning speech, as he said that the state's funding for drug courts has lagged behind. Those courts focus less on punishment and more on treating the offender's underlying drug or alcohol problem, an approach that Price said should be applied in similar DWI courts.

"The goal is always to have safer highways, not spend millions of dollars on putting people in prison if they don't need to be there," Price said in an interview. "Our laws are as strict and harsh as any in the nation. But we need to make them more practical."

McCulloch agreed with Price's approach, suggesting that it's better to have a first-time offender back on the road with a restricted license than to take away his driving privileges only to have him back in court for driving without a license.

Stevenson said he supports more funding for DWI courts, though the provision isn't in the bill he presented Wednesday.

Other DWI bills have been presented in the Senate by Sen. Jolie Justus, D-Kansas City, and Sen. Matt Bartle, R-Lee's Summit.

At a hearing earlier this week, Bartle said he hoped the Legislature would pass a bill "free of gubernatorial politics."

"If we just end up with a DWI bill that just puts more people behind bars, we will have done nothing to reduce drunk driving," he said.
\
Missouri DWI Criminal Defense Attorneys

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by iLitigate at 0 Comments

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

New Missouri DWI law would toughen penalties for drunken driving

Jefferson City, MO
Legislation being touted by Gov. Jay Nixon could cause some big changes concerning how driving-while-intoxicated charges are handled by police and the courts.

Along with judges, prosecutors and anti-drunken-driving advocates, Mr. Nixon has proposed changes to DWI laws following problems with some court systems in the state.

The proposals include: requiring repeat DWI offenders, drivers with a blood-alcohol level of 0.15 or more, and drivers who refuse to submit to a blood-alcohol test, to be charged in a state court; cracking down on first-time offenders with a BAC of 0.15 or more; and expanding ignition interlock system use.

While Buchanan County has had its share of drunken drivers, a Buchanan County prosecutor's report showed 525 DWI charges out of 527 arrests for the crime in 2008.

*
The urgent problems, Buchanan County Prosecutor Dwight Scroggins said, stem from the eastern side of the state.

Currently, drivers can refuse a Breathalyzer test if they are pulled over for driving under the influence, though it results in an automatic one-year license suspension. The case then is taken to two courts: criminal court for the DWI, and civil court for the suspension. Due to the separation, a decision in one usually doesn't affect the other.

"What happens, and what was going on in St. Louis, was that ... on the criminal side, in order to get them to plead guilty on the DWI ... some of the prosecutors were agreeing to let them win on the civil side," Mr. Scroggins said. "So they let them win on the one-year suspension."

Due to the complexities of multiple municipal courts, bigger metropolitan areas don't utilize the same streamlined system as that found in Buchanan County, where the courts are connected to the same database as the sheriff's department and Missouri State Highway Patrol.

"If you have a connected state court system like St. Joe, where they do things the way they're supposed to do them, it goes into that same system," Mr. Scroggins said. "You go to St. Louis County, where there's 94 different municipalities, and some follow it, some don't."

The communication breakdown helped drivers convicted of several DWIs in multiple courts avoid receiving potentially harsher sentences, Mr. Scroggins said. "As far as they know, it's a first offense," he said. "So they never go to jail, they never go to state court."

Legislation is being written by Rep. Bryan Stevenson. R-Joplin, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, with help from Rep. Rachel Bringer, D-Palmyra, a former prosecutor, with hopes of filling in the cracks of faulty court systems. If passed, one of the biggest changes to affect Buchanan County would be having any person who blows more than a 0.15 BAC on a Breathalyzer test go to state court. Currently in St. Joseph, the minimum for state court on a first offense is 0.20.

"All the research will tell you that (more than) a 0.13 to 0.15, when people are driving, you're dealing in all likelihood with a repeat drunk driver, whether they have any prior arrests or convictions or not," Mr. Scroggins said.

Other legislation includes a more thorough alcohol assessment for first-time offenders, expansion of the ignition interlock system in vehicles, and making it a crime to refuse a Breathalyzer test.

Mr. Scroggins said the new approaches would help safeguard people.

"It's clear to us that, in order to (keep drunken drivers off the road), we're going to have fix these other things," he said.
St. Louis, MO DWI Attorney

Missouri SR-22 Filing Proof of Financial Responsibility

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by iLitigate at 0 Comments

Missouri governor calls for stricter DWI penalties

Jefferson City, MO
Intent on making Missouri roadways a safer place, one of the major objectives of the 2010 regular session is to come up with reforms to the state’s drunken driving laws.

Gov. Jay Nixon has proposed sweeping changes that would crack down on the worst offenders of Missouri’s driving-while-intoxicated law and enforce better tracking of prior offenses.

“There are simply too many gaps in our current system,” Nixon said. “We must take bold and decisive steps to reform the way DWI cases are dealt with.”

Plans call for taking thousands of drunken driving cases out of municipal courts and having them heard in state courts.

The governor and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are looking to make changes as recent national drunken driving statistics show that more than half of alcohol-impaired drivers involved in fatal crashes blew in excess of 0.15.

Missouri law makes it illegal to drive with a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent.

Many states have rules in place targeting “hard core” drunken drivers, and Missouri officials want to add the state to the list.

Nixon’s initiative calls for making it a crime to refuse a blood-alcohol test. Those drivers, repeat DWI offenders, and anyone who registers in excess of 0.15 percent would have to go before a state court and be subject to steeper penalties.

Ignition interlocks would be required for anyone who was over 0.15 percent and found to be driving or who refused to submit to a roadside test.

Currently, refusing a blood-alcohol test can result in one-year suspensions of offenders licenses. But the governor said it is one of the state’s biggest loopholes. He said that many drivers go to municipal court where they are successful in pleading down their charges and avoiding both a DWI charge and suspension of their license.

Also on the agenda is a requirement that local police and courts enter DWI arrest and case information into the Missouri Highway Patrol’s tracking system, which is now voluntary. Failure to comply could result in withheld grant money.
DWI Lawyers - St. Louis, MO

Missouri SR-22 Insurance Quotes

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by iLitigate at 0 Comments

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Missouri DWI law reform proposed by Gov. Nixon announced at MADD office in St. Louis

St. Louis, MO
Gov. Jay Nixon on Wednesday proposed sweeping reforms to the state's DWI law that would crack down on the most severely intoxicated drivers and enforce better tracking of prior offenses.

The Democratic governor said his proposal had bipartisan support, which would be essential in the Republican-controlled Legislature.

He laid out his proposal in the Overland office of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, in front of portraits of people killed by drunken drivers. He was flanked by the House sponsor, Rep. Bryan Stevenson, R-Joplin, and co-sponsor Rep. Rachel Bringer, D-Palmyra.

The governor also visited Hannibal and Jackson to discuss the legislation. A bill had not been prefiled Wednesday.


Nixon promised reforms last month after the Post-Dispatch exposed failures by St. Louis area police, prosecutors and judges to punish drunken drivers.

The newspaper found that persistent drunken drivers were routinely avoiding felony charges, plea deals were allowing many repeat offenders to avoid convictions, and drivers who refused blood-alcohol tests were not missing a day of driving.

"Today we are presenting comprehensive reforms that will make Missouri safer by strengthening and reinforcing our drunken driving laws," Nixon said Wednesday.

He did not detail how much the reforms would cost or who would pay.
MORE METRO
bullet Video: Nixon proposes stronger DWI laws
bullet Special Report: DWI
bullet Get news, columns, photos and multimedia from the St. Louis area


Some of Nixon's proposals directly addressed failures identified by the Post-Dispatch investigation.

For example, the bill would take thousands of DWI cases out of municipal courts annually. The Post-Dispatch found that few DWI cases in municipal courts in the St. Louis area resulted in convictions.

Under Nixon's plan, all repeat DWI offenders, drivers with a blood-alcohol level of 0.15 or above, and drivers who refuse to submit to a blood-alcohol test would be charged in state courts, where the most serious cases are prosecuted.

That would be a sea change in how DWIs are handled locally. The majority of DWI cases in the St. Louis area go through municipal courts.

Slightly more than half of all drivers who were given blood-alcohol tests registered at least 0.15, according to the newspaper's analysis of more than 25,000 DWI arrests.

It was unclear how prepared state courts would be to handle a major influx of cases, or whether municipalities would suffer from a reduction in revenue.

Last month, St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert P. McCulloch expressed support for letting municipal courts manage DWI cases for most first- and second-time DWI defendants. Under Nixon's plan, many of those cases would end up on the desks of county prosecutors, where the governor said they would be handled more equitably. McCulloch could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

At least one veteran municipal prosecutor said he thought shifting cases from municipal to state courts was appropriate.

"State courts have more power than we do," said Darold Crotzer, the Clayton prosecutor. "Some of those drivers need to go to jail, and it's difficult for us to send them to jail because the money comes right out of the police budget."

Nixon also called for requiring local police departments and courts to use the Missouri Highway Patrol's DWI tracking system, which is now voluntary.

The Post-Dispatch found that poor record-keeping often prevented local authorities from recognizing when a driver had prior offenses and could be charged with a felony under Missouri's "three strikes" law.

Departments that fail to comply could be penalized by having grant money withheld, similar to sanctions in place for cities that fail to report traffic stop data.

Nixon also proposed making it illegal to refuse a blood-alcohol test. Under current law, drivers who refuse the test face an automatic one-year revocation of their licenses.

That's one of the harshest sanctions in the state law. But the newspaper found that prosecutors often bargain away those suspensions as part of plea deals in criminal cases, letting uncooperative drivers keep their licenses.

Prosecutors said it was a tool to get guilty pleas in cases that were tough to win without test results proving the drivers were drunk.

Nixon's staff said it wasn't decided yet whether a criminal sanction would replace license revocation.

A few criminal defense lawyers scoffed at the idea of criminalizing the refusal to take a breath test. Gary Earlywine, a lawyer who specializes in traffic cases in St. Charles and St. Louis counties, noted that DWI defendants often face other traffic charges, such as careless and imprudent driving.

A charge of refusing to take a breath test "would just be another one you could arrange a settlement on," he said.

Nixon also called for harsher sanctions in cases where drivers refuse a blood-alcohol test or register at least 0.15 percent, including forcing them to get a device that prevents a vehicle from starting if the driver has alcohol in his system. Currently the device is required only for repeat offenders.

The thinking is that the high blood-alcohol content would signal a problem drinker — someone who poses more of a threat than someone who made a one-time mistake of having one too many.

Travis Noble, a local defense lawyer who specializes in DWI cases, said the threshold for harsher penalties seemed arbitrary.
St. Louis, MO DWI Defense Lawyers

Labels: , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by iLitigate at 0 Comments

Monday, November 2, 2009

DWI summit called for by Gov. Nixon to include prosecutors, judges, police and MADD


Jefferson City, MO
Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon has summoned police, judges, prosecutors and anti-DWI advocates to Jefferson City on Wednesday to discuss ways to better enforce the state’s drunken driving laws.

Nixon spokesman Scott Holste said Nixon plans to have about two dozen people meet in the Truman Building to talk about ways to “close the gaps” in how the state handles DWIs.

Nixon called last month for revamping the state’s DWI laws “to improve a system that’s riddled with loopholes and dark corners.” He spoke in reaction to our stories that have exposed failures to punish drunken drivers.

The first installment found that authorities routinely fail to charge persistent drunken drivers with felonies, as the law allows. The second installment showed how metro St. Louis courts routinely plea-bargain away DWI convictions, even for many repeat offenders.

We published the third installment of our series on Sunday, reporting how prosecutors are ignoring a law that’s supposed to suspend the licenses of people who don’t cooperate with police during their arrest.

The law says those arrested have to provide blood-alcohol samples to police (commonly by breathing into a machine). Those that don’t are supposed to lose their licenses for a year, no matter what the criminal courts do. But they can also file appeals to try to keep their licenses. Prosecutors are supposed to try to win those appeals, but they routinely, purposely lose them as part of plea bargains.

Earlier this afternoon, we asked prosecutors in Jefferson, St. Charles and St. Louis counties if they are considering changes to their policies. A spokesman for St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert P. McCulloch said he’s checking. Prosecutors in the other two counties haven’t returned emails so far.

Missouri DWI Defense Lawyers

Labels: , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by iLitigate at 0 Comments

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Gov. Nixon calls for statewide DWI reform for Missouri

Jefferson City, MO
Gov. Jay Nixon is working with lawmakers this week to form a plan that will tighten loopholes in the state's current DWI laws.

Nixon's decision to reform the law came after an article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch brought light to people charged with DWI's and never convicted. In 2008 law enforcement arrested more than 9,000 people for alcohol and drug-related driving. Just under 40 percent of those people were actually convicted. Nixon's goal is to hold more accountability for those who are arrested for DWI's.

The issue is hitting home for one Mid-Missouri woman who was involved in an alcohol-related accident in 1996.

"My offender, who injured seven people, giving two of us permanent disabilities, he received 120 days in the Department of Corrections," said Phaedra Olsen. "I received a lifetime sentence in a wheelchair."

The accident paralyzed Olsen, and she says too many offenders get off without proper punishment.

"Enough is enough," she said. "It's time to be there for the families and to be there for those that we can do whatever it takes to geminate drunk driving."

Olsen said it appears that offenders often have more rights than the victims do, and that offenders are also sometimes treated with more respect than the victim's families.

Nixon spokesman Scott Holste said he is not certain of the details of the reform yet. He said he only knows that Nixon will meet with legislators sometime this week to get the plans started.

To see a breakdown of DWI's and Convictions by counties in the Mid-Missouri area, click on the web extra to the right.

Missouri DWI Criminal Defense Attorneys

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by iLitigate at 0 Comments

Sunday, September 13, 2009

St. Louis Post-Dispatch Sunday Front Page DWI Investigation


St. Louis, MO
"Repeat drunken drivers avoid felony DWI charges"

Michael O'Fallon is the kind of guy Missouri lawmakers meant to target when they passed a get-tough law on DWI.

Under the decades-old law, any arrest after two DWIs is supposed to be a felony, carrying a potential prison term.

But the Eureka man escaped felony charges on his third arrest.

And his fourth.

His fifth arrest came Aug. 3, after police said he swerved head-on into an SUV carrying a family on the way home from getting snow cones.

The crash sent a mother and daughter to the hospital, gave two kids nightmares and enraged a husband and stepfather. He learned that the man who nearly wiped out his family had evaded serious punishment for years.

"He should have never been on the road," said Andy Colombini. "Something's gotta be done. And it's not just us this has happened to."

A Post-Dispatch investigation has found that chronic offenders such as O'Fallon routinely avoid felony charges because of arcane laws, poor record-keeping, confused police, complicated court rulings and a justice system that is slow even when all its players do their jobs.

A computer analysis of Missouri data found that last year alone, authorities in the St. Louis area failed to file felony charges on at least a third of all drunken drivers who qualified for them. (Illinois would not provide complete data for analysis.)

The problem is particularly severe in St. Louis County, where in 2008, nearly half of the arrests reviewed have not resulted in felony charges.

The result: The most dangerous drunken drivers are getting breaks before they even get to court. The failures ensure they'll never face the penalties lawmakers have authorized.

Some chronic offenders get charged with misdemeanors or municipal ordinance violations

That's what happened to O'Fallon after his third and fourth arrests.

At least O'Fallon was charged with something. Sometimes, because of bureaucratic bungling, chronic drunken drivers are not charged at all.

Newton Keene had already been to prison for a fifth DWI, but police forgot to seek charges for two later arrests. Afterward, he slammed head-on into a subcompact car, killing three people.

The failures infuriate the loved ones left behind, including Karen Jackson, grandmother of one of the victims of Keene's crash in February.

"The judicial system is letting all these people just slip through like that, as if it's not serious," Jackson said. "But it is serious. … People are dying."

FAILING TO CHARGE

In nearly all DWI arrests — even for people with long arrest records — drivers are released from jail in a matter of hours.

For the first or second arrest, they are handed a ticket, much like a speeding ticket.

Usually, they are ordered to report in several weeks to one of the more than 100 municipal courts dotting the area. There they face municipal ordinance violations, which almost always lead to fines but no jail time.

Some first- or second-timers are directed to face misdemeanor DWI charges at county courthouses. Although considered a bit harsher than municipal cases, misdemeanor DWIs also rarely lead to jail time.

The third DWI is supposed to be handled differently — with a felony charge and potential prison time.

That's what the law says, anyway.

The reality is far different.

The newspaper analysis of Missouri data found that in St. Louis and six area counties, authorities failed to issue felony charges on 105 of the 275 arrests that qualified.

MANY PROBLEMS


The newspaper reviewed the 105 arrests that did not result in felony charges, and it found the biggest problem came in the first step of the charging process.

In nearly two-thirds of the cases, county prosecutors say, police didn't ask them to file felony charges.

To seek a felony, arresting officers must first figure out if the suspect has two prior DWI offenses that would qualify a new offense as a felony.

That's no easy task. It could involve an entire shift — or longer — trying to decipher sometimes incomplete computer records. For example, the state drivers license data omit a DWI plea agreement used routinely by the courts.

Even when officers can get a true list of all past convictions, not every conviction counts, such as cases tried by a municipal judge who isn't a licensed attorney.

Sometimes, because of new laws and court rulings, a case will count, then it won't, and then it will.

The state Supreme Court ruled in March 2008 that the Legislature did such a poor job of writing the DWI law that some types of DWI convictions couldn't count toward a felony charge. It took a year for the Legislature to fix the law.

Police, prosecutors and defense lawyers have had trouble keeping straight which past DWIs count.

When police or prosecutors do find two qualifying prior offenses, they need to prove it to a judge. That means getting courts to send certified copies of past convictions.

Sometimes the courts provide the paperwork but not the specific kind needed for a prior DWI to be usable.

Other times, the requests for copies are ignored, lost or never received — with little accountability.

In one case, St. Louis County prosecutors complained that they had waited for months for records from the county's municipal court. But the municipal court said it never got the request.

Nobody has pushed the issue, even though the offices of the court clerk are just across the street from prosecutors'.

During such waits, prosecutors often file misdemeanor charges before cases get too old to prosecute in the hope they get the records they need to eventually charge felonies.

But with prosecutors juggling cases, they can lose track of who is owed what paperwork.

"I will be the first to tell you, in some of these (cases), we sent the letters requesting the priors," said St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch. "We didn't get any response, and we haven't followed up on them in a period of time we should have."

TWO CHANCES, ZERO FELONIES

So people such as O'Fallon slip through the cracks.

The 33-year-old college teacher pleaded guilty to two DWIs in 2003, one from Pacific Municipal Court and the other from St. Louis County Circuit Court.

Both times he was found to have double the legal limit of alcohol in his system. Both times he was given a special kind of probation to keep the DWI off his driving record.

Three years later, a drunken O'Fallon ran his car off the road in Jefferson County. He tested at 2 1/2 times the legal alcohol limit.

But his third DWI didn't result in a felony charge.

Prosecutors said state databases didn't list Pacific's DWI. Even if they had, Pacific's DWI couldn't have counted because its municipal judge wasn't a licensed attorney.

So O'Fallon's third DWI was a misdemeanor.

And so was his fourth — for a different reason.

In that arrest, O'Fallon nearly sideswiped a car in Eureka in November. He refused testing but admitted he had had "too much" to drink, according to a police report. He also said he had three past DWIs.

But the officer, in checking O'Fallon's driving record, found only O'Fallon's third DWI, the 2006 Jefferson County case. O'Fallon's other qualifying DWI — the 2003 St. Louis County case — was listed in another police database the officer did not check.

So, again, O'Fallon escaped a felony charge. He pleaded guilty in July to a municipal violation for driving with an elevated blood-alcohol level. He was fined, with no jail time.

On Aug. 3 — less than a week after his fourth guilty plea — a drunken O'Fallon rounded a curve too fast in northern Jefferson County, police said.

His right tires slid onto the shoulder. He jerked the wheel to the left, and sent his pickup skidding across the center line.

Coming in the opposite direction was the Colombini family.

Andy and wife Jamie still remember barely being able to utter "Oh, my God!"

They remember the screams. The impact. The whiplash. The smoke billowing from the hood.

She can't forget the look O'Fallon gave her after the crash.

"This guy jumped out of his truck and just looked around and started smiling," she recalled.

"I knew he was drunk just by how he got out."

A highway patrol trooper agreed, arresting O'Fallon that night for DWI No. 5. He was released a few hours later.

THE PAIN, THE WAIT


On the one-month anniversary of the crash, Jamie Colombini hobbled to her couch in Fenton. A brace stretched over most of her right leg. Another brace enveloped her ankle. She has a back brace too, but it hurts too much to wear while sitting down, she said.

Doctors can't say for sure how much damage her neck, back and leg sustained, she said. She's in constant pain and expects she'll need back surgery.

Beside her on the couch was Andy, a firefighter-paramedic by trade. He's sidelined with a wrist brace to cover a gash from the collision, which sent his arm into the dashboard console. His back hurts, too, and he also may need surgery.

They worry about their children. The 16-year-old, Amanda, had a softball-sized bruise on her shoulder. She just got her license but is now too afraid to drive.

Zachary, 12, and Tyler, 10, struggle to sleep at night. Tyler wakes up screaming, sobbing and shaking from nightmares of oncoming headlights and rolling cars.

They hear their parents talk about how O'Fallon had been caught again and again for DWI.

"You have your child ask you: 'What's it going to take?'" Jamie Colombini said. "Would they finally have done something if we would have died?"

O'Fallon, through an e-mail, declined to comment. His longtime attorney, Jim Wahl, said O'Fallon admitted himself into an inpatient addiction treatment program after the crash.

"He told me that he realizes he has a problem and that he needs to deal with it, and that's what he's doing," Wahl said.

While O'Fallon gets treatment, the highway patrol is continuing its investigation. It commonly takes five to six weeks for arrest reports to be sent to prosecutors. With a backlog of cases at the prosecutor's office, the average case takes four weeks to review before prosecutors make a decision on charges.

After that — if prosecutors agree with police — O'Fallon could face his first felony DWI charge.

St. Louis, MO DWI Criminal Defense Lawyers

Labels: , , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by iLitigate at 0 Comments

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Parents participate in Missouri DWI victim impact panel (VIP)


Columbia, MO
A Saturday night in spring 2007 was supposed to be a special occasion for Debra Strodtman — a weekend visit from her youngest daughter in college — but it turned into her family’s worst nightmare.

Strodtman remembers at 10:30 p.m. hearing a knock on the door of the family’s home in Salisbury. She jumped out of bed, headed to the door and envisioned staying up half the night talking with her daughter, Heidi Strodtman, a 19-year-old freshman at the University of Missouri-Rolla.

Instead, a Missouri State Highway Patrol trooper, sheriff’s deputy and family friend were at their door to break the news that Heidi had been killed in a wreck on Highway 63.

“There were three sets of eyes staring through my door, and I knew immediately,” Debra Strodtman said. “And” the trooper “said, ‘A drunk driver killed your daughter tonight.’ ”

Debra Strodtman and her husband, Bruce Strodtman, shared the story yesterday of that fateful night with 13 people on probation for various offenses.

Their testimony was part of a session of the Impact of Crime on Victims Class at the Board of Probation and Parole Office at 1512 Hereford Drive.

They also shared more stories with the offenders: about the autopsy of Heidi’s body, the funeral preparations and the heart-wrenching courtroom proceedings that followed.

They carried with them a piece of the mangled Pontiac their daughter was driving north on Highway 63 on April 21, 2007, about 15 miles north of Columbia, when Don Thompson was driving the wrong direction on the same highway and slammed his pickup into her car.

Thompson, 49, of Mexico, Mo., pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter and is serving a 15-year prison sentence.

“Burying your own child is the single most difficult thing on Earth to do,” Bruce Strodtman told the class. “You can’t explain it.”

The Strodtmans spoke for about an hour to members of the class, a few of whom are on probation for drunken driving offenses. The class consists of 10 weekly sessions addressing crimes that range from domestic assault to robbery and drunken driving.

David Meyer, a unit supervisor in Columbia’s probation and parole office, said the class has been taught for years in prisons, but the Missouri Department of Corrections recently expanded the program to probation offices across the state, including the Columbia office. The classes, taught locally by Behavioral Health Concepts of Columbia at a cost of about $2,000 a year, started in Columbia in October.

“Once they actually hear a victim tell their story about the consequences of someone else’s actions, it really sinks in,” Meyer said.

The Strodtmans’ presentation made an impression on at least one of the students.

“It’s just really touching,” said Shaneika Barney, 21, of Columbia, who said she was on probation for passing bad checks. “It makes me not want to drink at all. I have two kids of my own, and the thought of losing one of mine is too much.”

Bruce Strodtman said talking to the classes is a way to honor his daughter, who would be celebrating her 22nd birthday today.

“If I were to do 100 of these and save one life, it’d be worth it,” he said. “In a little way, it keeps my daughter alive.”

Missouri Drunken Driving Criminal Defense Lawyers

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by iLitigate at 0 Comments

Sunday, May 25, 2008

Victims want tougher sentences for DWI/DUI and providing alcohol to minors


Joplin, MO
Tougher laws needed, some victims claim

Heather Jensen, 29, spent four years in prison for killing her best friend while driving under the influence of methamphetamines. She called her sentence a slap on the wrist.

“I should have gotten more time,” Jensen, of Webb City, said.

Today, Jensen is a proponent of tougher sentences for anyone involved in driving while under the influence of any substance or for providing drugs or alcohol to minors, especially if someone dies because of it.

Jensen isn’t alone.

Police officers, victims’ families and others are calling for tougher penalties for those involved in the deaths of teenagers when alcohol, drugs, recklessness or negligence is involved.

Missouri law

Dan Whitworth, a general practice attorney in Joplin, said penalties for driving under the influence, being a minor in possession or selling or providing alcohol to a minor vary from a fine to 5 to 15 years behind bars.

A minor who is driving is considered intoxicated at a much lower level than adults, he said. Minors can be arrested for DWI at 0.02, while adults have to register 0.08. People can be charged with driving under the influence of drugs with any amount of the drug in their system, Whitworth said.

A first-offense DUI is a Class B misdemeanor in Missouri punishable by a fine of up to $500 and six months in jail. Repeat offenders can get progressively more serious fines and jail time — up to $5,000 and 5 to 15 years in prison, according to Missouri statutes.

“You do see people get that much but they really have to be a perpetual offender,” Whitworth said.

In Missouri, minors also can be charged with possession of alcohol if they are found with the bottle, or with alcohol in their blood stream. That minor in possession by consumption law is unique to Missouri, Whitworth said. The penalty for being a minor in possession is similar to, but lower, than the beginning penalty for DWI or DUI.

Providing alcohol to a minor, either by selling it as a retailer or furnishing it to them as a friend or parent also carries a fine of $500 and not more than 6 months in jail. On the second offense, Whitworth said that penalty can jump to a fine of up to $1,000 and one year in county jail.

Businesses that sell to minors can also face other penalties as well. The employee who sold the alcohol can be fined or charged as well as the business.



Tougher laws needed, some victims claim

“They’re looking for repeat violations,” he said. “(Alcohol Control) is very serious with how they do it. They make those businesses stay on their toes.”

The record

Records from the Missouri Division of Alcohol and Tobacco Control indicate most businesses that sell alcohol to minors are generally fined, or at most lose their liquor license for just a few days.

According to documents obtained through a Missouri Open Records request, there were 43 alcohol retailers in Jasper and Newton counties cited for selling alcohol to a minor from Jan. 1, 2006, to the present. Most of those businesses were fined, with fines ranging from $150 to $700. The average fine was $200 to $400. Several businesses caught during that time were only warned. Four of the businesses were suspended from selling alcohol for up to 5 days as a penalty; none had their licenses permanently revoked.

Documents provided by the state agency also suggest a varied response to repeat offenses.

A Kum & Go, 3505 S. Range Line Road, was cited on Jan. 7 and again on Jan. 28, 2006, for selling to minors, but only received warnings each time. A Grace Energy location, 3347 Range Line Road, was cited March 16 and again on May 18, 2007, and received fines of $500 and $700 respectively.

“I don’t think they are near tough enough,” said Kerry Freeman, head of Jasper County’s Mothers Against Drunk Driving. “I would think they do need to lose their license ... pull their license, that would hit their pocketbooks more than a $500 fine.”

Sue Hirshey, owner of Sue’s C-Store, 26206 Fir Road, in Carl Junction, said consistency and observation are needed from the stores to screen underage kids and to ensure adults are not purchasing for minors. Sue’s C-Store has no violations for sales to underage minors.

“It’s just a matter of carding everyone,” Hirshey said in a phone interview.

One situation that Hirshey or her employees have seen is where an adult will enter the store and try to purchase alcohol -- with several teens waiting in their car.

Sometimes, it’s just parents buying alcohol for themselves while

“You just have to watch the situation and try to read people,” Hirshey said. “We have refused to sell if it looks like they are taking orders for kids

The Missouri Division of Alcohol and Tobacco Control did not return multiple phone calls made to its Jefferson City office over the last two weeks.

Freeman wants tougher sentences not only for retailers but also for any adult who buys it for a minor as well as those who are driving drunk.

Freeman’s 18-year-old daughter, Christina, was killed after getting in the car with a 17-year-old driver, who according to the Missouri State Highway Patrol, had allegedly been using drugs and alcohol. More >>

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by iLitigate at 0 Comments

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Missouri House approves Bill to increase use of DWI ignition interlock device


Jefferson City, MO
The Missouri House gave initial approval Wednesday to a bill designed to increase the use of ignition interlock devices for drunken drivers.

A 2001 law requires ignition interlock devices on vehicles of people convicted of two or more drunken-driving offenses. The House bill, which needs another vote to move to the Senate, requires motorists to prove to the Department of Revenue that they have the device to get their driving privileges reinstated.

An ignition interlock requires a driver to blow into the device, and if the motorist has a blood alcohol content that exceeds the legal limit, the vehicle will not start.

Rep. Neal St. Onge, R-Ballwin, said states that require ignition interlock devices haven't had as many drunken drivers and even fewer repeat offenders.

Earlier this year, Gov. Matt Blunt called a news conference accusing judges of not doing a good enough job of enforcing Missouri's drunken-driving laws and requiring ignition interlock devices.

The House bill would allow the Department of Revenue to check whether motorists have gotten the interlock devices.

Lawmakers also added an amendment that would allow municipal convictions for drunken driving to count when determining repeat offenders. That was added to close a loophole exposed by a Missouri Supreme Court decision.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by iLitigate at 0 Comments

Tuesday, April 8, 2008

Missouri Senate OKs memorial signs for victims of drunken drivers, special license plates for suspended/revoked


Jefferson City, MO
A memorial sign program for drunken-driving victims was among the provisions included in an omnibus transportation bill approved Thursday by the Missouri Senate.

The sign program would allow family members of a person killed by a drunken driver to sponsor a highway sign. The signs would include the phrases “Drunk Driving Victim” and “Who’s Next?” and include the victim’s initials.

Family members would be charged a fee, and the signs would remain for 10 years.

The bill also would require drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revoked to exchange their current license plates for plates that indicate their loss of license. Law enforcement officers would be allowed to stop cars with the plates to verify that the driver has a valid license.

The bill moves to the House.
Missouri DWI Lawyers

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by iLitigate at 0 Comments

Friday, April 4, 2008

Kansas City, MO lawmaker pushes legislation to enable DWI courts in Missouri

Jefferson City, MO
Special courts allowing drunken-driving offenders to reduce their sentences by participating in treatment programs could get a boost this year from the Missouri legislature.

Sen. Jolie Justus, a Kansas City Democrat, added language enabling DWI courts to a larger transportation bill approved last week.

Typically, a repeat or felony drunken-driving case is heard in regular court, where the offender most likely faces jail time. In a DWI court, incarceration is a last resort, imposed only if a treatment program and extensive probation isn’t effective. The courts are similar to existing drug courts, although offenders could not have their crimes removed from their records.

“We want to make sure this isn’t a way to skirt the system, but to really address those folks who have several offenses,” Justus said. “I look at it as a way to help those folks who have serious substance abuse problems.”

The bill won approval in the Senate on Thursday and now moves on to the House for consideration.

As the legislation moves through the process, it could be tweaked to allow DWI courts to function within existing drug courts, Justus said. The change could reduce the cost of implementing the courts. More >>
Missouri DWI Lawyers

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by iLitigate at 0 Comments

Friday, March 28, 2008

Missouri Supreme Court ruling comes into play for DWI case


Cape Girardeau, MO
A recent Missouri Supreme Court decision was put to the test Tuesday at a jury trial on a driving while intoxicated charge, according to Cape Girardeau County prosecuting attorney Morley Swingle.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled that municipal court cases in which a defendant receives a suspended imposition of sentence can no longer be cited as prior DWI offense during the trial phase of future DWI proceedings.

Suspended imposition of sentence means the defendant remains on probation for a predetermined period of time before the sentence is carried out and is re-evaluated at the end of the probation term based on his behavior.

At Tuesday's trial, Roger D. Wilcox of Springfield, Mo., was found guilty after a jury deliberated for about 30 minutes.

The jury recommended that Wilcox serve 30 days in the county jail, and Judge Gary Kamp said he would take the matter under advisement.

A sentencing hearing was set for April 21.

Wilcox originally faced charges of driving while intoxicated as a second offense, which is a class A misdemeanor. Under this charge, he could have served up to one year incarceration if convicted. More >>
Missouri DWI Lawyers

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by iLitigate at 0 Comments

Missouri Supreme Court DWI ruling expected to spare some form prison


St. Louis, MO
Three strikes in drunken driving cases and you go to prison. Or not.

A Missouri Supreme Court ruling over a sloppy revision of the drunken driving law a decade ago seems sure to spare some offenders from prison, and to shorten prospective jail terms for others.

It even caused the St. Charles County prosecutor to consider reducing a felony murder charge.

But defense lawyers said this week the decision may not do anything to free people already sent to prison under the stricken provision of the law — or to clear felony records of those who have served their time.

Under Missouri law, a third DWI conviction is a felony, punishable by up to four years in prison; a second conviction is a misdemeanor that can bring a one-year jail term.

But the high court ruled March 4 that if a DWI conviction was in a municipal court, with a suspended sentence, it cannot be counted because of an ambiguity in the statute.

Officials statewide are poring over what may be thousands of pending DWI cases to see which could be affected. No one knows yet.

"We are hoping the Legislature will do something extraordinary — fix a problem in the same year it arises," said Michael Boland, of the Gateway Chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers. The decision "has put law enforcement, courts, probation and parole in a terrible fix."

While there is talk of legislating an emergency revision, it is unlikely to apply to pending cases, said Carl Ward, a St. Charles attorney and DWI specialist.

"They can try to increase the penalties after the fact for current defendants," Ward said, "but I think such a law would face serious constitutional problems."

He called it "one of the bigger decisions in recent years. More >>"
Missouri DWI Lawyers

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by iLitigate at 0 Comments

Monday, March 24, 2008

Missouri Supreme Court ruling could spur release of drunken driving offenders


Jefferson City, MO
A recent Missouri Supreme Court ruling that allows many repeat drunken drivers to avoid felony charges could result in the release of some offenders.

Because of the ruling earlier this month, prosecutors are reducing some felony charges in pending cases to misdemeanors. Defense attorneys contend the ruling also applies retroactively, meaning some people convicted of felony drunken driving should be released. Lawmakers, meanwhile, are researching the issue.

The court's decision came in the Lafayette County case of Reginald A. Turner, 54, whose 2005 felony conviction was based on a municipal drunken-driving plea and two state convictions, the Kansas City Star reported.

At issue was an old clause near the bottom of the state's drunken-driving law that conflicted with newer language intended to toughen penalties. The clause said that if someone received a suspended sentence after pleading guilty in municipal court to driving while intoxicated, that conviction could not be counted toward state felony charges, which prosecutors can file on a driver's third offense.
Advertisement


The Supreme Court said that if two conflicting standards exist within a criminal law, the defendant gets the lesser penalty. More >>
Missouri felony DWI defense attorneys

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by iLitigate at 0 Comments

Sunday, March 23, 2008

Missouri Supreme Court ruling gives DWI offenders a break


Jefferson City, MO
For decades, Missouri lawmakers regularly tweaked drunken-driving laws to toughen them. But along the way, they neglected to cut an old paragraph that did the opposite.

As a result, a recent Missouri Supreme Court ruling now allows many repeat drunken drivers to avoid felony charges, and it probably will allow others to get out of prison.

In Jackson County alone, prosecutors had about 145 felony cases pending against repeat drunken drivers. Now they must reduce those to misdemeanors, prosecutors said.

That means offenders will face up to a year in jail instead of up to four years in prison.

“This is not what anyone intended,” Jackson County Prosecutor Jim Kanatzar said.

The unanimous high court decision, which involved a Lafayette County case, centered on an old clause left near the bottom of the state’s drunken-driving law since the early 1980s. Legislators have neglected to remove the clause, even when it conflicted with newer language.

Whenever two conflicting standards exist within a criminal law, the defendant gets the lesser penalty, the high court said.

The old clause said that if someone received a suspended sentence after pleading guilty in municipal court to driving while intoxicated, that conviction could not be counted toward state felony charges, which prosecutors can file on a driver’s third offense.

The court’s ruling raises questions, starting with whether the ruling must be applied retroactively. Defense lawyers say yes. Prosecutors are unsure.

But if the ruling applies to previous cases, inmates convicted of some DWI felonies will get out of prison, and thousands of people could have their old felony convictions overturned, defense lawyers say.

“The opinion has sent shock waves through the law enforcement community,” said Kanatzar, who hopes the legislature quickly can fix the law. More >>

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by iLitigate at 0 Comments

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Ignition interlock bill draws support


Jefferson City
Get drunk...get caught.....Missouri's legislature could be fast-tracking a law that won't let you drive again if you have booze on your breath.

The proposal says a convicted drunk driver has to do a so-called 30-day hard walk before applying for a hardship driving permit...and the permit will be granted only if an ignition interlock is installed The driver has to blow into a tube...and if the blood alcohol level is greater than point-zero-two, the car won't start.

Spokesman Michael Bowman for the Missouri chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving says the interlock is important because police catch only about ten percent of the drunk drivers. He calls the ignition interlock "a 24-hour probation officer" that will keep once-convicted drunk drivers from driving again. More >>
Missouri DWI defense lawyers

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by iLitigate at 0 Comments

Saturday, January 12, 2008

Gov. Blunt calls for mandatory ignition interlocks for repeat drunk drivers


Branson, MO
Gov. Matt Blunt wants to make it harder for potentially drunk drivers to get behind the wheel of their automobile.

Blunt announced earlier this week his plan to better protect Missourians from drunk drivers, requiring repeat DWI offenders to modify their vehicles before they can be issued new licenses.
“To protect Missouri families and ensure our roads are as safe as possible, drunk driving offenders simply should not be allowed to get behind the wheel without some assurance they are fit to drive. My plan to toughen our drunk driving laws ensures 100 percent of repeat offenders will not be given the privilege to drive without first taking serious precautions to prevent them from again drinking and driving and endangering Missourians.” -- Gov. Matt Blunt

Blunt is calling for legislation to require drunk driving offenders to modify their vehicle ignition switches before their driver license is reinstated. Under current law courts are required to mandate ignition interlock devices, a vehicle modification system that disables a vehicle’s ignition if the driver is drunk or drinking, on the second or subsequent offense. More >>

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by iLitigate at 0 Comments

Thursday, January 10, 2008

Blunt: Courts Failing To Enforce DUI Law


Jefferson City, MO
Gov. Matt Blunt said judges are not doing a good enough job of enforcing Missouri's drunken driving laws. So he proposed Thursday to give more power to the state agency that issues driver's licenses.

A 2001 law requires courts to order ignition interlock devices on vehicles for people convicted of two or more drunken driving offenses. The devices prohibit a vehicle from starting unless the driver blows into a special gauge without registering alcohol on his or her breath.
sponsor

Blunt says that in 2005, there were 3,163 people convicted of repeat drunken driving offenses. But he said courts ordered ignition interlock devices for just 614 of them.

"Unfortunately, Missouri courts have a lackluster record in complying with this requirement," Blunt said at a Capitol news conference. More >>
MO Felony DWI Defense Lawyers

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by iLitigate at 0 Comments

Blunt pushes mandatory ignition interlock for repeat DWI offender license reinstatment


Joplin, MO
Gov. Blunt is calling for legislation to require drunk driving offenders to modify their vehicle ignition switches before their driver licenses are reinstated. Under current law courts are required to mandate ignition interlock devices, a vehicle modification system that disables a vehicle's ignition if the driver is drunk or drinking, on the second or subsequent offense. However, poor compliance in the judicial system has meant that more than 80 percent of repeat drunk driving offenders are getting back on the road without any protections to assure they are fit to drive.

Blunt's proposal would strengthen existing law by making an ignition lock device a necessary requirement before the state will issue a repeat drunk driving offender a new driver license. The change would mean that regardless of judicial action or the penalty imposed by the courts, 100 percent of repeat offenders will be required to modify their vehicles if they wish to maintain the privilege of driving in Missouri. Ignition interlock devices cost between $40 and $70 initially and about $70 monthly to maintain, a cost charged to the offender.
Missouri DWI Defense Lawyers

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by iLitigate at 0 Comments