RHODE ISLAND DUI LAWYER
DUI ATTORNEY MATTHEW MARIN

Man Faces Cranston DUI Charges After Accident

by Matthew Marin on 06/23/11

VIA WPRI.COM

By Mary Karalis

DUI Case Update

by Matthew Marin on 06/08/11

Warwick tops in DUI convictions

by Matthew Marin on 02/13/11

R.I. Senate bill increases penalties for drunken driving, refusing chemical test

by Matthew Marin on 01/23/11

By Tracy Breton

PROVIDENCE — Three state senators have introduced a bill to stiffen the penalties for drunken driving and refusing to submit to a chemical test in Rhode Island, one of the worst states for driving fatalities involving alcohol-impaired drivers and the state with the highest rate of refusals in New England.

The proposed amendments to current law are an attempt to deter drunken driving in the state, where lax laws have led to the federal government ordering the state to spend $22 million in the last decade to prevent drunken-driving crashes instead of general road construction. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 40 percent of 2009 driving fatalities in Rhode Island involved drivers who were alcohol-impaired, 8 percent above the national average.

The bill, S 0028, was introduced Jan. 11 by Senators John J. Tassoni Jr., D-Smithfield; Frank Lombardo III, D-Johnston; and James E. Doyle II, D-Pawtucket. It has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has not set a hearing date.

Tassoni, in an interview Tuesday, said he is trying to take up the reins from former Sen. Leonidas Raptakis who for years had submitted legislation to close loopholes in the law that make it difficult to track repeat drunken drivers and which have allowed repeat offenders to keep their licenses to drive.

"Obviously, we all have to pick our battles. I’ll pick up where he left off," Tassoni said. "This is a very, very important issue. There have been horrific accidents, people getting killed. Every time you turn on the news, there’s another one. There are a lot of brilliant lawyers out there that get people off because of the loopholes that are there. Those loopholes need to be changed so we can save another life."

The proposed legislation increases the penalties for failure to submit to a chemical test. It would make drunken-driving convictions count for 10 years, instead of the current 5, so that a repeat offender, if caught and convicted a second time within a decade, would face a mandatory fine of at least $400, license suspension for one to two years and a prison sentence of not less than 10 days and up to a year. Current law specifies these penalties only if there is a second offense within a five-year period.

As is the case currently, the higher the blood-alcohol level, the higher the fines and amount of prison time mandated. (The law currently requires mandatory counseling or treatment for most people convicted of drunken driving or refusing to take a chemical test, but the new bill still leaves open one loophole: It does not specifically require those with three or more repeat offenses with the worst levels of intoxication, over 0.15 percent, to get counseling or treatment.)

It also would consolidate prosecution of all drunken-driving and test-refusal cases in District Court, taking away the authority of Traffic Tribunal judges to hear test-refusal cases, which is current practice. Stephen Blackistone, the state and local liaison for the National Transportation Safety Board in Washington, D.C., has called the Rhode Island system of prosecuting test refusals and drunken-driving charges in separate courts "remarkably complicated and confusing," with the defendant having the advantage, not the state.

Under the Tassoni bill, no person charged with drunken driving or refusing a chemical test could have the charge reduced or dismissed unless the prosecuting attorney states in open court his or her reasons for the reduction or dismissal. The proposed legislation would also make a defendant's refusal to take a chemical test admissible as evidence in a drunken-driving trial. In the past, jurors would learn of this only if the defendant elected to testify.

The bill also says that anyone who has a suspended or revoked license for a past drunken-driving offense who is caught driving while intoxicated from alcohol or drugs, or who refuses to submit to a breath test, will be found guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment of up to 3 years and a fine of up to $3,000.

And it would prohibit the destruction, expungement or sealing of any criminal records associated with a drunken-driving or test-refusal charge for 10 years from the date of the dismissal.

It would also:

- Impose much bigger fines on people who refuse to take chemical tests than those convicted of drunken driving. For example, a first offender convicted of drunken driving with a blood-alcohol level of .15 percent or higher would face a fine of $500 but "if the person failed to submit to a test, a fine of not less than $1,000." Community service requirements for those who refuse to take chemical tests would also be increased significantly - from 10 to 60 hours for those who refuse to take a test once during a 10-year period, and from 60 to 100 hours for a second violation within that time-frame.

- Set a minimum 30-day prison sentence for every person convicted of a first offense whose blood-alcohol level is 0.15 percent or more above the legal limit of .08 percent. Currently, the potential sentence is up to one year imprisonment with no mandatory minimum.

- Provide that if someone were convicted of refusing to take a breath test a second time during a 10-year period, he or she would face a mandatory six-month prison sentence, not just a sentence of up to six months as current law provides. A judge would also be allowed in this circumstance to prohibit the defendant from driving a car that is not equipped with an ignition-interlock system for two years following completion of the sentence.

Those convicted of refusing to take a chemical test three times or more within a 10-year period would be adjudged guilty of a felony instead of a misdemeanor, imprisoned for one to five years, fined $1,000 to $2,500, and face license suspension for 2 to 10 years, up from 2 to 5 years. If a judge decides to later reinstate the driver’s license, the offender's car would have to be equipped with an ignition-interlock system for five years following reinstatement. This is a big increase from the current penalties which call for a maximum sentence of 1 year, a fine of $800 and license suspension from 2 to 5 years, with no interlock ignition device requirement.

Gabrielle M. Abbate, executive director of Mothers Against Drunk Driving in Rhode Island, said Tuesday that increasing the window for considering drunken-driving convictions from 5 to 10 years "is a huge thing," and that she is also pleased that, in most cases, the Tassoni bill mandates mandatory treatment for repeat offenders.

She said, however, that "what’s missing in here that we are promoting, even for the first offense, is a requirement that ignition-interlock devices be put in their cars."  There are some other states that mandate this after a first conviction, Abbate said.

Tassoni said that after conferring with Abbate, he plans to have his bill re-drafted to include the provision.

KEY POINTS - Drunken driving bill

Failing to submit to a chemical test: The bill imposes much larger fines on people who refuse testing for drunken driving and are convicted of that offense. It also imposes mandatory prison sentences on those who are convicted of repeatedly refusing to take chemical tests, ups the amount of community service required and the amount of time a judge may suspend a license.

 

Changes venue for cases to be heard: The bill consolidates all drunken-driving and test-refusal cases in the District Court. Currently, refusal charges, which are motor-vehicle violations, are prosecuted at the Rhode island Traffic Tribunal, with most drunken-driving charges, which are criminal cases, prosecuted in District Court.

Extends window for convictions: Convictions would remain on a driver’s record for a judge to consider for 10 years instead of the current 5 years.

 

Ignition-interlock devices: Would require some offenders to have ignition-interlock devices in their cars for years after their sentences are completed.

 

More public records: The bill would prohibit the destruction, expungement or sealing of any criminal records associated with drunken-driving or test-refusal charges for 10 years from the date of dismissal and would require prosecutors to put on the record, in open court, their reasons for dismissing a charge.

 

Added penalties for intoxicated drivers with suspended or revoked licenses: Makes it a felony punishable by up to 3 years in prison and a fine of up to $3,000.

PROVIDENCE JOURNAL: MADD wants R.I. to enact a mandatory ignition interlock law

by Matthew Marin on 01/12/11

By Peter C.T. Elsworth

PROVIDENCE — With "Faith, Hope, Peace, Love" artwork on the wall and a book titled "The Gift of Memory" prominently displayed, the local office of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) resembles the lobby of a funeral parlor.

And so it might.

When it comes to alcohol-related deaths, Rhode Islanders drive some of the world's, let alone the nation's, most dangerous roads.

"[The numbers] have fluctuated over the last 10 years but they are not going down," said Gaby Abbate, executive director of the Rhode Island chapter of MADD.

She said 40 percent of the state's fatalities in crashes last year - or 34 out of the 83 killed - involved alcohol over the legal limit of .08, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. That compares to a national average of 32 percent.

Now MADD is looking for the state to pass a mandatory ignition interlock law. The technology uses a breath-alcohol detector to prevent a driver convicted of Driving Under the Influence (DUI) from starting a vehicle if he or she has been drinking. The equipment also tests drivers randomly during a trip.

Rhode Island currently allows for interlocks as part of a sentence, but it is not mandatory. Interlocks are mandatory for all offenders in 11 states and it has reduced drunk-driving fatalities by as much as 50 percent, according to Jamie Hainsworth, former Glocester police chief and senior victim advocate at MADD.

"Blow before you go," said former state police Col. Steven Pare, the voluntary chair of MADD's board and the city's new Public Safety Commissioner. "Statistics show it drives rates down."

Currently, a first-offense conviction for drunk driving in Rhode Island includes a three-month suspension of a driving license, according to Hainsworth. But losing a license can result in the loss of a job, which has dire economic consequences on individuals and families. As a result, convicted drivers often drive illegally.

Pare said an interlock ignition law allows convicted drivers to remain on the roads so they can keep their jobs, but increases the likelihood that they are sober.

In general, Pare said while there was "more awareness" of the problem of drunk driving, the state needed to impose greater sanctions against those found guilty. For example, he would like to see convicted drivers having to use interlock ignition devices for longer periods of time and repeat offenders forced to seek treatment.

And MADD argues for much stiffer sentences for drunk drivers who kill and maim.

Abbate cited the case of David Hazard, who was sentenced in July to seven years for killing a mother of six in Scituate in 2009. At the time of the crash, Hazard, who had a long history of driving violations and arrests, had a blood-alcohol level 2 1/2 times the legal limit.

Abbate said her widowed husband could not believe that all he got was seven years. "He took away my wife and the mother of six children," she said he kept repeating.

"There’s no fear for people who drive drunk," Pare said, noting that offenders have driven an average of 85 times over the limit before they are caught. "We want sanctions on the books because they change behavior."

Rhode Island's roads are particularly dangerous. Consider the state ranked fifth highest in percentage of 2009 fatalities from crashes that involved alcohol, according to NHTSA data. It was tied with South Dakota and Texas with 40 percent; only Hawaii, Connecticut, South Carolina and Washington ranked worse.

Then consider a recent World Health Organization report that ranked the U.S. third in percentage of fatalities from crashes that involved alcohol based on 2002, 2003 and 2004 data. Only Canada and Slovenia ranked worse.

In addition to increased sanctions, Abbate also cited sobriety check points as a deterrent to drunk driving and the importance of parental supervision and guidance. Indeed, it was as a parent that she became committed to MADD.

Abbate joined MADD in 1984, four years after it was founded, and has headed the Rhode Island office since 1990.

She said she got more involved after listening to an excruciating story from a man whose 7-year-old son had been paralyzed "from the tongue down" by a drunk driver. He died a month later.

"As a mother of a 7-year-old, I melted on the floor," she said. "He put his son's face on my son’s face."

For more information, go to:

www.madd.org