Michigan State Police troopers arrest two 'super drunks'
Two men with blood alcohol levels that were more than twice the legal limit were arrested by Michigan State Police troopers in Washtenaw County on Friday night.
In one case, a driver vomited in a gas station parking lot before getting behind the wheel and attempting to get back on the freeway, police said.
In the first incident, police say they received several 911 calls about an erratic driver on northbound US-23 from Willis Road in York Township. Troopers took positions to intercept the vehicle, then learned it was at the Shell gas station at Michigan and I-94, according to a news release.
A caller said the driver was vomiting in the parking lot of the gas station, and when troopers arrived, the man was pulling his vehicle out of the gas station lot, reports said. The driver stopped after his vehicle almost left the roadway while attempting to get back on the freeway, police said.
The 44-year-old Ypsilanti driver was arrested. At the Washtenaw County Jail, he registered a blood alcohol content of .18 — more than twice the legal limit of .08 to be considered drunken driving.
In the second incident, a trooper responded to a rollover crash on I-94 in Sylvan Township. A caller reported the crash, but said the driver requested that no one call police, reports said.
State police said the man lost control of his company work van, which flipped on the ramp to westbound I-94 from M-52 near Chelsea, according to a news release. The driver, a 39-year-old Grass Lake resident, also had a blood alcohol content of .18, police said.
Both men are expected to be charged under Michigan's new "super drunk law." Under the new law that went into effect Oct. 31, motorists face enhanced penalties if arrested with a .17 or higher blood alcohol content.
If convicted under the new "super drunk" law, jail time increases to 180 days, fines reach $700 and a one-year license suspension is possible.
Comments
actionjackson
Fri, Feb 25, 2011 : 12:03 a.m.
Why is it that in countries such as Sweden and Finland there are no drunk driving deaths? Their sentencing guidelines are so tough that it is unthinkable to drive after even one drink! I hate as much as the next person to be paying room and board for drunks in jail however if we ever plan on saving lives we must charge these habitual drunks for their prison stay and make it work.
RJA
Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 8:48 p.m.
Congrats to Michigan State Police, and the 911 callers. How else would we get these super drunks off the streets and highways? Lay off State Police officers? Any arrest of drunk drivers, new or old is a good step in public safety. Why does anyone ever have to beg people , don't drink and drive. These pople make their own stupid decisions, and must pay. I guess some people here, have never had a family menber or friend injured or killed by a drunk driver. Those that have, will understand the law and love it! They also have a hole in their heart, that a doctor can't fix!
djm12652
Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 6:57 p.m.
why is it that the "reporting bloggers" never have to use the term alleged or allegedly, but commentors must? And not assume guilt, regardless of the story. 2 men with BAL of .18 arrested...c'mon what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Please re-visit the article, Ms. Nash and conisder your wording. How about 2 men arrested under "Super Drunk" statute with alleged BAL of .18...unless you were there and saw the sobriety test results...
Leaf
Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 5:13 p.m.
Not only is it a shame that someone would drink that much, but it is so horrible to think that anyone would believe it is an alright decision to get behind the wheel while that intoxicated. An action that puts so many lives at danger.
Leaf
Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 9:39 p.m.
djm 12652, as someone who has gone through a patch where I was a dangerously consuming large quantities of liquor daily I was still able to say no (even after consuming a fifth of whisky or more). I, and numerous other people I have known, have been able to make that simple decision to walk (instead of drive, bike, or skateboard).
djm12652
Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 6:59 p.m.
Jason, as the ex of an alcoholic, I must tell you that all reasonable thought is vanquished by booze. My ex would consume well over a fifth of vodka a day and even unable to walk would swear he wasn't drunk.
zip the cat
Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 4:08 p.m.
Harsh? I havent heard of a harsh sentence handed down in washtenaw county for D/D in eons. 99%of the ones reported by Ann Arbor dot com are for PROBATION. The guy who killed the nurse on M-14 a few yrs back driving drunk on his 4th or 5th time,he got probation The lawyer who works for the city got busted trying to bribe his way out of a ticket for D/D,he got probation. Is that what you are refering to as harsh Sounds like a FARCE And untill the judges in this county wake up it will just be business as usual.
zip the cat
Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 1:47 p.m.
The sentences sound good on paper,but just like always the courts in this county have the final say regardless of what the law is and will give them a no nothing get out of jail free sentence. Bet on it
Atticus F.
Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 2:35 p.m.
After some of the overly harsh sentences I've seen levied against drunk drivers, I would be willing to bet against it, zip.
redwingshero
Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 1:28 p.m.
@mike-if habitual drunks are the issue, then wouldn't you support going after these "super drunks" to get them to not repeat be worth the effort? Hit those hard on their first time so it won't happen again. That was the issue with the old law. It created habitual offednders because there was never a harsh enough punishment/sentencing to get them to stop. Who's more dangerous on the road, a guy at .09 or .24?
wlkate
Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 11:46 a.m.
The penalty seems to light for me. Drunk driving warns have been on the laws for YEARS it is time people understand driving after drinking and you could loss a lot if not everything.
ChelseaBob
Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 11:17 a.m.
Are these guys repeat offenders (allegedly)? I'm curious. I hear about tough laws, but then hear about guys with multiple offenses doing it again and again. I'm curious on these guys.
bs
Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 11:12 a.m.
Mike, Interesting that anyone would want to defend someone who was willing to take two tons of metal down the road at 70 miles per hour while so drunk they can probably hardly walk. People willing to make that decision deserve more than a mere 180 days...
David Briegel
Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 3:02 a.m.
So, "a big red A" is acceptable and kryptonite is not? Hmm
David Briegel
Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 3:03 a.m.
s
Mike
Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 2:14 a.m.
The super drunk law is a complete scam. Accidents are caused by habitual drunks with repeat arrests. Going after first time offenders with high alcohol levels does not address public risk. It just makes false heroes out of state police officers with no real role in public safety. If laws like this are the result of over employment of state police and their union lobbyists, perhaps we need to lay off more state police officers.
BrianR
Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 2:44 p.m.
@Mike - do you not see the inherent contradiction in your first two sentences? The intent of the "superdrunk" law and its increased penalties mentioned in your second sentence is to stem the tide of those "habitual drunks" mentioned in your first sentence. Make sense?
wlkate
Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 11:48 a.m.
What would all the attorneys do?
johnnya2
Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 5:07 a.m.
Actually just the opposite is true. Habitual drunk drivers have developed the skill and tolerance to operate while impaired. The occasional drunk is much more deadly. Of course listening to your reasoning tells me, you have been arrested for drunk driving, or you are a lawyer who represents them.
Jackietreehorn
Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 3:02 a.m.
One guy throws up on himself and is driving so bad that people call 911 from their cell phones. One guy rolls his work van before even making it on the freeway. You're right. No "public safety benefit" in arresting these two guys.
Ed
Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 1:51 a.m.
The penalty seems appropriate, but low alcohol venues may take "some of the excess" out of people who over drink. It would seem most people can opt out of life altering penalies, if they just lawyer-up and family medical leave themselves into a rehab?
Macabre Sunset
Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 12:33 a.m.
I'm not sure how you can even operate a car if you're at .18. But I guess rolling it on a highway is proof of concept. I've been at that level (never while driving) a couple of times, and the world just doesn't look the same. I like the term "super drunk." Would it be possible to amend the law to force violators to paint a big red "S" on their cars?
Matt Cooper
Tue, Feb 22, 2011 : 1:50 a.m.
I've seen p[eople operate motor vehicles with a PBT greater than .24. It can be done....sadly enough.