New penalties in Michigan for high blood alcohol content will mean trouble for 'super drunks'
Among the potential Halloween costumes to choose from this weekend, perhaps the worst would be a “super drunk.”
That’s what police officers are calling drunken drivers whose blood alcohol content is above .17, the level at which new penalties will take effect on Sunday.
The new penalties include a maximum of 180 days in jail, fines from $200 to $700, a one-year license suspension and mandatory alcohol treatment program or self-help program for at least one year.
Motorists who wish to drive after 45 days of having a suspended license must have an automatic ignition interlock installed on their vehicle, which won't allow the car to start if the driver has above a .025 BAC.
Washtenaw County Sheriff's Deputy Doug McMullen said it's rare to find drivers at the .17 level locally, but said there are areas where such drivers are frequently found.
Police will be increasing enforcement efforts over the Halloween weekend, when new penalties take effect.
File photo
“If someone’s able to tolerate the super drunk limit and still function, chances are it’s not their first time, and it’s not going to be their last time,” McMullen said.
Statewide, about 32 percent of the 45,893 drunken drivers arrested in 2009 tested above the .17 level, said Anne Readett, spokeswoman for the Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning.
She said in her experience, people do take notice of new laws and do their best to change their behavior, especially with drunken driving laws.
“It’s been my experience that when laws change, people will change their behavior,” she said. “There are people who will do one of two things: One will take a cab or call someone to get a ride, and some people will drink less.”
Washtenaw County Prosecutor Brian Mackie said the automatic ignition interlock device will now come with a camera, which will ensure the person blowing into the device is the person who is supposed to be blowing into it.
The camera will help limit the number of drivers who have someone sober blow into the device so they are allowed to drive.
“Humans are very inventive. Somebody bright invented the device, and someone else saw the ability to couple a camera with that,” he said, “and some mind will work on defeating that.”
Readett said the automatic interlock ignition device is something that’s been used in many states, including Michigan, where it has been up to the courts’ discretion to use.
There’s no way to predict the effect it will have on recidivism rates in Michigan at this point, Readett said. She said she’s hoping the device, combined with the mandatory treatment, will help reduce repeat offenders.
“It becomes a longer term behavior change mechanism,” she said. “So, once the interlock is off the vehicle, hopefully you’re not in a place where you’ll have people who are likely to reoffend. It’s something we’ll have to look at over time.”
Mackie said the bigger issue is simply having enough officers employed to catch drunken drivers. He said there are 2,000 fewer police officers in Michigan than there were in 2001, which has a huge effect on the number of drivers caught.
He said the steeper penalties will mean nothing if there aren’t enough officers to catch offenders.
“People who blow that high, they’ve done it before plenty of times and just haven’t been caught, that’s the bigger issue,” Mackie said. “It’s easy to pass a law, but what happens if there aren’t enough people to enforce it?”
Officers are stepping up their patrols this weekend. McMullen said the increased number of patrols, along with the amount of people partaking in Halloween festivities, could lead to a large increase in drunken driving arrests.
“The case stats show that between 11 p.m. and 2 a.m. on the weekend … about 70 percent of the people coming out of the bars in those hours are legally intoxicated,” he said. “With the additional vehicles, it’ll make an impact.”
Kyle Feldscher covers K-12 education for AnnArbor.com. He can be reached at kylefeldscher@annarbor.com.
Comments
herman gardens
Sun, Oct 31, 2010 : 5:42 p.m.
Like it or not, blood alcohol level and intoxication level are not synonomous. Booze has a bell curve. There are people who likely would fall into a coma and die if they ever took any kind of alcohol. And there are people who could drink every waking moment and never become intoxicated. The use of blood alcohol level as a per se proof of intoxication reflects a legal convenience, and since proving intoxication (i.e., actual impairment to one's physical and mental functioning) is so difficult to establish outside a laboratory, U.S legislatures more or less adopted en masse a drop from 0.015 to 0.010 as "legally" intoxicated back in the late '70s and early '80s. But in those days the punishment for drinking and driving was nowhere near as draconian as it now is; less money was involved. Now a cop can make more than a third of his monthly quota based on a single drink-driving offense, which gives the cop more time for the donut shop or the steroid salesman, depending how he rolls.
Ricebrnr
Sun, Oct 31, 2010 : 8:11 a.m.
@wolv256, "Quit ruining people's lives because the government is broke and money-hungry. You're not bringing people back and you're not saving lives, you're ruining them." WRONG! It's not the government or anyone else ruining a drunkard's life. It's the drunks who CHOOSE to ruin their own AND other's lives. But for their choices and actions they couldn't possibly be getting in trouble now could they? One of the 12 steps is admission of ones transgressions. Thanks for taking a cab home but you need to re-examine that attitude.
Mike
Sun, Oct 31, 2010 : 3:28 a.m.
Well, any improvement in penalties has to be welcomed, but 0.17 seems excessively high. In New Zealand they are struggling with lowering their maximum BAC level from 0.08 down to 0.05, where it is in my country, Australia. We do take prisoners in Australia for Drink Driving. Loss of licence, significant fines, jail time for the worst and public opprobrium. For in Australia, you are positively loathed if you drink and drive... We have an extensive media campaign, allied and coordinated to a program of Random Breath Testing every Australian will be asked to provide a breath test about once or twice a year and this has led to a massive reduction in the road toll, despite, the population of the country doubling and despite the average size of cars decreasing. But back to my hapless Kiwi cousins (Kiwis to Australians are kind of like Canadians are to Americans): This was published today in the NZ Herald by Frances Morton*: What we do know, unequivocally, is that when the blood alcohol content of drivers increases, the risk of them being in a fatal crash increases exponentially. A driver aged 30 or over who has consumed a couple of drinks (blood alcohol level of 50mg) is 5.8 times more likely to crash than a sober driver but if that driver keeps on drinking and gets behind the wheel with a blood alcohol limit of 80mg the current limit they are 16.5 times more likely to be involved in a crash causing death. The numbers are even more chilling for a driver aged 20 to 29 who drinks to the current drink-drive limit. They are 50 times more likely to kill you or themselves on the road than a sober driver. I dont understand why the book isnt thrown at any DUI driver at much lower levels than 0.17. Why should we put up with out of control individuals deciding to increase our risks of injury or death or that of our kids? Recidivism should not be tolerated on the roads. Driving a car and therefore risking lives other than your own - is a privilege not a civil right. * http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10684325
snapshot
Sun, Oct 31, 2010 : 1:19 a.m.
I also take issue with the cop mentality that if someone has a high limit "it's not their first time" syndrome. So this law is merely a way of punishing someone double for a single incident. Again I'll stress that cell phone use and driving distractions cause more vehicle deaths than drunk driving so lets fix that problem! Other cities have a "free drunk ride" program with volunteers who work in teams, one drives the drunk home, the other drives the drunk's car home. This has worked well in other cities and Ann Arbor's student and retired population could contribute greatly to the needed manpower.
snapshot
Sun, Oct 31, 2010 : 1:01 a.m.
I'm not for increased penalties for drunk drivers but would welcome more laws and enforcement for cell phones and other devices that distract drivers. I think these device users cause more deaths and are more dangerous than drunk drivers. Many drunk drivers are TRYING to drive well so they don't get caught. There are sober and other distracted drivers that seem not to care about the safety of their driving. I don't think increased drunk driving penalties will make the streets any safer for other drivers.
Tom Joad
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 7:04 p.m.
Real world BAC of reaching the SuperDrunk threshold is your typical bar denizen "Sure, I'll have another, and another and another" and after pounding shots and beer all night you've surpassed the.17 level as you climb into your car for the drive home...good luck
Chris 8 - YPSI PRIDE
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 5:57 p.m.
That big ole building in Dertoit that is an embarassment and eyesore. Go in, start from the top floor and move down to re-furbish it. Start the repeat offenders at the higher floors depending on how may times they have been caught. make 10 floors for repeat offenders. Top floor for repeat number 10.next down for repeat number 9. next floor down for repeat number 8 and so on. as they work their way down to the ground have extensive therapy on each floor and require em to stay and be moved down one by one toward the ground depending on treatment progress.do not let em reach the ground and door out until a certified counselor decides its time to move em closer to the ground and out. Order them kept there until they are certified to leve by a competent counsler. break rules while there and go op a floor or two for doing that and begin through the process again. After being released mandatory suprise check ups with a probation officer. I guarantee anyone working their way down to the bottom and earning their way out will never think of driving drunk again. it may stop them from drinking all together. while there they must be responsible for their own cooking cleaning laundry and housekeeping. This kind of rehab may work real well. Expenses covered by collected fines and it should be self supporting. LETs just do it and get it done!!!!
Mick52
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 4:49 p.m.
@scooter dog, with the very first post, brings up a great point. In order to make it work the best you have to make the penalty mandatory and take away a judge's discretion. The fine, $200 to $700 seems way too low. Frankly I do not know why they have to apply this to a higher BAL. Why not just raise the fines and penalties for all DUIs? Just jack them up. I may not be popular saying this, but I think all traffic fines should be jacked up. Way up. Where I live in western Washtenaw co., we have these narrow 2 lane roads with a 50 MPH limits which I think is too dangerous. Especially since so many people blow through much faster than that. So crank up the fees and make the law breakers help balance the state budget. And you talk about drunks, when I come home at night on my two lane autobahn, yup I am wonder if that car coming toward me at 60-65 is a drunk driver.
fremdfirma
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 4:16 p.m.
Those complaining about the "slap on the wrist" don't seem to realize the point of all this. It's about MONEY, not safety, as all these shakedowns are - does anyone here *not* remember the earnest promise on behalf of the boys in blue that seat belt violations would never, ever be considered a primary offense, grinning and lying the whole while, as "seatbelt checkpoints" started springing up as yet another excuse? You see, if you lock them up, they cannot re-offend, which means you cannot FINE them some more, and that is the last thing these greedy misfits want. When policing priority went from "Community Protection", to "Law Enforcement", it all went downhill, since the former involves the unglorious, non profitable concept of preventing the crime in the first place, and the latter comes with high profile "busts" and lots of money - humans are human and have their flaws, a badge and a uniform does not make them go away, especially in an atmosphere were real accountability is so lacking. We ourselves also have a responsibility here, because many of these intoxicated drivers, someone let them get in that car while blitzed, and that doesn't have to happen as often as it does, so even though you will never be legally penalized for it in any way, those of us who look the other way for our buddies are almost as guilty as they are.
PaperTigerSaline
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 4 p.m.
@scooterdog - you're absolutely right. It's almost as if the police officers are wasting their time and energy to even bother to arrest the individual, as they get out of jail anyway, and eventually drive drunk again and finally kill someone. WHAT do we need to do to put them in jail for a year, fine them $10,000 for even the FIRST time you are convicted of drunk driving. PERIOD. END OF STORY. Make this AUTOMATIC. I don't care if the jails are overcrowded. Put them in the same cell with a hardened criminal for a while. That should scare them enough to never take another drink. I'm sick of it.
Julius
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 2:24 p.m.
The limit should be.10. Stop messing around with the barely over stuff and deal with the more obvious cases. And don't make it such a marketing thing. I don't want to hear commercials about how you're enforcing DUI laws. Just do it. It shouldn't be about the money, it should be about safety.
jns131
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 2:20 p.m.
I mentioned this on another article posted within Ann Arbor.com. The one thing I think would work even better is a thumb print of the user, with a camera. So, blow, smile and get finger printed at the same time. Thanks Ann Arbor News for letting me know this has now become law. Lets see if the nation follows suit.
Urban Sombrero
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 2:05 p.m.
@Brad---I know, right? "Super Drunk" sounds like a parody of a superhero. I'd expect it to be done by either Zucker Abrams Zucker or the Wayans Brothers. And, it'd open to at least $60 mil its first weekend.
Brad
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 1:53 p.m.
I can't believe anybody is really using "super drunk" as a term. Sounds like maddness to me.
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 1:15 p.m.
What about the "Super-High" How do you measure the pot heads.
Urban Sombrero
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 12:49 p.m.
@Barry---even better, "Hopeless Alcoholic"? That sound about right? I know a few alcoholics and none of them are sociopaths. Just sad, angry drunks.
Barry
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 12:47 p.m.
@Urban Sombrero "But, the term "Super drunk" just sounds like a goal college kids have, not a legal/official term. It sounds cheesy!" I agree with you on this. Perhaps a name such as "Sociopathic Drunk" could work.
Urban Sombrero
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 12:39 p.m.
@oldRUSHfan---I was being facetious. I'm guessing a sense of humor is foreign to you. Random checkpoints, like someone upthread mentioned, scare me. It's a little too close to "Show me your papers". I know they're meant to mean well and all that, but they just seem a little Stazi/KGB to me.
Chase Ingersoll
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 12:39 p.m.
No-one at the AA meeting this morning had a problem with the enhanced penalties. Drinking and driving impinges upon the life and liberty of sober people. Drinkers who are not responsible need to have more respect for people who are being responsible.
Deborah
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 12:21 p.m.
criminal penalties and social ostracism are exactly what exacerbates medical conditions like addiction
uptodate citizen
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 12:03 p.m.
all this new "enforcement" does is put 14,685 Bradley Wayne Howard's back onto the street on "probation"
belboz
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 12:02 p.m.
I didn't read it that way, but thanks. It's election time, so maybe everyone just needs to have a beer and relax. Just not too many!
Greggy_D
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 10:50 a.m.
"They should just do random sobriety checkpoints like they do in other parts of the country. " No thanks. I do not need to prove my innocence. The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled the checkpoints are unconstitutional.
loves_fall
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 10:39 a.m.
@Greggy_D Well... the good news for the 0.08 "money grab" is that even if this law doesn't change the behavior of the drinkers, I'll bet it changes the behavior of the police. If a superdrunk is worth 2x more than a regular drunk, I wonder if there is going to be a reduction of enforcement on the less impressive charge. Though, I think that's still good news for all of us. I personally would rather them focus more on getting the dangerously drunk off the road.
OldRUSHfan
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 10:37 a.m.
@ Urban Sombrero- No, what we need are people that TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS.
belboz
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 10:36 a.m.
My worry is that more money is being taken from the private sector economy, one that is in shambles, and more is going to the government, one that is bloated. Perhaps if the government provided a one for one reduction in taxes, I'd not mind as much. But, this is just another budgetary stop gap measure. $1000 sent to Lansing is $1000 not spent on main street, whether it is from you, me, or the "super drunk." If I felt that Lansing already did an excellent job cutting costs, tightening the pension belt, co-paying health care costs, etc...., then I wouldn't be so against it. But, anything that reads "More money for the State..." is a bad read these days.
loves_fall
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 10:28 a.m.
They should just do random sobriety checkpoints like they do in other parts of the country. I think a lot of people out there aren't going to stop their drinking habits for anything less, because even moderately drunk (or superdrunk for some) they pull it together, don't weave, use their turn signals, and defeat the efforts of the police to identify them and pull them over. It's an overlearned skill and people can do the basic mechanics of it most of the time despite quite a bit of impairment. Unfortunately the real danger of drunk driving for these folks isn't that they'll forget to use their turn signal, but that something unexpected will happen (either due to circumstances or a moment of alcohol-exacerbated inattention) and they won't be able to respond in time.
jcj
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 10:13 a.m.
belboz It was not my intent to imply YOU might be inclined to drive drunk. I apologize if it looked that way. That was a general statement not a personal one.
Greggy_D
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 10:06 a.m.
"The ones screaming the loudest are most likely those with a drinking problem.If you are not inclined to drive drunk what is your worry?" How do you come to this conclusion? Personally, I have no problem with the.17 law. However I do have concerns with the.08 law. The.08 law screams money grab. Maybe those screaming are against unjust laws/punishment in general?
jcj
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 9:54 a.m.
belboz I have no problem with habitual lawbreakers of any kind subsidizing the rest of us. I repeat: The ones screaming the loudest are most likely those with a drinking problem.If you are not inclined to drive drunk what is your worry?
Ace Ventura
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 9:24 a.m.
Another ridiculous law. Just a money grab by the government.
Chase Ingersoll
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 8:59 a.m.
I'll mention it at my "home-group" this morning and get back to you on their impressions.
Steven Case Lyman
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 8:55 a.m.
One part of me says "agree with this new law," because a driver exceeding a 0.17 level is far more of a hazard than someone barely over a 0.08 level, but... Where is there any evidence that making the fines stiffer (or "taxing the crime") actually accomplishes anything towards truly correcting the problem? It is like unto the mythic belief that enacting the death penalty will significantly eliminate the problem of murder.
Urban Sombrero
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 8:49 a.m.
Ban alcohol? Bwah! Prohibition worked so grand the last time. And, you know, we're totally winning that drug war. (Or maybe not.) Maybe cars are the problem? Were there many DUI's back in the days of horses and buggies? Maybe we do need to return to a quieter, simpler time....
belboz
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 8:44 a.m.
The real solution, in my opinion, is to ban alcohol (since you asked...). How many people are busted for driving on cocaine or other banned substances? Short of that, society is always going to have to accept we will have drunk drivers. People don't care enough to change their actions - no drinking anymore - to eliminate the fringe problems associated with alcohol in society. It feels good, apparently, to point fingers at the problems of others. But, try to ban alcohol, and people get defensive. So, who is the addict? Seems like everyone is. That is the only solution. But even then we will have law breakers. I'm not saying we should stop trying, but i am just tired of the state looking for clever ways to raise money, claiming moral purposes when it is just a money grab.
Awakened
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 8:08 a.m.
I support greater penalties for drunk drivers. The real drinkers won't stop drinking unless there is a tragedy and that tragedy shouldn't be someone else's. Personally, that is why I chose to live within walking distance of a bar! But I can't help but wonder that if cars were built like 1968 Delta 88's AND had all the modern safety devices we'd all be better off. Todays cars just won't save you from a significant impact.
Urban Sombrero
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 8:03 a.m.
I have no problem being tough on drunk drivers. None at all. But, the term "Super drunk" just sounds like a goal college kids have, not a legal/official term. It sounds cheesy!
Sallyxyz
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 7:57 a.m.
I agree with Jon Saalberg's post. We need to start getting serious about prosecuting all drunk drivers, and throw the serious offenders in jail, BEFORE they kill innocent people on the roads. NO slap on the wrist for any DD offense. Unfortunately, the politicians are paid off by the lobbyists in the hospitality and beverage industries, who don't want serious laws for DD, because they say it will hurt their business. Of course, those lobbyists don't care about the innocent lives that are lost because of weak DD laws.
Jim Osborn
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 7:49 a.m.
"Motorists who wish to drive after 45 days of having a suspended license must have an automatic ignition interlock installed on their vehicle,..." I do hope that this is a mistake. WHy should someone who got too many speeding tickets or fled the scene have to test every time for alcohol? Drunks, yes, others, no. It is good to see that they are targeting the seriously drunk and not lowering the 0.08 limit even more.
jcj
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 7:48 a.m.
@belboz I have reread your post numerous times. BUT I can't seem to find the paragraph with your solution to this major problem. I have no problem penalizing the "super drunks" or repeat offenders severely. And I would expect the biggest complaints to come from the persons that might fall into one of those categories. The area of gray for me is the first time offender that has made a mistake in judgment. Do they get a free pass? NO but I don't know how severe to make their penalty. If I were someone that has lost a loved one to a drunk driver I suspect that gray area might disappear. If you take a drive anywhere on I-94 during rush hour you will see numerous sober idiots putting everyone's life at risk. We need to institute an IQ test for drivers.
GRANDPABOB
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 7:48 a.m.
i COMPLETELY AGREE WITH DADING. Why make new llaws when they don't enforce the old.
Basic Bob
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 7:39 a.m.
The legislature is trying to look tough on crime without actually addressing the problem. Look at all the people driving with no license and no insurance. Even the definition of "super drunk" is ridiculously low, 0.17%. I'm sure the cops have some idea how many people they catch now will fail that test, but I would believe it's likely to be 3/4 of them. They also have not considered drug interactions, which I understand is tough to measure. When someone is high on beer and Vicodin (warning: do not take with alcohol) like the guy this week, his timing and judgment are going to be far worse than the normal "super drunk". But then they go after a college student who smoked pot two weeks ago and got in a real accident.
Jon Saalberg
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 7:36 a.m.
I agree with the idea of tougher measures for habitual drunk drivers, but the reality is a guy like the one who was responsible for the crash that killed the woman this past week would not be stopped by this law - he was driving without a license, without insurance, and with sanctions to not drink. You cannot stop people like without putting them in prison. But no one wants to pay for that - imagine how much more overcrowded Michigan prisons would be if we start imprisoning "serious" drunk drivers.
dading dont delete me bro
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 7:32 a.m.
the current laws need to be enforced. why make MORE laws if the current one's are not being enforced?
belboz
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 7:01 a.m.
Just another way for the state to grab money, plain and simple. I was unaware of any study ever completed that showed putting a tax on crimes will eliminate the crime. So, although the stated purpose seems quite moral and lofty, I'm guessing this goes the way of the lottery. "Look at all the extra money we will have for schools!!!" quickly turned into "Look at all this other stuff we need to spend money on!!!" Will $ for $ go into increased drunk driving patrol, or is this just a way to pay for police we have now but can't afford? How about re-working the state pension plan before taking any more money from the public. Oh, but this isn't the public. These are the outcasts of society that nobody wants to defend. Maybe we should just send them to Australia. Time will tell, but it is ironic that the state is doing all of this, while at the same time trying hoping to expand liquor sales on Sunday. Actually, it is quite hypocritical.
Ricebrnr
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 6:27 a.m.
+1 Something, hopefully not just cosmetic but not nearly enough. Simpler and more cost effective suggestion. Seize the cars of any repeat offender or super drunk. No need for interlock devices. Can't drive drunk if you don't have a car. Drunk walking only hurts themselves. You want behavioral change? History has always shown laws don't necessarily cut it. Economics do. Taking their cars would have a cascade effect and cause constant reminders of how their selfish behavior costs them. Got to make more time to commute, either by bus or car pool. Grocery shopping? Hope the store is close or you better find a ride. Etc
scooter dog
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 6:05 a.m.
Sounds good on paper,but the real test will be, will the courts stop plea bargining the cases down to a slap on the wrist sentence. It remains to be seen From past experience,its probably going to be business as usual.