Lawmakers split on DUI bill
|
|
The number of Ohioans with five or more DUIs now tops 33,000, and despite several new laws in recent years to crack down on drunken driving, the level of alcohol-related accidents in Ohio has remained steady. But will the House and Senate come to an agreement on the best next step to curb those who insist on driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs? The Senate is moving a bill that prohibits repeat DUI offenders from refusing to take a blood-alcohol test. But a key House Republican wants to prevent even first-time offenders from turning on a car before they take a breath test. Law-enforcement officials, prosecutors and anti-DUI crusaders have been frustrated for years that drivers can potentially avoid a DUI conviction by refusing to take a blood-alcohol test, such as blowing into a Breathalyzer. Attorneys regularly advise clients that the instant one-year license suspension that comes with a refusal is better than handing over evidence proving their blood-alcohol level is more than 0.08 percent, the limit in which a person is considered to be driving drunk in Ohio. “The penalty is meaningless to those who have been convicted of multiple DUI offenses,” Summit County Prosecutor Sherri Bevan Walsh told a Senate committee. Under Senate Bill 17, which is getting final tinkering in committee, no one with two or more DUI convictions in the previous six years would be allowed to refuse an officer’s request to take a blood-alcohol test. Walsh compared it to obtaining fingerprints from a burglary suspect, or DNA from someone accused of rape — they are not allowed to refuse. But Jon Saia, a Columbus defense attorney who specializes in DUI cases, said the bill is reminiscent of the Soviet Union. “It’s pretty frightening that they can hold you down and put a needle in you for a traffic offense,” he said. “This is action without a court order. This is allowing police on the street to make that determination with Gestapo-type tactics. Other proposals in the bill, sponsored by Sen. Timothy J. Grendell, R-Chesterland, would require multiple DUI offenders to wear a “smart bracelet” to monitor blood-alcohol levels and would make it easier to prove a person is criminally liable for loaning a vehicle to someone who is drunk or has no driver’s license. In the House, Rep. Bill Seitz, R-Cincinnati, argues that increasing penalties and requirements on those who refuse to be tested is an idea “that has gone nowhere (in) the last four years, and I don’t think it will go anywhere again.” Instead, Seitz is crafting his own DUI bill that would require even first-time offenders to install an ignition interlock device, which prevents a car from starting unless the driver breathes into it to prove he or she was not drinking. Seitz called it a “far preferable and more effective way of dealing with this problem.” Grendell disagrees. “We have room for interlock, but in and of itself, it is not enough of a deterrent,” he said, noting that offenders can beat the system by having someone else breathe into it. |