Talk:Drunk driving (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Drunk driving (United States) article.
Article policies
Drunk driving (United States) is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess. Remember, the project aims for no vandalism and no conflict, if an article needs attention regarding vandalism or breaches of wikiquette, please add it to the article watch list.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Comments

Alcohol does not have a scent. As such, in case reports you are never to state that you smelled alcohol on the subject's breath. Instead, state that there was an odor of an alcoholic beverage, as that is the scent that is recognized.

"Drunk Driving" is a misnomer, there is no such thing as "Drunk Driving", its either Driving Under the Influence (DUI)or Driving While Intoxicated (DWI).

If you are arrested you are charged with either DUI or DWI not "drunk driving". Describing someone as "drunk" is purely subjective, hence while the laws are called DWI and DUI.

The content of this article was submitted by the copyright holder Lawrence Taylor, Esq. ( http://www.DUIcentral.com/ ), the author of several legal textbooks, whom I introduced to Wikipedia earlier this afternoon.

While the content of the article is superb, and is no doubt the first of many such high quality contributions, it should be enhanced to be more comprehensive, or simply moved to an article entitled DUI evidence, so have at it Wikipedians! Larry has a full understanding that his work will be mercilessly edited and that the present article is now subject to free distribution under the terms of the GFDL. -- NetEsq 00:27 Oct 25, 2002 (UTC)

The article is from our law firm's public informational website at http://www.DUIcenter.com/ As David indicates, I understand that this article is subject to free distribution. I look forward to contributing further in the future. Letaylor

Regarding the original content of this article (see: "Critique of blood alcohol readings - This section is the previous content of this page. It needs wikifying and NPOVing.") - I'm considering moving this to Blood Alcohol Content.

Also, this article needs discussion of:

  • "drugged" driving; the title would then more appropriately be Drunk and Drugged Driving ?
  • social/medical/economic effects of drunk/drugged driving injuries & deaths
  • efforts to reduce drunk/drugged driving
  • link to MADD, which needs to be written

Harris7 11:52, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)


What about ethical/moral issues regarding Drunk Driving? I can post a decent bibliography.

Changes to this article were submitted by Attorney Marc N. Pelletier, Law Offices of Russo & Russo, St. Petersburg, Florida ([1]). My sincere thanks to my colleague in the National College of DUI Defense, Fellow Lawrence Taylor, Esq. for providing his work as the foundation from which to build.

Edits are as follows:

1. First sentence edited to clarify that it is *impairment* rather than *intoxication* by alcohol that is the key feature of DUI laws.

2. Added word drugs to first sentence with appropriate internal link to expand scope of article per user Harris7's comment on the discussion page associated with this article.

3. Reworded the third paragraph to refer to "per se" or "legal limits" found in the law of most U.S. jurisdictions. Further, changed this paragraph so that it referred to the presumption of impairment that attaches at BAC levels of .08% or higher rather then stating that the law defines .08% BAC as the "threshhold of drunkenness."

4. Added a section dealing with "drugged driving."

5. Changed the examples listed in the first sentence dealing with what penalties are imposed where BAC is over a .20. Added internal link to ignition interlock devices.

6. Deleted the last two sentences of the fourth paragraph dealing with the reasoning behind enhanced penalties in DUI cases where a BAC level of .20 was found to exist. Although habitual and chronic alcoholism is considered by the courts in the context of DUI case (i.e., "How many times were you DUI in the past, but just didn't get caught?"), the main reason for the imposition of additional penalties required in these cases is the greatly increased risk of accidents (and subsequent injury and/or property damage) associated with high BAC levels.

7. Added paragraph under Field Sobriety Tests section dealing with the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests developed by NHTSA. Placed internal link.

8. Corrected the usuage of BAL to BAC for internal consistency within the article, although the terms are interchangeable in practice.

9. Corrected the caption under the photo for accuracy. Test discovered GHB in Nolte's system. These tests were unable to determine drug levels or the fact of impairment. Also, fixed a problem with the remainder of the caption not showing after the internal link to GHB.

Lately there have been numerous edits to this article dealing with the section that states that "The most common blood alcohol content (BAC) "legal limit" in the United States is 0.10%. Only three states still use the more lax, once-common standard of 0.08%." This is factually inaccurate as the .10 level is a "more lax standard" while .08 is the by-far more common standard and also represents a "stricter standard" or lower concentration of alcohol in the human body. Please see http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research/pub/alcohol-laws/08History/1_introduction.htm#The%20Case%20for as authority. Reference specifically to the section which states, "As of May 2001, forty-nine states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, had enacted per se laws (the exception is Massachusetts, where an .08 BAC is considered evidence of impairment, but it is not illegal per se.). Twenty-five states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, had established .08 BAC per se as the illegal limit. The remaining states have a .10 BAC per se limit." I am hopeful that this comment and the corresponding edit will end the confusion and numerous reversions to factually incorrect information that have been ongoing in recent weeks.

http://www.dmv.de.gov/services/driver_services/driver_improvement/dr_di_dui.shtml

[edit] USA only

This page should be moved to one called Drunk driving (USA). Its content relates almost exclusively to the USA jurisdiction. It has limited use in the global Wikipedia. I will move the page after a suitable time if there are no objections. Arcturus 08:47, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Page moved. I've created a new page called Drink driving for the international perspective. The new page has a See also link to this page. Arcturus 19:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Driving privilege

I notice that in this article driving in America is referred to as a 'privilege'. Is this the legal situation? I wonder haw a state can grant any privileges to its people - surely its the other way round. I've heard people make similar statements in the UK but as far as I can see driving is a right not a privilege. Of course the right can be removed by the state under certain circumstances, but by default you have the 'right'. If we make reference to the state granting privileges in forums such as Wikipedia, sooner or later 'the state' might come to the view that it does indeed confer privileges on the people - and that's dangerous in a democracy. Arcturus 18:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Many people say things like "driving isn't a right, it's a privilege". This meaningless phrase is often used to justify checkpoints, zero tolerance DUI laws, racial profiling, etc. Since the difference between a "right" and a "privilege" isn't legally clear, there's no sense in claiming that people have a right to perform some acts while others are privileges granted by the state. However I don't think the word "privilege" is used in that sense in the article, it simply means that people can be disallowed from driving. Rhobite 18:31, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  1. In U.S. law there is a distinct difference between a Right, and a Privilege. A "Right" cannot be taken away, where as a privilige can be removed through due process. therefore,terh phrase is not meaning less. EMT1871 19:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
IANAL but I don't think what you write is accurate. The Right to Vote is taken away from convicted criminals in many jurisdictions, which by by your definition would make it a privilege, but nobody ever says the Privilege to Vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.110.168 (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
He's not right. I am a lawyer (not yours, but I am one). Rights are automatically granted to the people and can only be taken away after due process. So, felons can lose the right to vote, probationers and parolees can lose their rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, etc. Privileges, on the other hand, are not automatic. You only get them if the state grants them to you (such as the "privilege" of driving on the public roads they built), but once you have them they can only be taken away from you if you've been given due process. "Due process" generally only entitles you to notice and an opportunity to be heard, which really isn't all that much, so it's not that hard to yank someone's license from them if they get a DUI. Gromlakh (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] getMADD.com

I just reverted this added paragraph in the first section:

It should also be noted that the law applies differently to people suspected of driving while intoxicated. In most states, the officer only has to suspect that the person is drunk. In most states, upon arrest, the suspect, not convicted mind you, has their license suspended within a certain number of days. This suspension is, in some states, increased if the person refuses a breathalizer test, which in some states, is their legal right to refuse, the law punishes the person for refusal by this action. Organizations like MADD make significant amounts of income from hosting MADD intervention meetings for convicted DWI offenders, which is court ordered. The prices for attending these meetings range from 5 to 20 dollars (American). Drunk driving has become a big business and money maker for local law enforcement and judiciaries. The DWI laws are constantly being made stricter in states, due to the lobbying of organizations like MADD, due to the amount of money to be made. Please see getMADD.com for further information on this matter.

There is useful information there (reasonable suspicion of impairment versus actual impairment, breathalyzer refusal), but it's definitely non-NPOV and contains an advertisement for a non-NPOV lobbyist group. Could the good information be incorporated? --Quuxplusone 18:24, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the revert. While it's true that many people believe that MADD has overstepped its original mission (including one of its founders, I think), there's a better way to phrase this. Right now the paragraph is POV. Red flag phrases include "it should be noted" and "mind you", among others. Rhobite 21:56, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge with "Drink driving"

User:GCarty proposes merging this article back into Drink driving. That seems counterproductive to me, since the whole reason it was split off in the first place is that it has a lot of encyclopedic content that doesn't apply to "drink driving" in Europe and abroad.

However, it's true that Drink driving is a stub. Who knows anything about the relevant laws in Europe? Add some content!

I'm minorly afraid that leaving the merge notice up too long might lead to somebody actually merging before a consensus is reached, since there's no apparent procedure for discussing merges the way there is for deletions. Ideas? --Quuxplusone 16:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I support the merge. I agree that most of the content was US-specific, but the proper solution would have been to add information on other countries, not to split the article. The topic of drunk driving shouldn't be segregated into "US" and "elsewhere". Rhobite 18:49, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Clarification: I definitely support the creation of new articles about dr[iu]nk driving in countries other than the U.S.  But it would be silly, IMHO, to create one blanket article that tries to deal with drunk-driving laws in every single country on earth. Much as we currently have History of Britain, History of France, etc., we'd have Drunk driving (USA), Drink driving (France), etc.  The reason we don't have that at the moment is a lack of either interest in, or else interesting material about, drink driving outside the U.S.  In the U.S., drunk driving is understandably an interesting topic. Basically, I predict that if the articles are merged this week, they'll just have to be laboriously unmerged in a month or two, when somebody tries to expand the non-U.S. coverage. --Quuxplusone 00:02, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of penalties and as a societal problem?

I realize this needs to remain NPOV, but shouldn't there be some discussion of how it's a much larger problem in the United States, per capita than in other countries? Perhaps a comparison / contrast with the penalties of other countries? Just a suggestion - I think it would be a good addition, not sure of the best way to go about it.

I've added some points on DUI and its relationship to British Law - which does not recognise such an offence. It's an important legal point. I've also outlined that in terms of deterrent harsh sentences for DUI Manslaughter are much less effective than random breath testing and loss of licence Albanaich

[edit] Breath Test Redirect

"Breath Test" was redirected here, but should have gone to Driving under the influence. I've fixed that now, so no problem with NPOV. --Couttsie 01:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edited Legal Details

Why was the only useful information edited out? The US legal approach to reducing DUI driving is a failure based on the misguided view that restricting alcohol access and increasing sentence lenght decreases the incidence of DUI.

All the evidence from the rest of the world suggests that it is the danger of being caught along with harsh initial penalties that reduce DUI. Also, the USA's unique attitude to the crime of DUI Manslaughter (which does not exist in other Anglo-Saxon legal systems) is also not mentioned.

Albanaich

The evidence from the NHTSA at the beginning of article 'that no other nation uses this statistical' is misleading. NHTSA publish in detail who was drunk in the car - and figures suggest that non-drunk passengers amount to less than 3% of the total. It should be removed as irrelevant to the discussion.

What is relevant, but which appears to riguoursly censored, is that US restrictions on alcohol sale and the draconian sentences for DUI manslaughter have, if anything, a NEGATIVE effect on the prevalence of drunk driving.

Albanaikch

[edit] Bacon?

Why does the first line include [bacon] ?


[edit] "Probable cause" and "Reasonable suspicion"

I did some re-wording. "probable casue" and "reasonable suspicion" seem to be used interchangebly inparts of this article. I reworded where I've seen it so far. I will do more if I spot it. There is a significant evidentiary difference between the two.EMT1871 21:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy

"The accuracy of breath, blood and urine testing is a subject of some dispute, with various scientific studies indicating unreliable results.[4]" The citation noted is an article that quotes sources from 1985 and 1987. The technology used in 1985 and 1987 was highly disputed and as a result Breath Test Operators had to testify at trials not only as to the proceedures for the test but as to the operation and scientific principles behind the test. This is no longer true. Today's technology is not nearly as disputed, and most machines use more than one technology to determine BAC. Furthermore, the technology now has Judicial Notice (inmost states), eliminating the need for operators to testify as to scientific principle and the "inner workings" of the machines. EMT1871 22:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


  1. "Breath testing, as currently used, is a very inaccurate method for measuring BAG. Even if the breath testing instrument is working perfectly, physiological variables prevent any reasonable accuracy.... Breath testing for alcohol using a single test method should not be used for scientific, medical or legal purposes where accuracy is important. [Hlastala, Physiological Errors Associated with Alcohol Breath Testing, 9(6) The Champion 19 (1985).]" This is a quote from the article listed as a source for the statement quoted in the accuracy dispute. As you can see it clearly references a dispute in 1985.EMT1871 22:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] NPOV

"Its clear from comparisons with Australia, the UK and Europe that the US attempt to reduce drunk driving by restricting alcohol access and draconian sentence regimes is a failure"

This statement has no factual basis and quotes no sources. using terms like "draconian" clearly shows a POV and the statement that the approach is a failure is unsupported. EMT1871 22:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
wording is pov and it needs sources, but the gist of it is definitely true. needs a rewrite —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.90.252.76 (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC).
If the "gist" of this statement is true than it needs to cite facts in support of it's statements and the sources of those facts. Otherwise it is just a statement of opinion.EMT1871 16:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

That depends on whether you are going to do about 2 minutes search on the internet.

For a start DUI Manslaughter is a law unique to the USA - all other systems based on Anglo Saxon law regard the causing of a death in a motor accident as just that 'an accident'. The ruling is that the causation death is unrelated to the accident. That is to say there is no intent to cause an accident or harm so manslaughter cannot apply. The very maximum sentence in British law is 14 years and very rarely employed - a common sentence for DUI Manslaughter would be 4 years or so.

It's also why you cannot merge this article with that of other countries - the approach in law and methods of reducting drunk driving death in the USA is completely different to most other countries in the developed world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_dangerous_driving

http://www.brake.org.uk/index.php?p=675

Drink Driving Casualites UK (population 60 million)

http://www.cadd.org.uk/facts.htm

simplyDrink Driving Casualties Florida (population 16 million)

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics-florida.html

That's difference of around a factor of 4

Alcohol Consumption

http://christianparty.net/alcoholconsume.htm

So, as I said,

Its clear from comparisons with Australia, the UK and Europe that the US attempt to reduce drunk driving by restricting alcohol access and draconian sentence regimes is a failure

What does work are DUI road blocks and 'raids' outside bars and places licensed to sell alcohol, which make it impossible to drink and drive without being caught. It's also clear from watching programs like 'Cops' that many people in the US drive in condition in which the general public (and bar owners) would report them to the police in Europe and the UK.

ok, well, my first question is from who's comparisons? yours? second, is while the statement may be true, the term "draconian" shows a clear POV and has no place in this article. Next your last comment about watching shows like "cops", is part of the problem and also shows your slanted POV. If you are getting your impression of American laws, law enforcement, and people from TV you definatly are not getting any FACTS about these topics. If you would like to discuss deterrents and tactics for enforceing DUI laws in the United states I gladly will, but have all your facts first. EMT1871 23:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

'Draconian is NOT a POV - its accurate analysis of the approach to DUI in the USA compared to the rest of the world. A driver involved in a DUI death is likely to face a sentence 4 or 5 times that of most other countries in the developed world, that's Draconian sentencing - its show YOUR slanted point of view that you cannot accept the accuracy of that statement.

If you want to discuss the subject you have to accept the facts first (ten minutes on internet will get them)

The Facts

1. The USA has one of the highest rates of DUI death on its road in the developed world 2. It has Draconian sentencing policies with sentences 4 or 5 times that found in the rest of the developed world for DUI death - but actually LESS for DUI driving per se. In the UK you can go to prison for DUI on a first offence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/4738709.stm

3. It has restrictions on the sale of alcohol that few other countries have 4. Consumption of alcohol is LOW compared to most other countries in the developed world

There are two consensus's here - and American one which is more or less completely detached from the facts and one found in the rest of the developed world.

'Cops' is identical in format to 'Street Crime UK' and we can make direct comparisons about crimes police are encountering in two completely different societies. The comparisons support the statistics - drunkeness is a much greater problem in the UK than it is in the USA - but people do not drink drive.

Whatever it is that stops Europeans drink driving it is not Draconian sentencing, not restriction on access to alcohol, and not alcohol consumption rates (which are higher).

It's hard, if not impossible to conclude from that, that the US approach to reducing DUI deaths is completely misguided.


obviously hyou have a vast knowledge of US DWI laws that my mere 8 years of Law enforcement experience, 100's of DWI arrests, and Expert witness credentials in this area cannot possibly compete with. You are actually comparing Law Enforcement in two countries using TV shows. I can not, and will not, discuss a topic with someone who draws their research from television. You have no conception of DWI laws, sentencing, arrest proceedures, or any other area of this topic other than what you have read or scene on TV.EMT1871

You are correct - my knowledge of the effectiveness of DUI laws in different juristictions is far superior yours - I am aware that DUI deaths in the USA currently run at about 3-4 times that of the UK, even though per capita alcohol consumption is higher in the UK. All this is obvious to anyone who takes the times watch reality TV police shows in the UK and USA. It's simple, obvious stuff - the TV completely reflects the statistics, both on alcohol consumption and DUI.

Anyone interested in reducing the horrific death toll on the USA's roads due to DUI should be taking an active interest in the way DUI laws and law enforcment operate other juristictions.

No one in the rest of the developed world, and particularly the UK, has anything to learn from the legislative measures the USA uses to manage DUI driving in the USA - clearly the US methods ARE A FAILURE.

It is only by making the US public aware that the DUI legal and road safety regime in the USA is a conspicous failure compared to other countries will the political pressure for change occur.

Any discussion of the DUI Driving in the USA MUST point this out - if only the save some of the 26,000 or so lives that are lost uneccessarially on the USA's roads every year.

This is NOT opinion. There is no way the 3-4 times US death rate due to DUI, in spite of lower alcohol consumption rates, can be explained without highlighting the unusual legislative regime in the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albanaich (talk • contribs)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.64.204.139 (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

You are stating an opinion, based on watching "Cops", which is a show designed to show people getting caught doing something wrong. According to the Wikipedia post on England, approximatley 3,000 killed per year as a result of DWI. The population listed for England is 50,762,900. That means there is one DWI death per 16920 persons in England. The United States of America had 17,941 killed in alcohol related crashes. With a population of 303,223,000, that equals one DWI related death per 16901 persons in USA. The difference is only 19. You are expressing your opinion and bias against the USA. From what I have read, I see comparisons that are on par between the two contries.Jar3079 (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tag removal

Just because you disagree with a neutrality dispute does not give you the right to remove the tag. The tag has been replaced because no consensus has been reached and the dispted language is still in place. I didn't just remove your wording, I palced the tag so it could be discussed So do not remove the tag until the dispute is settled. EMT1871 23:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus has been reached - unfortunately its not a consensus that Americans agree with - therefore, as with most things, the rest of the world does not count. Nothing unusual in that.

Similar consensus exist in other area's of road safety - whether that be the 'Botts Dot's v Cats Eye's or 'Roundabouts v Lighted interesections.

[edit] "Predictive Value" of FST's

Since we seem to be going repeatedly around with someone constantly re-adding information to the page that doesn't belong here, I'm explaining here why it doesn't belong.

The standardized field sobriety tests have been validated repeatedly in a number of peer reviewed studies. Not one, MANY. In fact, the scientific consensus is strong enough that courts in all fifty U.S. states are required to take judicial notice of their accuracy and ability to reveal intoxication. Defendants are certainly allowed to call their own experts to challenge them if they want, but in absence of that, their accuracy is accepted as a given.

The material being linked to is a from the website of a paid criminal defense expert witness in Colorado who has written a few articles against the FST's. Great. That's not a scientific debunking of anything. Nor is there any real breakdown of his work or that it has appeared in any peer-reviewed journals. It's certainly possible that there could be something backing up what he's got on his website; anything is possible. But to take one person's unique stance (especially one that isn't peer reviewed) and present it here as the absolute, infallible, scientific truth is at best grossly misleading.

I could perhaps see adding a quick sentence to the article with a citation to that site as a challenge to the FST's. Maybe something like: "Blah blah blah, field sobriety tests generally accepted with scientific consensus, although their accuracy and predictive value has been questioned by some defense experts." That might work; the text that user Romanstone456 has been adding is not what belongs in an encyclopedia. Tuckdogg 20:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tuckdogg here. There is alot of things added to this article without any factual basis and with questionalble sources (please see the discussions involving me above), and alot are added by authors with only an IP address and no member name.EMT1871 13:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be useful if either the article or the reference at the bottom included what year this study was taken. (Was it before or after cell phones were widely used in the US?) I'm also wondering on some of these indicators whar those not drunk doing it were thinking. Jon 21:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Standardized Field Sobriety Tests have nothing to do with observing a persons driving, so talking on a cell phone would not have an impact on the predictive value of these tests.EMT1871 12:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added lots of fact tags.

I added quite a few {{fact}} tags to the article on statements asserting facts and/or statistics but not providing sources per citation and verifiability guidelines. I also added {{weasel word}} tags due to weasel words. Also important, please cite drunk driving incidents with a reliable source or news article on the "famous people" section, else it could be construed as libel and subject to immediate removal. Cheers. --slakr 01:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That brings up an interesting question. When does it become "know", as per the section heading, that someone has driven drunk? Should Lindsay Lohan, for example, be included because she's been arrested, or only after he case is resolved in court? 209.212.24.145 17:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
How is putting a list of famous people convicted or arrested of DUI relevant to this article?? This is an encyclopedia article, not internet trivia. The main reason I contest this is that while its public information they were arrested, they're being famous really has nothing to do with it, and adds nothing to the article unlike other articles with "references in the media/popular culture" sections. I'm going to delete it but I'll leave the original text below in case someone can come up with a decent argument of relevance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.173.122 (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Public figures arrested or convicted of driving under the influence

I removed this section from the article. This was a list-crufty unnecessary section that provided no understanding of the subject. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sentencing for drunk driving?

Shouldn't there be information about the penalties for a DUI/DWI conviction, including jail time?(72.144.150.243 (talk) 08:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC))

[edit] DUI Laws by State

Washington DUI / DWI Laws: A first time DUI conviction requires 24 hours consecutive jail time, over $800 in total fines/costs/court fees, an alcohol evaluation and recommended follow-up treatment/classes. The court may suspend your license for 90 days, or up to a year if you refused the breath test or are found to have been above a .15 BAC. Also, a .15 or greater BAC conviction has greater mandatory minimums of 2 days in jail and more fines.[1]

A second DUI conviction results in increased mandatory jail time of 30-45 days, in addition to increases in the fines and license loss issues (including a much longer requirement for an ignition interlock device).[2]

In addition to the criminal court proceedings, the Department of Licensing will also seek to suspend/revoke your license. See the DUI page at www.dol.wa.gov. For those who refuse, the Department will seek to revoke your license for a year or more.Wadui08 (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)wadui08