H -°, L 6° | Tomorrow: 
H 18°, L 6°Last week, the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed to hear four cases involving out-of-state drunken driving offenses. At issue here is whether prior arrests outside of Wisconsin should be looked at when reviewing similar crimes in Wisconsin. To put it simply: Yeah, duh.
However, it’s not just simpletons like us who endorse that line of thinking. As UW law professor Frank Tuerkheimer said in last Wednesday’s The Badger Herald, “To me, this is a no-brainer.”
Drunken driving is a pretty straightforward issue — although the state Legislature might argue otherwise. If you get pulled over and you’ve had a couple (13) too many $5 Miller Lites at that epic BoDeans concert (they played “Closer to Free” TWICE), you’re in trouble. In doesn’t matter whether you’re in Milwaukee, Rockford or the Quad Cities, .08 is the standard in all 50 states. Also, you’re following the BoDeans in this scenario, so we’re sorry college didn’t work out.
If there is any gray area, it’s in current cases like State v. Gerard Carter, in which the defendant is moving for the court to ignore the two “Zero Tolerance” suspensions he received in Illinois. “Zero Tolerance” laws, which are also implemented in every state, are used to enforce more stringent drunken driving laws on people under 21. Typically, this means if underagers are caught behind the wheel with any alcohol in their system, they’ll be in violation of state laws — hence the “zero” part — although some states, like Louisiana and Mississippi, enforce laws closer to “.02 Tolerance.”
The disparity in “Zero Tolerance” laws is troubling, especially when setting legal precedents. However, in cases where multiple arrests occur in states with similar laws, such as Wisconsin and Illinois, this isn’t really an issue. Crossing the border doesn’t equate to a do-over when it comes to drunken driving offenses. If it did, Billy Joel would own about 40 cabins.
Even more, it might be time to call out those states who that understand the value of zero. According to New York’s Governor’s Traffic Safety Committee website, “Even though the law is called ‘zero tolerance,’ the minimum blood alcohol content is .02 and not 0. This is because certain cough syrups and mouthwashes contain alcohol, and some families will permit the consumption of small amounts of alcohol as part of religious or family functions.”
This is what the late Johnny Cochrane would hopefully refer to as the “Elaine and the poppy seeds” defense, and we aren’t buying it. You’re still supposed to spit Listerine out, and unless your church was founded by Ernest Hemingway, you shouldn’t be getting too trashed. “Zero Tolerance” should mean not a drop, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court should feel justified in not recognizing a distinction between the states when the laws are so similar.
IP hash: 5224d0d2
F.Y.I. Billy Joel was never arrested for, charged with, or convicted of D.W.I.
IP hash: 5224d0d2
F.Y.I. Billy Joel was never arrested for, charged with, or convicted of D.W.I.
IP hash: 92ed9871
This article is pretty weak.
First, of all the “standard in all 50 states” is not .08. There are at least 3 states with a limit of .1. You lose credibility fast when your facts (not even your opinions) are clearly false. Yes, the “standard” may be meant to imply that not all states have this limit, but if that was your meaning then “in all 50 states” is misleading.
Second, you can’t just say “oh well both states have some sort of zero tolerance law so you can treat them equally”. Even in murder cases where the accused is beyond a doubt guilty, they still get a trail. The judge doesn’t just say “oh well it’s clear you’re guilty so we’re going to lock you away.” That is akin to what you are suggesting. It very well might be that the Illinois convictions are of a similar enough nature to be relevant to prosecution in Wisconsin but fortunately that is up to a judge, and not you, to decide.
Third, why should zero tolerance mean “not a drop”? Studies show that impairment doesn’t begin until .04 (at the earliest) so why should we waste time and resources prosecuting people for having a BAC of less than .04? It doesn’t benefit anyone.
Finally, what does this even mean, “Even more, it might be time to call out those states who that understand the value of zero.” Who that understand?
IP hash: 9df8715b
I hope it is the Oregon trail