on 03-07-2009 00:24 
|
By JIM BARON
PROVIDENCE - A quick glance at the slew of drunk driving related bills on the agenda for the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday might make the casual observer think the state is cracking down on inebriated motorists.
But a closer look shows that the Judiciary Committee, and indeed the full Senate, has passed most of these bills before, many for several years running. But every year, observed Chairman Michael McCaffrey, "they hit a stone wall in the House" of Representatives.
"You are preaching to the choir here in the Senate," McCaffrey told one witness.
Among the bills the committee heard Thursday, and held for further study, were ones that would:
n Make it a felony to drive with a license that has been suspended for driving under the influence or refusing to submit to a chemical test.
n Allow a search warrant for the taking of blood, breath or urine for testing against a person's will if probable cause exists to believe that person has been driving under the influence.
n require the license plates of a vehicle be confiscated if the owner is arrested for driving with a suspended, revoked or canceled license.
n require the use of an ignition interlock system by drivers with convictions of drug or alcohol-related driving offenses.
n increase the penalties for those convicted of driving under the influence with death or serious injury resulting.
n increase from five years to 10 years the period of time in which previous driving-under-the-influence convictions are considered under the law that allows stiffer penalties for repeat offenders.
Preaching to the choir or not, several witnesses forged ahead.
Cathy Andreozzi told the panel that it has been "five years, 11 months and 10 days" since a drunk driver struck her young daughter, Tori, as she walking home from the school bus stop.
The driver was sentenced to 10 years to serve at the ACI, Andreozzi said, "my family, however, serves a life sentence. All I can tell you is that my daughter Tori lives because she no longer walks, she can not talk, she cannot eat. This once vibrant, athletic world champion martial arts student, a straight-A kid, gymnast, very loving, giving, someone who always put others before herself now relies on others for her every single need.
"I don't think there is anyone else in this room who has to be strapped into a PVC chair to take a shower in the morning or have their teeth brushed," Andreozzi said. "She is so medically fragile, anything can take her from us."
Andreozzi was testifying in favor of the bill to allow search warrants for blood, breath or urine, because she said her family was spared "the further agony of a trial," only because the driver who struck her daughter demanded to be taken to the hospital, so there was a sample of her blood to prove her blood alcohol level.
"That's made a tremendous difference in our life," she said.
Sen. Charles Levesque, who said he formerly opposed the blood warrant bill but now supports it, worried about the "legal issues" surrounding "the forced taking of blood in the case of a person who is charged, only charged, with the crime of operating a motor vehicle under the influence with serious bodily injury or death resulting."
He said it means you "strap a person down who has not been convicted of any crime in our country or our state and forcibly take blood from them, which I consider probably the greatest violation you can do to anybody. If it wasn't done under the color of law, it would be considered one of the worst assaults you can do to anybody. It would be a felony.
"There are competing interests in our society," Levesque explained. "There is a strong, strong interest certainly in keeping our roads safe, but there is also a strong interest to preserve the rights and liberties that have served us fairly well for over 200 years."
Amy Vitale of the RI ACLU noted that the U.S. Supreme Court allowed such search warrants because the Fifth Amendment of the federal constitution protects someone from being a witness against himself, which it interpreted as testimony in court. But the RI Constitution, she said, prohibits people from being forced to "give evidence" against themselves, and therefore provides greater protection from such searches and seizures.
Vitale said the ACLU also opposes the bill allowing police officers to seize the license plate at the time someone is arrested for drunk driving if they have a previous conviction, because that does not allow for due process of law.
Sylvia Bogusz of South Kingstown was seriously injured when she was hit by a drunk driver one night in 1997 while standing next to her car, which had a flat tire, and still suffers from the effects of her injuries.
Identifying herself as "one of the very few victims who survive drunk driving crashes each year," Bogusz told the lawmakers "it is important to understand the consequences of drunk driving. For that reason, the law needs to be more severe to protect Rhode Island's commuters.
"The effects of getting hit by a drunk driver will unfortunately stay with me forever," she said.
Several teenagers from the Youth in Action program testified in favor of the ignition interlock bill, which would require anyone convicted of a DUI offense to equip their car with a device that would measure their blood alcohol level with a breath test before the car could be started.
Gabrielle Abbate of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) said the devices cost about $100 to purchase and install and $60 to $80 a month after that to operate.
One was Karyn Kelley, 18, a Cumberland High School senior, who said the bill would "help keep teens like me safe on the road and everyone else who is driving on the road as well. It also gives a chance for a drunk driver who committed the crime to have a chance because with the device they are not necessarily going to be thrown in jail and they are still going to be given a chance to provide for their family.
"They are still living with their actions by having this device installed in their car," Kelley said, "but it is also giving us safety on the roads."
The committee voted to hold all the bills for further study.
|
