What Can We Do to Prevent Drunk Driving In America

Nowadays if you conduct any type of internet news search for "DUI", you'll more than likely come across many articles that talk about celebrities who have been caught drinking and driving. Somehow it's become the norm for Hollywood actors or celebrity sports players to be arrested for a DUI. As of the writing of this article, the latest news is that Paris Hilton's brother, Barron Hilton, was arrested in Malibu for drunk driving. News reports say that the 18-year-old was pulled over in his Mercedes and is now booked in a Lost Hill's Sheriff's station.

Will the madness ever end?

If you recall, Paris Hilton was charged with a DUI just a little over a year ago. She was reported as saying that her DUI arrest was "just nothing". Is this the same attitude that her brother has for his drunk driving arrest? Would it have been something if another person was injured or was killed? However, it's not just celebrities who are taking drunk driving lightly. It seems like these days everyone in America thinks drunk driving isn't such a big deal.

Do we blame the current government for not creating harsher jail sentences and drunk driving penalties? Do we blame society for not taking drinking and driving seriously enough? Are there not enough public service announcements to educate kids about the dangers of drunk driving? Do you think things would change if celebrities had to do public service announcements as part of their DUI penalty? Do you think these celebrities have an obligation to be good role models for our children? These are the types of questions we should be asking ourselves if we want to improve safety on our roads.

There are some initiatives going on right now to combat this drunk driving epidemic. Car companies like Nissan are working on installing technology that detects alcohol in a person's body when they get behind the wheel. Also, the state of New Mexico has ordered talking urinals that have been installed in various establishments across the state. These talking urinal cakes utter public service announcements while someone is using the restroom. Time will only tell whether or not these ideas will work.

What do you think needs to be done to prevent drunk driving in America? Should there be less drinking in movies and TV shows? Should we start holding celebrities more accountable for their actions and give them harsher sentences?

Rhode Island DUI Arrest Based On Report Of Erratic Driving

With use of cellular phones, it has become increasingly common to see Rhode Island DUI stops and breathalyzer refusal cases based on 911 calls.

Under the United States Constitution, a motor vehicle stop even if only for a brief time period is a seizure that requires an officer to demonstrate reasonable suspicion to justify the stop.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court in State v. Bjerke, 697 A.2d 1069 (R.I. 1997) held that an anonymous tip without sufficient detail or corroboration will not permit even a brief investigatory stop. Since Bjerke, other state courts and the United States Supreme Court has addressed the issue of the degree of corroboration necessary to permit an investigatory stop under the Fourth Amendment. In Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000), the United States Supreme Court addressed a case involving a report of an anonymous tip that a young black male was standing at a bus stop wearing a plaid shirt and carrying a gun. A police officer went to the bus stop and saw three black males, one wearing a plaid shirt, but did not see a gun or anything unusual. The court held that the anonymous tip alone was insufficient to justify the seizure because the tip did not contain sufficient indicia of reliability. In finding the tip unreliable, the United States Supreme Court noted that the tip merely described readily observable facts that did not reveal that the informant had knowledge of concealed criminal activity.

Applying J.L. to a Rhode Island DUI stop, the Rhode Island courts would likely consider:

1. Is the identity of the caller known or traceable through phone records.

2. Did the caller describe the precise location of the vehicle.

3. Did the officer verify the description of the vehicle provided by the caller.

4. Was the stop made in close proximity to the report by the caller.

In Bloomingdale v. State, the Delaware Supreme Court found an anonymous report of an impaired driver sufficiently reliable when police dispatch received a report of a driver all over the road. The caller in Bloomingdale identified the location of the motorist, the make, model and color of the vehicle as well as the race of the driver and travel route. Though the caller did not provide any contact information, the court found the call sufficiently reliable to justify the motor vehicle stop. The Court underscored that someone reporting an anonymous tip of a motorist is less likely to do so for the purpose of harassment because of the short period of time that the caller would have to make the report to the police. Further, the court stressed that the mobility of motor vehicles increases reliability because it would be difficult for a tipster to place a moving vehicle in a particular location at a particular time if the caller did not observe the vehicle.

Like the Bloomingdale court, the Connecticut Appellate Court, in State v. Torelli, 931 A.2d 337 (Conn. App. 2007), upheld a DUI stop based on an anonymous tip distinguishing between cases where the informant is completely unknown as opposed to partially known. There, the court held a lesser degree of corroboration is required if the informant is partially known as in that case the caller remained on the phone line with dispatch and told dispatch his location, which permitted himself to be identified even though caller's identification was never discovered.

The case of State v. Boyea, 765 A.2d 863 (Vt. 2000), adds an additional factor of the gravity of harm to justify DUI stops based on anonymous tips. There, the court held that the reasonableness of the stop may be assessed in light of the gravity of the harm that a drunk driver can cause to the public.

If faced with a Rhode Island DUI or breathalyzer refusal charge based on an anonymous tip, you may be able to have the evidence gathered from the stop suppressed and the case dismissed if you can demonstrate that the stop of the vehicle was in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Rhode Island courts would likely apply the factors discussed in the above cases to determine whether the motor vehicle stop complied with Fourth Amendment Constitutional protections.