Expunge My DUI Conviction

If you are caught drinking and driving, you will face many serious consequences. Not only could your irresponsible actions lead to an accident where you or your passengers are injured or killed, but you could also take the life of another driver or innocent bystander. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Traffic Safety Facts 2007 Data: ‘Alcohol Impaired Driving,’ “In 2008, an estimated 11,773 people died in drunken driving related crashes.”

There are many other consequences to being arrested for driving while under the influence. For instance, you can have your driver’s license revoked, pay for the cost of a criminal trial that includes attorney fees as well as a very high fine if convicted. Fines for driving under the influence vary states, but it can average from $800.00 to an overwhelming $10, 000. As well, depending on the seriousness of the charges, such as causing the death of another person, you can receive a long prison sentence. You can also lose your driver’s license for a certain period of time. It is illegal to drive with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at or beyond a level of 0.08 percent.

Driving under the influence can seriously affect the amount you pay for your insurance premium. A DUI arrest or conviction will cause a significant increase in your insurance premium. As well, your insurance provider may even terminate your policy. A DUI conviction does not disappear after a certain number of years. It stays on your criminal and driving record indefinitely, except if you have it expunged. Your employer and insurance companies can all view the criminal record. Some employers will fire an employee convicted of a DUI.

A rundown of possible consequences include:

* Revocation of drivers license automatically if you refuse or fail BAC test.
* 1st Offense sentenced to as much as 6 months in jail and fined as much as $750. Suspension of license for 90 days.
* 2nd Offense imprisonment of not less than 7 days no more than 6 months in jail and fined as much as $750. Suspension of license for 1 year if 2nd offense happens within 5 years of last offense.
* 3rd Offense jail time of not less than 30 days and a fine of $3000. Suspension of license for 3 years.
* 4th Offense is now a felony punishable by 2 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
* Impounding of vehicle after conviction for DUI

These consequences are the result of the Zero-Tolerance laws that were implemented in 1995. As well, the insurance companies have complete authority to take action such as policy termination and raising your premiums.

In most states, the insurance provider will check for DUI convictions every three years as part of their normal operating system. Drinking and driving is dangerous and can cost a person their life. The best life choice is to refrain from ever driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs. Save a life, including your own, as well as your freedom and money.

So stay safe on the streets to save lives and to avoid these long-term consequences.

Originally published here.

“Who Else Wants To Beat Their DUI Arrest or Conviction Record, Save Money on Insurance, And Get Their Drivers License Back?” bit.ly

“First, do no harm,” counsels the Hippocratic oath. Good doctors still honor these words – and so should legislators considering revisions to New York’s drunk driving laws.

Brendan Tully, a Democrat who ran  for a seat in the state assembly, proposed a fundamental change in New York DWI law. Specifically, the proposal was to amend the law so that drivers charged with DWI are no longer allowed to plead to a lesser charge that is at the level of a traffic infraction. Although Tully did not win a seat in the Assembly, the proposal he put forward could come up again. Its flaws should therefore be confronted.

The premise of the proposal is that, under current law, the practice of allowing drunk driving charges to be plead down to a non-criminal offense amount to a loophole in the law. But this practice is not a “loophole”; it is a specific provision in the law whose removal would be a tremendous hardship for first-time, low-level offenders. Ending the ability of first-time, low-level offenders to plead down to a non-criminal offense would also greatly threaten the efficiency of the justice system. With so little incentive to plead, more and more cases would go to trial, causing long delays and multiplying inefficiencies.

To be sure, a proposal that seeks to make streets and highways safer by cutting down on drunk driving would be welcome. The statistics are sobering. Last year, according to Mothers Against Drunk Driving, 321 people lost their lives in New York State because of drunk driving.

Undue Hardship

Stigmatizing first-time, low-level offenders by removing the ability to plead down does not make sense. Doing so would create a form of modern-day scarlet letter that would unduly burden their job prospects and their entire futures.

Under present law, no conviction in New York State for DWI or any other crime can be expunged. A person who is convicted of Driving While Ability Impaired by Alcohol (DWAI), however, can truthfully state on an application for licensing, employment or admission into college that they have not been convicted of a crime.

This distinction is crucial. Especially for young people, a conviction for a crime could carry lasting consequences that could affect the ability to get financial aid, obtain a professional license or find suitable employment. Even those who are currently employed, such as teachers, could find their professional licenses at risk.

Under current law, prosecutors typically offer first-time offenders a chance to plead guilty to the offense of driving while ability impaired (DWAI), if offender’s blood alcohol content (BAC) levels were low and there were no injuries. To disallow prosecutors the discretion to tailor their approach to first-time offenders amounts to attacking the problem of DWI with a one-size-fits-all hammer when what is really needed is a scalpel.

Think about it. Is it really fair to treat a first-time offender who has a BAC level of .08 – the legal minimum to support a prosecution for DWI – the same as a person who has a BAC of .17? Under a proposal such as Tully’s, both persons would have a scarlet letter of a criminal conviction for the rest of their lives.

Effect on the Justice System

Besides the undue hardship that could be inflicted on low-level, first-time offenders, a proposal such as Tully’s would also be likely to create severe backlogs and inefficiencies in the court system. With the incentive removed to plead to a non-criminal offense like DWAI , more and more defendants would insist on going to trial.

At a time of tight resources, it would be very difficult to equip the system with enough prosecutors, enough juries, enough court personnel, and so on in order for it to work effectively. The result of removing the incentive to plead down would therefore be to create a bottleneck in the courts – causing excessive delays and mounting frustrations for all concerned.

Leandra’s Law

New York’s recent experience with Leandra’s law demonstrates the necessity of guarding the efficiency of an overloaded justice system. This law – named after an 11-year-old girl who died in a minivan crash – makes it a felony to drive while intoxicated with a person under 16 in the car.

Leandra’s law also led to a new requirement that the vehicles of first-time DWI offenders receive ignition interlock devices, which prevent a vehicle from starting if the driver’s blood alcohol content is over a certain point.

The challenges of enforcing Leandra’s law have strained New York’s already overtaxed criminal justice system. For example, caseloads for probation officers, who are needed to enforce the ignition interlock requirement, have increased substantially. Probation cases would surely skyrocket even further, if a proposal such as Tully’s were to pass.

All Cases Are Not the Same

Amending the law so that drivers charged with DWI are no longer allowed to plead to a non-criminal charge would do more harm than good. A parent who is way over the legal limit with a child in the back seat is justly the source of outrage. But the law has to be able to distinguish that case from that of a first-time offender with a relatively low BAC who caused no injuries.

Originally published here.