Glenn Grothman: chasing drunk drivers? Finally.
Hi everyone,
A terribly sad story about a death caused by a drunk driver.
Grieving parents pushing to change blood-alcohol testing laws - JSOnline
The blood test was given three hours later but there may have been some procedural goofs that could have the evidence thrown out. The terrible consequences of protecting the innocent sometimes can protect the guilty, but that's the price we pay for freedom.. or, in this case, that the family in question is paying.
The real problem, of course, are the insane drunk driving laws in Wisconsin that let a first offense off with a $726 fine and ... and no felony conviction.
Anyway, at some point here in the Journal story Glenn makes an appearance as a sympathetic ear.
They've found a sympathetic ear in state Sen. Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend), who said he's prepared to introduce a bill that could require a blood test of any driver in a fatal crash. Now, a test can be required only if there is probable cause to believe alcohol is involved - such as when a driver fails initial field sobriety tests."It seems strange that you can't demand a blood test when someone has done something so horrific," he said. The difference in this case, he noted, would be a homicide charge that carries a 25-year prison sentence or a traffic ticket for running a stop sign that carries a few-hundred-dollar fine.
"Given the dramatic difference, the government certainly has an interest in seeing which one of these it should be," he said.
Grothman said he's asked the attorney general to review his bill, one that could reasonably raise constitutionality questions. As tentatively drafted, Grothman's bill would not impose a mandatory blood test on drivers in non-fatal injury accidents unless there is probable cause to suspect alcohol was involved, he said.
The state's current "implied consent" law for anyone who gets behind the wheel imposes penalties on drivers who refuse a blood-alcohol test, Martens said, but he noted that probable cause for the test also is required.
Grothman would like to see the bill added to a proposed revamping of the state's drunken-driving laws - revisions that have been demanded by a public tired of the highway slaughter from impaired drivers, many of them multiple offenders.
At long last although, I hate to say it, the cynic in me imagines that in other circumstances Glenn would simply call this "yet more government trashing of our individual rights." If this guy had been hunting and shot someone, and we'd asked for a blood test to see if he was high or drunk, I have to imagine Glenn rushing to the guilty party's defense and trashing the socialist anti-hunting conspiracy.
I'd be thrilled to be wrong about that. I have a column coming up on Driving while Cell Phoning... which we now discover is about as bad as driving while drunk.
And so on.
Regardless, remember to light a candle for our neighbors in Farmington who've suffered this horrible, needless, loss.
hiho
Mp
3 comments:
Maybe he is finally coming around? :-)
I actually wrote to him a little while back about this. He got back to me... but must have sent me a response that should have gone to someone else (he response was about the automobile industry). I believe a few of my coworkers also contacted him about this issue.
I would say that it is "possible" that he is listening to the citizens of West Bend. But, like you said, maybe not.
Truth is, Glenn was always great at constituent outreach -- until he stopped talking to me and called me an atheistic baby killer in the press. :^)
But this is the sort of issue where his ideology doesn't have to roll over his compassion.
My column for next week is going to be on impaired driving.
Wisconsin has some of the dumbest laws in the country on drunk driving... so, hopefully something.
It's difficult to enforce a ban on cell phone use, or text messaging, or video watching and gaming, or reading, while driving, partly because it encourages even more dangerous evasive and deceptive tactics by addicted practitioners.
But there must be an enhancer in any internet-impaired crash with serious consequences. Anyone involved in such an "accident" while using such a device while operating a vehicle on public roads should be charged with homicide or mayhem. If you kill someone while text messaging or yakking away on the cell phone and driving, you've committed murder and have earned a long prison sentence.
The evidence is clear and mounting that such "multi-tasking" while driving is intentional impaired driving, and a serious hazard to others at least as great as is drunk driving.
MAIM
Motorists (and Motorcyclists and Bicyclists and Pedestrians) Against Irresponsible Multi-Tasking
Post a Comment