Gregg and Susan Spindler are not happy. Their daughter Meagan, a researcher for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, was killed by a drunk and doped driver last July. Since then, the Spindlers have tried from their home in New York to persuade South Dakota to get tougher on impaired drivers. They've communicated with Governor Dennis Daugaard. They've proposed reforms like the National Transportation and Safety Board's proposal to lower blood-alcohol limits to 0.05 or less. They've presented facts and research to support stronger DUI enforcement.
Facts and research? We know how that goes in South Dakota government....
The proposals were reviewed by the governor’s staff, Department of Public Safety and Highway Patrol. On Nov. 15 we again met, but the only proposal was the Highway Patrol committed to doubling its enforcement actions to 400 in 2014. That means on an average day, only in one spot in the vast state of South Dakota there will be an active DUI enforcement action.
Finally, on Feb. 5, we were informed there would be no major changes in DUI laws. The governor felt changes would not have the “intended effect.”
His assessment totally contradicts the work of the NTSB. Ignoring the NTSB’s report is just as serious as if the CEO of Boeing or Airbus chose to ignore NTSB air safety recommendations.
The governor ignores the success of the European Union, Japan, Australia or Canada reducing deaths, injuries and DUI incidence. In a decade, EU deaths were cut by more than 50 percent, while U.S. death rates have flat-lined. This is not nanny-state socialism; rather, tough laws, deterrence, highly visible enforcement and good police work [Gregg and Susan Spindler, "South Dakota, Governor Disappoint on DUI Reform," Mitchell Daily Republic, 2014.02.14].
South Dakota evidently needs some kind of changes. We just miss the top ten for impaired-driving fatality rates, with 0.47 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. Oklahoma is tenth at 0.48; North Dakota is fourth at 0.60; Montana is second at 0.73. Yet Governor Daugaard looks at a goo-gob of science on how to save lives on our highways and shrugs.
I don't have a problem with .08 I think .10 would be better, I don't have a problem for less harsh penalties for first timers if its relatively low. But something needs to change with those who are repeating and those who are 2, 3 or even 4x the legal limit.
Yet the research makes clear that countries that have adopted lower BAC limits have reduced their fatality rates. Why not lower that limit (in addition to stiffer penalties for repeat offenders), in acknowledgment of the fact that even small amounts of alcohol increase the chance of a crash?
I don't agree with a 0.05 BAC limit; for me, I could barely have a glass of wine at dinner before hitting that level - I am not impaired at 0.05 BAC. (I know this because I actually took part in a study about drinking and driving - one glass of wine, I was not impaired. Two glasses in an hour, I was close but not quite impaired. Anything beyond that, someone else is driving me home.)
There should be stricter punishments for repeat offenders, and the potential sentences should actually enforced. Hate to air dirty laundry, but my father-in-law has had 5 DUIs - max jail time was 30 days - license revoked for 15 years on the last one - that sentence was only because it was "aggravated DUI" (he hit an inanimate object).
His son, my brother-in-law, has had 7 (or more maybe, I lost count) DUIs over the past 20 years...max sentenced jail time was 90 days, of which he served 30. And yes, he has his driver's license still. And yes, i believe he still drinks and drives - I've had to do some heavy convincing to get him to let me drive him home from family functions before. It is by the grace of God that they haven't injured or killed someone.
I love them both, but they should have received years in prison and licenses revoked years ago. Perhaps if they would have suffered true consequences for their actions, they would not have repeated these offenses. Or at least, would not have been out in the public to repeat their actions.
I do agree with you Joe that something has to be done about repeat offenders-like make laws tougher.
However I don't believe the answer is to raise the BAC and reduce penalties. It only takes one time to injure or kill somebody while driving drunk.
I think we should listen to law enforcement and see what they think. They deal with this everyday
My beef with law enforcement is that when ever there is an accident that is alcohol related, they never say how much imparement. They just say alcohol was involved. Most of the accidents related to alcohol the blood level is way over .08. Nearly 40% of DUI arrests do not result in a conviction because their blood alcohol level came back from the lab in Pierre below .08%. These 40% go through the same humilating treatment as the real offenders. Law enforcement need to tweek their procedure on DUI arrests. ( These statistics are available in Our Voice Aberdeen American news Sunday 9/29/13)
Mark, interesting stats on final BAC levels. I would believe that the majority of DUI arrests are by those that are well over the limit. Lowering the minimum BAC is not going to stop those offenders; it is just going to result in more arrests of those who are not impaired but have that very low BAC
You are absolutely right. When officers are waisting time on 40% of their arrests it's costing valuable taxpayers dollars.
I don't drink and I don't like being forced to go through checkpoints to be checked for alcohol. I don't like the fact that many people are repeat offenders and many drive w/o licenses and there are too many accidents that maim and kill and yet we still allow alcohol to be served. So,what do we do? BTW-with nerve damage in both legs from decades of spinal problems,I couldn't pass a field sobriety test-walking a straight line or even standing without swaying,even though I don't drink and I tend not to drive with prescription pain meds.
Lowering the BAC is just going after the wrong people and it suggests they are blaming the rate itself for other failed policies. We don't need to worry about John Doe who has a beer or two after work, and giving him a DUI will stop nothing. Let's not turn this into revenue generation and let's make harsher penalties for the offenders who we need to remove from the streets. Also, we shouldn't allow vehicle registration without proof of insurance and a valid license.
@Becca Pivonka: At 0.05, you are 38% more likely to have a fatal incident than at zero, at .08, it is 169% and 0.10 close to 400%. How much risk is worth it? Commercial Drivers License holders have a 0.04 limit. I think a non-commercial 3/4 ton pick up can take out a minivan any day of the week. See the slides at http://sgsstat.com/sd_dui_reform.html .
re. REPEAT OFFENDERS: 93% of DUI fatal incidents are first time offenders. Ron Fischer was a "first time offender" But the average offender drives drunk 80 times before being caught. Hence, a stronger, more visible deterrent is needed.
Once the message gets out with highly visible enforcement, people won't drink and drive.
@Mark: "40% of DUI arrests do not result in a conviction because their blood alcohol level came back from the lab in Pierre below .08%." is NOT TRUE. It is mostly because of PLEA BARGAINS. Some people can afford good lawyers and judges have discretion. In NY State and Colorado, there is a DWAI charge for BAC between 0.05 and 0.08 -- a less serious charge but still drinking-and-driving. SD should have such a statute.
Spindler has found all the usual with his data searches. The usual won't work any better than current enforcement efforts.
Tax alcohol more and use it to reduce responsible drivers vehicle insurance costs about 50%. We subsidize the liquor industry thugs everytime we buy car insurance.
Change the SD Constitution so the idiotic judges' decision deciding SD could not have a dram shop act can be undone. The liquor businesses know who is driving and has an alcohol problem. They dump their newly made potential killers out on the highway every day.
Require every business selling alcoholic beverages of anykind to be be closed one week after blood analysis show alcohol was a crash factor in a fatal crash. Require a large notice be placed on business doors explaining why it is closed for that day.
The irresponsible liquor industry causes the problem and they should shoulder the costs of solving it.
If the system was working, SD should have zero alcohol-related crash fatalities instead of dozens or hundreds.
Alcohol-sensing bracelets and work release works better than prison terms and costs a fraction as much. Larry Long deserves a lot of credit for getting that idea going.
Spindler gets press because of the tragedy, and that is good, but it also doesn't guarantee that he has good ideas.
@Douglas Wiken: I do think you should read the NTSB report, “Reaching Zero: Actions to Reduce Alcohol-Impaired Driving”, http://go.usa.gov/TeQe. It is science-based and not my ideas.
South Dakota never had Dram Shop as far as I know, but where it does not exist common law liability can make sellers of drug and alcohol pay. But the SD legislature specifically abrogated common law liability in 1985.
You might also read our full proposal document, which discusses the current SD enforcement practices, using Charles Mix County as an example. There is such a high incidence of DUI and law enforcement is stretched so thin, the chances of getting caught -- whatever the laws are -- are very, very low. Death and injury are the inevitable results.
The lack of resources also drives home the point that local law enforcement is under-resourced. We suggested the governor support a user fee, dedicated to enforcement, adjudication and education initially, then transition to include treatment. We hoped he would support adequate funding, but he did not.
Lastly, while Larry Long's 24/7 is all well-and-good and I fully support it, but repeat offenders represent only 7% of the fatal incidents nationally, or 24% in SD in 2012 (as reported by the State Highway Patrol in my November meeting with them). If the majority of incidents are first-timers, so there needs to be a strong, visible deterrent -- which does not currently exist in SD or the US as a whole.
The NTSB has documented all the facts, these are not "my ideas". The problem is politicians care to ignore them. The CEOs of Boeing or Airbus don't ignore NTSB recommendations, because they can't. Politician can ignore the facts, because the voters allow it.
I think sd should a be zero tolerance state. It would take the guesswork out of the equation, if you had anything at all to drink you wouldn't be able to say "I'm sure I'm good".
If they were creditable they would promote their propaganda in their home state
Mr Spindler,
First and foremost I offer my sympathy for the devastating loss of you daughter Meagan. The death of a child is a pain only a parent can know, particularly when it should have and could have been avoided. Use Meagan's name often in your efforts, it is easy to get lost in the particulars of a discussion and forgetting Meagan and other victims have names and had a life.
Usually the families of drunk drivers could care less about bac, whether it is .05, .08, or .10, it does not bring a child back.
As a former chemical dependency councilor I can also attest to how drunk driving ruins the life of the driver and his family. Often times they are not the reckless drunks we imagine, they are everyday good people and citizens who made the dumbest mistake of their lives and their family pays dearly. I'm in no way defending or justifying their behavior, I simply point out the ramifications of being stupid.
Their is not a single law that can be legislated that will stop drunk driving. but the penalties need to severe.
Personally I support a .10 bac, I also support more frequent checkpoints, for the same reason I support security checks at the courthouse and other public buildings. if a checkpoint can get one drunk driver off the road it means that a life may have been saved, maybe the life of the driver.
Unlike Sam2, I support your out of state advocacy that is hardly a form of propaganda, keep using those 1st Amendment rights Mr. Spindler, it is quickly becoming the only right we have in South Dakota. Again Mr. & Mrs. Spindler, I extend my sympathy.
Gregg, I know from personal experience that .06 was thrown out before it ever went to court. I also know several other people who experienced bogus arrests that resulted in a non conviction without hiring a good lawyer. My point is that law inforcement needs to do a better job at targeting the real offenders. It is absolutely wrong to drive drunk. This is obvious. What needs to be done is the liquor industry and law inforcement needs to have better communication.
The licensed beverage holders want to fix the problem too. But nothing can be fixed until the two sides come together and manage their anger at each oither.
I really can't testify about all the science. What I can speak to is the personal tragedy when it hits close to home. I know what it is like to lose a niece, hunting, fishing, and hiking partner. My daughters know what its like to lose a cousin they adored and worship.
As far as people from out of state trying to change things. You may think twice when it is a love one of yours that is torn to shreds by an illegal driver with no license, insurance, and no respect for himself or anyone else. I have come to South Dakota pheasant and waterfowl hunting every other year for the last 7 years. our group probably dropped $6k to $8k there on every trip. I can tell you this after Maegan's death, and the way your state deals with drunks, after Ron Fischer's trial we ain't never coming back. You can take that to the bank.
Bill Spindler, thanks for your info. About 40 years ago, I worked for the SD:ASAP project. It was a federally funded program aimed at collecting data on fatal and other crashes related to alcohol-impairment. When we started, it was a struggle to get the BAC lowered from 0.15 percent to 0.10 percent. I'm sure some people including doctors had to work hard to get the BAC down from 0.10 to 0.08.
My experience with law enforcement is that the last thing they really want to do is arrest drunken drivers because they vomit in their patrol cars and the officer may then spend a lot of time in court. That is not a good or justifiable excuse, but it is a factor. Law enforcement is arresting only a pitiful small percentage of actual drunken drivers with current BAC. I agree with you and data that even 0.05 levels can reduce driving ability, but until current law is enforced effectively, that is not the main problem.
The irresponsible alcohol industry that buys the legislature and the drunken good old boys in the legislature are a good bit of the problem.
I am all in favor of you using your sad situation to do something, but suggest you consider seriously considering my ideas. I have studied SD traffic fatalities and know the devastation drunken and impaired driving do. The saddest case I saw was a grandfather walking in his pasture with his two grandchildren. They were killed by drunken fools racing on the highway. They went through the ditch into the field and killed him and his grandchildren.
Becca, As one who was picked up for DUI when I was 18 and still continued to drink and drive until I was 39, I can assure you that the affects of one or two glasses of wine is not the same each time that you drink them. That is how I convinced myself that I could continue to drink and drive. Each time is different and there is no way that anyone can tell for sure what the affects will be when you get behind the wheel. I just thank God that I never killed or injured anyone, the multiple times that I drove when I had been drinking. Like Roger, Mr & Ms Spindler, I offer my condolences on the loss of your child. That and now that I am older, the loss of a grandchild are the two greatest dreads that I have.
So did the legislature approve the extended drinking hours for Deadwood?
I'm curious why many of you casually dismiss the empirical evidence that other countries that lowered the BAC limit really did make their roads safer. It's not supposition; it's fact.
Sam 2, I think Bill S. has effectively rebutted your unsophisticated ad hominem insult.
All cases which start as a DUI charge, regardless if the charge prevails or the case is plea bargained down, should be documented on a public website (similar to the sex offenders website) listing the defendant, the initial charge (DUI), the final convicted charge, the attorneys involved, and the judge's name. The only exception to his documentation would be for defendants who are found not guilty of charges which were initiated with a DUI arrest.
Now in theory, this information is already public if one cares too or has the time to research through all of the clerk of court court proceedings, but this website would really lay it all out there for us all to exam in a very straight forward manner. If there are any patterns between certain attorneys and certain judges on DUI convictions or plea bargains, then the facts would speak for themselves and hopefully common sense would prevail as well as justice, and the end to any cronyism in our judicial system, if it truly exists.
Legalize alcohol on the rez and DUIs go down 45%
Mr. H, which Dem's voted against The Mandatory Pledge, please? I want to know who was for and who was against forcing children to ally with Sibby's God.
i think the bigger problem is the repeat offenders, they have suspended licenses and no insurance with they get in an accident. step 1, if you lose your license-for any driving related offense, you lose your car, the state takes it, gives you fair market value for the car, puts that money in escrow until license is back. Anyone who supplies a car to anyone who has a suspended license is committing a felony, and that car is confiscated by the state, fair market value is given and put into escrow until license is re-instated, and all court fees and penalties are paid for. IMHO that would go a long way to reducing dui related fatalities.
grudz, what source of information did you use to find that DUI's on the reservation would be reduced to 45%?
If you read all the information Mr. Spindler and Cory have provided, it is pretty compelling and needs to be given serious attention.
As we discuss BAC percentages, more stringent sentences and seek other solutions to drunk driving, we omit the most obvious ones.
The bartender that allows someone to drink too much, family members and friends that know when someone is driving drunk and do nothing to deter it, including reporting the driver.
Even the public that witnesses a drunk driver on the highway or in a parking lot will not report a drunk driver.
How many of us of have known of an impaired driver and did nothing?
Family, friends, and the public could do more to stop drunk drivers than law enforcement ever could or will do.
A survey published in 2011, Mr. Cornelius. It appears to have been a door-to-door survey conducted by a libbie eastern group, but I think that strengthen's the results, don't you? If it was just a phone survey the sampling wouldn't have been right.
I do not argue your point or desired outcome, I simply state facts about legalizing alcohol on the rez.
grudz,
With all due respect, citing a 2011 door-to-door survey by a libbie eastern group is hardly factual.
If you know that they are a libbie group, surely they have a name.
If you don't agree with the stats then maybe you can simply agree with the concept. If people on the rez didn't have to drive far distances to get their beers then they would stay home and not be driving.
And I agree, eastern libbie groups are not reliable.
grudz,
Drunk drivers on or off the reservation don't necessarily pat much attention to driving distances. I would speculate (since I don't have a source) that there are more drunk driving arrest in Rapid City than there are in Pennington County.
I just don't think locality will have that much affect on drinking and driving. On the reservation it is likely that more people will be walking to and from a liquor store.
I didn't say "eastern libbie groups are not reliable", I asked who they were.
Cory, I don't think it is as clear cut as they propose it to be. BAC levels are not the main deterrent imo. Most countries with less alcohol abuse also have lower drinking ages....so does that mean we should support a drinking age of 16 or even no age at all in the US? What works for some won't work for all and that's definitely something to consider. Our culture here is entirely different.
Why does "imo" have any validity against real evidence? All these vague assertions of culture and what-not still don't contradict the evidence the Spindlers present. Why so much resistance to cracking down on alcohol abuse and threats to public safety?
In what world do other countries' solutions work here? That is why i take any assertion that what is working in country A will work in country B very lightly. If we think that is true, then lets lower the drinking age and remove the "taboo" nature of alcohol and we might not have such a drinking and driving problem to address......unless you don't think we can handle that? Which I don't think our culture can.
Saying "it works there so it should work here".....is a complete fallacy to begin with.
As of 12/20/13, Rapid City had 850 arrests for DUI. Pennington Co saidsomething to the effect that DUI stats there couldn't be seperated from RCs DUI stats. RC says on any given night,12 officers patrol and two are on duty specifically to catch DUIs. How many potential DUIs do they routinely miss when they already average over two per day? Something(s),somewhere is not working.
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/alcohol/by-country/
This chart shows alcohol related deaths by country. Muslim countries,by and large,show the least deaths. Maybe we should accept Sharia Law and save ourselves.
We are being bombarded by ads that say "buzzed driving is drunk driving". These are obviously intended to promote putting drivers who are not drunk in jail along with the drunk drivers. Who is paying for this campaign? How will penalizing sober drivers prevent traffic fatalities? Can any thinking person make the argument that South Dakota needs more of it's citizens incarcerated?
We are learning with changes in our laws that states with medical cannabis experience a 10% drop in traffic fatalities. This could account for some of the results in Europe. It's an easy fix, and saves the need for a propaganda program that has to invent "buzzed driving" nonsense.
http://healthland.time.com/2011/12/02/why-medical-marijuana-laws-reduce-traffic-deaths/
The reason medical cannabis decreases traffic fatalities is simple. People get stoned really don't feel the need to go anywhere so they just hang out and smoke more dope. Fischer was drunk and stoned when he killed my niece and Rob Klumb. Obviously he felt the need to go somewhere and drive drunk. I wish his parents taught him to make better choices.
Johnny Law ought to come down even harder on DUIs who also carry weapons. It ain't as if driving a vehicle while under the influence isn't dangerous enough. Toss in some armed whackjob with a hard-on for cops and authority and it could get real noisy ,real fast.
People continue to reject the research because they personally don't think they should have to change their own habits. Look at the language in these comments. Everyone is sure *they* aren't impaired at .05. People who are buzzed are characterized as sober and not criminal. The Governor knows the people don't want to stop drinking and they really don't want to have to walk anywhere. It's the same thing we're running up against with banning texting and driving: everyone thinks they're the exception to the rule, which they are...until they aren't.
I have represented drunk drivers for over 25 years in eastern South Dakota. Many of those people who were 1st offense violators were back in my office on 2nd offense charges within 6 months. There are two ways to stop this: take away drivers licenses and cars for a meaningful period after any drinking and driving violation. Period - no excuses and no alternatives. Second, mandatory alcohol treatment. Too bad this will never happen because we do not hold people accountable and the State will not pay for treatment. There are not enough programs now.
Caitlin, I commented on this issue some time back on this thread, that I was arrested for DUI when I was 18. I am now 72. When I was charged, my license was suspended for a year. While I admitted that it did not alter my driving while under the influence, I have never understood why that was changed to the current, whatever it is 60 or 90 day suspension. I am sure that it has to do with the legislature over ruling the will of the people, as they did when by referendum, the people said that school could not start before Labor Day and with in a few years the legislature changed it back to what we have now. They have a bill in that passed the House to over rule the people's referendum of a few years ago instituting term limits at 8 years by which the legislature would extend it to 12 years. I am sure there are other situations like this that don't come to mind. Living in SD is not living in democracy but more like living in a third world dictatorship.