ok, pay attention people. these are BOND CONDITIONS. That means if you get arrested for a second or subsequent DUI, and you are released on bond, one of the conditions of your release from custody pending trial is that you must not drink for that time (1-3 months or so) and you must demonstrate that to the sheriff. We’ve had no possession/consumption of alcohol conditions on bond and on probation for a long time. It’s not appropriate for every case but it is very appropriate for quite a few of our multiple DUI offenders and other criminals whose failure to control their alcohol problem is the root of the criminal behavior.

In theory I could support something like this as long as it was a voluntary program that either kept the offender out of jail or reduced their punishment, such as with ARD classes. However, I think it would cost more than it’s worth and be largely ineffective at increasing public safety. Not to mention that many of these repeat offenders are also alcoholics and would need detox and counseling to be able to participate in such a program. Seems like the program would just cause a mess.

The big trouble with this plan is that drinking does not correlate to habitual drunkenness, let alone drunken driving, in almost all people. If you have someone with multiple DUIs, doing this does no good–what you need to do is put ‘em in jail for a few weeks, and if they go into DTs and other withdrawal symptoms, then you need to get them in for treatment.

Subbob, you’re lacking a connection there. If arrests are up there should be statistical evidence that it’s making us safer.

One other issue with this; it is adding a penalty to a crime after sentence is pronounced, and without any law being passed by the legislature.

That’s a good point BB. While it might be a worthwhile idea, it should be authorized by the legislative process AND be part of due process.

i just had some time to read the article posted on bismarcktribune in conjunction with the Craig Irwin piece.

http://bismarcktribune.com/articles/2007/12/20/news/local/144933.txt

You might as well call it the Craig Irwin law, if it was a law, that is. The fact is that Stenehjem is acting independently with no accountability to the public. He gets away with this by placing the financial burden on the defendantthus not requiring legislature to appropriate funds.

The defendants will pay $1 for each test. They must pay one week’s fees in advance in cash.

If people cannot get to the county sheriff’s department twice a day, a judge can instead have them wear an ankle bracelet that can detect alcohol use. The bracelet’s sensors test the skin several times a day for alcohol use and transmit the test results by modem and telephone line to a computer at the sheriff’s department. People opting for that route pay $5 a day and must pay the first two weeks in advance along with a $25 activation fee and $25 deactivation fee.

So if you don’t have a ride or a phone line, you’re being forced to pay close to $200 a month for this and you HAVE NOT BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME!

Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem apparently isn’t familiar with this thing we have in America where you’re INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

Sounds like another scheme to put more people on the state payroll.

I’m with Wayne on this one. Take a recent example in my county. Guy gets stopped for his 3rd DUI and his 4th Driving While License Suspended or Revoked. He blew a 0.26. That guy has a problem and is a great candidate for daily testing. He’s a danger because of his alcohol problem and he refuses to stop driving while drunk.
I think the people subject to the condition pay a dollar or two per test. No significant cost to the taxpayers for running the program other than any setup and training costs for the officers, who for the most part already are trained on breath alcohol testing.

Repeat DUI offenders will be ordered to go to the sheriffs department twice a day once in the morning then again in the evening to blow into this..

Tough policies get results… but what happens when blacks and hispanics start yelling “racism” and “profiling,”…whill they be exempted?

..and what about the crys of economic discrimination against minorities regarding the cost of the bus tickets to and from the sheriff’s office..hmmmmm

Alcohol-related injuries and fatalities in traffic accidents have remained constant since 2002.

Put simply, Stenehjem and our DUI policies aren’t making North Dakota safer. They’re just putting more people in jail while simultaneously using up more tax dollars.

There are some serious flaws in your logic here. A am assuming your basic facts as stated are correct.

Fact 1: Alcohol-related injuries and fatalities in traffic accidents have remained constant since 2002.

Fact 2: DUI arrests in the state are up…They’re just putting more people in jail.

Flawed Conclusion: Stenehjem and our DUI policies aren’t making North Dakota safer.

Perhaps they are not making them safer than they were in 2002, but they are certainly making them safer than they would be otherwise.

The accident/incident/fatality rates have been level but the arrests and incarceration rates have gone up. If those folks were not arrested, and left on the street, than it stands to reason there would be MORE deaths and injuries. So therefore, the people of North Dakota are more safe.

I also have no problem with the intended policy – if it were up to me, I’d execute 2nd time offenders. They are lucky they are still breathing and can blow in the tube twice a day.

Why put a drunk driving offender behind the wheel if not necessary? Let them stay home and drink until content.

He said the current approach has been to try to keep DUI offenders from driving, but that we need to try to keep DUI offenders from drinking.

That’s a good point. It is more effective in the long run to treat the disease rather than the symptoms. There just needs to be a more effective/effecient way. Wish I knew what that was…

I thought the 18th Amendment was repealed with the 21st Amendment.

Take their cars, fine them, whatever, but putting them in jail for drinking alone has to be unconstitutional.

Just wait till the ACLU gets involved on this.

Serendipity, have the mentally ill, who can’t carry guns, drive the DUI
offenders to the Sheriff.
Mentally ill police can employ
DUI offenders to carry their guns,
DUI police can have the mentally
ill drive them.
Everyone could meet at donut shops.
Full employment.