Meet Erin James, 58, of Brookfield, Illinois. She was pulled over and found with a blood alcohol level that was twice that of the legal limit. That is bad enough. However, James exclaimed that she was just out celebrating . . . the end of her probation on her earlier DUI conviction and the return of her driving privileges.
Erin had an alcohol content of .155, almost double the legal limit of .08.
To make matters worse, she allegedly took a friend’s car to avoid the breath alcohol ignition interlock device (BAIID) on her car. She was charged with felony aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol.
Her license was suspended after a 2012 DUI arrest in North Riverside.
The police report stated that “Ms. James purposely drove a car that she did not own to avoid the ignition lock device and was driving back from a Forest Park bar where she was celebrating that fact that she would finally have her driving privileges back after her 2012 conviction for DUI. Ms. James is exactly the type of motorist I want kept off the road permanently under a new proposed habitual DUI law that I will be proposing in the very near future.”
That raises the interesting question if the friend could be charged with abetting the crime of DUI or some form of endangerment in allowing her to circumvent the BAIID.
Prosecutors will seek the loss of driving privileges for 10 years, confiscation of vehicle and a mandatory seven year sentence upon conviction for repeat offenders.
Source: CBS
IndyRes – “Which vehicle would be confiscated, hers or her friend?”
Unless the drunk stole the car, who cares? Confiscate it and crush it. Anyone who would let a drunk drive their own car is as much the problem as the drunk.
Jail time clearly isn’t working except when given a life sentence for manslaughter.
There are only two things that will make drunk drivers learn:
(1) Confiscation and crushing of cars. I don’t care if they’re still making payments on the car or are leasing it, that’s their problem.
(2) Permanent revocation of driving privileges. Driving is not a right.
To anyone who says, “What about their right to go to work?” I say, move. Get a job closer to your home, or get a home closer to your job. Or take the bus. Your driving privileges are secondary to other people’s right to cross the street safely.
I hope that you will extend these points to illegals who drive drunk and without licenses. Unfortunately CA and other states now think that driving IS A RIGHT for illegals. In fact, if this woman had simply stated that she had NO license, or ID, and given the cops an alias and wrong address, she would be home free now since Illinois will not report illegals to ICE, and they refuse to use Secure Comm so they would not find her fingerprints in the data base.
SO to all those who may get nailed with a DUI, simply say you are an illegal, and in IL you will be OK. Of course, do NOT show up for any court date and they will have one hell of a time finding you with a false name and address.
Your state is seriously burdened with a wildly excessive plethora of unnecessary laws. Of course, everyone who profits from them probably
thinks you need even more.
In our state, a person who aids, abets, or coerces another to violate one of the traffic laws is also guilty of that same offense.
RCW 46.64.048
RCW 46.64.048
Attempting, aiding, abetting, coercing, committing violations, punishable.
Every person who commits, attempts to commit, conspires to commit, or aids or abets in the commission of any act declared by this title to be a traffic infraction or a crime, whether individually or in connection with one or more other persons or as principal, agent, or accessory, shall be guilty of such offense, and every person who falsely, fraudulently, forcefully, or willfully induces, causes, coerces, requires, permits or directs others to violate any provisions of this title is likewise guilty of such offense.
Frankly, See what I mean!!!
Was there any evidence that she hurt anyone or damaged any property?
Why not just call someone to come and take her home…if you’re so worried
that she might actually hurt someone or their property before she gets home.
I have to question the suggestion that the neighbor should be penalized. We don’t know from the report exactly what the neighbor knew. And it is possible that the neighbor acted with knowledge to help the woman evade restrictions on driving.
But I object to the idea that ordinary citizens have an obligation to delve deeply into the affairs of friends and neighbors to assure that their actions are legal or incur some legal liability themselves for failing to take the appropriate action. The primary obligation to police the activities of citizens ought to fall to society and law enforcement not ordinary citizens.
I also object to seizing property in low level cases where the property does not continue to pose a threat to society. It might possibly make sense to seize a ‘by the hour’ motel with a history of many violations, or a rural property regularly used as a drop-of point for human or drug traffic.
But seizing a car whose owner was not involved and likely not aware of any irregularities – I think not.
There are many slow learners in our society. She is one of them.
Magginkat: “I can see suspending her license for multiple yrs but a 7 yr prison sentence when no crime other than driving on suspended license seems rediculous.”
She was also DUI.
I think this is a fair sentence, it is unbelievably irresponsible to drive drunk, especially after you have already been convicted.
Frankly, Too many stories like that. I’m sorry for the loss of your friend. However, you have to realize that not only are these DUI habituals incorrigible, they have many enablers, including a few here. They range from those who disparage MADD, to those who believe DUI should only be charged if there’s property or physical damage.
This lady should spend some time in jail. She obviously has a problem that she has not or will not address. The next time she gets behind the wheel, she may kill someone.
I agree that she is most certainly stupid since she could get off if she were to claim to be an illegal alien with no license at all. They would let her go after she was sober and not report her to ICE in Illinios, She could then just ignore her court date, and not show up. With no valid address, they would have a hard time finding her. Then she could still drive as much as she pleased until she was caught again. Then since Illinios is against Secure Comm, she could give another name and she could get off once more since they would not run her prints.
Even if she were to claim to be an illegal immigrant and used her right name, she would get three DUI arrests before she would face any deportation under the proposed immigration reform amnesty. In California, they changed the law so that a person found to have no license at all would NOT have their vehicle taken away as was done in the past. Not only that,but they would not report them to ICE or use Secure Comm to find out if they had any outstanding warrants or criminal history. So YES she does not know how to work the system and is therefore stupid. The other question is how stupid are we for letting this go on?
In order to charge her friend…. Scienter is needed….
Too bad they can’t arrest her for stupidity…………..
Actually Jonny it is against the law to text and in many states to talk on the phone while driving. You certainly would be ticketed if officers observers you reading while driving. All of those things are gaining increasing scrutiny as the danger becomes better understood. Not a GD one of them is an excuse for not enforcing drink driving limits.
And, yes, the tolerance for BAC levels has changed as those have become better understood. Again, not a particularly compelling reason to ignore those laws. Also, please note that this attempted murderer was more than over even the old limits.
So, you want to try to make a coherent point or just back away quietly from that turd you laid?
My cousin was murdered by a drunk driver at 2 in the afternoon. The murderer had just been released from prison for maiming another person while driving drunk that morning and had been celebrating at a bar. He, of course, lived and a decent, caring, dedicated nurse who had done nothing but good all her life was lost.
Which vehicle would be confiscated, hers or her friend?
I can see suspending her license for multiple yrs but a 7 yr prison sentence when no crime other than driving on suspended license seems rediculous.
Not a smart thing to do, but then I have a hard time with prosecuting laws with adjustable limits. First your “drunk” at one limit, then they lower it, so now your considered “drunk” at that limit.
All the while, people are talking on their cell phones, eating, reading, etc etc at the wheel….and yet they aren’t ‘criminals’….
What the heck has happened!?
“I see a celebration in her future.”