GETTING TOUGH: STATE INCREASES DWI PENALTIES

The blood alcohol content rate required for an administrative suspension or revocation of drivers licenses in Missouri has been lowered from .13 to .10 under legislation passed this year by the General Assembly.

In addition, anyone who has their license revoked for a DWI will have their license taken away for 30 days, regardless of any subsequent court action or requests for hardship treatment, such as allowing a person to continue to drive to and from work.

"The intent of this law is to ensure that everyone does suffer the suspension of their license for 30 days," said Rep. Joe Driskill, D-Doniphan.

"I think it is good because it gives an immediate negative feedback to a drunk driver," said Cape Girardeau County Prosecuting Attorney Morley Swingle.

Another provision of the bill, which is expected to be signed into law by Gov. John Ashcroft soon, makes it an infraction for a person to consume any alcoholic beverage while operating a moving vehicle.

The bill also increases penalties for repeat DWI offenders, including a provision that prohibits any hardship license from being granted for a second drunk driving suspension or revocation.

Several parts of the bill are designed to bring Missouri into compliance with federal guidelines on dealing with drunk drivers.

Both Swingle and Cape Girardeau Police Capt. Steve Strong praised the lowering of the rate from .13 to .10.

Under the old law, a person was considered as driving while intoxicated if his blood alcohol content was .10, however, his license could not be automatically suspended unless the reading was .13.

"A person is definitely intoxicated at .10 and the law says that he is intoxicated," said Strong. "I don't know why we need to give an additional level before his license is taken."

But Swingle said he believes the bill does not go far enough and expressed disappointment that the legislature failed to lower the DWI blood-alcohol content rate to .08.

"California is already using .08 and that is the most liberal state in the country," remarked Swingle. "If a person is at .08 they must have consumed a large amount of alcohol and it will be impairing their ability to drive."

Under present law, Swingle said, charges can be filed at .08 for DWI, but there is no presumption of intoxication. Prosecutors have to prove the driver was intoxicated.

"It looks like they are tough on drunk driving, but really they weren't," said Swingle. "I think they did the minimum amount they could do and still not lose federal funding."

Strong said he believes prohibiting people from drinking and driving just makes good sense. "There is a danger involved in drinking and driving and to make it legal for a person to drive down the street while drinking just does not make good sense," remarked Strong.

Some proponents of the DWI bill had pushed for wording that would prohibit having any open containers of alcohol in a vehicle, however, the final version applied the restriction only to the driver.

Driskill said he supports the provision, but admits it is "a very minimal open-container law." For someone to be charged, a police officer must see the person consuming alcohol while driving a moving vehicle.

In exchange for requiring a 30-day revocation for DWI offenders, Driskill said judges have been given expanded authority for granting hardship driving privileges.

Under present law, hardship privileges can be granted by judges only for driving to and from work, but under this bill, judges can allow hardship privileges for such things as driving to a doctor's office, school, and to alcohol-treatment classes.

Driskill said the Department of Revenue advised him that in February and March the revoking of hardship permits for all reasons totaled between 2 and 4 percent. He said he sees that as an indication that most people respond to being given second chances by judges for hardships.

Another part of the bill requires that municipal DWI offenses be considered the same as state DWI violations for the purpose of enhancing the penalties for subsequent violations.

"It just makes good sense, regardless of where a person is stopped and charged with DWI to have that charge be treated as any other DWI charge," said Driskill.

Swingle noted that not counting municipal charges for DWI in the past was "an outrageous loophole."

He recalled once having a jury trial for someone who had received eight city DWI charges but was treated as a first-time DWI offender with the state.

"All in all, I feel like the changes were too little," summed up Swingle. "It might help deter some people from driving after drinking if they realize they will lose their license 30 days at least, but overall I am disappointed that it did not go far enough."

Driskill explained the DWI bill was a top priority of the governor and an effort to bring Missouri into compliance with federal law. By complying with federal law, the state is eligible to receive several million dollars in incentive funds for control, prevention and treatment of drug and alcohol abuse.