These are the musings, ramblings, rantings and observations of Houston DWI Attorney Paul B. Kennedy on DWI defense, general criminal defense, philosophy and whatever else tickles his fancy.
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Bill would impose moratorium on driver surcharges in Texas
Then, when those same drivers picked up new moving violations their licenses were suspended (again) and more surcharges were imposed. The entire program became a downward spiral that left many motorists with no way to ever regain their legal driving privileges.
Now it appears that relief might be on the way in the form of HB104 - a proposed bill that would place a two-year moratorium on the imposition and collection of surcharges under the DRP.
The DRP was created in 2003 partially as a funding mechanism for trauma centers in the state. The promise was that folks who drove without insurance or on suspended licenses would cough up some money that the state would collect and distribute (hmm, sounds like a tax to me). Over the years, however, the program has not generated the funds lawmakers had expected.
Being that most folks ticketed for driving without insurance or on suspended licenses tend to be on the poorer end of the spectrum, the state has only collected about 40% of the surcharges levied on motorists. So, not only did the program not generate the amount of revenue expected - it couldn't even collect half the surcharges levied.
The bill would allow the DPS to begin imposing and collecting surcharges after September 1, 2013 provided the state had not yet found a mechanism to fund trauma centers at the level they are currently funded. Whether this will encourage lawmakers to come up with a new funding mechanism or just sit on the hands has yet to be determined.
For way too long the state legislature (and governor) have resisted devising equitable mechanisms to fund this state. The sales tax is regressive. The lottery is a scam directed at the poor. The DRP is yet another attempt to impose higher taxes on the poor while reducing the tax burden on the wealthy.
Imposing a moratorium on the DRP rather than abolishing the whole thing may be a baby step - but at least it's a step in the right direction.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Holy piece of junk, Batman!
We've got vans with wiring problems that renders the breath test machines inoperable. The air conditioning doesn't work in one van and that's not good for a machine that's temperature sensitive. Yep, that's how we take care of our "instruments" here in Space City.
The police won't even acknowledge the problems to the Harris County District Attorney's Office -- of course that cat's out the bag by now. Heaven forbid folks find out that the money used to purchase and maintain (sort of) the BATmobiles might as well have been used to light the charcoal in the grill.
The lieutenant was worried about having to, quote, "explain what these problems can do to pending court cases."
"The lieutenant may think there's a problem, but I don't see that there's a problem," Driskell said.
And the DA's office has never been told of any of the maintenance problems we've uncovered.
"It's not that we're trying to hide it, but I don't see a need in telling them that. If they wanna know that, we'd be glad to share that information," Driskell said.It's not about getting drunks off the streets. It's about raking in that grant money. We're churning and burning, baby, just send the check. The DPS is in on the scam, too, charging motorists $3,000 for a DWI conviction. Budget shortfalls -- let's just increase the user fees on our roadways. Just think of all that fine money and surcharge payments.
But it's all right because it's all in the name of public safety. Isn't it?
Friday, December 10, 2010
Lawyer files suit to end surcharge program
Fort Worth defense attorney Mimi Coffey has also had enough. Ms. Coffey filed suit in federal court seeking to end the surcharges on the grounds that the imposition of the surcharge violates the principle of double jeopardy. The argument goes that the person has already had a penalty imposed by the court as a result of the conviction -- be it a fine, jail time, probation or a license suspension - and that the imposition of another financial penalty is, in effect, punishing the motorist a second time.
"You can't deprive property without due process," Coffey said. "I think it's time somebody do something about this."The situation worsens if a motorist cannot afford the surcharge as the sanction for failing to pay the surcharge is a license suspension. And this is where the program becomes a never-ending cycle for those caught up in its vortex: if you can't pay the surcharge your license is suspended and, should you be ticketed for driving on that suspended license you'll get hit with another surcharge and yet another license suspension.
The author of the original bill putting the program into place, Rep. Mike Krusee of Round Rock, thinks the Driver Responsibility Program needs to go. Even MADD says it's time to scrap it (provided the state find another way to fund trauma centers).
"We have seen nothing that shows the program helps deter drunken driving." Bill Lewis, MADD public policy liaisonOthers have proposed repealing the program as is and enact new legislation that would hit motorists convicted of DWI for surcharges. Let's see, a motorist convicted of drunk driving has a criminal conviction on his record that can never be expunged, he spent at least a night in jail and will likely be under court supervision for at least 12 months -- I think reasonable people would agree that's adequate punishment.
Friday, October 22, 2010
State changes course on driver surcharges
Of course the program doesn't apply to motorists who have been paying their surcharges, nor does it apply to anyone making more than 125% of the federal poverty line (approximately $27,562 for a family of four).
The real solution to the mess is to rescind the Driver Responsibility Program altogether so that motorists don't fall into an endless cycle of surcharges and suspensions.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Sometimes the cure can be worse than the ailment
The powers of the government of the State of Texas shall be divided into three distinct departments, each of which shall be confided to a separate body of magistracy; to wit: Those which are legislative to one, those which are executive to another, and those which are judicial to another; and no person, or collection of persons, being of one of these departments, shall exercise any power properly attached to either of the others, except in the instances herein expressly permitted. -- Texas Constitution, Art. IITexas State Senator John Whitmire recognizes that there is something wrong with the manner in which Texas handles motorists accused of drunk driving. He understands that the surcharges imposed by the Department of Public Safety are onerous. He gets that motorists don't want a DWI conviction on their records because of the surcharges or because it may cost them their job.
What he doesn't get, apparently, is the separation of powers clause in the Texas Constitution. Sen. Whitmire is upset because different counties handle DWI cases differently. In Galveston County, it's not unusual for a motorist accused of drunk driving to plead guilty to obstruction of a highway. In Harris County, a person accused of DWI who has never been in trouble with the law before can enter the DIVERT program and (cross your fingers) have the matter expunged after completing their probation (more on this later). Get pulled over in Fort Bend County and if the case is not dismissed, plead guilty or go to trial.
Sen. Whitmire wants to put together a "working group" to figure out how to ensure that DWI's are handled the same across the state. No word on whether that working group will include defense attorneys or not.
My question, however, is who cares if Tom Green County treats first-time DWI's one way, Cameron County treats them another way and Jefferson County treats them a different way. No one questions why for so long capital crimes were handled one way in Harris County and, seemingly, another way across the rest of the Lone Star State. No one seems concerned that every county has a different policy toward pretrial diversion on nonviolent offenses such as shoplifting or possession of minor amounts of marijuana.
In Bexar County, District Attorney Susan Reed dealt with a backlog of cases by allowing first-time drunken-driving defendants who meet certain parameters to plead instead to a charge of "obstruction of a highway – intoxication." Defendants must undergo treatment and abide by conditions, including locks on their vehicles.
Reed said her goal was to get to offenders quickly and impose strict requirements because she believes that is the way to keep people from repeat drunken driving: "It's really got teeth in it for trying to stop the behavior." Besides avoiding the surcharge, she said, the absence of a formal DWI charge keeps people from possibly losing their jobs over the matter.
Whitmire voiced concern that allowing such a charge would hide a defendant's first drunken-driving offense, allowing him to avoid enhanced penalties if he offends again.
"We're losing a record of what that person's actual offense is," he said. -- Houston Chronicle (7/8/2010)
Allowing defendants to plead to a different charge? Really? C'mon, Senator, you are well aware that it happens every day in courthouses across this state and across the country. That's why it's called a plea bargain. Why the concern when it happens in a DWI case? The records will still indicate that the person was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated regardless of what the person actually pleads to.
Here's an idea for you, Senator. Why not allow deferred adjudication for those accused of DWI? Even with a nondisclosure order, law enforcement (and prosecutors) will know about the prior arrest and can treat any subsequent offense accordingly. Allowing those accused of driving while intoxicated to clear their case without a conviction, without a license suspension and without the onerous DPS surcharges can move dockets -- if judicial economy is what we're really concerned about.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Turning drunk driving into a money-making enterprise
Mr. Hodges' theory is that a good number of motorists charged with drunk driving would be more than willing to plead guilty to DWI if it didn't mean staring at a $3,000 charge from the DPS. Now I think the stigma of a criminal conviction plays a large role in this backlog. After all, DWI is the one crime that almost anyone can be charged with (sorry about the dangling participle, but I'll be damned if I can think of a better way to word the sentence). I've often told clients to look around the courtroom and find someone who doesn't belong -- that person's probably charged with drunk driving.
"Our criminal justice system is supposed to be about changing behavior and making our streets safer, but there is no evidence that this program is making our streets safer." -- David Hodges, judicial liaison for the Texas Center for the Judiciary.The Driver Responsibility Program was sold as a way of providing additional funding to regional trauma centers who, as the story goes, expend a mountain of resources treating people injured as a result of someone's bad driving. Surprisingly enough, the trauma centers have yet to receive the amount of funding they were promised when the program was instituted.
There are currently 1.2 million Texans who haven't paid their surcharges and are risking arrest every time they get behind the wheel . The balance due? Over a billion dollars.
At the same time that the state legislature has restricted the constitutional rights of motorists in Texas, legislators have been working to make DWI prosecutions into a profit-making activity. After all, who wouldn't trade off 4th, 5th and 6th amendment rights for the promise of $3,000 plus reinstatement fees?
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Texas taking a second look at surcharges
HOW DPS SURCHARGES CAN SNOWBALL
Convicted offenders must pay these fines for three years to keep their driver's licenses:
• DWI first offense: $1,000 annually
• DWI subsequent offense within three years: $1,500 annually
• DWI with alcohol concentration of 0.16 or more: $2,000 annually
• Driving with no car insurance or a suspended driver's license: $250 annually
• Driving without a valid license: $100 annually
Money collected by program
Surcharges imposed, collected by end of November 2009
• Total fines billed: $1,721,383,578.00
• Total revenue paid: $672,150,803.95
• Fines still unpaid: $1,049,232,774.05
Drivers facing surcharges
Convicted offenders hit with surcharges as of April 2009
• Number of drivers billed: 1,641,183
• Drivers who have paid: 543,612
• Drivers who failed to pay: 1,097,571
Proposed indigence rule
The rule, if approved, would:
• Reduce fines for convicted motorists earning equal to or less than 125 percent of the poverty level
• Allow 90 days to pay the reduced fees in full and provide proof of insurance
• Allow electronic application online or by phone
• Require applicants to submit supporting documents to prove indigency
• Require DPS to mail a letter of approval or denial to any applicant
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
State troopers on the prowl for drunk drivers
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Debtor's prison, redux
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
A neverending circle
The client couldn't pay the surcharges because he couldn't get a job because the DPS would not renew his license because of the excessive surcharges owed. In his case, the only thing the DPS has accomplished is guaranteeing he will be breaking the law everyday.