Tampering with Interlock System on 3rd DUI

[penny2]

Here's the scenerio...

1st DUI.... With her kid in the car
2nd DUI.... Just plain stupid
3rd DUI..... After a "Get out of Jail Free" card for the 2nd DUI and getting an Interlock System installed in her car, she got drunk, unplugged the Interlock System, drove off the road into a ditch, resisted arrest and struck a police officer. BAC .24.... and she thinks she is not getting jail time for this one?


Any thoughts on that one?

[notorial dissent]

Duh, stupid!!! Real lucky, in my jurisdiction she would probably have gotten charged with child abuse or neglect for having the kid in the car on the first one, up to and including loss of custody.

Should have her license yanked for a very long period of time, if not permanently, mandatory counseling, and not allowed to own a vehicle during that time period.

No sympathy whatsoever.

[Pottapaug1938]

Duh, stupid!!! Real lucky, in my jurisdiction she would probably have gotten charged with child abuse or neglect for having the kid in the car on the first one, up to and including loss of custody.

Should have her license yanked for a very long period of time, if not permanently, mandatory counseling, and not allowed to own a vehicle during that time period.

No sympathy whatsoever.

And none from me, either. I just hope that she doesn't decide to buy another car anyway (or have some other idiot buy one for her) and drive without a license, like I've heard about happening around here a few times.

[penny2]

She did receive endangering another person with her child in her car and she did lose custody of the child to her ex-husband.

But I do believe that she will be serving some jail time for the third. I have been following this story in our local newspaper because she is a sovereign and says she has the "right to travel"....

[JamesVincent]

Duh, stupid!!! Real lucky, in my jurisdiction she would probably have gotten charged with child abuse or neglect for having the kid in the car on the first one, up to and including loss of custody.

Should have her license yanked for a very long period of time, if not permanently, mandatory counseling, and not allowed to own a vehicle during that time period.

No sympathy whatsoever.

In MD she would have been charged with neglect but would have had no custody issues. I went through this a few years back with a good friend of mine. His ex wasnt drunk, she was under the influence of mary jane, had their son in the car, was impaired enough to be pulled over and arrested. Their son was actually taken to the hospital and found to be dehydrated and malnourished. My friend' s attorney made a motion to the court to address custody issues and was turned down, they refused to even consider it.

[penny2]

Well... It never ceases to amaze me how some people can get away with things and others can't when the law is clearly outlined about "if you commit this crime... this will happen"

I would think that at the very least tampering with the interlock system would be something or everyone would be tampering with them. Seriously?

[notorial dissent]

She did receive endangering another person with her child in her car and she did lose custody of the child to her ex-husband.

But I do believe that she will be serving some jail time for the third. I have been following this story in our local newspaper because she is a sovereign and says she has the "right to travel"....

Unfortunately it does depend on the jurisdiction how the treat it, and even in some of the really stiff ones you will end up with a judge or DA who routinely ignores the guidelines and turns them loose with just a slap on their wrists. Locally they tend to be pretty sticky about the child endangerment issues and pretty consistent. We have a few judges and DA's who can't seem to read, but the local groups have started keeping track of them and working to get them removed, and drunken driving is a pretty hot button issue around here because of some of the nasty deaths we've had. But you are right, the law is often not applied consistently. Currently they are pretty strict in my state, and they have been talking about taking it further if the law isn't more consistently applied, up to and including permanent loss of license and right to own a car. As I recall, tampering with the the lockout is an automatic revocation of probation and they get to go to jail at that point.

The old "right to travel" schtick is an old sovrun whine. They have a "right to travel" under their own power any way they choose that doesn't include operating a vehicle if they don't have a license.

[penny2]

But I thought that was only traveling on horses...?

[Burnaby49]

We've had a few sovereign wannabes here in Canada pulling the driving without a license stunt too. Goes absolutely nowhere since these clueless types have carbon-copied your sovereign game-plans without considering that our laws are entirely different. Since we don't have a constitutionally granted a right to travel (no Constitution) they don't have even that fig-leaf.

[wserra]

Since we don't have a constitutionally granted a right to travel (no Constitution) they don't have even that fig-leaf.

You understand that the "right to travel" - which does exist in the U.S. - doesn't mean anything like what sovrun nutjobs want it to mean. To get an idea of its real meaning, see Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). A free version is here.

[Pottapaug1938]

We've had a few sovereign wannabes here in Canada pulling the driving without a license stunt too. Goes absolutely nowhere since these clueless types have carbon-copied your sovereign game-plans without considering that our laws are entirely different. Since we don't have a constitutionally granted a right to travel (no Constitution) they don't have even that fig-leaf.

I thought that you got your Constitution patriated in 1982? I seem to recall a few separatists in Quebec getting their pants in a twist over what it does or does not say about their "distinct society".

[penny2]

Since we don't have a constitutionally granted a right to travel (no Constitution) they don't have even that fig-leaf.

You understand that the "right to travel" - which does exist in the U.S. - doesn't mean anything like what sovrun nutjobs want it to mean. To get an idea of its real meaning, see Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). A free version is here.

Wserra.... what was the verdict of that case?

[Burnaby49]

Burnaby49 wrote:
We've had a few sovereign wannabes here in Canada pulling the driving without a license stunt too. Goes absolutely nowhere since these clueless types have carbon-copied your sovereign game-plans without considering that our laws are entirely different. Since we don't have a constitutionally granted a right to travel (no Constitution) they don't have even that fig-leaf.

I thought that you got your Constitution patriated in 1982? I seem to recall a few separatists in Quebec getting their pants in a twist over what it does or does not say about their "distinct society".

Sorry, getting myself confused. We have a Constitution but what the quasi-sovereigns up here rely on is the Charter or Rights and Freedom, part of the Constitution. As I understand it the Charter is very loosely analogous to your Bill of Rights but I make no claim to expertise in this area. As Wikipedia states;

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (also known as The Charter of Rights and Freedoms or simply the Charter, French: La Charte canadienne des droits et libertés) is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada. It forms the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Charter guarantees certain political rights to Canadian citizens and civil rights of everyone in Canada from the policies and actions of all areas and levels of government. It is designed to unify Canadians around a set of principles that embody those rights. The Charter was signed into law by Queen Elizabeth II of Canada on April 17, 1982 (along with the rest of the Act).

Whenever anyone has a hissy-fit over their rights being violated they go to the Charter for redress. The Constitution has a right to mobility which, as I understand it, is not analogous to travel. It means the right to live anywhere in the country but not the right to get there by driving unlicensed. Again, referring to Wikipedia;

Mobility rights: (section 6): the right to enter and leave Canada, and to move to and take up residence in any province, or to reside outside Canada.

Your main sovereign issue seems to be the purported right to exempt themselves from national citizenship and therefore exempt themselves from most laws. Given Canada's different way of getting to where we are and our political structure (eight year presidents are amateur hour, the Queen has ruled us for 60 years) we don't have these citizenship arguments brought up.

Quebec's "distinct Society" is a vague term not defined by statute. It is not in the Constitution and, in fact, an attempt to incorporate it in the Meech Lake Accord (an attempt to ammend the Constitution to include Quebec as a "distinct society") caused a political crisis. Again to refer;

The Meech Lake Accord, proposed (but never enacted) amendments to the Constitution from 1987 to 1990, would have inserted the phrase "distinct society" into the Constitution Act, 1867 as part of the new section 2 of that Act (the original section 2 of the Act had already been repealed; currently there still is no section 2). In doing so, the Accord would have recognized the difference of Quebec from the rest of Canada, and perhaps implicitly recognized Quebec as a nation. As author Marjorie Bowker wrote, it was primarily a reference to Quebec's "laws, its language and its culture."[4] The National Assembly of Quebec was then referred to in the Accord as having the power to protect Quebec's distinctiveness.

It is controversial as to whether Quebec can be referred to as a nation, and the use of that word in the official papers of the Accord would have probably doomed its approval in the rest of Canada. However, the "distinct society" euphemism itself seems to have shocked English Canadians, partly leading to the demise of the accord in the other provinces. Some critics, such as the Reform Party of Canada, saw it as granting special status to Quebec, which offended their vision of Canada in which all provinces are equal.[5] Others feared that if the National Assembly was empowered to promote Quebec's distinctiveness, a provincial government might decide Quebec must secede in order to keep its distinctiveness.[4]

Re WSERRA's comment. I understand that the interpretation to the right of travel implies only that, the right to go from A to B. It is not a carte blache giving immunity from all traffic laws while in transit. Our constitutional right to mobility is exactly the same. I can move from B.C. to Ontario any time I want but I can't get there by driving drunk down the wrong lane of a divided highway at 100 miles per hour.

Just edited part of above. My original post erroneously stated,

Sorry, getting myself confused. We have a Charter but what the quasi-sovereigns up here rely on is the Charter or Rights and Freedom, part of the Constitution.

What I meant was the revised;

Sorry, getting myself confused. We have a Constitution but what the quasi-sovereigns up here rely on is the Charter or Rights and Freedom, part of the Constitution.

[wserra]

You understand that the "right to travel" - which does exist in the U.S. - doesn't mean anything like what sovrun nutjobs want it to mean. To get an idea of its real meaning, see Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). A free version is here.

Wserra.... what was the verdict of that case?

I'm not sure what you mean by "verdict", but Saenz is the latest in a line of Supreme Court cases holding that a state cannot penalize residents of another state for immigrating; it must treat all residents, new or old, alike. In other words, there is a right to travel freely between states, and a state cannot hinder that right by measures which discourage it. Reading a right to drive without a license (or a right to drive at all, for that matter) into those cases is sovrun delusion.

[wserra]

I have been following this story in our local newspaper because she is a sovereign and says she has the "right to travel"....

I'm therefore moving the thread to the "Sovereign" forum, especially because we are now discussing the "right to travel".

[Prof]

I have seen the following argument made by sovereigns:

"I have a right to drink alcohol.
I have a right to travel.
Therefore, I have a right to drink and drive."

Also, most don't realize that the right to travel is as penumbral as the right to privacy. The judges determined that the priveleges and immunities clause and other provisions of the Constitution made no sense if states or the US could restrict the right to travel between points A and B. See Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of ... States_law

[penny2]

But you at the very least need a drivers license don't you?

[Prof]

But you at the very least need a drivers license don't you?

I'll answer another way: The States and the federal government can place reasonable restrictions on the right -- such as a driver's license to drive on roadways, or insurance for cars, or no drinking. Or, TSA inspections, pilot's licenses, railroad safety laws. Not to mention passports for international travel, etc.

[Brandybuck]

Any thoughts on that one?

As a radical libertarian just one step shy of that cliff that plunges into full blown anarchism, I just have to say: Toss her ass in jail!

She is willfully endangering the lives of others on the road. If she wants to drink and drive, she should get her own damned road and drive on it all she wants. But stay the hell off of any public thoroughfare.

[fortinbras]

Isn't the interloc system to prevent drunk driving the property of the police that is rented by the car owner? If so, disabling it probably qualifies as damaging public property or something similar.