There's finally a little bit of good news - or, at least, potential good news - regarding DWI surcharges.

Since I started defending people accused of DWI, I have noticed that most of my clients know that they are looking at a possible fine and jail sentence from the courts, but very few of them know about Texas's Drivers License Surcharges that come along with DWI convictions.

As it stands right now, if you're convicted of a first-time DWI, Intoxication Assault, or Intoxication Manslaughter, you will have to pay $1,000.00 a year to the Texas Department of Public Safety for three years in order to keep your license. If you're convicted a subsequent time, it shoots up to $1,500.00. And if your breath or blood test comes back at 0.16 or greater, it spikes to $2,000.00.

The surcharge system - which extends beyond DWI, incidentally, to driving without proof of insurance, driving with license suspended, and more, albeit with lower fees for those charges - results in a number of people who live in poverty, including some of my clients, driving around without a valid driver's license. A thousand or more dollars a year is a huge portion of a lot of people's income. And this puts them (and the public) at greater risk - without a license, they can't get insurance, and they're also susceptible to arrest for Driving While License Invalid, which both result in - yeah - another surcharge. It's a cycle that never quits going for people who don't make enough money to keep up. But what's the alternative? If they quit driving, most of them won't be able to get to work, and then they'll never pay off the fines. (Furthermore, you can't just quit driving for the three years, then go back and get your license once the fee period expires - when you try, you'll still be liable for the $3,000-$6,000 in back fees you racked up over those years.)

But there is good news. The DPS actually seems to understand the burden this puts on people, and the cyclical nature of the problem that means that this system makes an innocent driver's chances of being in an accident with an ininsured motorist more likely, as well as making people who've only really been convicted of one thing liable for more crimes. The minutes from the DPS meeting is on the DPS Officer's Association blog, and they feature a pretty cogent grasp of the problem as we see it:

One in nine people have warrants out for them in El Paso (11%) due to this program. The numbers were similar in Travis County (Austin). A one-time infraction costs $1,000. Suspended license – $1,000. We have a 70% non-compliance rate, since many violators are not able to pay the surcharges. The LBB said that it has lead to more uninsured drivers on the road. It fails to make roads safer. More than 1,080,000 drivers cannot pay.
[...]
Elizabeth Earle, County Court Judge, Travis County [...] We hear “I will never be able to climb out of this hole; Just put me in jail.”

Their proposal is encouraging. The full details are at Grits for Breakfast, but the short form is that those who qualify could replace the $1,000 annual payment with a $500 one-time fee; those whose fees would be $1,500-$2,000 annually would see them replaced with a single $1,000 charge. Qualification would require passing a Drug Court program, the details for which are unspecified right now. But at the very least, this is a step in the right direction.

Labels: dps, dwi, dwi surcharges, money

posted by Kristi Couvillon   permalink   1 Comments

I represented a client at an Administrative License Revocation Hearing (ALR) recently. When people are arrested for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) and either refuse to take a breath or blood test or take the test and "fail," DPS will move to suspend their license in a separate administrative hearing.

In this case, my client was pulled over for driving too slowly. Actually, he was driving right at the speed limit until the officer who eventually arrested him pulled up next to him at a stop light. My client slowed down, as many of us do when we are driving next to, in front of, behind, or anywhere near a police officer. The officer pulled my client over for impeding traffic and also because he thought my client's slow driving was a sign that he was driving while intoxicated (DWI). He had my client conduct the three "standardized" field sobriety tests given when someone is being investigated for a DWI (the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, the walk-and-turn, and the one-leg-stand) and then arrested my client for DWI.

An officer must have reasonable suspicion before he initiates a stop of someone to investigate a possible crime, including a traffic offense (which in Texas are considered criminal offenses). Turns out, however, that in order to violate Tex. Transp. Code §545.363, the traffic law prohibiting impeding traffic, a person has to actually impede traffic. Slow driving, in and of itself, is not enough. The Court in United States v. Coronado, 480 F.Supp.2d 923 (W.D. Tex. 2007), held that the arresting officer in that case had no reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle for impeding traffic even when the vehicle was traveling 12 miles under the speed limit in the left lane and at least five vehicles were backed up behind the vehicle. A good handful of other courts have come to similar conclusions. A Texas appellate court has also held that slow driving--in and of itself--does not constitute reasonable suspicion to stop someone and investigate them for DWI.

The arresting officer appeared at the ALR hearing, which ran almost a full hour. I cross-examined the officer extensively about what happened the night of my client's arrest. We all watched portions of the video of my client's arrest and I questioned the officer about what was on the video as well.

The whole experience really reminded me how important ALR hearings are. Because it is an administrative hearing, and not a criminal proceeding, the burden on DPS to show reasonable suspicion to stop and probable cause to arrest is low-- a preponderance of the evidence. As a result, it's not all that common to win an ALR hearing. But, win or lose, it is very important to request and have an ALR hearing, especially where there is a companion DWI case. The hearing is like a mini-trial and offers an excellent opportunity to flesh out important legal issues and to cross-examine the police officers involved in the stop and arrest. What you learn at an ALR hearing can be indispensable in knowing how best to advise your client in their DWI case.

Labels: alr hearings, dwi

posted by Raman Gill   permalink   0 Comments