A Better Approach to Driving While Suspended

By TChris, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:26:28 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

State legislators, always searching for a new punishment to show how tough they are on crime, find all kinds of reasons to suspend driver's licenses.

The folks I see [in traffic court] are cited because they neglected to pay a ticket, and were suspended. The folks I see are cited because they neglected to show up in court, and were suspended. The reasons for these scofflaws' non-appearance? They have no money. They are unemployed, poor, broke, foreclosed.

In Wisconsin, licenses are suspended for underage drinking. Legislators are quite certain that college kids won't drink until they turn 21 if they fear the loss of a driver's license for attending a house party. And that works ... not at all. Unfortunately, a policy's failure rarely motivates a legislature to rethink the policy. [more ...]

Suspensions put people in a tough spot. If you can't drive to work and don't have good public transportation, or if your job requires you to drive, you may lose your employment. You may not be able to take your child to child care. Or (as many choose to do) you can drive illegally and risk another ticket, another set of fines, another suspension.

It is bad policy to suspend driver's licenses for conduct that doesn't involve driving. A suspension might coerce the occasional scofflaw into ponying up the money for unpaid tickets, but it doesn't bestow upon indigent people the sudden ability to pay fines and (sometimes exorbitant) court costs. It doesn't teach a lesson as might taking away a toy. We want people to drive legally. We don't want to confront them with a choice between driving illegally and losing their jobs. That isn't a reasonable way to punish acts that are unrelated to the driving privilege or to coerce payment of court obligations.

< Naming Names | Obama's Constitutional Shift: 1st, 2nd, 4th and 8th Amendments >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

A Better Approach to Driving While Suspended | 23 comments (23 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

It's a worthy debate but do know that (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:34:47 PM EST

Wisconsin leads the nation in drunken driving.

Discuss: Ought I be able to walk across my street in safety? (A student area where it can be dangerous to do so. And don't ask about twice having my car, parked on the street, almost totalled in the last few years.)

A different topic, really (none / 0) (#11)
by TChris on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:06:16 AM EST

I know that a survey of self-reported driving behaviors shows that, but I don't know whether that translates into statistical evidence that it's less safe to drive in Wisconsin than anywhere else. And Wisconsin does suspend licenses for drunk driving, with which I have no problem. It's the suspension of licenses for non-traffic offenses that is the subject of the post.

[ Parent ]

: It ain't "safe" to drive anywhere.... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by kdog on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:22:23 AM EST

ever. Human beings were not meant to travel at high speeds surrounded by a ton of metal and plastic...it is an inherently unsafe activity.
All the tyranny in the world ain't gonna make it safe.

[ Parent ]
: There are other studies supporting (none / 0) (#17)
by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:59:39 AM EST

what you seek, so you can find them -- I just went to the most recent of many for the sake of (my) time.
And I do understand the distinction you give, but there is a larger context to consider suggested by this and other studies of our drinking culture in Wisconsin. It is so bad that by the time our kids do turn 21 and can drink legally, they're bored with drinking having overdone it so often! To ignore the context can limit understanding and useful discussion.
Btw, I know well of many cases in which courts here have exercised judicial discretion when under-21s were caught in drinking offenses unrelated to driving -- the discretion being that a probation of sorts, so that another such offense could cost them their driver's licenses. It worked in every case I know.
That said, there also have been good studies at jsonline.com of the impact you describe of pulling driver's licenses for too many offenses, too many people. As I said, it is a worthy debate -- but only, I think, if others anticipate all the factors involved.

[ Parent ]

If I am correct, if you are caught driving on (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:44:15 PM EST

a suspended license in CA, they throw the book at you...and it is more than just a dmv violation.

It depends on why your license (none / 0) (#4)
by myiq2xu on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 11:19:43 PM EST

was suspended. If you were suspended for a DUI and get caught driving it's mandatory jail time.

If it was suspended for not paying a ticket it's usually just a fine.

[ Parent ]

: myiq2xu....it is a very large fine and a (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 11:38:09 PM EST

misdemeanor...a friend of mine received a $1200 fine for driving with a suspended license...no DUI. BTW, did you get that drink I sent you? :)

[ Parent ]

I got a DUI almost 20 years ago (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by myiq2xu on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 11:17:28 PM EST

First (and only) offense, but my driver's license was automatically suspended which cost me my job (I drove a company truck)

I deserved to get busted, and paid for my crime. But losing my job I had for 9 years made my punishment far more severe than average.

On another note, California has a law that says if someone gets busted with marijuana they lose their license for 1 year.

Even if they weren't in a car (or anywhere near one) when they were busted.

That makes no sense.

if you have a DUI in CA and you are caught (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by thereyougo on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:25:51 AM EST

within a 10 year's time it becomes a 2nd offense.I voted against it since 7 years was enough. It was silly/stupid, but it passed.

1.0 is now the legal limit lowered from 10 years ago. The jails are filled with these types of çriminals'and ruins their lives. There ought to be a better way to deal with it.

Plus the expense of encarceration further proves there needs to be a cheaper way/effective way to handle it.

The judicial system needs a review.

Not a black & white issue (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Lora on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:26:51 AM EST

I think perhaps that there should be more conditional driver's licenses issued: OK to drive to/from work and/or between certain hours of the day.

It's very harsh to suspend a person's license when doing so could force that person to lose his job.

Although I am in faver of strict DUI laws (I believe these statistics support this), I feel for those who cannot get to work. Perhaps a conditional license with mandatory treatment (not just the DUI class) is the way to go here.

A young person of my acquaintance borrowed a car and wrecked it in a DUI incident when he had a suspended license. He ended up in jail for 30 days (which I had no problem with) and is not eligible for a license for 5 years. He lives in the country and is sole caregiver to his disabled dad. He had fought to keep his family house which was due to be sold for back taxes. Now he literally has no means of support without being able to drive.

Clearly he made serious mistakes and deserves consequences for his actions. Clearly he was a danger to himself and others. However in his case, why not mandate drug/alcohol treatment, and then offer a conditional license with continuing treatment. It makes more sense to me. Of course that would be more costly for the county and require more effort and work to follow up. In the meantime he becomes a burden on others, is tempted to engage in illegal means of income, and has no help for his serious issues. He is marking time and will be unprepared to take on the responsibilities of driving when he is finally allowed to by law.

Any (criminal) drug conviction (none / 0) (#7)
by Ben Masel on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:26:12 AM EST

even simple marijuana possession, leads to mandatory license suspension. States were coerced by Federal threat to withhold highway funds. Passed I think in '89, kicked in 1991.

: But (none / 0) (#10)
by kaleidescope on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:49:03 AM EST

States were given the ability to opt-out of the "smoke a joint lose your license" law and California, for example, opted-out.

[ Parent ]

Underage drinking is a decent reason (none / 0) (#8)
by Montague on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:44:02 AM EST

for suspending a license. Intoxicated young drivers cause a huge number of lethal car accidents. Just because a suspension may not cause someone to stop driving is not a reason against having such a law, either.

curious (none / 0) (#9)
by sleepingdogs on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:13:34 AM EST

Do you feel it is appropriate punishiment even if they are not driving at the time of the drinking offense?

I understand that underage drinking and driving should carry a stiff punishment. Intoxicated young drivers are a danger to themselves and others. In that case I agree the punishment should involve loss of driving privileges. In fact, I think the punishment for DUI should be the same regardless of age, as all intoxicated drviers are a danger to themselves and others. However, underage drinking alone should carry its own separate punishment having nothing to do with driving. This way, if someone underage is caught driving while intoxiated, they bear the penalty of DUI and the penalty of underage drinking. However, if they are caught drinking only, they bear the punishment of underage drinking only.

[ Parent ]

: Yes, I do think it is appropriate (none / 0) (#21)
by Montague on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:41:56 AM EST

I also think it is appropriate to have special laws for teenagers who drive, such as that no more than two can be in a car at one time if one of them is driving. The fact is that teenaged drivers cause a lot of driving deaths, even when they are not drinking.
I also feel that older people whose failing capabilities make them road hazards should be tested frequently and have licenses taken away if necessary to protect the general public.
Driving is a special situation. It puts a lethal weapon in the hands of too many people. It's different from a gun, of course, because the intent of the car is not to harm, while the intent of the gun IS to harm. But we still have the right to protect drivers and pedestrians, and that is a more important right than the "right to drive."
I live in a state where 14-year-olds can drive, and frankly I find that scary.

[ Parent ]

For the Poor and/or Stubborn (none / 0) (#12)
by kaleidescope on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:06:49 AM EST

California doesn't suspend your license for failing to pay a ticket, but California will refuse to renew your vehicle registration if you don't pay tickets.

California does suspend drivers licenses for failure to appear in court to answer for a ticket you don't just pay. But in many jurisdictions, if you can't or don't want to pay a ticket, you can show up and convince the judge to sentence you to community service.

I did this, once. I got to pick the non-profit I wanted to work for, and I picked KPFA, Berkeley's Pacifica station, which I was already working for as a volunteer reporter. This was an excuse to focus a lot of energy on my reporting (it was for $800 in parking tickets in three jurisdictions -- Berkeley, Oakland and San Francisco) and I actually enjoyed myself. If memory serves, it took me about three months to work off the tickets.

License suspensions... (none / 0) (#13)
by kdog on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:16:47 AM EST

are really funny in NY. When I served on the grand jury there were loads of DUI cases, which included a lot of extra driving with suspended license charges. Some people had their licenses suspended 8 times in one day, 50 times over the course of a month....weird sh*t like that.

I couldn't grasp how you could suspend a license more than once, I mean either a license is suspeneded or it ain't right? I think it was a computer generated suspension thing where it's suspended once for the offense, again for not showing up in court, again for not paying a fine, and again for not having your shoelaces tied in the courtroom. IOW, a big fat joke.

I think since a license is a livelyhood for so many people, it shouldn't be suspended lightly, and certainly not 8 times in one day stemming from one incident.

We suspect (none / 0) (#16)
by cawaltz on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:56:59 AM EST

my husband got backed into by an uninsured driver. The insurance information she provided was bogus as per the insurance company. We are going on two months to get the car fixed(luckily it wasn't a really bad accident and the damage is superficial.) You are required to carry insurance on your car in Virginia but you aren't required to carry proof of insurance(How silly is that?). Not carrying insurance would suspend your liscence here.

Ditto, and no insurance is required (none / 0) (#18)
by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:02:22 AM EST

in my state, Wisconsin. So I/we have had to pay the full costs of being hit many times over the years. And, of course, it is our insurance that then goes up.

Fight to keep the requirement in your state, anyway, even if it is, of course, impossible to enforce it en toto.

[ Parent ]

: It's mandated in my state.... (none / 0) (#19)
by kdog on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:33:32 AM EST

but that don't mean much. With the sky-high rates working people often can't afford it, so they just get a policy for the insurance card so they can register their ride, then not pay the premiums.
Mandating insurance doen't magically insure everybody...all it does is further f*ck up some working class slobs credit rating when he/she doesn't pay his/her premiums. It's a game.

[ Parent ]

Non-driving offenses & suspension (none / 0) (#20)
by PA Lady on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:39:29 AM EST

...delurking...

Just under 5 years ago, my almost-17yo son had his driving privileges suspended for 90 days for truancy. His crime? Missing 13 days of school while he had shingles. (Lesson: Get a note covering every single day they're out, because you'll need to prove they were sick the whole time, not just the days they saw the doctor.)

Not only did he lose his delivery job, but try getting insurance or any job that requires a license check. Even if the record is sealed or expunged b/c you're a minor, the suspension remains, literally, forever. PennDOT will not remove a suspension unless the judge/magistrate in the case orders it. (The magistrate in our district has never approved a removal request.)

What really burns me (more than the insurance premiums) is that these consequences affect only a narrow subset -- kids between 16.5 and 17yo. (In PA, you can't take your driving test until 6 months after your permit test, which most kids take on their 16th birthday.)

If you haven't taken the permit or driving tests, all they can suspend is your right to take them (usually for 6 months). Once you're 17, even if you miss 179 of 180 days, all they can do is expel you. None of which will affect your insurance or your work opportunities.

: At the least... (none / 0) (#22)
by kdog on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:42:50 AM EST

your son learned a valuable lesson....bueracracy will grind you up and spit you out for no good reason at all...act accordingly.

[ Parent ]
: Good example (none / 0) (#23)
by sleepingdogs on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:14:18 PM EST

of how the punishment did not fit the crime and doesn't affect all offenders equally.

[ Parent ]