State Rep. Kent Coleman of Murfreesboro sponsored three key bills in the recently concluded 106th Tennessee General Assembly that significantly toughen state laws related to Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and Driving While Intoxicated (DWI).
Under Coleman’s leadership, all three bills successfully navigated the legislative process and will take effect in the coming year.
“According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in 2008, there were 386 traffic fatalities in Tennessee in which alcohol was a contributing factor,” said Coleman, who serves the House District 49 that includes areas of Murfreesboro, Smyrna and La Vergne. “That is 386 too many, plain and simple. Make no mistake, every traffic fatality is a tragedy, but every traffic fatality involving alcohol or drugs is a completely preventable tragedy, and I sponsored these three bills to help move that number from 386 towards zero.”
The first bill (H.B. 3280) revises the substances that give rise to a DUI, so that it is unlawful to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of any intoxicant or substance affecting the central nervous system. Under present law, only certain specifically listed substances, such as marijuana, and other drugs that stimulate the central nervous system are covered by the statute, and Coleman’s bill effectively broadens the class of covered substances to include non-stimulative drugs as well.
Addressing this change, Coleman stated, “The previous law provided a loophole to criminal defendants who were charged with DUI. They could just argue that the substance they were taking did not actually stimulate their nervous system. This loophole was obviously troubling, especially given the recent rising trend in the use and abuse of prescription medications that are technically classified as depressants. Conversely, under the new law, if someone is taking any substance that affects his or her ability to safely operate a motor vehicle, and that person makes the decision to drive, then he will be violating the law.”
The second bill (H.B. 3281) provides that, if a defendant has one or more prior convictions of DUI, vehicular assault, or vehicular homicide due to intoxication, then the defendant may not be released from jail on a bail bond unless a court first determines that the defendant is not a danger to the community. Furthermore, if that determination is made, then court may consider the use of monitoring devices to eliminate danger to the community including ignition interlock devices, electronic monitoring with random alcohol or drug testing, or pretrial residency in an in-patient alcohol or drug rehabilitation center.
“We’ve all read news reports at one time or another when someone with multiple prior DUI-related convictions chose to drive under the influence yet again and killed an innocent person. And, in response, we’ve all said, ‘That person was obviously a danger to society and should not have been free to drive at all’,” Coleman said, explaining the motivation for this bill.
“Well, this bill accomplishes this common-sense goal,” he continued. “If someone is a repeat or habitual offender, then the court is forced to determine whether the defendant poses a danger to the community. If the court finds that the defendant is a danger, then he is staying put until his trial.”
The third and final bill (H.B. 3281) allows a general sessions court to determine whether a person charged with DUI also violated the implied consent law rather than requiring implied consent cases to be heard by court determining the DUI. Present law requires that both the implied consent violation and the underlying DUI charge must be adjudicated at the same time and by the same court.
“In almost all DUI cases, determining whether a defendant violated the implied consent laws is simple, straightforward, and not in dispute,” Coleman said. “But, under previous laws, the court system could only rule on implied consent violations when they heard the underlying DUI case. In some cases, even if a defendant openly admitted to an implied consent violation, he could continue to drive for one or even two years as his underlying DUI case made its way through the criminal justice system. This was not serving the interests of justice, and this bill will ensure that implied consent violations are dealt with swiftly and efficiently so that violators will have their licenses suspended in accordance with the law as quickly as possible.”
When asked about the potential budgetary effects of these bills, Coleman responded, “The net budgetary effect of these bills is negligible. All three of these bills significantly toughen DUI/DWI-related laws, and they do it in a way that is common sense, constitutional and extremely cost effective. That’s a 100 percent win-win for all Tennesseans.”
“No Tennessee family should ever have to receive an early-morning phone call from a law enforcement officer informing them that a loved one has been killed in an alcohol or drug-related traffic accident, and, as a member of the General Assembly representing Rutherford County, I am committed to doing everything within my power to ensure that those calls never have to be made,” Coleman said.
|
Email
Print
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Google
Yahoo!