Unfortunately, drinking and driving is often as much a part of the prom scene as are gowns, corsages and tuxes. Some high schools across the country have addressed the problem by requiring students to submit to breathalyzer tests before allowing them to take part in all school dances, including proms. Here in Colorado, law enforcement officers make an effort to keep teens safe during prom season by hitting the streets with extra DUI patrols.

The U.S. Department of Transportation considers the months of March, April and May to be high-risk periods for fatal accidents involving teenaged drivers, primarily due to graduation and prom-night celebrations.  According to that agency, during that three-month period in 2009, (the most recent year for which statistics are available), nationwide 386 people aged 15-20 were killed in traffic crashes involving a 15- to 20-year-old driver.  Of that number, 170 drivers (or 44 per cent) had been drinking.

Many police and sheriff’s departments across the Front Range will be putting extra officers — ones specifically dedicated to impaired driving enforcement — on the roads in the coming weeks.  The Colorado Department of Transportation provided the following list of departments that will be increasing patrols during prom time.

Arvada Police Department – April 15-16 and April 29-30

Commerce City Police Department – April 9-May 22

Denver Police Department – Will have special, increased patrols for the following schools and locations:

April 16-17 – West High School (Grand Hyatt downtown) and Kennedy High School
April 22-23 – Thomas Jefferson High School

April 23-24 – Lincoln High School (Coors Field), Montbello High School (Aquarium)

May 7-8 – South High School

May 14-15 – East High School (Invesco Field), George Washington High School (Mile Hi Station)

Erie Police Department – April 29-30

Fort Collins Police Department – April 29-May 1 and May 6-8 (Two proms are scheduled for
May 7)

Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office – April 15-May 1 – Increased patrols near schools that are
hosting after-prom events

Larimer County Sheriff’s Office – April 15-17 – Fort Collins High School prom April 15, and
Loveland High School prom April 16

April 20-May 1- Fossil Ridge and Rocky Mountain High

School

“You can still have a good time with friends and family, but take responsibility for yourself to be safe and line up a sober ride if you’re celebrating with alcohol,” advises James Wolfinbarger, chief of the Colorado State Patrol.  “If you don’t plan ahead, that’s when bad situations arise and you can end up behind bars and worse.”

The Colorado Department of Transportation has partnered with MillerCoors to encourage responsible decisions and provide useful tools for celebrants to get home safely. The beer company is offering free taxi vouchers at participating restaurants and bars.  Cab information and locations where people can get the free vouchers can be found at www.planaheadcolorado.com.

One thing celebrants can count on for sure this coming weekend is that police officers will be out in force looking for people who didn’t plan ahead and who decided to risk it all by drinking and driving. Following is a list of Colorado law enforcement agencies and their enforcement plans for the New Year’s weekend.

Saturation Patrols:

Adams County Sheriff’s Office, December 30 – January 3

Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office, December 30 – January 3

Castle Rock Police Department, December 30 – January 3

Colorado Springs Police Department, December 30 – January 3

CSP/Castle Rock, December 30 – January 2

CSP/Adams County, December 30 – January 2

El Paso County Sheriff’s Office, December 30 – January 1

Fort Collins Police Department, December 30 – January 2

Greenwood Village Police Department, December 30 – January 1

Lakewood Police Department, December 30 – January 3

Larimer County Sheriff’s Office, December 30 – January 2

Increased Patrols:

Auraria Campus Police Department, December 30 – January 3

Aurora Police Department, December 30 – January 4

Boulder County Sheriff’s Office, December 30 – January 1

Boulder Police Department, December 30 – January 1

Brighton Police Department, December 30 – January 3

CSP/Colorado Springs, December 30 – January 3

CSP/Broomfield, December 30 – January 3

Denver Police Department, December 30 – January 3

Edgewater Police Department, December 30 – January 3

Longmont Police Department, December 30 – January 3

Northglenn Police Department, December 30 – January 3

Wheat Ridge Police Department, December 30 – January 1

Colorado lawmakers are considering presenting a proposal to the legislature early next year that, if passed, would set a “per se” standard for persons driving under the influence of marijuana. In other words, they are looking to set a level at which a driver will automatically be presumed to be driving impaired.

The state’s driving under the influence (DUI) laws already prohibit a person from operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, drugs or both.  But there are two separate DUI charges — DUI and per se DUI. The DUI law makes illegal for a person to be “substantially incapable” of safely operating a vehicle due to the consumption of alcohol or drugs.  This law does not have a blood-alcohol level requirement, and a person can be convicted of DUI without a blood-alcohol test number as evidence.

Per se DUI, on the other hand, presumes that it is a crime to drive a vehicle with a blood-alcohol content of 0.08 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or 210 liters of breath within two hours of operating a vehicle.  A prosecutor does not have to prove that the driver was “substantially incapable” of safely operating a vehicle.

The lawmakers’ intention is to establish a similar threshold for the amount of THC (the active component of marijuana) in the blood. It is expected that they will propose a limit of 5 nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood. Anyone with a blood-THC level over 5 would be considered to be too high to drive.

Critics of the proposal contend that a per se law does not take into account people’s tolerance levels. Attorney Sean McAllister told the Denver Post he is concerned that such a law could unfairly affect medical-marijuana patients, who may have high THC levels in their blood without being impaired.

Rep. Claire Levy (D-Boulder), who sponsored tough new DUI laws that went in effect July 1, is expected to be one of the sponsors of the THC proposal.

Colorado residents want to make sure that flatland visitors enjoy themselves when they come here. Thus we warn them to wear sunscreen because the sun is more intense. We tell them to take it easy for a day or two so their bodies can adjust to the thinner air. We suggest they drink lots of water. And we tell them to be careful because the effects of alcohol are stronger at higher altitudes.

But is that last bit of advice an old-wives’ tale? Jan Semenoff, a forensic technologist with Industrial Training & Design Ltd., says it’s just that — a legend.

According to Semenoff, who is an expert in assessing the efficacy of alcohol breath-testing procedures, four physiological studies have been performed in the past 25 years looking at the effects of alcohol and altitude. The findings of all four studies support the notion that there is no correlation between the two.

The idea that the effects of alcohol is more pronounced when in the mountains is rooted in part in a Columbia University study from the 1930s in which a psychologist concluded that the physiological effects of alcohol were doubled at altitudes of 10,000 to 12,000 feet above sea level. Although his research failed to stand the test of time, Semenoff says, his conclusion has been accepted as fact ever since.

Another reason for the lingering legend is the fact that there is an increased level of hangover symptoms at altitude. That, Semenoff points out, is most likely due to the dehydration factor; at altitude, dehydration occurs because of a higher than normal rate of evaporation of water from the lungs.

The only findings that are at odds with that of the other four studies came about as a result of a statistical analysis by researchers Richard Fowles and Peter Loeb. In that 1992 study, the two men concluded that the interaction of alcohol and altitude may have a “profound effect” on traffic fatalities. It should be noted, however, that although they correlated factors such as altitude, legal drinking age and per capita alcohol consumption, theirs was a statistical investigation only, and no physiological testing was done as part of the study.

Cities with the Most Drunk-Driving Offenders
1. San Diego
2. San Jose, Calif.
3. Charlotte, N.C.
4. Phoenix
5. Columbus, Ohio
6. Indianapolis
7. Los Angeles
8. San Francisco
9. Austin, Texas
10. Jacksonville, Fla.
11. San Antonio
12. Dallas
13. Houston
14. Fort Worth, Texas
15. Memphis, Tenn.
16. Philadelphia
17. New York
18. Baltimore
19. Chicago
20. Detroit

Law enforcement agencies across Colorado are gearing up for the July 4 holiday weekend with increased DUI patrols and sobriety checkpoints as part of the “100 Days of Heat” DUI crackdown.

The crackdown is a summer-long program that combines a public awareness campaign with increased DUI enforcement. Over this past Memorial Day weekend, state law enforcement agencies reported making more than 234 DUI arrests, with a significant number of them occurring in the Denver-metro area and along the Front Range. Adams County alone reported nearly 100 DUI arrests. Denver DUI arrests numbered 54.

During last year’s “100 Days of Heat” enforcement, Colorado officers made 3,531 DUI arrests between Memorial Day weekend and Labor Day.

“One of the most serious public safety issues we face in Colorado is the crime of impaired driving,” Col. James Wolfinbarger, chief of the Colorado State Patrol, said in a press release. “When a person has a few drinks and gets behind the wheel, that vehicle becomes a deadly weapon that can wipe out innocent lives.”

According to the Colorado Department of Transportation, Front Range law enforcement agencies filed the following enforcement plans for the 2010 Fourth of July crackdown:

DUI Sobriety Checkpoints:

Boulder Police Department, Broadway and Baseline, July 2-3

Adams County – (CSP) 7100 block of northbound Pecos Street, July 4-5

Lakewood Police Department – July 5-6

Larimer County Sheriff’s Office – roving checkpoints July 2-3 and traditional checkpoints July 4th

Weld County (numerous agencies), July 3-4

Increased and Saturation DUI Patrols:

Adams County Sheriff’s Office

Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office

Arvada Police Department

Auraria Campus Police Department

Aurora Police Department

Boulder County Sheriff’s Department

Boulder Police Department

Brighton Police Department

Castle Rock Police Department

Cherry Hills Police Department

Colorado Springs Police Department

Commerce City Police Department

Colorado State Patrol – Castle Rock, Adams County, Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, Golden and
Broomfield

Fort Collins Police Department

Greenwood Village Police Department

Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office

Lafayette Police Department

Lakewood Police Department

Littleton Police Department

Longmont Police Department

Loveland Police Department

Parker Police Department

Westminster Police Department

Wheat Ridge Police Department

According to The Denver Post, a unanimous vote of the House Judiciary Committee approved a bill this month requiring “at least 10 days in jail for a second drunken-driving offense and at least 60 days in jail for third and subsequent offenses.  In addition to the time spent in jail, repeat offenders would also be required to “spend up to two years on probation and participate in alcohol education and treatment classes.”

The reason for the increase in DUI sentencing, according to Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder, the committee chairwoman and bill sponsor, is public safety.  In order to combat persistently drunk drivers who “are on the roads causing a significant threat to all of us,” the legislature wanted to impose an “immediate sanction . . . without causing them to lose jobs and families.”

Public safety is certainly a major concern for the state legislature in imposing stricter sentencing guidelines.  However, Levy underplays the true significance of the penalties.  While 10 days in jail might not seem like a long sentence, that is still a lot of time to be away from work.  Even if some of those days fell on weekends, the person serving the sentence is still going to miss close to an entire week of work.  Depending on the employer, such an absence could easily be cause for termination.

Furthermore, other than the mandated statutory minimums, sentencing is entirely at the discretion of the presiding judge, which varies from courtroom to courtroom.  This becomes especially relevant when considering the method by which a sentence is to be carried out – an important area not covered by the new legislation.  For instance, a judge is required to sentence someone to a minimum of 60 days in jail for a third DUI, under the statute.  But, while many judges allow for work-release or in-home detention, nothing is guaranteed.

The new legislation also fails to address the increased costs that accompany alternatives to incarceration.  Such increased costs can be easily out of reach for indigent defendants.  Even if an offender is eligible for electronic home monitoring (EMH) and a judge decides to grant it as an alternative to incarceration, there are costs.  Installation and maintenance fees of EMH are significant.  In that case, 60 days in jail will certainly have a detrimental effect on a person’s job and, as a result, on their family.

In El Paso County, in order to participate in Work Release, an offender must pay a stipend of approximately $15 per day. See Sontheimer, Henry, Sentencing in Colorado: The Use of Alternatives to Prison and Jail Incarceration.  That is assuming that the offender: 1) still has a job to return to by the time he or she is sentenced; 2) the job is located within the jurisdiction; and 3) has an employment schedule that supports the strict release/return times required of the Work Release program.

While the state legislature may have intended to prevent the loss of jobs and families, in spite of the “immediate sanctions,” it appears as if Levy, the sponsor of the bill, is not fully aware of the real costs to the citizens of Colorado.  This is not to say that creating harsher penalties for repeat offenders is unfair, or even unwarranted.  But if it is indeed the intent of the legislature to impose immediate sanctions on repeat offenders, without endangering a person’s family or livelihood, they should be clear of exactly what kind of costs these harsher penalties present.  For those citizens who do not have the benefit of job security or financial stability, an ever-increasing reality for more and more citizens of Colorado, these harsher sanctions will be absolutely devastating.

Judicial discretion, a vital part of the criminal justice system, is now eliminated for an entire category of offenses. By implementing mandatory sanctions, the legislature is effectively tying the hands of the judiciary.  A judge can no longer take into consideration an individual’s financial situation, level of education, or family obligations in making sentence determinations.

In an article by The Denver Post prior to the new bill being adopted, Rep. Levy said that she had heard from constituents that they wanted drunk drivers off the road and that she was “trying to bring some certainty and consistency to these sentencing laws so people know what they face if they go out and drive drunk.”  From a moral standpoint, this is a good-hearted, responsible effort on the part of the legislature to deter potential drunk drivers.  However, with such sanctions come serious consequences – ones that the legislature did not necessarily anticipate.

Saying that the bill will impose sanctions on drunk drivers, “without causing them to lose jobs and families,” is inaccurate.  If the legislature’s sole intent is to deter drunk driving, so be it.  Clearly, public safety is a chief concern and this bill is intended to further that concern.  But if you are going to lay down the law and remove discretion in sentencing from the judiciary, you must at least acknowledge the consequences of your actions.

The unfortunate reality is that not all offenders are social equals.  People are going to lose their jobs.  People are going to lose their families.  To say that they will not is to sugarcoat the situation and mislead the very constituents the government is supposed to represent.

Under current Colorado DUI law, a person convicted of a DUI or DWAI with a prior alcohol offense faces up to a year in the county jail. The maximum sentence of one year applies despite the amount of priors the person has on his or her record.  This defeated bill would have presented a prison sentence to a third time DUI offender of up to 18 months, which is the maximum presumptive range for a Class 6 Felony in Colorado.

Colorado is one of only four states that does not have a felony DUI charge.

This bill, sponsored by Representative Claire Levy, a Boulder Democrat, comes on the heels of the recent criticism in the Denver Post regarding sentences that judges in Adams, Denver and Arapahoe Counties have given to multiple DUI offenders.  This proposal will be presented to the state legislature and will likely be new Colorado law in the coming year.

So far, no cause for the blood test discrepancies has been offered, but it has been reported the district attorney’s office and Colorado Bureau of Investigation are conducting investigations.