DUI (driving under the influence) and DWAI (driving while ability impaired) are serious offenses in America.  Thousands of people die every year in accidents involving alcohol impaired drivers.  Should these people be punished?  Absolutely!  It's wrong to risk the lives of others because of irresponsible drinking!  Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) has, for the most part, done a service to our communities.  But, have they gone to far?  Read the following testimonial from an Ethical Atheist reader and guest contributor.  Decide for yourself.  Let us know your thoughts... CONTACT US.

I was driving home on Sunday during the Labor Day weekend of 2002.  I had been drinking... 3 beers over a 6 hour period while fishing at a local lake.  Upon leaving the lake, it was late, 11:23 pm, because this is the best fishing on this particular lake.  To my surprise, a vehicle pulled up right behind me.  By 'right behind me', I mean on my tailgate with high beams on.  I strained to look in the rearview mirror to see what kind of fool would be doing such a thing so late at night and on an otherwise empty road.  It just didn't make sense.  We're all used to aggressive drivers during rush hour, but this was an empty road.

Soon, I saw police lights in my mirror.  I thought, "What did I do wrong?"  Then, I thought of Labor Day weekend... a time when police officers are out to ensure safety on the roads against drunk drivers.  At this point, I thought, "What a bummer.  I'm tired and just want to go home, but they're just doing their job I guess."  I had been pulled over another time late at night where I had nothing to drink.  I spent 20 minutes doing roadside tests, when the officer finally said, "You not drunk, you can go."  I said, "I know... and thank you."

You see, I'm known as a person that doesn't drive drunk.  I plan for a designated driver if I intend to drink, or I take some form of mass transit or a cab.  I've had parties where I required my guests to leave their keys with me upon entering my house.  Only after observing them and talking with them, would I give their keys back to drive home.  But, enough of the pleasantries...

I was asked by the officer, "Did you have anything to drink tonight?"  I acknowledged that I had three beers while fishing at the lake, but that was hours ago.  He asked if I would take some roadside tests and, of course, I agreed.  I performed the tests he requested without problem... or so I thought.  After the roadside tests, the officer informed me that I was under arrest.  I couldn't believe it... "Why am I under arrest?  Did I fail one of your tests?"  The officer proceeded to tell me that I fumbled with my paperwork.  I stated, "I have several expired insurance and registration papers.  As I looked at the dates of each, I dropped the expired pieces in my lap until I found the current forms which handed to you.  Is this what you mean by 'fumbling with my paperwork'".  The officer did not answer my question, but again stated the he was going to handcuff me and place me under arrest.

So, back at the station I was given a breathalyzer test which I failed.  I couldn't believe the results.  Later, I found out that the statutes require the officer to observe the suspect for 20 minutes prior to performing the breathalyzer test.  Apparently, burping within 20 minutes of the test can impact the results because alcohol can emerge from the stomach, rather than from the lungs - which is the whole basis of the test.  Did my officer observe me for 20 minutes?  No, I have a timeline from the arrest stop until the breath test that proves he couldn't have observed me for the required time.  Should this matter?  Yes!  Does it matter?  No.  The hearing officer refused to even look at the timeline.  She just took the officers word over mine.  But, should she?  I also took pictures of the road where I was pulled over.  My citation said I, "touched the dotted white line twice" and this was evidence of weaving.  However, my pictures showed that there was NO WHITE LINE at all.  The road was void of any dotted white line whatsoever.  It is a horribly maintained road with lots of heavy equipment and tractor-trailers.  My pictures proved the lack of white dotted lines which was the reason for being pulled over... or so I thought.  At my hearing, the officer said, "I can clearly see the white lines."  My lawyer, myself and the hearing officer were all astonished.  How could the officer say he clearly sees the white dotted lines when they do not exist?  It doesn't matter!  The hearing officer's ruling was a "strange one" (in her words).  She said, "I cannot see the lines either, but I'm going to give the officer the benefit of the doubt that he could see them."  What happened to 'innocent before being proven guilty"?

If the original offense for being stopped was "touching the dotted lines twice", why isn't the stop just laughed out of the hearing when pictures show these lines not to exists?  How can the hearing officer rule that the stop was legal, even though she admitted that she cannot see the lines?  Isn't this an issue of government officials overstepping their authority?  I was judged guilty before being proven innocent (contrary to our laws) and I still proved myself innocent!  Yet the hearing officer refused to be persuaded by the facts and ruled in favor of the officer.  Does this sound like a modern day Inquisition?  It should... and it should make you very concerned if you are out driving late at night.  It should make you concerned if you go out to dinner and have a beer or glass of wine; or if you have a couple beers while fishing; or if you go to happy hour with friends after work.

Then, we proceed to court and a meeting with the District Attorney.  Surely, this person who has obtained a legal degree will listen to the facts of the case, right?  WRONG!  She says I can either admit guilt or go do trial and possibly face stiffer penalties.  She refused to look at the timeline of the arrest which proves a 20 minutes observation was not conducted.  She refuses to look at pictures of the road which show no dotted white lines exists.  She just says, "Accept a plea bargain or go to court."

At this point, after I had already paid thousands of dollars in attorney's fees, court costs, etc., I decided to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense.  From the moment I was pulled over on the fateful Labor Day weekend, I thought it was just going to be a simple delay in my drive home.  I thought I would answer some questions from an overly anxious police officer out to to make his DUI quotas.  I thought I would be on my way back home shortly.  I thought wrong.  Things kept snowballing... getting worse and worse.  I was never treated as an innocent member of the public.  I was treated as guilty.  So, in my day at court, I decided to end the snowball's roll before things got any worse because until that point, at every step of the way, the worse possible scenario was exactly what happened.  My case was even assigned to the most strict alcohol judge in the county, according to my lawyer.

So, with my admission of guilt (to a crime I didn't commit) in hand, I proceeded into the courtroom with my lawyer.  The judge lived up to his fame by levying an additional penalty on me not specified by law.  It appears that judges can require repeat offenders of alcohol related offenses to stop drinking for a year.  However, my case was a first offense.  Did that matter?  No.  The judge gave me this penalty anyway.  Why, I have no idea.  I've already lost my license, so I can't drive and be a threat to the public.  There was no law to require him to penalize me in this manner.  Alcohol is not a control substance.  It is completely legal.  This is not the Prohibition when drinking was illegal.  Our judicial system seems to be overstepping their authority and taking a life of their own... not that specified in the their legislated mission.  But, it gets worse...  I'm being forced to pay excessive fines, pay for my own alcohol education classes, do community service, pay for victim's compensation funds when there were no victims...

The Penalties (So far...):

• Loss of driver's license and privilege to drive for 3 months

(cost of mass transit and inconvenience to spouse and friends not estimated)
• Jail sentence of 180 days (suspended if I do everything below)
• Probation: 12 months of alcohol evaluation & supervision - NO alcohol consumption for 1 year
• Cost of lawyer to defend myself = $1350.00
• Weekly cost of meeting with probation officer - $40, times 12 weeks = $480.00
• Fine for driving under the influence or ability impaired to the slightest degree = $100.00
• Victim Compensation Fund (being fined for victims I didn't have or someone else's victims?) = $25.00
• Victim Assistance Fund (again, whose victims?) = $60.00
• LEAF Fine (no explanation on what this is) = $90.00
• Use public service = 24 hours
• Use public service  (yes, I have to PAY to do my this) = $60.00
• Alcohol evaluation fee (eval by gov't employee) = $156.00
• Alcohol education classes = $800.00
• Persistent drunk driving school (persistent on a first offense?) = $25.00
• Court costs = $18.00
• Required insurance (SR-22) to be filed
• Insurance reinstatement fee = $40.00
• Increase in Insurance for DWAI offense (estimate) = $1200.00/year
• Lost work income from lawyer mtgs, DMV hearing, DA mtg & court, probation officer mtgs, 24 public service = $3400.00

Total dollars:  7,804.00!!!

Is my story to you, the Ethical Atheist, a plea for sympathy?  Absolutely not!  I just want you to help me make others aware that this can happen to you.  Alcohol is legal, but it's being treated as if we lived during the Prohibition.  You are guilty until proven innocent and the deck is stacked against you because nobody will listen to your side of the story.  This makes it impossible to prove your innocence.

Clearly, drunk driving should not occur.  It results in thousands of lives lost every year.  However in many cases, such as mine, the driver's ability to drive is not impaired.  Who is likely to blame for these Prohibition-like conditions in our legal system today?...  Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD).  They have done commendable work in generating a focus on drunk drivers and increasing the penalties for drunk drivers.  However, have they gone to far?  Have their efforts created an environment of punishing the innocent and being treated as guilty before being proven innocent?  My answer is YES!

The Inquisition is alive and well in America... thanks to MADD.  Do not drink (anything!) and drive.  You will not be given due process of law.  It is the Inquisition in modern times.  You may have officers that lie under oath.  You may have hearing officers that refuse to look at hard, cold facts.  You may have a district attorney and judge that refuse to hear your side.   Driver beware!

Note: I will send you an update as I proceed through the process of the New Inquisition.

{Name and address withheld by request.}