Drinking and Driving in the District: Zero-Tolerance

Critics Say District's DUI Policy Goes Too Far

Officials with organizations that lobby for safe roads and tough drunken driving laws have criticized the District's zero-tolerance policy toward drinking and driving, saying that they'd never heard of it and that limited police resources should be devoted to those more obviously drunk. They contend that the DUI (Driving Under the Influence) policy goes too far and that jailing drivers for one drink is wasting resources.

The Latest: D.C. Chief Defends Officers' Judgments in DUI Arrests (Post, Oct. 14)

Washington Post staff writer Brigid Schulte was online Friday, Oct. 14, at 11 a.m. ET to discuss the controversy.

A transcript follows.

____________________

Severna Park, Md.: I caught your article "Single Glass of Wine Immerses D.C. Driver in Legal Battle." I was ensnared by the Metro Police under the "Zero- Tolerance" policy in March of 1998. My BAC was also .03. I was arrested, handcuffed, etc. I did everything the officers wanted. When the field breathalizer was administered, I had to take it three times. After the final try, the officer said I registered a .04 and "I would blow a .06 - .08 at the station", so I was arrested. I went through the diversion program in an effort to get my record cleared, I was 25 at the time. I had to go through ten, 2-hour counseling sessions (at $50 an hour), attend five Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, read a book, and write a book report. In total, with lawyer fees, it cost me $2,500. It did not include my time and embarrassment for a .03. I was bartending at the time, I nor anyone else I know, had heard of the D.C. policy. I was amazed that this is allowed, or that D.C. is allowed to have this law and sell liquor in the city limits. As soon as you consume a beer, a glass of wine, a shot of liquor, or some Nyquil you can be arrested in the nation's capital.

Brigid Schulte: Hello Severna Park. Since we first published Debra Bolton's story in the Post on Tuesday, I've had more calls and emails from people with stories like yours. Your story brings up probably the critical issue - at what point does alcohol impair a driver and how does an arresting officer make that call. One note - those roadside breath tests are not as accurate as the Intoxylizer 5000 and other machines generally in use at police stations. From what I understand from defense attorneys, roadside breath tests are generally not allowed in court as evidence of intoxication.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: On what basis was the programmer whose blood alcohol level showed to be 0.0 arrested? Even if he was driving or behaving in a manner that caused the police to believe he/she was intoxicated, should they not have arrested the person on another count? It scares me that police have the ability to arrest someone for DUI when there is absolutely no evidence that the person has any alcohol in their system, especially with the strict penalties (not to mention the social stigma) in place for drunk drivers.

Brigid Schulte: That's what the outcry is about. As this morning's story pointed out, some people ARE impaired by alcohol at very low levels, and, when there is evidence of dangerous or, as the D.C. police said on their web site, "extremely bad" driving, then police officers need the discretion to make an arrest and remove an unsafe driver from the roads. The question has arisen - how are some officers deciding what constitutes "extremely bad driving."

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: I heard on the radio that the arresting police officer (in Debra Bolton's case) has made the highest number of DUI arrests in D.C. Is this true?

What is to prevent some teetotaling officer from carrying out a personal mission against all drinkers?

Brigid Schulte: I don't know that that's true about Officer Dennis Fair. What one police inspector told me in an interview is that there are about five police officers with the experience and expertise to recognize impairment in very low blood alcohol cases and that Dennis Fair was one of these five.

_______________________

Laurel, Md.: I know this question is going to be shot down quick, but If the DCPD can arrest and charge you with DWI for a BAC of .01 because you are "driving erratically" and "they perceive" that you are a danger to yourself or others, then why is there a standard of .08 BAC nationwide when I know as a recovering alcoholic that when I was drinking I had a greater tolerance of alcohol than the average person? Why shouln't I be able to use that fact as a defense, if I was charged with DWI?

Brigid Schulte: The .08 is the legal limit now in all 50 states and the District when a driver is automatically presumed to be intoxicated and the person can be charged and tried just for blowing into a breath machine and measuring .08. At lower levels, the burden is on the police officer to find other evidence of impairment to make a case.

_______________________

Alexander D. Mitchell IV, Baltimore correspondent, Mid-Atlantic Brewing News: The immediate reaction to the two articles on this controversy among online beer-fanatic circles in the region was a lively discussion over whether or not an immediate "boycott" of D.C. bars/restaurants was called for. In one sense, such a boycott "punishes the victim" of ill-conceived city policy, namely the bars and restaurants of the city. On the other hand, given the relative impossibility of finding parking at Metro stations such as Greenbelt and Wheaton, our options seem limited and needlessly expensive -- or outside the city limits. (My own reaction was simple: As a "professional drinker," don't expect me in the city again until the city changes its policy.)

The other reaction, of course, was to recommend petitioning the city's political leaders for official reconsideration of this policy. However, the cynicism of those that look at a city that returned Marion Barry to office is considerable and perhaps understandable. Furthermore, the City Council has little if any reason to listen to those outside its jurisdiction -- it's not like I can vote the bums in or out.

Token reassurances of "Oh, we're reviewing the policy in light of some remarks from our constituents," aren't enough, in my opinion. Either the framework gets officially dismantled, or it leaves the potential for abuse.

Make no mistake about it, true drunk driving is reprehensible. But I've personally had far more threats to my safety as a driver, bicycle rider, and pedestrian in my twenty-plus years of driving from people fumbling with cell phones or people not using their turn signals than from drunks. Perhaps it's time to legislate against "driving while stupid" -- which seemed to be Debra Bolton's major shortcoming?

Brigid Schulte: Interesting reaction. As we and other news outlets have reported, not only is the local business community gearing into action, but organizations that push for tough measures to prevent drunk driving worry that a zero tolerance policy takes attention and resources away from what they call the real problems of super drunk drivers, whose blood alcohol levels are over .08, and repeat offenders.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: Chief Ramsey,

Officer Fair stated, according to a recent Post article, that he had arrested over 100 people on suspicion of DUI and that had given him plenty of experience to evaluate Ms. Bolton as being unable to drive. Given recent events coming to light and the inability for many of those 100 individuals to spend thousands of dollars on lawyers to fight the charge, will his previous cases be reviewed?

If so, what reparations will be made to those that may have been victimized by the subjective exuberance of this officer.

Also, will any sanctions be levied on Officer Fair for this and similar events?

Brigid Schulte: That's not something I can answer. Though I will say that some of the subsequent stories I've been getting about drivers' experiences in D.C. certainly warrants closer inspection.

_______________________

McLean, Va.: Regardless of the measurement accuracies between a preliminary breath test (PBT) and a stationary breath test (Intoxylzer), the bigger question is what would MOST professional law enforcement do if confronted with a .03 blood alcohol concentration (BAC) driver? Is it true that most localities would simply let that person go perhaps with some type of warning? Why, then, does the District's modis operandi differ, then?

Brigid Schulte: Hard to say what most other officers in other jursidctions would do. Remember, it is D.C. law, which is far more intolerant of driving with low blood alcohol levels than any other jurisdiction, that gives D.C. police their authority. In one part of the code, the law states that drivers with "less than .03 percent" blood alcohol will NOT be considered NOT intoxicated. Although the double negative is confusing - it means there is no presumption of sobriety and an officer is under less burden to provide as much evidence to prove a case in court. In other jurisdictions, Virginia and Maryland included, drivers are presumed NOT intoxicated when their blood alcohol registered .05 or less, barring significant evidence of impairment

_______________________

Inexcusable!: I have very little tolerance for drunk-drivers, and recently lost a loved one in a drunk driving accident. I think this policy is outrageous. What do you believe is the real motive behind it? Do the D.C. police have an unspoken "arrest quota"?

Brigid Schulte: I'm so sorry for your loss. Drunk driving is a serious scourge on the roads. I can't speak to the motivation, but I do know there is a lot of confusion. According to people I've interviewed who have been arrested, a number have been told that by arresting officers that "one drop" of alcohol has put them over the limit, or that officers can arrest at levels as low as .01. Chief Ramsey in this morning's Post said such an interpretation was "incorrect."

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: I can understand wanting to keep impaired drivers off of the streets. I'm sure that having even one drink can slightly impair your senses, even if you are unaware of any distinct change.

However, many factors slightly impair one's ability to drive, such as a lack of sleep. Reaction time is slowed.

Having a casual drink or two does not seem to be any more dangerous than not getting a full night's sleep. And no one is going to be arrested for driving while only sleeping 6 hours.

Brigid Schulte: That's an important point. And why relying on one threshold for legal limit is difficult and officers must be allowed some discretion. Think of your own experience, one glass of wine with dinner may affect a person very differently than one glass of wine on an empty stomach after a sleepless night.

_______________________

Astoria, N.Y.: Then why not arrest someone for reckless driving and not DUI? Let's face it, we all know bad drivers even with NO alcohol in their system and the police still find a way to arrest them. Using a DUI is just wrong. Also, what effect does this have on insurance? I received one ticket once and fought it, not because of the $50 fine, but because my insurance would have increased for three years and cost thousands of dollars more. Does this arrest affect insurance rates which can cost a lot of money over several years? Thanks.

Brigid Schulte: I spoke to a woman yesterday who was arrested after having two glasses of wine with dinner over the course of five or six hours. She ended up going through D.C.'s alcohol counseling "diversion program" and saw 12 points added to her license, bumping her monthly insurance bills from $50 to $250 for the next two years. More about that in tomorrow's Post.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: D.C. Chief Defends Officers' Judgments in DUI Arrests (Post, Oct. 14)

_______________________

Springfield, Va.: In yesterday's article, you wrote, "Debra Bolton, a 45-year-old energy attorney and mother of two who lives in Alexandria, was searched, handcuffed, fingerprinted and arrested after drinking a glass of wine with dinner in Georgetown last May." This is simply not accurate. This implies that Ms. Bolton was observed drinking a glass of wine and was arrested. Instead, according to your own reporting the day before, Ms. Bolton drank with dinner, began driving her SUV after midnight and somehow failed to realize her lights weren't on. After being stopped by the officer, she lied about having had anything to drink ("Not really"), before admitting that she had. She was then unable to recite the alphabet as requested by the officer. The officer documented her unsteadiness and lack of balance. It was then, after she demonstrated that she was operating while impaired (and not as the result of any Intoxilyzer result) that she was arrested. The Intoxilyzer result obtained later that night merely reinforced what the officer witnessed on the scene. The Post's headline: "Single Glass of Wine Immerses Driver in Legal Battle" similarly mischaracterizes the facts. Ms. Bolton's impaired operation of her vehicle, as witnessed and documented on the scene, violated the law. You do your readers a disservice when you suggest that a glass of wine, and not her impaired operation, was the reason for her arrest.

Brigid Schulte: Hi Springfield. I disagree with your assessment. The story published Tuesday was based on interviews with Debra Bolton, the narrative written by Officer Fair in his police report, interviews with him and fact-checking her blood alcohol level with a toxicologist, who was quoted in the story. It's hard to know for sure what happened that night, because the two people who were there, Debra Bolton and Officer Fair, offer differing accounts of the experience. If you read the story carefully, he asked her to recite the alphabet to the letter X. She said she thought he had said S. She recited the alphabet to the letter S. That was the reason he wrote that she'd "jumbled" it. As for the other tests - he said she swayed and lost her balance. She disputes that.

_______________________

Boca Raton, Fla.: How much of this policy has to do with intoxication from illegal drugs? For example, if an officer suspects that one is driving under the influence of something, can a low breathalizer test be used to arrest someone and be used a basis for taking a more inclusive blood test for other drugs? That is the only reason I can fathom arresting someone for DUI when he or she has a 0.00 breathalizer.

Brigid Schulte: Hi Boca Raton. You're right. An Intoxylizer can't detect the presence of illegal drugs. When an officer pulls someone over for poor driving and they suspect impairment, but the breath test is low, they often perform a separate blood or urine test to check for the presence of drugs.

_______________________

Springfield, Va.: Suppose you did have one drink, were driving home, were stopped by a police officer in D.C., he makes you walk the line and say the alphabet and so forth, and despite you blowing say .03, the officer says you were driving under the influence (I guess he can't say you're intoxicated since that requires .08, right?). Suppose there really was nothing wrong with your line walking and alphabet recital. How do you argue with the police officer and the courts that you were not impaired or under the influence? Is there a videotape of your sidewalk performance?

Brigid Schulte: That's the point a lot of people are raising. Chief Ramsey said that only a few cars have the ability to video arrests.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Why not ticket or arrest these low blood alcohol level folks for "reckless driving" or something instead of submitting them to a DUI on their record?

And for Alexander D. Mitchell IV, Baltimore correspondent, Mid-Atlantic Brewing News, you've obviously never been to the Wheaton Metro ... there's so much parking (especially for a Friday or Saturday night out) which is why it makes it a great Metro station to start a night out on the town from.

Brigid Schulte: Hi Wheaton. Best Korean restaurant in the area. Your question raises a good point - when is bad driving just bad driving and when is it the result of being impaired by alcohol? Debra Bolton drove out of a parking garage and didn't realize a parking attendant had turned the automatic light feature off. People have done the same thing without having had a drop of alcohol.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Do you know the story behind why the law was changed? Were the certain types of incidents that were occuring the Distrct that law aimed to address.

Brigid Schulte: That's one thing I'm still trying to find out. No one I've spoken to can seem to remember. Council member Carol Schwartz, who sponsored the legislation to lower the legal limit for intoxication from .10 to .08 back in 1998 said in an interview she wasn't aware of the "less than .03" law. Apparently, according to one defense attorney who has been around a long time, there was testimony before a city council subcommittee back in the '90s from forensic chemists and toxicologists. They convinced lawmakers to make the change by using an example of a person driving at low speed and a child running out in front of the car - and how their reaction time could be slowed with alcohol. Stay tuned.

_______________________

Clarksburg, Md.: Do D.C. police officers have a quota of drunk driving arrests they must make? If not, are they given bonuses based upon how many drunk driving arrests they make? Also, it seems to me that many of the stories are from women, so I also wonder if this officer has trouble maintaining healthy relationships with the opposite sex.

I just don't understand how this isn't an egregious example of abuse of power.

Brigid Schulte: I've also heard from men, not just women, who've been arrested with low blood alcohol. Lamon Lyles, who spent the night in jail after blowing 0.0 two years ago and whose story was recounted this morning is one. Two others have recounted similar experiences after being stopped for speeding in the K Street tunnel - one had nothing to drink, but was put in jail for going 30 mph over the speed limit after he and his wife were coming home from one of the black tie balls at President Bush's inauguration last January. As for quotas and bonuses - those are good questions and I don't know the answers yet. Retired police officers have called, however, to say that every arrest generates paperwork and courttime, which could add up to higher pay with overtime. That's what happened in D.C. in the 70s, one deputy chief said - a couple officers were targetting borderline DUI cases knowing they'd protest in court, and racked up lots of OT pay. It would be unfair to draw any parallels from the 70s to now, however. It does bear looking into.

_______________________

Washington, D..C.: Another story to add to the mix. A girlfriend of mine returning home from visiting me got lost in the city. And was unsure of her of location thusly was driving slowly and reading street signs to figure out where she was. She was pulled over and run through the entire battery of sobriety tests yet she had NOT ONE DROP TO DRINK that night. Nice harrassment. My friend is afraid to come into the city now. Thanks a lot.

Furthermore, the city is ticketing people who leave their trash cans out too long, giving unwarrented parking tickets (I've personally had to protest two- and won both), when crime is RAMPANT. Good god people.

Brigid Schulte: From what I understand, if officers have reason to believe a driver has been drinking - the smell of alcohol on the breath, poor driving, etc. after they've been pulled over for a traffic infraction - they can put motorists through these sobriety tests. As one D.C. inspector said - it's best to cooperate and if nothing is found, "we'll let you go on your way and everyone will have a good night."

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: It seems like all of these incidents occurred in Northwest D.C. Are the police targeting that area of the city for these types of arrests or have you also heard from people who were arrested under similar circumstances in the other areas of the city?

Brigid Schulte: Most of the incidents that have been related to me thus far are in Northwest D.C. - in Georgetown, DuPont Circle, K Street. Lamon Lyles and his friend were arrested on U Street.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: The current law sounds harsh to me, but police are not just stopping anyone who has had a beer or two, they are stopping vehicles exhibiting dangerous driving behavior (driving the wrong way on a one-way street, driving without headlights). Is the real problem the lack of objective measures to determine when to initiate rehabilitation courses and arrests as opposed to just a 'sobering' warning?

Brigid Schulte: That's a question some D.C. council members are beginning to ask.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I understand the authority of the District to give Ms. Bolton a ticket. But if Ms. Bolton lives in Alexandria, then I presume she has a Virginia driver's license. So what authority does the District have to restrict her driving privileges?

Brigid Schulte: D.C. DMV can't suspend her license, since she lives in Virginia, but they can suspend her driving privileges in D.C. - meaning, she could legally drive anywhere else but in D.C. during the suspension period.

_______________________

NW D.C.: You have reported on who sponsored the 1998 amendment that below .05 does not establish a legal presumption that one is not intoxicated. Please tell us who voted for and against that amendment.

Brigid Schulte: Voting for, according to the general counsel of the D.C. City Council, Sandy Allen, Harry Thomas (now deceased) and Sharon Ambrose

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: What would the repercusions be of not complying with the reqests for the breathalizer and sobriety tests, as these officers do not seem to have alternative agendas.

Brigid Schulte: Refusing a breath test, in D.C., Virginia and other states, is now considered a separate offense.

_______________________

Brigid Schulte: Thanks everybody for the excellent questions. We'll continue to follow the story.

_______________________

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.