Letters to the Editor

DUI laws too vague

I feel the proposed driving under the influence laws may be unduly vague and treat urban or rural, rich or poor, citizens unequally. I expect costly appeals and delays, anything but swift and sure “justice.”

Up until our last major changes a decade ago, prosecutors needed to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) a suspect’s driving was impaired, regardless of the theoretical blood-alcohol content for an average person’s impairment.

Drivers weren’t often arrested just on a BAC after being pulled over for something else. Without “actual impaired driving” protection in 2003, I had one license plate light out and was later stalked at dusk, after having one drink at a veteran’s club.

I was arrested, despite driving unimpaired, performing a BAC below the legal limit, cooperating, wearing a coat and tie, etc. With witnesses, it was dismissed, but costly.

In the June 4 editorial, in opposition to the argument the new laws, in effect, recriminalize marijuana, despite little evidence that low levels in the blood impair driving; you offer: “The Washington State Patrol’s common-sense response: If driver’s do not exhibit impairment, they will not be pulled over.”

Rrrrrright. They can pull you over for any infraction.

Duane Schofield

Cusick, Wash.



Want to respond? Submit your own letter to the editor »

There are six comments on this story »


Sections


Profile

Contact the Spokesman

Main switchboard:
(509) 459-5000
Customer service:
(800) 338-8801
Newsroom:
(509) 459-5400
(800) 789-0029