Hey, there! Log in / Register
Lifetime license revocation upheld for driver who killed somebody in her second time caught drunk behind the wheel
By adamg on Mon, 09/12/2016 - 10:37am
The Massachusetts Appeals Court today upheld a woman's lifetime license revocation for initiating a chain-reaction crash that killed another woman in Boxboro in 1989.
State law calls for permanent revocation in cases where somebody has been convicted of OUI vehicular homicide after a first OUI offense. Eleanor Callahan argued that her first OUI offense, committed in New York State, shouldn't count because while she was arrested on the New York equivalent of OUI, she pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of "driving while ability is impaired."
Sorry, but nope, the appeals court said today. The court began by stating that the state board that permanently revoked Callahan's license is allowed to consider whether a conviction in another state is "substantially similar" to a Massachusetts conviction. And citing a ruling by the New York Court of Appeals - that state's equivalent of our Supreme Judicial Court - the appellate justices said that, in fact, "driving while ability is impaired" is close enough to "operating under the influence" to count here:
The statute's manifest purpose is to promote public safety by defining the violation as driving a motor vehicle while there is any alcoholic impairment. ... [T]he New York DWAI offense is substantially similar to the Massachusetts offense of OUI, and qualifies as the prior OUI required for the imposition of lifetime license revocation after a subsequent OUI resulting in
a fatality.
Topics:
Free tagging:
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 Complete Callahan ruling | 69.03 KB |
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
The law should be changed so
The law should be changed so that after your first OUI you're banned from driving a vehicle heavier than, say, 2500 pounds. Then after your second OUI, 2000 pounds. It's a Smart Fortwo for you.
If the court is going to give you your license back, you should at least be restricted to a vehicle that poses the least danger to others.
If we want to minimize the
If we want to minimize the danger to others, I believe the appropriate vehicle after one's first OUI would then be the Razor scooter. You would still have the freedom to choose from a lot of cool colors and handle bar decorations though.
The problem with that possible scenario is that
it fails to take into account the fact that any type vehicle(s), especially a motor vehicle, when driven by somebody who's driving ability and control is impaired by alcohol or any other substance, is a lethal weapon that can and will kill or permanently maim people, be it the driver of the vehicle, or/and other people. Even if a car or any other motor vehicle is only going 2-3 miles an hour, it's still capable of killing or maiming a person by knocking them down, causing him or her to fall heavily and injure him/herself.
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
A 2000 pound minicar is still a lot less dangerous to others than a 6000 pound pickup truck.
People with OUI's are getting their drivers licenses restored because judges recognize that it's a huge hardship to not have one. That's not going to change anytime soon. You do what you can to minimize risk.
No
Excuses for people who behave recklessly are the enemy of everything.
Maybe fewer people would risk a DUI conviction if the knew it meant not having a license for a very long time? Did you consider that?
Probably not, since you aren't even considering the economic impact of 20,000 dead each year.
How do we change how people think about DUI?
So that everyone from college students to retirees would consciously avoid ever being in that situation, and wouldn't let someone else DUI either.
There seems to be a pretty common culture that it's OK to drink and drive here, if you want to. Like it's OK to not use your blinkers, because you don't want to.
Easy
Get (expletive)housed, find a legislator's or judge's kid, and mow them down.
We could start but not giving
We could start but not giving licenses back to drivers who kill people. Its damn insane that you can drive drunk or speed through a red light and kill someone and they let you drive again. Driving on public streets is a privilege yet it is treated as a right even for convicted killers.
Ever watch one of those "MOST
Ever watch one of those "MOST SHOCKING COMMERICALS" trashy compilation specials? Where they troll through European television for commercials that show boobs and other things deemed improper for American Audiences?
Well, European Public Service Announcements tend to get mixed in. My favorite was a (French, I think) PSA about drunk driving - watching the young actress bleed out on the pavement was definitely more impactful than the most recent one I've watched on American TV, showcasing that you will DEFINITELY BE ARRESTED omg.
More of this please
But don't wait for drunks to kill. Two strikes and you are out!
We can do better!
One strike and you're out. No excuse for DUI driving. The first time caught should be an automatic 5 year license suspension, no exceptions.
You'd be shocked to find out
You'd be shocked to find out how many productive members of society have DUI convictions. So if you gave them all a 5 year license suspension you'd be impacting the economy a great deal. Gotta look at the bigger picture. There's already enough fines in place for people that are unfortunate enough to commit a DUI.
If they're stupid enough to make such asinine choices,
If people are stupid and vicious enough to commit such felonies as DUI's and end up either taking other people's lives outright, or compromising other people's lives by their insistence on imbibing and then getting behind the wheel of a car or any other motor vehicle afterwards, they deserved to be punished. No sympathy for these miscreants. I don't give a wet rat's ass in hell whether or not people who are stupiid enough to commit DUI's take or compromise their own lives. What I do care about is the fact that they all too often take other, innocent people with them.
If the percentage of American
If the percentage of American's who've ever driven a car after while impaired (alcohol, lack of sleep, talking on the phone, smoking dope) was small, like 1%, then by all means rip up their licenses forever. But when that percentage is significant, then extreme enforcement is not viable and you have to find balance.
Nope
You have to introduce those dangerous operators to the concept that driving is not a right, and if you want to drive then you have to follow rules.
And if you can't be bothered to follow the rules because you are "unfortunate" enough to think yourself special, then you need to ride buses, trains, bikes, beg rides, and walk for the rest of your life so that you don't ruin the lives of others.
Your driving privileges end where the rights of others to live begin.
You are not special.
Double nope
How many of your friends who drive have NEVER driven while sleepy, or operated a phone while behind the wheel?
Your theoretical ethical high ground ends where reality begins.
You are human, like everyone else.
How would it impact the economy?
There is no right to drive.
In much of the Boston area, there is no "need" to drive, either.
MBTA, Taxi, Uber, bicycles, walking, etc.
"unfortunate enough to commit a DUI."
Usually I'd write some sort of sardonic witticism pointing out the absurdity of your argument, but in this case, I'll just skip the contortions and call you a victim-blaming, DUI-enabling piece of shit who should stop saying things in public.
Hello Mr. DUI Driver
So... Want to tell us what the economic loss is due to people being suddenly killed and injured? You'll be shocked to learn that injuries and deaths only detract the national GDP.
What a horrible person
Her actions caused a person to die! And now she feels that she shouldn't even be punished. Sorry lady, but you took a life! It's only fair that you forever live with the consequences.
Way to go, Edith!
Right on!
Sadly, that is the biggest failure in our legal system.
The outdated concept that EVERYONE has the right to appeal a conviction, and that people who have their appeals heard may actually be innocent AFTER being proved guilty by a jury. Not to mention the idiocy that appeals are not based solely on exculpatory evidence that proves a person innocent beyond a reasonable doubt, but on the "OMG, they didn't cross the t's and dot the i's" mentality.
No Subject
It gets worse
Believe it or not, Callahan remained a helicopter pilot even after her multiple DUIs and subsequent incarceration, by (apparently) not reporting her DUIs to the FAA. There was no interconnection between the FAA and DMV databases until 2006, so this twice-convicted drunk driver stayed in business as a commercial helicopter pilot long after she could no longer drive to the airport. Her business abruptly went out of business a couple of years ago, when it's rumored that the FAA finally caught up to her. Can you imagine the lawsuit that would have resulted from an accident?? It doesn't seem to occur to this individual that if you play the odds often enough, you can lose badly - and so can others.