TheAgitator.com
DWI Insanity
Friday, August 20th, 2004Remember Keith Emerich? He’s the guy who lost his driving privileges after revealing to his doctor that he’s a heavy drinker, despite never having been arrested, charged, or accused of drunken driving.
Well, his case made it to court. And I’m sorry to say that it doesn’t get any better.
A county judge upheld the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation’s decision to recall the driver’s license of a Lebanon man who the agency considers to be an alcoholic.But in his ruling, Judge Bradford Charles said PennDOT should not suspend Keith Emerich’s driving privileges indefinitely. Because of the unique situation, Charles ordered Emerich to install on his car an ignition interlock, a device that would prevent him from starting the car if he’s been drinking.
Emerich, 44, said yesterday he can’t afford the rental fees, which could cost more than $1,100 a year.
“It’s not an option for me,” said Emerich, of the 400 block of North Fifth Street. “I’ve already tapped into my 401k plan. I can’t even fight [Charles' decision], I’m so tapped out. I’m thinking of contacting the ACLU.”
Charles’ decision comes about three weeks after a July 29 hearing at which Emerich appealed the suspension.
The guy did nothing that’s against the law. Yet if he wants to drive, he’s now required to pay an extra $1,100 per month for the privilege.
The case also puts a chill on doctor-patient privilege. What Emerich admitted to — drinking — isn’t even illegal. Guess if you’re a Pennsylvanian, you’ll now need to think twice before telling your doctor everything he needs to know — even if that means an inaccurate diagnosis.
The disgusting thing is how these judges get on the bench.
Considering you can’t buy liquor OR wine OR even beer in grocery or convenience stores, I’m surprised anyone in Pennsylvania manages to drink that much at all.
The guy did nothing that’s against the law.
Irrelevant.
Radley left out an important part of the article:
These people also “did nothing that’s against the law.” Or does Radley deny that chronic excessive drinking is a “medical condition”?
Once again the histrionics of the hyper-anarcho-libertarians like Radley rob them of their common sense.
way off Kip. The fact that it is required that the docs report conditions was the focus of discussion LAST time this topic came up.
Excessive is absolutely a subjective term.
The point is, there is NO indication whatsoever that this man EVER drank and then drove. Drinking ONLY effects your ability to drive if you GO DRIVING!
This guy has not been charged with drunk driving. His license was stolen from him because he consumes alcohol. This is a total farce.
I am sure you would not deny that excessive sleeping is a medical condition. Sleeping impedes your ability to drive. So anybody that goes to the doctor and says they are sleeping too much should immediately have their license stolen, right?
Chris said, “The disgusting thing is how these judges get on the bench.”
In PA, we vote for judges up to and including the highest state-level courts. Is this the disgusting thing to which you refer? I’m certainly not thrilled with my neighbors being allowed to pick judges, as I live in borderline-theocratic Lancaster, just south of Lebanon.
I am sure you would not deny that excessive sleeping is a medical condition. Sleeping impedes your ability to drive. So anybody that goes to the doctor and says they are sleeping too much should immediately have their license stolen, right?
I would most definitely argue that someone with severe (oh I’m sorry — that’s a “subjective” term) narcolepsy could be subject to having their license revoked (oh I’m sorry — “stolen”).
I too would deny that chronic excessive drinking is a “medical condition,” unless you interpret that so broadly as to say “any physical condition one might be in.”
Also, Radley, not that it makes it less onerous, but the rental fees for the ignition-switch device are $1100 per year, not per month.
Pre-Emptive Revocation
A man in Pennsylvania lost his license after admitting to his doctor that he was an alcoholic. When the Pennsylvania DOT learned of this they suspended his license claiming that he was a threat to other motorists despite the fact…
The judge doesn’t seem to address whether or not he drives safely. Rather, because he has stated contradictions (he drives after a few beers / he only drinks after he gets home), the judge feels he is at risk for driving under the influence.
Basically, the guy hasn’t been found guilty of ever doing it, but he might, so it’s OK to not let him drive.
I can see the questions now:
Q: “Do you drink and drive?”
A: “No, I wait until I get home to drink so I don’t drive drunk.”
Q: “Have you ever had a beer with friends after work?”
A: “Yes.”
Q: “Did you drive home afterward?”
A: “Yes.”
“AHA! Caught you in a lie!! You’re a danger to society as a drunk driver!”
***
Am I missing something?
Kip, I never said narcolepsy, I said excessive sleeping. Everybody would agree that someone that has no control over when they may fall asleep is a driving hazard. Someone who sleeps too much is not.
And to have your license revoked, you are supposed to have committed some driving transgression. Since this man has not committed any trangression, his license was stolen.
Dave, I wasn’t clear. I realize that judges are elected. “How” should not have really been my question.
I guess “How do judges that clearly do not take seriously their sworn responsibility to impartially uphold the laws of the land so they do not violate the basic rights gauranteed by the state and federal constitutions get elected to the bench and manage to stay there for decades when they do not properly administer law.”
should have been my question.
I is not just this issue. Judges nationwide are more and more using their position to make law rather than just making sure that existing law is adminitered within the confines of constitutional protections. This judge is where the wrong should have been righted, not continued. What methods exist in PA for getting rogue judges removed form the bench? Or are you just stuck with them?
Kip, I never said narcolepsy, I said excessive sleeping. Everybody would agree that someone that has no control over when they may fall asleep is a driving hazard. Someone who sleeps too much is not.
Of course you didn’t — but because your hypothetical makes no sense, I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I apologize for trying to help your case for you. Won’t happen again.
Meanwhile, there ARE well-defined laws regarding the maximum number of hours truckers can spend behind the wheel, for exactly the reason your try to invoke as a reductio (falling asleep at the wheel).
Or is that just an outrageous, outlandish infringement on our right to drive while exhausted?
Kip -
It doesn’t take a “hyper-anarcho-libertarian” to see the injustice here. The man is being punished for a non-existent crime.
You can’t convict a person for simply being the type of person that would commit a crime. Ah, but the loophole is that he wasn’t actually “convicted”, but yet was punished as if he were. Then to top it off, some jackass judge, with minor modifications, actually upholds the ruling. Ultimately, I have a bigger problem with the judge than any other party.
“Your honor”, my ass.
Sure, he may have driven drunk in the past, or may have in the future. So could you or I. I guess we should start punishing (not convicting, though) all men for rape, simply because they possess criminal tools and could commit the crime.
This case is complete bullshit - And yet people wonder why heavily-armed, “anti-government militia”-types get fed-up and band together in compounds up in Montana…
Everything Chris and roger said, ditto, and in addition to that, what the f*!@ is going on?! Oh and Kip, are you going to think it’s fair and just when your wife tells the doctor that she had A drink while she is pregnant and he reports it to CPS who then revokes your baby as soon as he/she’s born since you are obviously not fit to be parents and are a hazard to the child’s health. You think it will never happen, but we inch closer almost daily.
So, Kip seems baffled by the transparent distinction between a condition over which a driver has no control that’s always a danger(epilepsy; poor eyesight) and a habit (heavy drinking) that poses no threat whatever unless the driver makes the same choice to drive drunk that any of us might but typically don’t make… and then upbraids Radley for HIS lack of common sense? Precious.
Why is everyone comparing this to a DUI?
The alcoholism is being looked at as a medical condition. Driving privileges can be revoked due to a medical condition, even if that medical condition never affected someone while they were actually driving.
As an example, if you are prone to seizures and a doctor knows, you get your driving privileges revoked until you are 12 month seizure free.
Most of you are acting as if the guy was pre-emptively punished for a DUI, thus having his driver’s license suspended/revoked.
I don’t know this guy or how severe his actual condition is, but I think that the court has the best interest of the public in mind. The thing is, which you didn’t include but I HOPE exists, is a well articulated, reasonable argument for why the sentence was passed down.
How about posting some transcripts or details…
Doug
Kip, it is you who is not making sense here.
Drinking too much and driving drunk are too totally different things. Sleeping too much and driving while asleep are too totally different things. One should not lose their license for either condition. My wife, who has gone to the doctor because she sleeps for 10+ hours at a stretch, has never even been in danger of falling asleep while driving. She should not has her license revoked any more than this guy.
And yes, the DOT regulations on commercial drivers are well defined. And many of the restrictions are absolute bullshit. They do not take into account any individual’s capacity to operate on a given amount of rest. Many drivers would agree that they can work many more hours in a given timeframe than the law currently allows. ANd many, in fact, do just that. They falsify log books and keep working. For most OTR drivers, following the work/rest laws to the letter would greatly diminish their ability to earn a decent living.
Example: If a driver is against a dock for 6 hours waiting for the bozos in the warehouse to load him, and he spends that 6 hours asleep in his sleeper, that 6 hours has to be logged as “on duty” time and counts against his available driving hours before the mandatory 10 hours off. This is rediculous. And just an example of the many restrictions that serve no purpose. They may have good intentions, but no value.
I have been out of the transportation business for a few years, so some regs may have changed, but not that much. It is over-regulated, like a great many things in this country.
are you going to think it’s fair and just when your wife tells the doctor that she had A drink while she is pregnant and he reports it to CPS who then revokes your baby as soon as he/she’s born since you are obviously not fit to be parents and are a hazard to the child’s health
Ms. Dani, if you bothered to see my blog, you would find a post very similar to your doomsday scenario, and I think you and I (and Radley and everyone else) would be in COMPLETE agreement about it.
Which of course has nothing to do with this topic.
Apparently all you folks believe that there should be no such crime as “reckless endangerment.” If so, fine, that’s your opinion and you’re perfectly entitled to it. Enjoy life in the radical fringe.
But if not, then please stop pretending that you’re not trying to carve out an exception, for no clearly-articulated reason I have yet heard, to the overwhelming majority view that one can be prevented from committing harm in advance and not just punished for harm caused a posteriori.
Doug,
The medical condition is “atrial fibrillation.” I agree, if that condition can be shown to impair driving, that there is perhaps some logic. I haven’t seen it.
The prospect of a DUI is all I can get from the judge’s comments.
Doug, you are going apples and oranges here man.
A seizure is something the individual cannot control. Yes, just because he has not had a seizure while driving does not mean that he won’t, so until the condition causing the seizure has been addressed, they are a danger to themselves and others because of the possibility of a seizure. Similar to narcolepsy.
Drinking is another story. He can be a raving drunk and still never drink and drive. Just because he has a drinking problem does not mean he is getting on the road drunk.
Kip,
I’m still wondering whom he recklessly endangered. Himself by drinking and now having an irregular heartbeat.
So what. If he were driving erratically, great, he is recklessly endangering. I just don’t see that evidence.
Kip, if the man was totally sober each and every time he ever got behind the wheel, who did he ever wrecklessly endanger?
doug -
“Most of you are acting as if the guy was pre-emptively punished for a DUI, thus having his driver’s license suspended/revoked.”
We’re not acting like it - he was punished pre-emptively. How on earth could you see it any other way? Being an admittedly heavy drinker is not a crime, but driving while drunk is. The problem is, he was punished for potentially driving while drunk.
Yes, the decision to steal his license was done with the public’s best interest in mind (at least in the minds of the DOT and judge). And yes, it’s still bullshit.
Note: Minority Report was only a movie. It is not real. We should stop behaving like it is.
I drive while being fat, and I have even endangered other drivers before by eating while I drive. Luckily my doctor has not reported my obesity to the department of transportation.
A couple of things: it’s $1100/year, not $1100/month and this character did have a DUI 22 years ago.
Having said that, this case is absurd. Bust him for DUI, if appropriate, but not for drinking.
Kip -
Who was being “recklessly endangered” by his heavy drinking?
If he was actually driving drunk, then he clearly would be “recklessly endangering” others. Nobody here would argue that. Nail the guy.
The point is, he was punished because he could recklessly endanger others. There’s a huge difference between actually and potentially doing something. Should I be punished for robbing a convenience store at gunpoint, just because I own a 9mm?
Tonight I think I’ll go home, have a couple of beers, and when I’m really tired and ready to go to sleep, I’ll think about how I am “recklessly endangering” people on the road, despite the fact that my S-10 is in the garage.
You should call the Ohio DOT and warn them. Guys like me shouldn’t even have a license. I’m so evil I should probably already be behind bars.
I don’t know, man. You’ve made plenty of sense here before, but right now you’re just, well, scary.
I’m movin’ to montana.
Beltway Traffic Jam
A quickie Friday linkfest:
Dodd Harris is sensing a pattern with the Democrats.
Donald Sensing wonders about selective amnesia in the press.
Michele Catalano dreams about Alan Keyes.
Wretchard has a handy-dandy list of cities that are “holy” to …
From the hyperlink:
“In Emerich’s case, a doctor reported his admission to drinking at least six and as many as 12 beers a day. The doctor said Emerich’s drinking caused a condition called atrial fibrillation, a rapid, irregular heartbeat that affects 2 million Americans. Other factors that trigger the common condition are smoking, heart and lung diseases and excessive caffeine use. ”
So does this mean that if I drink 10 cups of expresso a day, causing atrial fibrillation, the PennDOT will also take away my license forever?
I guarantee that doctor would be sued for enough for a 24/7 chauffeur for life — breach of confidence of that magnitude should be smacked down hard.
Scorpio
Eccentricity
Ok, I’ve driven OTR in Pa. When are they going to take away those morons licenses who play “chicken” with an 80,000lb Semi? Seems that’s alot more hazardous than a 6 pack-a-nite,,,at home.
What methods exist in PA for getting rogue judges removed form the bench? Or are you just stuck with them?
Higher court judges are in for life, unless they are impeached, which is no doubt a chore. Court of Common Pleas judges are elected to ten year terms after which there is a new vote on retaining him/her or not; only if this fails is there a new election for judge, I believe. Retired president judges of the CCP can serve for life after in an auxiliary function: voir-dire, civil cases, etc. So the long and short of it is that, yes, we’re basically stuck with them.
How many cans of beer can one admitt to before the judge considers you a danger?
2?
3?
4?
Grrrr…
Because of relatively good gun laws, I considered PA to be a free state. Apparently, it’s not at all….
Not really apples and oranges; but it depends on how one views alcoholism.
Some people that suffer from seizures can greatly reduce their risk of having a seizure if they take the appropriate medication. After drinking a gallon of beer, it is plausible to reason that the individual who did so might have his judgment sufficiently impaired and might decide to drive home or out to get a burger.
I’m not saying that if I were the judge I would have passed down the same sentence, I am saying that, depending on the details and the court’s reasoning, it might not be so black and white as many here are assuming.
Not all measures need to be taken as a result of a crime or a dangerous situation that has occurred. Not all prevention is a violation of someone’s rights. Maybe in this case it is, but again, I think we need more information before that is decided.
At a minimum, the state should foot the bill for the ignition interlock until it is settled though.
Doug
need to weigh in here.
I have a problem with snoring–my ENT doc sent me to a clinic, where I was wired for the night, and then awakened early–kept awake for 1 hour, and then told to go to sleep, after 10 min I was awakened, kept awake for an hour and then told to go to sleep. This was repeated for several cycles.
The Doc at the clinic, wanted my wife to pick me up, and didn’t want me to drive because I could went to sleep when they told me too.
My ENT doc destroyed the records and never sent another patient to that clinic.
For truck divers, I fully support the limits on the number of consectutive hours of driving. Waiting for a load is NOT driving time. I certainly don’t want a 30 ton truck heading towards me at a stop and go incident on the feeway, with the driver having been at the wheel for 15 hours and having consumed a box of no-doz. yes my surviors have recourse in the courts, but I don’t.
Joe Six Pack in the News Again
Keith Emerich has bounced in and out of the news in recent weeks. His physician contacted the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) to identify Emerich as having a condition that could impair his ability to drive safely. Radley Balko has…
Joe Six Pack in the News
Keith Emerich has bounced in and out of the news in recent weeks. His physician contacted the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation to identify Emerich as having a condition that could impair his ability to drive safely. The condition which PA do…
music from the internet
DWI Insanity