New DUI legislation not without some questions and detractors Alex Rose Delco Times April 11, 2006 New legislation introduced last week would substantially increase the penalties for repeat DUI offenders, but some fear the pending law might do more than intended. Under the proposed law, repeat offenders -- those with three or more DUI arrests within 10 years -- would be bumped to a "third- tier" category if they have a blood-alcohol content of 0.160 or higher, test positive for controlled substances, or refuse testing. The charge is on par with a third-degree felony and carries a minimum jail term of two years. The maximum penalty would be a seven-year term with up to $15,000 in fines. The law would also provide for the seizure of the offender's vehicle, even if it doesn't belong to them, which state Sen. Edwin "Ted" Erickson, R-26, of Newtown, a prime sponsor of the bill, said would hopefully keep people from loaning their cars to drunk drivers. "They get a car someplace, and where do they get that vehicle? Is it somebody in the family?" said Erickson. "You can pass all sorts of laws -- it's not just relative to alcohol but other issues as well -- does that guarantee nobody is going to break the law? Of course not. But if you make the penalty strong enough, it ought to act as a deterrent at least." According to State Police Sgt. Anthony Sivo, the Media State Police barracks arrested 489 people for DUI last year and 47 this past March alone. "(The officers) are really looking, as we say, beyond the license in identifying people who are impaired in operating motor vehicles," said Sivo. "Of the 489 people we arrested, we'll never know how many fatal crashes we prevented by getting that person stopped before they caused the accident." According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Pennsylvania is one of only five states that does not have a felony sentence on the books for multiple DUI offenders. The state did toughen its DUI laws in 2004 and reduced the blood-alcohol content ceiling from .10 to .08, but any conviction for driving under the influence remained a misdemeanor, even for obvious habitual DUI offenders. Spurring the legislation was a call from county District Attorney G. Michael Green, who railed for tougher drunk-driving laws after Mark Perrotta, 43, of Ridley Township, and Richard A. Lloyd, 40, of Collingdale were arrested for their 10th DUIs within days of each other. State Rep. Thomas Gannon, R-161, of Ridley, one of the authors of the new legislation, said the state provides drug and alcohol programs for people convicted of DUI to get treatment, but these are often ignored. "They're not seeking the help that they need," he said. "That's why we put the mandatory two years in there: If you're convicted and you go to jail for two years, you're going to get the help that you need." Media lawyer Jon Auritt -- while cognizant of the need to remove dangerous drivers from the road -- was wary of the controlled substance provision. "All these drugs stay in your system for some time," said Auritt. "Long after they've had any impact on your motor skills or your judgment, trace amounts can be found in your blood." So if someone was arrested on their fourth DUI, consented to testing, and had less than a 0.16 blood-alcohol level but had smoked marijuana within the last few weeks, would that person be going to jail for two years? It was a question no one could answer, though Erickson said the law was designed to allow some flexibility. "I didn't do this lightly," he said. "I looked at it, thought about it. There is some freedom within this also for the judges to make (determinations) about what is going on here, so they have some latitude, at least." Gannon made it clear he is no expert on how long drugs stay in a person's system, but did have some advice on getting around that issue. "Don't take drugs. Period," he said. (c)The Daily Times 2006