Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Strohmaier tweaks DUI ordinance
Posted by Jessica Mayrer on Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 2:24 PM
After hearing concerns from civil libertarians who said Missoula City Council risked treading on constitutional protections, alderman Dave Strohmaier is toning down his proposed DUI ordinance.
“Hopefully this will address some of the concerns people have,” Strohmaier says.
- Dave Strohmaier
Strohmaier met resistance from the ACLU and others who argued that his law would criminalize people for refusing a police search, potentially violating constitutional protections.
And so, the councilman is introducing an amendment that keeps refusal a civil offense, while leaving his proposed beefed-up penalty, a $300 fine on top of the six-month suspension, intact.
The City Council will take up the issue in a yet to be scheduled Public Health and Safety Committee meeting before it hits the council floor for additional debate.
Comments (5)
Showing 1-5 of 5
the guy is an idiot as is anyone that agrees with him. it is a clear violation of our civil rights, the 5th amendment right, to be exact.
like
dislike
Much like other new missoula ordinances,its time to RECALL AND REPLACE it is looking to me that the city of missoula is nothing more than a bully
Let's just keep letting Montanan's rack up 5 or 6 DUI offenses before serving any jail time. Maybe the people they kill will deserve to die.
as usual, jrob is an idiot.
it's not about convicting criminals, it's about our civil right, dummy.
i feel that a multiple offender should get jail time, but, i'm not giving up my rights in the mean time.
benjamin franklin said "those that give up liberty in exchange for security, deserve neither" and he was a writer of the declaration of independence.
the 5th amendment says "noone shall be coerced into giving evidence against himself" I'd say that losing your license and being fined is just that.
what other rights are you willing to give up?
do you think the cops should be able to break into your home at anytime to see if you're breaking the law?
where are you going to draw the line?
don't be an idiot.
I assure you, ferrariguy, you don't know as much history as I do.
That was the whole point of the article. By changing the penalty for refusal to a civil infraction, the city would avoid the constitutional issues you raise (horrendous grammar and spelling aside). I don't necessarily disagree with your stance on holding individual rights sacrosanct (look it up), we need to address the DUI problem in Montana. Placing a civil fine on one's refusal to provide a breath test might not be the best option, though it certainly isn't unconstitutional. Remember, as much as you might disagree, driving is not a constitutionally protected right.
And, what Benjamin Franklin may or may not have actually said should read: "Those who give up liberty in exchange for security deserve neither." Not: "Those that give up liberty..." People are "who" not "that." Franklin knew that. Why don't you?
And Franklin didn't write the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson did.
Educate yourself on the basics before you presume to know whether or not I'm an "idiot."
Twitter
Facebook
RSS