« Woman accused of severing parrot's foot is found dead | Today | Two-alarm fire burns in three-story building in Providence »

January 4, 2008

Update: Bill calls for monitoring drunken drivers' sweat

If a bill in the General Assembly becomes Rhode Island law, judges would have discretion to see that someone who drinks and drives could not simply sweat off a conviction.

Instead, the sentencing judge would have the option of requiring a person to wear a monitoring device that randomly tests the person's sweat for alcohol content. The proposal would apply to a person who is found guilty, pleads guilty or pleads no contest to driving under the influence or driving while intoxicated.

"The device shall have the capability of sending the results in real time to the monitor of the device regardless of the wearer's location," the legislation says. The device would alert the probation office that the person is drinking alcohol while under the provisions of a court sentence.


Rep. Joseph M. McNamara, D-Warwick, who is the bill's prime sponsor, said in an interview his main motivation for introducing the bill is to improve highway safety. It would also give judges another tool to use, at their discretion, in sentencing someone. And, he said, it could help people struggling with substance abuse, allowing them "to be able to regain their licensing" after suspension.

Currently, McNamara said, a law on the books says a judge can order someone to use an ignition interlock device, in which a person blows into it to prove he or she hasn't been drinking. But the problem with that is a person can conceivably ask a family member or other person to breathe into it for him or her, McNamara said.

The bill was introduced yesterday, day three of the legislative session, and has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee. The person wearing the device would be responsible for costs associated with wearing and monitoring it.

-- projo.com staff writer Michael P. McKinney

Posted by Mike McKinney  at 6:30 PM | Permalink

Comments

I think government is attempting to go way to far. Just because someone is arrested and convicted of drunk driving, is not a reason to monitor someone on 24/7 basis. Driving was the only offense, not consuming alcohol.

Jerry | January 5, 2008 8:02 AM link

I agree with Jerry's comment -- driving under the influence is the crime, not drinking alcohol. It a person convicted of DUI is drinking in the privacy of their home and not driving a car, that's nobody's business.

Instead of wasting time dreaming up Big Brother laws, how about coming up with some real solutions to the budget problems?

Glen | January 5, 2008 11:56 PM link

Post a comment

Please be civil. Vicious comments, personal attacks and profanity won't be published. Name and email are required; email address will not publish.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

ADVERTISING



ProJo 7 to 7
Dec « Jan 2008 »
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    
Archived headlines

Archived
ProJo 9 to 5 News Blog
Oct 2005 - March 2006