[MissoulaGov] Dave's proposal is to make it a criminal offense to refuse the test punishable with a $300 fine

[Ethel MacDonald]

After listening to the several panelists called together for the Public
Safety meeting a month or so ago, I support a fine for refusal of the
breathalyser because too many people are refusing it, getting off with
little or no penalty because of lack of "proof" and are right back behind
the wheel endangering others.   I read too many Missoulian articles about
crashes involving drivers who already have several DUIs.  Unfortunately,
alcohol and poverty are joined in a cause/effect cycle wherein families
suffer, and there are no easy answers.

On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Carole <raoke at aol.com> wrote:

> I am not favoring drunk driving. I am not even in favor of drinking!
>
> I am for helping stop the ever growing numbers of poor people. I believe
> this ever increasing additional fines and punishments has a direct impact on
> the number of low income families.
>
> I actually thought MCA 25-10-201 came from the Civil Procedures part of
> the statues.  MCA 46-18-232 uses MCA 25-10-201 only as a reference.  MCA
> 46-18-231 (2) and (3) also addresses this requirement for determination of
> the ability to pay.
>
> My concern is that this determination will not be made or that the person
> that does the determination will not have the abilities to make these
> decisions.
>
> Carole
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Jaffe <BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us>
> To: David V. Gray <hdgray at modwest.com>; 'Carole' <raoke at aol.com>;
> missoulagov at cmslists.com <missoulagov at cmslists.com>
> Sent: Fri, Feb 19, 2010 7:58 am
> Subject: RE: [MissoulaGov] Dave's proposal is to make it a criminal offense
> to refuse the test punishable with a $300 fine
>
>  I know that a person has a right to request to be taken to the hospital
> for a blood draw to get a more accurate test for their defense.  Whether
> charges and fines are dropped probably has to do with the rest of the
> specific circumstances of the arrest.
>
> Bob
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>  *From:* David V. Gray [mailto:hdgray at modwest.com <hdgray at modwest.com?>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 18, 2010 10:49 PM
> *To:* Bob Jaffe; 'Carole'; missoulagov at cmslists.com
> *Subject:* RE: [MissoulaGov] Dave's proposal is to make it a criminal
> offense to refuse the test punishable with a $300 fine
>
> Bob,
>
> I am for trying to stop the epidemic drunk driving rate in Montana but what
> about innocent before proven guilty?  How is this being dealt with in the
> new ordinance? If a person refuses a test when initially pulled over but is
> tested by a doctor within a reasonable time and found not to be guilty will
> charges and fines be dropped?
>
> David V. Gray
> Ward 6.
>
>  *From:* missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com [
> mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com<missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com?>]
> *On Behalf Of *Bob Jaffe
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 18, 2010 10:38 PM
> *To:* Carole; missoulagov at cmslists.com
> *Subject:* Re: [MissoulaGov] Dave's proposal is to make it a criminal
> offense to refuse the test punishable with a $300 fine
>
> Nugent’s response:
> Section 25-10-201 MCA does not pertain to misdemeanor criminal fines or to
> criminal proceedings. Section 25-10-201 MCA pertains to the costs of
> litigation that may be recoverable in civil litigation.
>
> I’m missing the connection with hiring more employees.
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>  *From:* missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com [
> mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com<missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com?>]
> *On Behalf Of *Carole
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 18, 2010 12:38 PM
> *To:* missoulagov at cmslists.com
> *Subject:* [MissoulaGov] Dave's proposal is to make it a criminal offense
> to refuse the test punishable with a $300 fine
>
>   re:     Dave's proposal is to make it a criminal offense to refuse the
> test punishable with a $300 fine on
> the first offense and $500 after that.
>  How will the following statue be obeyed by the City if this law goes into
> effect?  Will it mean more employees or will it be ignored?
>
>  Carole Ulrigg
>
>  *46-18-232. Payment of costs by defendant. *(1) A court may require a
> convicted defendant in a felony or misdemeanor case to pay costs, as defined
> in 25-10-201 <http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/25/10/25-10-201.htm>, plus
> costs of jury service, costs of prosecution, and the cost of pretrial,
> probation, or community service supervision as a part of the defendant's
> sentence. The costs, in addition to those allowable under 25-10-201<http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/25/10/25-10-201.htm>,
> must be limited to expenses specifically incurred by the prosecution or
> other agency in connection with the proceedings against the defendant or
> $100 per felony case or $50 per *misdemeanor case, whichever is greater. *
> *
>      (2) The court may not sentence a defendant to pay costs unless the
> defendant is or will be able to pay them. In determining the amount and
> method of payment of costs, the court shall take into account the financial
> resources of the defendant, the future ability of the defendant to pay
> costs, and the nature of the burden that payment of costs will impose.*
>      (3) A defendant who has been sentenced to pay costs and who is not in
> default in the payment may at any time petition the court that sentenced the
> defendant for remission of the payment of costs or of any unpaid portion of
> the costs. If it appears to the satisfaction of the court that payment of
> the amount due will impose manifest hardship on the defendant or the
> defendant's immediate family, the court may remit all or part of the amount
> due in costs or modify the method of payment.
>       *History:* En. Sec. 2, Ch. 198, L. 1981; amd. Sec. 1754, Ch. 56, L.
> 2009; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 180, L. 2009.
>
> Messages and attachments sent to or from this e-mail account pertaining to
> City business may be considered public or private records depending on the
> message content. The City is often required by law to provide public records
> to individuals requesting them. The City is also required by law to protect
> private, confidential information. This message is intended for the use of
> the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient
> of this transmission, please notify the sender immediately, do not forward
> the message to anyone, and delete all copies. Thank you
>  Messages and attachments sent to or from this e-mail account pertaining
> to City business may be considered public or private records depending on
> the message content. The City is often required by law to provide public
> records to individuals requesting them. The City is also required by law to
> protect private, confidential information. This message is intended for the
> use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended
> recipient of this transmission, please notify the sender immediately, do not
> forward the message to anyone, and delete all copies. Thank you
>
> _______________________________________________
> -----Please delete extra content when replying to messages------
>
> Note: This list is NOT an official service of the City Of Missoula. But
> posts to this list may be entered into the public record.
> Subscribe or view archives at Missoulagov.org
> List Serve hosting provided by www.CedarMountainSoftware.com.
>



-- 
“Be still, and the world is bound to turn herself inside out to entertain
you.  Everywhere you look, joyful noise is clanging to drown out quiet
desperation” -- Barbara Kingsolver
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20100219/49425af7/attachment.htm>