Each year, the Arizona Legislature seems to propose tougher sanctions on DUI drivers. Past increases in the severity of the laws have ranger from adding weeks to jail sentences to adding years to the time a person must have an ignition interlock device following a drunk driving conviction.

Now, there are new proposals, which, if voted into law, would either eliminate or cut in half the time a first offense Arizona DUI convict must spend with an ignition interlock breath test device in their vehicle.

Part of the justification for the proposed law appears to be that the death rate, which is usually high in Arizona, has decreased. Any intelligent person must wonder about that logic. If deaths have decreased then, assuming that is viewed as a good thing, why change the law? Eliminating the need for interlock devices couldn't possibly save lives. If something isn't broken, you don't fix it... right?

Could it be that, as the DUI death toll decreases (for whatever reason), politicians can use it less as a hot button issue?

Many argue that doing this will allow them to isolate whether the unit was responsible for any part of the decreased death-rate. Others would argue that it may directly cause tragedy. For better or worse, Tucson will be without DUI officers a few nights a week starting early december.

His BAC registered at .174, more than twice the legal limit of 0.08.

At the risk of calling Simon and Garfunkel narrow-minded, there are an infinite number of ways to leave your lover, and there are just as many ways to get a drunk driving conviction on your record and go to jail.

It does not take an incompetent DUI attorney to ruin your case. You can do that for yourself. So the first failsafe way to lose your case is to not hire or seek the advice of an attorney. When you are charged with a crime as serious as this, there is simply no excuse for not consulting with an expert.

You are in a vulnerable state. You are stressed. And you should be, because if you don't make the right moves, you could go to jail and get branded as a criminal. And that would totally suck. Because of your vulnerability, the second surefire way to unsuccessfully defend your case is to present yourself to an attorney, the court or the prosecutor in a vulnerable state. Wait a second. Hold on. I can hear you now. There are many types of vulnerability. The type I advise against in this situation is ignorance. You see, the less you know the more likely you are to get a bad lawyer, accept bad advice, get a bad plea bargain or a bad verdict. The cure for this vulnerability is to do your homework. Get your head out of the sand. Right now. And start reading about the laws and procedures when your case will be heard (if you are illiterate and somebody is reading this to you, I don't know what to tell you... because the quality of educational videos on the subject is worse than the conditions of the nastiest cell block in San Quentin... sorry).

Getting a DUI sucks. Cops suck. Prosecutors suck. Lawyers suck. Judges suck. Jailers are thugs. Alcohol counselors are pussies. If you agree with any or all of the (totally general and typically false) assertions directly above, they congratulations, you're a natural at the third way to make sure you get incarceration enervation (not a spa treatment). All you have to do is stick with that attitude and be a terrible actor. Your feelings will show and you will get screwed.

Lawyers are lying, cheating, blood-sucking douche-bags, and there's no reason to tell my lawyer, who I resent for too many reasons to articulate (yeah, that's it), the truth. If you identify with that statement, just stick with it. Hire a lawyer, but withhold information about your case or your past. Make the lawyer earn her fees. Make her think on her feet. No reason to tell her you are wanted for sodomy in South Dakota, or that you have 5 other drunk driving charges pending in three other jurisdictions. The best thing about withholding this sort of information from your attorney is that you will get screwed in court. Probably hugely. Probably painfully. And the best thing is, while you are sitting in jail or having trouble getting a job, you have your very own personal scapegoat. What use is an attorney who doesn't have enough information to help you? That's it. An excuse to postpone self-reflection.

There are so many ways that you and your lawyer can f-up your case it's crazy. If you need a conviction in your life to help you work through some issues, any of the above will typically work.

For the astute reader who noticed that there are only four items listed, we need your help. Please let us know your favorite ways to ensure failure in defending a DUI case by commenting below. We will pick the best one and add it to this post (and give you full credit).

Then you did everything you could to make it right. You hired a DUI lawyer. You wrote out your version of events. You showed up in court.

Things may not have turned out as bad as they could have, but you are still going to jail.

Here's what you need to know to survive in jail, and why you need to prepare yourself.

Some people seem to relish the hypocrisy of somebody in law enforcement getting caught breaking the law.

To me, it's not the fact that an arrest happened or didn't happen that matters most. The big question is what the officer does after the fact. They can either run and bury their head in the sand, or the can use the experience as President Obama might say as a "teachable moment."

Hats off to Chief David Baker for agreeing to go on the radio to talk about his experience.

Police Chief David Baker to appear on Ridin' Dirty DUI radio show : DUIAttorney.com: "Baker was arrested for driving under the influence after a car crash in Arlington County.  He had a blood alcohol level of .19 which is more than twice the legal limit.  ‘I offer no excuses for my bad decisions and behaviors because there are none, and I am , and will be, forever haunted by the personal embarrassment and humiliation I caused to those who have supported me…’ said Baker."

I recently reported on a California DUI case, Santa Cruz DUI Manslaughter Plea, where the guy got 8 years. Then there's the now infamous case of Stallworth and Miami DUI Pleas - Wealthy Person Style.

Is there a different set of DUI penalties for the rich and powerful? I posed this question more in depth in a post called Can Wealth Buy Better Results in DUI Cases?

You probably fall into one of two camps:

1) You need to tell them because you need help with your legal fees;

2) You feel a need to tell them because, well, that's how you cope, or feel better, or forgive yourself or whatever.

The first thing that you should do is evaluate yourself.

How old are you?

If you are under 21 it is probably a no brainer that you should tell them. You got a DUI before you are even old enough to drink, so you probably lack the emotional maturity to handle this by yourself. If this applied to you, just come right out and tell them. You don't need to make a special dinner or anything. You don't need to butter them up. Just come right out with it.

If you are over 21 you might think twice. You are probably trying to assert your independence from then as an adult. If this applies to you, you might consider growing up and trying to handle it on your own.

If you are over 30 years old and you are telling you parents for any kind of emotional or financial support, you might consider instead taking a good hard look in the mirror. Perhaps your parents or your relationship with them is part of the problem, not the solution. Perhaps it is time to cut the umbilical cord and take responsibility for yourself before you are 40 years old and living in their garage.

If you look at telling your parents as a sort of confessional, consider going to church, or synagog or mosque, get a shrink, go to some support group meetings, go get lost in the woods for a week and find yourself. I guarantee that if you are a legal adult and need to lean on mom or dad for this, then you have larger issues than the DUI arrest anyways.

Think about your parents.

What will the knowledge of your DUI arrest do to them? Will it hurt them? Is it better to spare them that pain?

Is it revenge?

Perhaps you somehow blame your parents for your DUI. What didn't they give you? Do you come from an alcoholic home? Do you want to hurt them with the knowledge of your DUI? If so, then you should tell them only after you are through it and safely on the other side. Your best revenge may be to succeed, and nothing says success under these circumstances better than getting through a major life obstacle without the help or guidance of your parents.

In a nutshell:

Evaluate why you want to tell your mom or dad about your DUI arrest. If your motives are pure and the good of telling them outweighs the bad, then just come right out and tell them. No sense in beating around the bush.

Judges Taught to Help Prosecutors in DUI Cases: "While most Americans might believe judges are expected to consider all cases with equal impartiality, a prominent judicial standards organization suggests courts should treat differently any case involving driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). Former Chief Justice of the United States Warren E. Burger founded the National Center for State Courts in 1971 to provide educational services for members of the judiciary. The group is now working in concert with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to promote 'efficient disposal of traffic cases.'"

Although DUI requires no guilty mind (mens rea), people who are accused of committing the crime of impaired driving are viewed as needing to be controlled more than their guilty minded counterparts who engage in other criminal activity.

Fair or not, this is a reality of the justice system in the United States when it comes to DWI cases.

One of the main problems is that most non-alcoholics refuse to think of alcoholism as a disease, while most alcoholics refuse to acknowledge that they have a disease or addiction. The net result is that useful drugs are not as profitable for drug companies to concentrate on. The demand may not be there, and interest is hard to stir.

Makers of alcoholism drug Vivitrol struggle to make way into market - The Boston Globe: "'I would absolutely recommend it [Vivitrol] to anyone who is looking to get sober,' he said. 'I would obsess about drinking all the time, and I just don't think about it anymore.' But when Kyle mentions the drug to other alcoholics, he mostly gets puzzled looks. 'Nobody has any idea what it is,' he said. Despite a litany of similar testimonials about its effectiveness, Vivitrol has largely been a commercial flop. There are several reasons: Many alcohol treatment programs resist using drugs; some doctors contend Vivitrol doesn't work for most patients; and it's expensive - $800 a month. According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, there are about 8 million alcoholics in the United States, yet only a few thousand use Vivitrol, nearly three years after it went on the market. Alkermes recently predicted it will generate no more than $24 million in sales for this fiscal year, far below initial expectations."

Truck driver arrested for DUI | thespectrum.com | The Spectrum: "A California truck driver was arrested on charges of driving under the influence of alcohol and reckless driving Saturday after rolling a tractor-trailer on Interstate 15 near the Washington City exit at mile marker 10. Douglas David Olson, 47, of Long Beach, Calif., was booked into Purgatory Correctional Facility on $1,919 bail, shortly after he was released from Dixie Regional Medical Center, where he was treated for broken ribs and other minor injuries, said Sgt. Dan Ferguson of the Utah Highway Patrol. Clean-up of the wreckage continued on Sunday, forcing closure of the right-hand lane of southbound I-15 at Washington City and backing up traffic in the area."

DUI Dispositions - Peoria, IL - pjstar.com: "The following people were sentenced in Tri-County courts for driving under the influence of alcohol. Some jail sentences may not be served if other conditions are met:"

As I keep saying, being a police officer is very stressful. In fact, police officers and lawyers, as groups, have statistically high rates of alcohol and drug abuse.

Aurora police sergeant on leave after DUI arrest - Metro - cleveland.com: "'Sometimes you can't dictate behavior, but our officers get substance-abuse training every year,' Mayor Lynn McGill said. 'As a police officer, you're expected to be able to serve the public and serve them well.' Piggott is a recent graduate of the Police Executive Leadership College, run by the Law Enforcement Foundation. It's a 105-hour program for police executives. Piggott was on the city's tactical response team and trained other officers how to shoot. Aurora Patrolman Scott A. Garan, 42, was arrested Dec. 19 in Kent, where he lives, on drunken driving and criminal damaging charges. Kent Patrolman Martin Gilliland stopped Garan, who was driving his wife's car. Garan refused to take a breath-alcohol test and damaged property at the police station. A hearing to discuss whether some evidence should be supressed is set for April 15. Garan had been wearing an alcohol-detecting monitor until March 16, when a Portage County judge allowed him to remove it. It was Garan's second drunken-driving charge. He also has a prior conviction in Kent for disorderly conduct. He was demoted from sergeant to patrolman after the incident. He pleaded guilty July 23, 2007, and was fined $130."

My point in reporting police officers who are arrested for DUI is not to "out" or shame them, but to support my ongoing thesis that DWI is truly a crime that touches all types of people, in all occupations and of all responsibility levels.

The "cure" for drunk driving is not heavy prosecution. It is understanding and treatment.

Ohio prosecutors are pushing for open discovery throughout the state in Criminal cases. This push for uniformity is being touted by Ohio Criminal Defense lawyers as a major step forwards towards a fair and equal system.

Ohio's prosecutors serve justice by calling for open discovery across the state: Regina Brett - Regina Brett, Plain Dealer Columnist - cleveland.com: "Champaign County Prosecutor Nick Selvaggio, who is president of the prosecutors group, told me the plan would give defense attorneys the right to inspect all police reports and witness statements before a trial. Right now in Ohio, justice depends on geography. Prosecutors in the state's 88 counties decide whether to grant open discovery. Some offer it; too many don't. The proposal, which was shaped by about 25 prosecutors, also allows prosecutors to protect witnesses who fear harm. In cases where prosecutors can 'reasonably articulate' their concern for danger, they can withhold witness statements. The prosecutors also want to inspect all defense witness statements and expert witness findings or reports before those individuals testify. The defense could still cite privilege as a reason not to disclose some information. Ian Friedman, president of the criminal defense lawyers group, was ecstatic at the proposal on the table. 'We are going to accomplish a more fair system of justice in Ohio,' h

Now, if only the makers of the Intoxilyzer and the prosecutors in states that use Intoxilyzer products would agree to make discovery about the breath test device plain and open.

City appealing ruling on DUI tipsters - UPI.com: "TROY, Mich., March 21 (UPI) -- The city of Troy, Mich., says a district judge should not have dismissed a drunken driving case because the suspect was stopped based on a motorist's tip. Troy City Attorney Lori Grigg Bluhm said an appeal of Troy District Judge William E. Bolle's Feb. 24 ruling was filed because the officer involved in the traffic stop had reasonable cause to stop the suspect, The Detroit News reported Saturday. 'We believe the officer's stop was supported by reasonable suspicion, regardless of whether she personally observed erratic driving,' Bluhm said. The case began Nov. 11 when a 38-year-old man, whose identity was not reported, was stopped on suspicion of drunken driving after another motorist contacted authorities. While the suspect was found to above the legal blood-alcohol limit for motorists in Michigan, Bolle dismissed the charges because the police officer never personally witnessed any drunken behavior by the suspect. Mothers Against Drunk Driving representative Richard Rondeau has also questioned the judge's ruling, the News said. 'What are we supposed to do, wait for people to be killed before you arrest a drunk driver?' Rondeau said."

661 St. Patrick's Day DUI Arrests Break Record / Colorado Springs, Pueblo, Southern Colorado, Breaking News, News, Weather, School Closings, Traffic from KKTV 11 News: "Driving Under the Influence (DUI) arrests for the St. Patrick's Day crackdown broke a record this year with 661 state-wide. Colorado law enforcement agencies say the arrests were made during the recent five-day crackdown that began at 6 p.m. Friday, March 13 and ended at 3 a.m. on Wednesday March 18. Colorado State Patrol says seven people were killed in traffic crashes during the five-day crackdown, and four of those deaths were alcohol-related. The arrests broke a record, with a previous high of 626 in 2004. Last year, 520 people were arrested for DUI over the holiday period. ‘It’s clear that we have a consistent problem that is not going away, despite our constant warnings and reminders about the consequences of drinking and driving,’ said Col. James Wolfinbarger, chief of the Colorado State Patrol."

Illinois, Washington state info policies show marked contrast - Galesburg, IL - The Register-Mail: "In Washington state on Jan. 18, King County assessor Scott Noble, an elected official responsible for determining property values for tax purposes, crashed his SUV on Interstate 5 south of Seattle and was arrested on suspicion of drunken driving. And 2,000 miles makes for a world of difference when it comes to finding out the circumstances surrounding such arrests. What is routinely released by authorities in Washington state is just as routinely kept secret in Illinois, where the state attorney general and other legal experts say state law governing public records is filled with loopholes and vagueness that agencies can use to withhold records. In the case of Noble, the Washington State Patrol responded to a records request in exactly 24 minutes, e-mailing 71 pages of documents to The State Journal-Register that included the results of blood tests indicating that the assessor had a blood-alcohol content of .22 percent. The documents included witness statements, a log that shows every person a police investigator interviewed and statements of troopers showing what they observed when they responded to the scene. ‘Please let me know if you would also like … copies of the photos of the collision scene,’ wrote Duane Ungurs, a public records coordinator with the Washington State Patrol. ‘The files are too large to e-mail, and I would have to mail them to you on a CD.’"