Deseret News | First-time DUI fees can top $10,000

Reader comments
First-time DUI fees can top $10,000

Page:
1
2
Next >

Really | 11:48 p.m. Oct. 16, 2009

Who cares how much you weigh? You should never drink and drive!!!! I don't care if you are golfing or not, be smart and have a designated driver. Repeat offenders should never drive again in my opinion. Killing families for no reason is not cool!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A life is worth more... | 12:00 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

I understand how harsh these fees can be but to look at the other end of the spectrum, how much is a life worth? This could include the driver who driving while impaired injures or kills himself or anyone else.

If one persons life can be saved by harsh penalties than I think the DUI fees are completely fine.

Also, the majority of this $10,000 total includes lawyer fees and insurance cost. These have nothing to do with Utah being too tough on first-time offenders.

Maybe the article should criticize the outrageous fees attorneys charge. Also, if you do drive while influenced please explain why you are not more of a liability for your insurance company? I think you are lucky to be insured.

awsomeron | 12:15 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

DUI is perhaps one of the Worst Possible Crimes that can be committed in a Vehicle, Bike, Golf Cart, Motorcycle etc.

The Crime deserves the Most Punishment Possible The 1st Time.

Jail Time, Community Services, Huge Fine, Loss of License for at least 1 year, and the Vehicle is Forfited.

Take the Bus to Work or Ride a Bike.

This should apply to Male and Females Equally.

A Drunk Driving Charge after failing a Breath Test or Blood Test Should Not Be Beatable.

For Those under 21, 0.00 is the legal limit.

Enforcement should be a 1st Priority.

If you are Illegal you should go right to the INS.

Comments continue below

Anon 808 | 12:17 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

Lets Try No Bail.

Jake | 2:00 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

Harsh for a DUI! But texting away and talking on the phone, and all you get is a ticket ... even though it is proven it is more dangerous.

Amazing.

Don't | 2:21 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

Don't drink period. Who wants to smell your stinky breath, or listen to you slur, or wants to be a road near you. How about waking up and being able to remember everything you did the night before. Drunks are an embarrassment to themselves and family. There is no one single good reason to drink. People say it relaxes them, yes it does because it reduces the ability to feel and recognize problems.

I think the people are getting of pretty cheap. My life and the life of my family is worth more than all the money all drunks have to pay for their drinking. Sorry, Mr. Rodruguez, golf is a sport and you are stupid to drink and play golf.

Hang Up And Drive | 2:57 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

These fees and penalties are NOT harsh when compared to the heartache and financial loss when someone is killed by one of these people.

Talking on a cell phone or texting while driving should also bring the same penalty as DUI... both impair driving and kill loved ones.

Please people, hang up and drive!

Incentive for injustice. | 3:41 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

This kind of fines and costs are a very bin incentive for cities and law enforcment to accuse drivers of a DUI just to get the excessive fines. Guilty or not, they will make a lot of money just by an accusation.

I didn't see any statistics about drug users and driving. Does it mean that spaced out drivers on drugs is okay to leave behind the wheel of a car? This law also applies to drug use yet there has never been a case of drugs and a DUI. Drugs and cell phones are our bigger problem with DUI driving yet the law has been abused and falsely applied. If the law fails to prosecute driving and drugs then this is grounds to dismiss DUI laws and drinking. Although many drivers have been caught with high levels of drugs in them, they do not get prosecuted as a DUI. The best way to fight this is tell the officers you are on drugs and you get off cheap.

Excessive fees and insurance costs will only promote uninsured driving and driving without a license. This amount of fines is unjustified and immoral and an incentive for criminal injustice.

John L Christensen | 5:31 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

Please do an artical about the victims of Drunk Driving and those who have lost loved one to Drunk Drivers.
Those costs are never ending and last for a life time. I lost a 19 year old son to a Drunk Driver who had many DUI convictions but was still able to drive because of Utah's leiniant DUI laws at the time. I am happy to see they have become much tougher.

I love this | 6:59 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

"I will not have one drink and drive a car," Sarah said. "I think you should be able to have a drink and drive home, but in this state, with how much it costs, I can't afford that risk."

Now, how do we get the rest of those 15000 DUIs in Utah to have the same attitude.

Drunk Driving is a Crime! Do the Crime, pay the time and the dime.

I sat on a jury for a DUI (in another state) for a guy about a month ago. He failed 1 field test and then refused to take the breath test (which is an quick trip to jail in our state. The guy had beat a rap in another state before he came here. He was a professional businessman, just been out to a business dinner with some assocaites...

Entire event captured on the cruiser video cam.

Didn't take long to convict.

I have no sympathy if he had to pay $10,000 for his day in court. Perhaps he could send me the check for my 2 days off of work to hear his case.

Maybe if it costs him enough, he will stop as well

Still not enough | 7:08 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

When you see multiple offenders that end up killing innocent people it's obvious the punishment is still not harsh enough.

Justice | 7:11 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

DUI attorney Jason Schatz is a man without morals or scruples. Slime like him are the reasons drunks are allowed to be repeat offenders and kill people. There should be no repeat offenders for a DUI. It should be one and done!

utah rose | 8:02 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

I agree--if you are going to have a drink, have someone else drive you home or better yet have that glass of wine or beer in your own home while relaxing in the evening.

Remember though too, some prescription drugs should never be taken while driving. It can have the same tragic results of someone who had a drink,

I notice though that a lot of drunk drivers who cause accidents and injuries and death seem to be repeaters, and some illegal.

Why are they still driving it the penalties are so stiff? Lets get them off the road and if we have to deport them do.

I'm all for having a drink once in a while and relaxing, but it is so much more comfortable and safe doing this at home.

After all this is a health issue not a moral one.

Anonymous | 8:07 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

we need to add another zero on the end of that and maybe we will see some progress....

$10,000 should become $100,000

JJ | 8:08 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

Typically, the people that get DUI are the folks that normally don't get hammered on a routine basis. That is why they look like fools behind the wheel, while only blowing a .08. For these type of people, simply being pulled over is enough to scare them straight. I'm for punishment, but this is excessive. It is the 2nd trick ponies that need to get the wood shed treatment. These are the sociopaths, incapable of remorse or regret. These are the types that kill on the road. Most people that commit DUI are guilty of making a stupid mistake. It is not a preconceived, malicious intent to wrong society. So, 1st timers shouldn't get lumped in with the rapists, drug dealers, arsonists of the world. 2nd timers - that is a different story. MOST people are like the female referenced in this story - scared and mortified by the experience, never to do it again.

jimelko | 8:12 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

Simple , drink.......DO NOT DRIVE

Anonymous | 8:23 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

Good, they should. I think their cars should be taken away as well. And get this, I'm not even mormon.

Anonymous | 8:23 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

Lawyers. They're the root cause of the problem.

xscribe | 8:27 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

I believe the fees should be even higher and license taken away the first time. I also believe that speeding, running red lights, etc. should also carry very high monetary penalties, as these activities cause accidents and kill people also. Money talks, so putting speeding ticket fees in the thousands of dollars range may make someone think twice about speeding or running that red light.

Observation-ist | 8:30 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

If you want to write a well-researched article about how the penalty system is not proportionate to the crime then make that case. Perhaps DUI is more costly than a hit-n-run. If you want to make the case that a similar crime should have similar consequences across county lines then make that case.

But this articles simply complains about the cost of a DUI. No sympathy here.

GOOOD | 8:34 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

That's what you get for driving drunk. The title of this story should be, "First time DUI drivers are dangerous to society and deserve any punishment they get."

MAYHEM MIKE | 9:00 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

"In my opinion, it's going a little bit too far," Schatz said. "I can understand much harsher penalties for repeat offenders. I weigh 185 pounds and if I have five beers while playing nine holes of golf, I'd be risking all these penalties. People who are 45-50 years old, who are playing golf or attending a wedding – all of this could come down on their heads."

Oh, come on, Jason! Given the fatalities these drinking morons cause, NO penalty is too harsh. Sounds like you finally believe the drivel you dish out in their defense! You also probably wouldn't like MY penalty: First-time offenders, PERMANENT loss of their driving privileges; those who kill another while DUI: the death penalty.

Good article | 9:01 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

That's a good article and food for thought.

Something the article did not mention is that Utah is the first and only State to use an electronic warrant system, designed in part to fight DUI's. In Utah, only, if you "refuse" a test, the officer can electronically communicate with a judge, 24 hours a day, and get authority to literally hold you down and draw your blood.

These are all good ideas to stop DUI's, and hopefully they work. But for those of you that have written how this is one of the "worst" crimes ever... remember, if you have ever used a cellular phone while driving, you have been just as much a threat to the public as a drunk driver. Yet we don't criminalize that activity at all. I see a lot of moms, for example, driving around in their SUV's with kids in the car, and their cell phone up to the side of their face the whole time. These folks are just as likely to kill their kids, or somebody else.

So, please hang up and drive if you really think DUI is that serious.

Swissmiss | 9:10 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

I think impounding a person's car might get their attention the most.

Responsibility | 9:17 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

Driving a vehicle is not a right. Living is.

If you abuse responsibilities that come with something you must take responsibility for it. If you have children and don't feed them, you would definately be punished. If you neglect them to some extent (I'm not sure when but) eventually children will be taken away from you, and rightly so in some cases.

Driving is not a right, take away the right on the first DUI. When someone shows that they disregarded such a basic moral principal they should be held accountable. I would reduce the fine as 10K is seriously a lot. I am fine with that number until the day that we ban licenses for life for these crimes. They can certainly ride public transportation and I can feel safer.

You may think I am just a radical utah Mormon with my dumb views. Some countries actually do this and they happen to not be from Utah.

It all boils down to this... Driving is not a right, when abused, take it away. Driving in the turn lane to get ahead is one thing, take it away for a while.. but drunk? do it for life!

Matt | 9:34 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

Are you kidding me? We are concerned about the high price DUI offenders are paying?

It's simple: don't drink and drive and you don't pay the fine. What's the problem?

Obviously the penalties are not stringent enough as witnessed by the blood of those who have been killed by those who have chosen to drink and drive.

Drink as much alcohol as you want but as soon as you get behind that wheel under the influence prepare to pay. I say we stiffen the penalties to provide a stronger deterrent - take away their car too.

What would the state lose from harsher penalties?

True | 10:01 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

Funerals are expensive.

Anonymous | 10:05 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

The lawyer is right, The red neck gun owner who shoots a stop sign isn't assumed to be a murder in training, but a father who is stopped at a check point that was inconceivable to Americans for 180 years of our history, who barely registers over a line he never knew had crossed and he's treated like he was driving our streets looking for furry puppies and little girls to run over.

The law should have to factor in past record, alcohol level and whether the driver was in the middle of dangerous driving or randomly caught. The citizen with no record of alcohol, who wasn't dangerously driving and who barely topped the limit should get a reasonable punishment.

I know I'm a soft on crime liberal. If we give those citizens a change and they are caught again. They really knew better and 90 days in jail, $5000 fine and lost of license for two years would seem fair to me.

Lew Jeppson | 10:19 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

This kind of stuff brings the Libertarian out in me (great article BTW). There is no proportionality in DUI or open container laws (which are even more idiotic). A person who is at .08 one time should not be treated like a lush. Also, penalties should be based on blood alcohol, nor whether or not there is an open container in the car.

Note: I don't condone drunk driving.

BobP | 10:28 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

I am retired now, but I practiced criminal defense law for many years (along with a lot of personal injury work). I did not prectice in Utah. I am also active LDS and my last drink was over 50 years ago.

These extremely punitive DUI penalties have another result. That is the number of cases in which not guilty pleas are entered and a trial takes place. I usually had a flat fee of several thousand for such a defense.

A good trial counsel can win about 25% of the cases. The savings of a win can be very big. With insurance savings and etc. it can be up to 25,000 dollars. Very punitive treatment of DUI makes it worth while to take a chance and fight it.

Chill Out | 10:42 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

Calm down, people. The lawyer isn't saying that driving drunk is OK. He's just noting that Utah's penalty for first-time DUIs seems to be disproportionately high, compared to the cost of other crimes. Drunk driving certainly hurts people but so do other crimes, like child abuse, spousal abuse, manslaughter, etc. Personally, I think the penalties for all of these crimes should be greater, but I think we can discuss it rationally without going off the deep end, like some of the commenters here.

me too... | 10:49 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

You know, my favorite pasttime is loading up a gun and shooting it randomly into parking lots. As long as I don't hit anybody, who cares? Shooting a gun is fun, and a right. And if they fine me for that, or take away my gun...man, what an unfair imposition. After all, I didn't hit anybody.

what is so punitive about this? | 10:57 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

Schatz, BobP, and the others keep talking about how these penalties are excessively punitive?

What part?

The fine?--Really, you think that it's ok to fine speeders, but not people who get on a public road in an impaired state?

The interlock requirement?--Are you not aware of the extraordinarily high recidivism rates for DUI offenders?

The jail time?--Given the risks involved to the general public, you really think that the week or so that they might spend in jail isn't worthy of a couple of nights in jail, particularly given that they end up serving it on weekends only?

The fact is, even a first-time DUI offender is engaging in conduct that could very literally kill whole groups of innocent people. I'm not aware of any other crime that has such a massive potential for damage that DOESN'T involve a fine and jail time. Why should DUI be any different??

Sasha Pachev | 11:12 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

"Sarah" in the article learned something important. It is a bad idea to drive after having a drink. I think that proves our laws are effective, and the penalty should not be reduced.
BTW - $10,000 is really not that much money if you look at all kinds of junk people are buying. Can be raised by selling it back, so really not that harsh of a burden. And it does teach a lesson!

Pharmacists view | 12:02 p.m. Oct. 17, 2009

Just for the information: Many Prescription drugs can also cause a person who has never had a drink, to get a DUI. I have had patients given the DUIs over the years, yet we warn them , and stick stickers on the bottles not to take the meds and drive.

Anonymous | 12:27 p.m. Oct. 17, 2009

Reduce DUI penalties? No way!

Idaho citizen | 1:05 p.m. Oct. 17, 2009

I am impressed with the Utah law. I don't know what Idaho's laws are but I am forwarding this article to my legistators. All states should have tough on drunks laws.

awh | 2:16 p.m. Oct. 17, 2009

We had a good friend who was killed due to a "drunk" driver. His wife was injured so much that she couldn't even attend her husband's funeral. I have NO SYMPATHY for these folks who take even 1 drink and are arrested for DUI. Good for you UTAH.

Anonymous | 2:16 p.m. Oct. 17, 2009

You know when you are breaking most laws. You can stop drinking an after a couple hours still be over .08. As others have bought up, the issue has been fogged. The concern is impairment. You can go over .08 without knowing you have and be subjected to penalties that are high. If you drive twenty hours and are more impaired than the person over .08 you slide, but your impairment was just as dangerous. You can take pain pills or do a few lines of cocaine and pass the breath test.

With the technology we have today, we should dump the .08 standard in favor of testing for impaired driving.

Colette | 2:55 p.m. Oct. 17, 2009

It will definitely make me feel better if someone I love is killed by a "first-time DUI offender," because, hey, it's just the first offense. The driver will learn his/her lesson and never do it again. (I'm being sarcastic by the way.)

And I don't care if you're 185 pounds and "can handle more liquor."

Driving while impaired (or talking on you phone, or texting) can kill me, or someone I love, and that ticks me off. Harsher penalties for everything I just mentioned.

Do the crime? | 3:56 p.m. Oct. 17, 2009

Serve the time. My friend's daughter will never - EVER - be the same again after he hit her while driving drunk. She was t-boned and nearly killed because he decided to drink a few beers at an office party and drive home afterwards.

He got 3 months in jail, with the ability to leave for work - but having to return at night, and he had to pay for her medical bills. No driver's license suspension, no alcohol counseling, nada. Her bills are now up to $80,000, and there are still more on the way. This includes her life-flight ride, her 10 surgeries, and rehabilitation. There is nothing in there for pain and suffering. She has been out of her job since June (when the accident occurred.).

She will never be the same after this. Sometimes - too little is not enough.

Ivan | 5:47 p.m. Oct. 17, 2009

So if I FAA requires me to wait 8 hours after I drink ANY alcohol before I can go fly my plane, and everyone thinks that's good law, that DUI laws are not strict at all.
By the way, if I fly my plane drunk, I will probably just kill myself, while driving drunk can kill a lot of people on the road.

I agree | 6:40 p.m. Oct. 17, 2009

with the anonymous person who said the test should be for impairment. Being drunk is only one of the problems with incapable drivers.

It worked | 7:02 p.m. Oct. 17, 2009

The article proves the opposite of its point. Sarah was scared straight. A first time DUI can kill every bit as much as a third time DUI. If it were up to me, first time DUIs would be a felony. It's only by chance that someone's not hurt or killed when anyone drinks with BAC over .08. Tough laws worked for Sarah and the costs she paid are far less than she would have paid with a slap on the wrist and not learning the lesson.

A-Chinese_American | 8:18 p.m. Oct. 17, 2009

I LOVE THIS ONE: "First-time offenders, PERMANENT loss of their driving privileges; those who kill another while DUI: the death penalty."

Jordan T. | 8:42 p.m. Oct. 17, 2009

People get DUI's for the simple fact that they don't give thier bodies ample time to sober up before they get behind the wheel.

My rule of thumb for drinking and driving is to wait at least 45 minutes to an hour after each drink I consume before I drive a motor vehicle.

By no means would I suggest anyone do this but I would stongly suggest you limit your intake of alcohol. I

f you're the DD for example, I would only have 2-3 drinks max over a 2-3 hour period, then wait at least an hour after the last drink is consumed to drive.

YOU CAN DRINK AND DRIVE, JUST DON'T DRIVE DRUNK!!!

"Fun" can equal tragedy | 9:04 p.m. Oct. 17, 2009

Far too many members of society have careless attitudes about driving when you don't "feel drunk".
When you drink it diminishes your capacity to think clearly...and that is what too often results in tragedy or near tragedy.The importance or, "right" of "good times" pales in comparison to the right of all of us to be safe from "buzzed" or drunk drivers on the road.Don't play around with others safety!

hybridbeing | 10:05 p.m. Oct. 17, 2009

If this is the results for DUI, then it should be applicable to any form of driving when impaired, ie. hand held cell phones, texting, and all other forms of distracted driving. This might be the only way to make people realized how dangerous distracted driving is, right up there with DUI's.

Old Submariner | 10:40 p.m. Oct. 17, 2009

Don't know if the laws of Norway have changed, but they use to suspend you for a year on first DUI. Second one, you kissed your car goodbye.

I do have one question for many of you. Seems like most any subject brings protestations of "I'm not one of those Mormons." Do questions like this carry more impact on a Baptist or a Catholic? It appears that non-mormons have pretty much the same low tolerance for DUI. Or do you guys just like to play Whack-a-Mole with the LDS? Just wondering because I'm one of the lucky ones. As a young sailor, I drove home more than once w/o incident when I would have pegged the meter. I can only go by the fact that we knew "God looks out for drunk sailors & officer's wives". I no longer worry about DUI because I am now a happy LDS member & feel fortunate. But for the grace of God, I could have really hurt a family. Please, don't drink & drive. I'd be glad to drive you home. Just hang your head out the window so you don't . . .!

GOOD! | 10:49 p.m. Oct. 17, 2009

0.00 BAC should be the standard. How many lives will be sacrificed for this destructive behavior?

Page:
1
2
Next >

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.