Record-high DUI Suspect To Remain In Jail

A move to get the woman accused of having the highest blood-alcohol level ever measured in the state out of jail and into a rehabilitation center collapsed in the final minutes of a court hearing Friday.

Deana Jarrett has been in the King County Jail since April on DUI and other traffic charges. The Washington State Patrol reported she had a 0.47 blood-alcohol reading, the highest level recorded since breath testing became standard in 1998. At a hearing Friday in Redmond, Jarrett's attorneys argued that she should be released to a treatment program in Kirkland and should meet other conditions, including electronic monitoring.

That plan fell apart near the end of the two-and-half-hour hearing, however, when it was discovered that the program's electronic "bracelet" wouldn't function at the treatment center. The monitoring equipment depends on telephone lines, and the gear wouldn't work with the center's switchboard.

King County District Court Judge David Steiner continued the hearing until Wednesday to see if another monitoring system might work.

Also Friday, the Seattle Police Department released some personnel records concerning Jarrett, an officer and detective who was fired in 1998.

In a letter dated July 16, 1998, then-Chief Norm Stamper told Jarrett she was being terminated after an internal investigation concluded she had engaged in misconduct.

Specifics were not disclosed, although Stamper referred to an internal investigation involving improper checking of license numbers.

Stamper said the termination also was ordered because "of your previous disciplinary history, which includes another instance in which you behaved inappropriately following the break-up of a domestic relationship."

In a five-page letter to Stamper six days later, Jarrett, who then was known as Deana Karst, argued that the firing was unjustified and that Stamper's actions "were completely unfair."

Sphere: Related Content

South Carolina Fail To Get DUI Bill Ahead

ROBERT W. DALTON

Glenn Grandy said thank you Friday to all those South Carolina lawmakers who have failed to pass stronger drunken driving laws.

If they had acted, he might not have that nifty titanium rod in his left leg or the cool cane that helps him walk. He might never have had the chance to bring a hospital bed into his home and lay around in it for months. Instead of experiencing the joys of physical rehabilitation over the past year, he would have been forced to take his 9-year-old son fishing, to Carowinds and to football practice.

So on Friday he said thanks. Thanks for nothing.

Time running short

Grandy joined Gov. Mark Sanford, 7th Circuit Solicitor Trey Gowdy, Spartanburg Police Chief Tony Fisher and a host of other victims - or family members of victims killed by drunk drivers - at the Spartanburg County Sheriff's Office to make a final desperate plea to the state Senate to approve a bill strengthening penalties for drunk drivers. With only six days remaining in the session it would be a difficult - but not impossible - task.

"South Carolina consistently ranks near the top in the nation for DUI deaths, which is why the Senate needs to act quickly on this bill so that we can avoid yet another year of too many people being killed on South Carolina's roads," said Sanford, who has campaigned for a stronger law since taking office.

The House has approved a bill that establishes more severe penalties based on the level of intoxication. The three levels of blood-alcohol content are .08 to .1, .1 to .16, and .16 and above.

Each level carries a fine and jail time - but in each case, community service can be ordered in place of a jail sentence on first or second offense.

The bill also drops the requirement that law enforcement officers must advise suspected drunken drivers of their Miranda rights more than once, and it changes the time when video recording is required to begin.

Gowdy pulled no punches, saying the Senate's inaction proves it is less concerned about protecting its constituents than about "protecting the bank accounts of some lawyer-legislators in the General Assembly." He said he doesn't understand why defense attorneys who make money off the current law - which he calls the worst in the nation - are given a seat at the table to soften or even kill legislation to get drunk drivers off the road.

"I reject the notion that there has to be a balance between the needs of the accused and the needs of the victim," Gowdy said. "Can you imagine a legislative body asking for Pablo Escobar's input on tougher drug laws or having (the North American Man/Boy Love Association) or Roman Polanski advising them on stronger child sex laws?"

Sanford and Gowdy have been down this road before, but their pleas have fallen on deaf ears. Grandy hopes the Senate will listen to him.

Grandy, 49, was finishing an 18-mile bike ride last July 18 when Michael Boyce McKinney, one month removed from his second DUI conviction, plowed into him. Grandy's left leg was shattered and extensive surgery followed.

McKinney, whose blood-alcohol level was .18 that day, paid fines to walk away after his first two convictions. He pleaded guilty in November to felony driving under the influence with great bodily injury. He was sentenced to 10 years, is already out on work release and could be free on parole in two years.

Grandy, meanwhile, wants to take his son fishing this year. He hopes they can go to Carowinds, and that he can watch him play football.

That nifty titanium plate isn't so nifty. The cool cane isn't so cool.

"I'm lucky, because this could have ended a couple of different ways," Grandy said. "But I've paid a price, and my son has paid a price because of all the things we can't do."

Sen. Jim Ritchie, R-Spartanburg, said he hears Grandy loud and clear.

"I can't speak for the Senate, but I would say strengthening and clarifying our DUI laws is vitally important to protect our citizens," Ritchie said. "I look forward to fighting to bring that up for a vote this year."

Sphere: Related Content

The 'Culture Of Contempt' Stamped Out

Reform is high on the agenda of the Claims Club, as the industry sees itself challenged to respond to two major consultation papers on personal injury claims and insurance contract law. Lynn Rouse reports

Martin Bare, president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, called on insurers to increase their role in the risk management activities undertaken by their insureds to prevent avoidable injuries and do away with the ‘culture of contempt’ of those who flout health and safety laws.

“In 25 years of legal practice, I have never met a claimant who wanted damages more than they wanted to turn the clock back,” he said. ” I want increased health and safety in the workplace to be applauded for what it is: sensible risk management. Active accident prevention and care by employers, local authorities, hospitals and the general public prevent tragedy.”

Mr Bare also reiterated his growing concerns over insurers dealing directly with claimants through third-party capture of claims (Post, 3 May, pp 14-15). He cited a Mori poll that found 80% of those surveyed said they did not believe they would get the right amount of compensation without an independent solicitor. Mr Bare also dismissed the Frontier Economics report, commissioned by the Association of British Insurers last year, which suggested unrepresented claimants could receive compensation faster, or even higher sums. He referred to the data as “cleansed and selective” and said he would not accept the findings of a report that did not show the full data.

But Richard Ellis, head of motor claims at Norwich Union, responded by saying: “We do lots of third-party capture and have data to show claimants are eminently satisfied because they find the process easier. They are not necessarily interested in obtaining legal advice when the injury in question is minor, or low sums are involved, but we do encourage claimants to seek this, when required, and link them to a firm of solicitors. We are very conscious of our fiduciary duty of care and do not just pay lip service to it, particularly when English is not the person’s first language or they are not well educated.”

Claims Club members who were unable to attend the meeting can listen to all the presentations at the members-only website www.postclaimsclub.co.uk.

- “I am slightly worried about unintended consequences; despite the Lord Chancellor saying there will be no pilot, I would be more comfortable if there was one.” – Anna Rowland on the proposed streamlining of the UK personal injury compensation process.

- “Focus as much on what you want, as on what you fear” – Peter Tyldesley on making submissions to the consultation process on insurance law.

- “Examples of flouting health and safety laws continue; witness the results of the recent inquiry into the 2002 Legionnaires disease outbreak in Barrow, which found that guidelines on how to avoid legionnella had not been used or disseminated around the council – they were put in bins or filed away.” – Martin Bare on the ‘culture of contempt’ against the rights of individuals.

Sphere: Related Content

Do DUI Laws Really Make Sense?

IN the 1980s, Mothers Against Drunk Driving led the campaign to toughen the penalties for driving under the influence.

This led to a societal change in attitude toward drinking and driving -- and it also helped reduce highway fatalities.

A legislative committee led by Sen. Dan Foster, D-Kanawha, is now studying whether changes are warranted in West Virginia's DUI statutes.

Mark Neil of the state Prosecuting Attorneys Institute says his group is suggesting toughening the penalty for people who are severely impaired when they get behind the wheel.

The state's current legal threshold for presumption of drunkenness is a blood alcohol level of .08 percent.

The prosecutors' group recommends a new charge -- aggravated DUI -- that would carry heavier penalties for people caught driving with a blood alcohol content of .15 percent.

Neil cited studies that show most drunken driving fatalities involve extremely drunk drivers.

Certainly a driver with a blood-alcohol content of .15 percent is more dangerous than a person who barely meets the legal limit of .08.

The drivers at .15 percent or higher certainly need to be taken off the roads. An aggravated DUI charge for such drivers would take the worst offenders off the road longer.

At the other end of the spectrum, State Sen. Mike Green, D-Raleigh, a former police officer in Beckley, told Foster's committee that alternative sentencing

of the lighter DUI offenders to work details instead of jail would save counties money.

This might free up jail space to accommodate the longer sentences that drunker drivers would face if the prosecutors' recommendation is adopted.

Both ideas merit serious legislative consideration.

The goal is to come up with a cost-effective law that affords even more protection to innocent drivers and their passengers on West Virginia roadways.

Sphere: Related Content