New Jersey Gets Drowsy Driving Law

[demsrule4life]

My question is since I work 12 hr mids and there are some mornings I really wish I didnt have to drive the 30 miles home, if I was in NJ should'nt the state pay for a hotel room for me? Also I see more lawsuits against employers letting their people drive home tired.
http://thepeoplesfirm.com/stores/190/article_080803_a.htm

[Loyal]

1. You will only be subject to

the law if you have been up for more than 24 hours straight, as I understand it.

[Abe Linkman]

2. Great aid in getting more citizens into the criminal justice system, too

The vast and corrupt criminal justice system complex will be the biggest winner in this one.

The fact that it will not have any beneficial effect on the citizenry is irrelevant, so don't even ask.

[BQueen]

3. There was a GD thread on this yesterday

Took me a bit to locate, but here's a link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=434251

And my response to that post:

<Penalties sound pretty stiff compared to
DUI with fatality (Vehicular Manslaughter EDIT - should be Vehicular Homicide - here in OH - I think about a five year max fourth or fifth degree felony - haven't looked at it in a while)

I agree with basic tenet that ANY foreseeable impairment resulting in fatality should be dealt with to about the same degree as DUI. The problem here is demonstrating that the person has been awake more than 24 hours - without a statement/confession from the defendant, you're probably not going to make the case. When I was prosecuting, I NEVER went to trial if I had to depend on the defendant to supply an element of the offense (assuming no confession) - only Perry Mason gets those kind of breaks during trial.

Unfortunately, I did have misdemeanor Vehicular Manslaughter cases where the driver's actions resulted in the death of their own passenger (often their spouse), and they were heart-wrenching. But prosecutors can't apply the law piecemeal (well, those with ethics can't - as always, Asscrack is the exception).

As to not being at fault in the accident, the article has the state AG saying that exhaustion must be a "key factor" in causing the accident, although the specific language of the statute is not reported. IMHO, they're short-sighted to specify 24 hours, since they're setting a nearly impossible burden of proof absent a confession. If they stuck with a medical definition, it wouldn't matter the length of time without sleep (i.e., 23 hours without sleep could be prosecuted, and having had one hour of sleep in the past 24 wouldn't get round the law). Plus, they could rely on objective observations of cops and EMT personnel to assess the condition of the exhausted driver. As it is, if they can't determine from that condition the length of time the driver has been awake, it's not relevent at trial, even if they couldn't keep their eyes open during the interview.

I dunno, sounds like "feel-good" legislation to me...passed to placate someone and look good politically, but not expected to actually be enforced or have any real impact.

The interesting sidelight here is that the only people you would consistently be able to prosecute would be professional drivers who are required to keep logs of driving and resting periods - I know semi drivers must do this and that the logs are almost uniformly computerized now. I have no idea about limo drivers, taxi drivers, etc.>

[Abe Linkman]

4. Not just "feel good"

That's one of the big problems. The police and prosecutors (99.99% of whom are 100% certain that THEY only seek justice, not convictions) will have yet another reason to stop people, make searches, plant evidence, force people to have to spend lots of money on bail bonds, lawyers, etc.

The list of harms resulting from these kinds of laws is endless.

Our entire system of jurisprudence is corrupt to the very core. All of the "players" in it have motivations that go against the notion of fairness and justice.

We need a more enlightened system...designed by "critical legal studies" experts.

[Romulus]

5. I hear 'ya

We need a more enlightened system...designed by "critical legal studies" experts

The problem is that too many people take it as a matter of religious faith that the laws being passed only reflect the will of the people working through the governmental process to get those laws passed.

Critical Legal Studies, or Critical Race Studies, is considered "crackpot nonsense" down here, my friend. Just read any "gun control laws are racist" thread to see what I mean.

[BQueen]

6. I hear ya, too, but...

making blanket generalizations about "everyone" in the system is counterproductive and ignores those of us who spent our careers fighting the good fight and getting crap from BOTH sides AND the bench.

Not ALL cops are bad, but the police force does attract a higher number of individuals who like to abuse power. The same holds true for prosecutors and judges.

And, while *perhaps* this statute could be used as an opportunity to plant evidence or engage in unreasonable searches, it would hardly enable random stops, since there must be an accident to trigger the operation of the statute.

I call it "feel-good" because it is simply PR for the legislators - they get a protest group off their backs, no one is actually going to stand up for overtired driving, and the version they passed is, as I stated above, for all practical purposes, unenforceable.

Granted, if a person is charged, they will have to deal with bail and possibly attorneys fees, but without a reasonable belief that the driver had been up for more than 24 hours (i.e., 99.99% of the time, the drivers' own statement), the charge wouldn't/shouldn't be brought in the first place. If it even gets that far without hard evidence, most prosecutors would recognize it as a loser early and cut their losses by dumping it asap - as they are required to do by the ethics rules. (That is not to say any other charges will go by the wayside.) While raising bail is a hassle, you get the money back when the case is over, as long as you appear (granted, if you have to go to a bondsman, they keep the 10% you give them).

I agree that we need a more enlightened system, but saying everyone in it is corrupt gets us nowhere. (I worked for two City Attorneys - one of whom fits your description; the other impressed me with her concern for the rights of both victims and defendants, as well as for proper training of officers as to the 4th Amendment - I imagine you can guess which one was with which party. When I conducted those trainings, so many cops apologized for others who didn't pay attention, and thanked me profusely for enabling them to make better cases that my estimation of cops went up a number of notches.)

Those of us who put up with being treated like we were throwing a wrench in the process simply by insisting on respecting the rights of criminal defendants and requiring that the rules in place be followed deserve better.

[Abe Linkman]

7. I'm aware that even a STOPPED clock is right twice a day...but

this law, along with many others that you prosecuted people under, are nothing more than the equivalent of corporate welfare to the criminal justice complex, and I'm very surprised that you are relatively insensitive to the implications of such a law.

But, you were part of the "us versus them" system which viewed every citizen who wasn't a cop or prosecutor as "them". And "them" all need to be locked up, don't they?

I expected a more progressive, more enlightened view from someone here at DU who knows (and partially admits) that a large percentage of the entire criminal justice system is dishonest, corrupt, and that mostly what they do is use the law as a means of exercising control over the population at large. Most of the cases (okay, a certain percentage) you prosecuted were for "crimes" in which there was no victim...except the person you sought to convict and get the maximum sentence for.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.