SWANSEA - In an ironic twist of fate, Swansea Police Lieutenant Robert Cabral, a champion of the D.A.R.E. drug resistance education program, was killed by an alleged drunk driver in possession of marijuana. Adding to the sad irony, the state of Massachusetts passed a highly-touted new piece of drunken driving legislation, commonly known as Melanie's Law, within days of his passing.
While new laws often provoke controversy, Melanie's Law is unique in that it has drawn criticism from people on two sides of the debate on DUI law. The law has inevitably sparked discussion in Swansea, where residents, police and public officials are still mourning the loss of Lt. Cabral.
Swansea Police Chief George Arruda has expressed mixed feelings about the law. He has praised its tougher penalties for drunk drivers, but has also been quick to criticize what he sees as a lack of provisions that will help reduce drunken driving-related fatalities.
"I think the law is making strides in the right direction," Chief Arruda said.
"(But) I firmly believe the law did not address an issue that needs to be addressed, and that's giving us the tools to do our job properly and objectively."
The refusal issue
Specifically, Chief Arruda said, the law does not provide for penalizing those who refuse to take a breathalyzer test. He said he finds this particularly perplexing because it shows a marked difference in how drunk drivers are treated in comparison to those accused of murder and other crimes. In those cases, the chief said, police can legally obtain blood and saliva samples – not so in the case of drunk driving offenses.
"Why is drunk driving any different? Nobody (has) explained that to me."
Russell Matson, an attorney based in Braintree, Massachusetts, has problems with Melanie's Law as well. His Web site (www.madrunkdrivingdefense.com) is filled with information on what he sees wrong with the law, and how one can defend him/ herself if prosecuted under it. Mr. Matson said that the law goes too far in some regards, while not doing what it could in others.
"If I were to design a law to deal with drunk driving, I certainly wouldn't have written this," Mr. Matson said.
Mr. Matson said he did not like the provision in the law eliminating temporary licenses for those who refuse or fail a breathalyzer test. He said that hardship licenses are available to those who plead guilty, in case they need to get to and from work while court proceedings are pending. This, he said, can lead to prosecution of innocent citizens.
"A lot of people just plead guilty so that they can get a hardship license," Mr. Matson explained.
"Virtually every first offender can get a hardship license."
In a word – alcoholism
Another issue that Mr. Matson raised was what some may consider a proverbial elephant in the room: alcoholism. He said that he does not feel the law deals with repeat offenders particularly well, also noting that most of his clients are social drinkers. Repeat offenses, he said, are often a sign of a serious drinking problem. This raises another of his concerns about Melanie's Law: how it deals with defendants shown to have a dependency on alcohol. Specifically, Mr. Matson said one thing that troubles him about the new law is that it does not provide for rehabilitation services to help drunk drivers overcome serious drinking problems.
"If you're going to lock them up, it's a good opportunity to do that," he said.
"I would say nearly everybody who's been arrested three times are alcoholics."
Chief Arruda, however, took issue with the idea of allowing temporary licenses for people charged with drunk driving. He suggested that those concerned about their personal rights should take tougher drunk driving laws as a further reason to drive responsibly.
"Driving is a privilege, it's not a right," the chief said.
"I think there's a broader issue here: The safety of the public."
The safety of the public is an issue that Mr. Matson said he was concerned about as well. For this reason, he said, he felt it would have been a better idea to place more police patrolmen on the state's roads to catch drunk drivers, rather than increasing the penalties for drunk driving.
"It doesn't matter what the penalties are if people don't think they're going to get caught," Mr. Matson said.
And catching those who do drive under the influence is an area in which Chief Arruda said he would like to see law enforcement improve its performance. For this reason, he stood by the idea of penalties for drivers who refuse a breathalyzer test, noting that these tests can not only help prosecute the guilty, but also acquit the innocent.
"You're going to be able to present a more factual picture in a prosecution. We want to do our job thoroughly, professionally and right."
Highlights of Melanie's Law
What is Melanie's Law? The legislation got its nickname from Melanie Powell, a Massachusetts teen killed by a drunk driver. The law was passed in part as a reaction to Melanie's death, and is intended to help prevent similar tragedies. Here are some highlights of this new drunk driving legislation.
Among other things, Melanie's Law:
* Increases the mandatory minimum jail sentence for vehicular manslaughter from 30 months to five years.
* Makes it a crime to knowingly lend a vehicle to someone who is intoxicated.
* Allows prosecutors to use certified court documents to demonstrate evidence of a prior DUI conviction.
* Introduces stiff penalties for those who drive under the influence with children under the age of 14 in their vehicle.
* Requires repeat offenders to install an interlock device on their vehicle, which prevents them from operating the vehicle if intoxicated.
By Vinaya Saksena
vsaksena@eastbaynewspapers.com