Senate Unanimously Passes Drunk Driving Reform Package
Senate Bill 66, the drunk driving reform package I authored, passed the Senate today by a vote of 32 to 0.
During my speech on the Senate floor today in favor of drunk driving reform, I read a letter from Matthew Heroux, whose 18-year-old sister Talhia was killed by a drunk driver.
Heroux writes: "The constant reminders of my sister that I see and hear have made living my everyday life tremendously difficult. There are so many things I never got to say to her. We will never laugh together again, or even have a simple conversation. To see the door to her bedroom closed, knowing she won’t be walking out ever again, I don’t think time will ever heal that pain."
Heroux’s story exemplifies why the Senate needed to pass Senate Bill 66. It is frustrating to realize there is nothing within the power of the legislative body to make up for the kind of tragedy families have suffered as a result of drunk driving. We cannot bring Talhia home for the holidays. But we can honor her memory by passing Senate Bill 66, which will create tougher sanctions for drunk drivers, and expand treatment options and prevention mechanisms in our state.
Wisconsin has the highest rate of drunk driving in the nation. According to the Department of Transportation, alcohol-related crashes killed 234 people in 2008, and injured more than 4,000 people.
Senate Bill 66 will make a fourth OWI offense a felony if the driver has a previous OWI-related conviction, suspension, or revocation within the previous five-year period. The bill will also criminalize the 1st offense OWI if children are in the vehicle. In addition to tougher sanctions, Senate Bill 66 expands the use of Ignition Interlock Devices (IID), one of the tools that government has to prevent drunk drivers from getting behind the wheel. Senate Bill 66 also includes statewide expansion of the successful Winnebago County Safe Streets pilot program, which directs some offenders into alcohol treatment programs.
The Assembly passed its version of drunk driving reform, Assembly Bill 283, on September 17, 2009.
Last session, I successfully passed legislation that provided incremental penalties for drunk drivers. This package further strengthens the tools and options available to Wisconsin’s law enforcement and court systems.

22 COMMENTS
-

0
0
Click thumb to rate
0
0
Please login to rate
What's the point of increasing any punishment when we're letting criminals get out of jail early anyway?
- Share
-
-

0
0
Click thumb to rate
0
0
Please login to rate
MrDiverse,
- Share
-
-

0
0
Click thumb to rate
0
0
Please login to rate
When a driver on a freeway or other one way traffic street sees a vehicle coming at them, how come they keep on driving until there's a crash as opposed to pulling over and stopping until the vehicle going the wrong way passes, is it some ego thing or just plain old stupidity......talk about driving with impaired faculties!
- Share
-
-

0
0
Click thumb to rate
0
0
Please login to rate
Drinking and driving should be a felony upon the 1st offense....
- Share
-
-

0
0
Click thumb to rate
0
0
Please login to rate
You are correct, MrDiverse. Good catch. What I meant to say that riding a bus while drunk is never a FELONY.
- Share
-
-

0
0
Click thumb to rate
0
0
Please login to rate
Riding a bus while drunk isn't a crime?
- Share
-
-

0
0
Click thumb to rate
0
0
Please login to rate
Senator Sullivan,
- Share
-
-

0
0
Click thumb to rate
0
0
Please login to rate
Thanx community spirit. Twitters and cell phones, via I pods, are a serious problem. I know the arguments about adequate laws prohibiting them (free speech, emergencies, apply the present laws, no harm done and much more). But in the horse and buggy days the automobile raised havoc. At least issue a warning ticket and keep a record of it for a 2nd offense. Auto pilot cars are becoming common for all of us. But as in the airlines the pilot holds the whole world in their hands.
- Share
-
-

0
0
Click thumb to rate
0
0
Please login to rate
NOT ENOUGH - That the state finally had a discussion and made some attempt -okay - but not okay - there needs to be far more done. PUSH MORE to get these laws even tighter. I don't want to be on the road with these idiots. And pass some cell phone legislation as well. Watched a lady roll though a 4 way stop with 3 cars on all the other intersections looking at her as she spoke on the cell phone and just rolled through and made a ture without looking at the rest of us.
- Share
-
-

0
0
Click thumb to rate
0
0
Please login to rate
So, basically, unless there are kids in the car, the drunk driver gets 4 opportunities to kill someone before it becomes a serious offense.
- Share
-
Load more comments View all comments Back to topDotacus - Jan 28, 2010 9:17 AM - Report Abuse
StubbornOldMan - Nov 21, 2009 11:00 PM - Report Abuse
Why do you think that Senator Sullivan's latest amendment to this Drunk Driving bill SPECIFICALLY prevented judges or law enforcement from HAVING THE OPTION to confiscate vehicles driven by repeat drunk drivers? I have no clue. Maybe you know. I thought the Senator wanted all of us to think he was getting tough with DUI.
An analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau had this to say about Sullivan's amendment: "This substitute amendment eliminates the option of ordering the person’s vehicle to be immobilized or seized and sold at auction.". Looks to me like confiscation is officially off the table from now on thanks to Senator Sullivan's 'Substitute Amendment #2'. Am I wrong?
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB66-SSA2.pdf
MrDiverse - Nov 21, 2009 8:57 PM - Report Abuse
Laurie53219 - Nov 21, 2009 8:30 PM - Report Abuse
It if were, we would possibly end up lowering the total annual deaths due to the "choice" of the guy or gal to get drunk and drive a lethal weapon..
StubbornOldMan - Nov 20, 2009 10:40 PM - Report Abuse
MrDiverse - Nov 20, 2009 9:51 PM - Report Abuse
There are no laws against public drunkenness?
StubbornOldMan - Nov 20, 2009 6:51 PM - Report Abuse
You've always told us that you're always looking to do whatever you can to attract jobs to our 5th District. If that's true, then why did you (as part of the Wisconsin State Fair Park Board) approve 'pulling the rug out' from the Giuffre Group who arguably is the best Racing promoter you and the rest of the State Fair could have ever dreamed of having. What part of the story am I missing? I'm giving you the chance to defend your apparent deliberate attempts to kill the Milwaukee Mile (and all the jobs and money that comes with it). It seems that you really ticked off the Giuffre Brothers by virtually guaranteeing that they'd fail since you changed the terms of the agreement WITHOUT NOTIFYING THEM from 3 years to secure a National Race to now be TWO MONTHS? That seems to be a bit underhanded to me. Don't you agree?
Here's the exact letter that the Giuffre Group sent to you today:
http://content.clearchannel.com/cc-common/mlib/3627/11/3627_1258755272.pdf
Here's some background on the deal that was doomed to fail by the Board:
http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/MILWAUKEE-WI/BLNG-IP/Belling1_11-20-09.mp3
Will you be putting this accomplishment of yours on your 2010 campaign literature? I hear crickets chirping...
DICK STEINBERG - Nov 12, 2009 7:52 PM - Report Abuse
community spirit - Nov 12, 2009 3:40 PM - Report Abuse
Side note to the crazies - get a life, did you ever here of constructive critisism? Nag Nag Nag is all I hear, say what you want to say but be polite. One of the other blogs talked about being polite. You can surely disagree - God Bless America, we all get to speak our minds, but in a polite, intelligent manner.
jgwriter - Nov 08, 2009 10:33 PM - Report Abuse
This is a step in the right direction, but it's not a strong enough step.