Two things happened today which give me pause (above and beyond recommending a company that has the potential to put my clients back in the pokey):
1) We have a client who is alleged to have violated the terms of his probation by submitting breath samples with alcohol in them while trying to operate his vehicle. He noted that he received a different message from the machine than what is normally received for a failure. Trying to clear this up, I gave Smart Start a call and expected them to at least generally discuss the machine and it's operation, since I am, at least potentially, in a position to send them business. The local employee I spoke with said that their position was that they would not share any information about the product with the client or the client's lawyer. In short, he concluded, "Sir, I'm not telling you anything." Fair enough, but tell your Marketing folks to stop blowing smoke up my ass, OK? Besides, your stonewalling notwithstanding, a subpoena should produce the information we're looking for.
2) While I searched for technical and operational information about their products online, I stumbled across something that I found a little disturbing and a lot misleading on their homepage. At the bottom of the page, the have some text which claims "DWI is the nations [sic] most frequently committed violent crime" (you may have to Reload a few times to see the same banner). It's certainly a noble goal to prevent drunk drivers from re-offending, and I can honestly say that the alternative to an ignition interlock device is ridiculously cost-prohibitive for most people convicted of a DWI, so I do give IID companies credit for helping to allow my clients to drive so that they can keep their jobs.But calling DWI a violent crime is ridiculous (those are all law enforcement sources, BTW). DWI is completely outside the common understanding of what a violent crime is. A "violent crime" is one where one person threatens or does violence to another (think murder, rape, aggravated assault, child abuse, robbery, assault, etc.) Yes, some people who are DWI kill or injure innocent victims. But not everyone who commits a DWI (or who is arrested for DWI) fits that description. This is the same as saying "Speeding is a violent crime", "Weaving in a lane of traffic is a violent crime", or, as happened to a client who came in today, "Stopping to aid another motorist who got into an unrelated accident is a violent crime." It's dishonest, even if it's well-intentioned.
More proof that words do (should?) matter.
UPDATE: The US Supreme Court agrees with me. In the context of defining "crimes of violence" under the Immigration Code, a DWI does not belong. So says Leocal v. Ashcroft. Take that Smart Start webmaster!!!!
22 comments:
This "violent crime" crap is straight from MADD. The IID industry is totally in bed with them. They contribute heavily, and return MADD pushes for legislation to require more and more of the devices. Their goal is to have one installed on every car from the factory! Hellooo Musollini
Don, reading your comment sent me to the webpage MADD.org. Since they are a non-profit they are required to make public who they receive money from correct? Well on their sponsor's page they don't list any of the "heavy" IID contributions that you speak of. Would you mind clarifying where you get this info, or admit that you made an assumption based on your own opinion? MADD is a great organization that wants’ to help save lives, yet they get attacked for every move they make.
From my standpoint for you to allege that MADD is in bed with the IID companies, you have to believe that IID don't work to save lives. Because if they do indeed save lives then you would have to admit that MADD is making a legitimate push to "stop drinking and driving" and "save lives of innocent victims". Which is kind of the whole purpose of an organization named mothers AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING?
Anonymous: I have no evidence that an IID company has given money to MADD in order to push their products. But they don't have to, since MADD pursues an agenda which would make IIDs more and more common. If it were up to MADD, anyone accused of a DWI would have to have an IID in their vehicle. In my mind this is akin to saying that because it would reduce crime, it's a good idea to get rid of the 4th Amendment and allow police to search and detain any person at any time without any particularized reason at all.
Keep in mind, however, that the original comment pertained to a company who makes money of DWIs referring to DWIs as "violent crimes". That classification is demonstrably untrue and don is correct that MADD is guilty of the same deliberate misstatement. Again, this is NOT to stay that people who commit DWI do not pose any threat to the public; I think it's quite clear that intoxicated drivers do pose a clear public safety risk. But not all people convicted of or charged with DWI have committed a violent crime under any reasonable interpretation of that term.
Anonymous: you don't have to be a national corporate sponsor to contribute to MADD. If you want to come to where I am I'll haul your happy ass over to the Smart Start dealer and let him personally tell you, as he did me, that he gives money to MADD, locally. MADD originally was a "great organization who wanted to save lives." Now they are a neo-fascist organization who wants to return to prohibition. I am not thoroughly convinced that IID's by themselves save lives. In conjunction with counseling and supervision, they help. As to your logic, a full fledged Police State would also cut down on DWI deaths. I guess that would be a "legitimate push to stop drinking and driving" also.
I think that it is amusing how many people feel that MADD is trying to bring back prohibition. They are asking to make people accountable for their actions. Is it so unreasonable to mandate that an offender prove for a period of time that they can drive sober? Especially when they have already shown a tendency to ignore the law and drive over the limit? Do you think that someone should only be punished if they do end up committing a violent crime? This is a sanction that allows people to get back behind the wheel and not be a risk to society. Regardless of who contributes $50-100 to a local MADD chapter, the direction that they are going makes sense, think about it. Would you rather they stay with the old policy of long license suspensions? In those cases offenders continue to drive unmonitored and usually without insurance. This at least allows people to reintegrate and have someone monitoring their progress. I agree that the term violent crime may be misused but the idea behind MADD backing this technology is not because of the money they are receiving. This technology is saving lives and I commend them for supporting a solution rather than long suspension periods. Take a look at what the first offender law has done for the folks in New Mexico, people are alive today that wouldn't be without these devices.
I think it needs to be said that MADD's purpose (to reduce drunk driving and alcohol-related traffic fatalities) is noble. It also deserves saying that the courts have an obligation to protect the public from convicted drunk drivers.
But MADD (and the industries that profit from MADD's agenda) makes a much more compelling argument, I think, if it relies on facts and the truth, than if it decides to fudge on things like calling DWI a violent crime. They should also be interested in making sure that the technology being used to monitor folks, because the goal is to prevent drunk driving, not to have people thrown in jail because of mouthwash or cigarettes. It's not just people who have been convicted that have IIDs; oftentimes it's people who have merely been charged with DWI. That makes accuracy that much more important to me, and hopefully, the general public.
Have you checked all the Smart Start websites for the information you're looking for? Check www.SmartStartinc.com, www.SmartStartofCalifornia.com and www.SmartStartofOregon.com. if the sites don't help, call the phone numbers listed or email them. Be sure you contact the correct person. If you called an installation location and spoke to a tech, you may not receive the answers your seeking.
Elvez1975 - why don't you call me?
Debra Coffey 800-880-3394, ext. 225
For those of you who have been convicted, whether guilty or not, since it costs a years salary to beat a DUI charge, I am wondering what you think of these devices? I was arrested with a BAC of .08 and plead guilty because I couldn't afford a DUI attorney. I was not committing a traffic violation, and especially not a violent crime. I had a 40 year perfect driving record, with not so much as a parking ticket. The device does not always work. Last weekend, I filled up my car with gas, and lo and behold, my Smartstart aborted (which is not a violation) 27 times, while I was still parked at the gas pump. Fortunately, I was able to push my truck out of the way of other customers and walk the 2 miles back home. WHen I called the company, they said it must be moisture. I found that interesting, since I live in the desert. I'm wondering how it works in Portland or Charleston? Since then I've changed the box out 3 times. Yesterday, out of the blue, while laying on the seat of the car, it suddenly flashed WARN. I was told by the company that I must have been drinking, or swishing with Listerine, or some other ridiculous comment, which they did rescind, when I informed them, that my mouth was no where near the device at the time. (Nor had I been drinking, etc.). Has anybody else had any experiences? Fortunately I was 2 miles from home and it was only 96 degrees that day, so I was able to get home. They wanted me to tow the car in to the shop.
I totally agree, that people shouldn't drive drunk, but if a person can't have a glass of wine with a dinner party without taking a cab, then they should have a device that actually works.
I've had a smart start unit for 14 months now - 12 as part of my bond conditions and the last 2 on probation. Yes, this process can take a long time in Travis County. I didn't blow so got the automatic license revokation, which took over a year to get a hearing! I guess with the task force in place, there are something like 200 people arrested in Travis County each week. I had to take a class, which was actually very good, but 3 of the 15 people in the class blew below a 0.06 and still were arrested (don't know if they were convicted).
Anyway, I am just trying to be a good boy so I can get the interlock off in 10 months.
From my experience, I believe the Smart Start unit works well 98% of the time. However, with my future being determined based on its accuracy, its the other 2% that I am very concerned about. I have a degree in Chemical Engineering, and have a fairly good understanding of the platinum fuel cell technology (based on the very limited information I have been able to obtain) and the math used to determine a BAC from the test results.
In the first 12 months I had the unit, it worked fine MOST of the time. It did "lose its mind" while I was driving from Austin to Dallas last fall. I called SS HA, and they told me it probably had moisture in it - they don't mean moisture from the ambient air, they mean spit builds up over a period of time (or I guess it could happen from a single test if you are sloppy with your pre-test drink of water). They told me to take the mouthpiece off, turn it upside down, and hit it 5 times on each side as hard as I can. It got me home, but I really wonder about the accuracy of a supposedly precision piece of equipment after you beat the hell out of it. Turns out it did completely die a week later, ironically leaving me stranded at a parking meter in front of my attorney's office.
I get 2-3 violations a month from the II beeping after the ignition is turned off, in some cases even after I have left the car. I think this is fairly common among users (I have heard the guys in the SS shop talking to customers on the phone about it) and as long as you go ahead and blow within a couple of minutes, your log looks OK. IF it does it after you leave the car, you obviously don't know to do this, so THEN you have a problem.
Prior to this July, I had only had one "warning" which does not register as a violation (you get 5 violations a month then are locked out until you take it in). I had just eaten Japanese food, and didn't think much about it - nobody at pretrial services mentioned it.
However, this July I started getting warnings and I cannot figure out why....it is NOT from drinking. Three in two weeks, I think. Once was after eating, once after coming out of the gym of all places. My questions/thoughts on potential causes:
*It has been extremely hot in Austin this summer. I put a meat thermometer in my car today while I was in the gym - when I came out it read over 140 degrees F. The calibration is done at arond 75 degrees F...what type of temperature compensation is done, and at what point does the error range caused by hi-temp become an issue? It takes sometimes over a minute to get the "OK" at startup, but is fine once the car cools off. The unit does not appear to like extreme cold either, but I did not experience any real problems at 20 F in Oklahoma in February other than it took a looong time to get an OK.
*I think that most II's use a "partition rate" or whatever it is called, of 21,000 to convert breath alcohol to BAC. I would assume that this number is based on an average size person?? I am much larger than the average person (6'4", 220+ and not fat) - does this mean that, for a given amount of alcohol in my system, I would get a "falsely high" reading on a breathalyzer? I'm not just referring to the Smart Start here (since I don't drink now it is not an issue), but breathalyzers in general.
*The SS web site (California)goes through a list of "myths" related to the II product - it is a good explanation of things that don't affect it (spicy food, smoke(??). It also has a brief description of the technology and explains how it avoids cross-detections with "all but a limited range of substances". My question is, what is included in the "limited range of substances"? Does it include isopropanol, which can, under the right conditions, be a by-product of the processing of ketones induced in the body by a low-carb diet such as Atkins? If this is the case, this is probably not going to clear by washing your mouth out with water.
*I learned very fast to get rid of the bottle of mouthwash and the Purrell in my car. I didn't think it would pick up hand sanitizer, but it will.
The SS California site also says that under the right conditions, blowing after eating a donut can give you a reading. How about soy sauce? That seems to be a common denominator in a couple of my warnings.
Enough of my rant! Has anyone had similar experiences? Debra, can I call you some time to discuss? I had a similar experience talking to the guys in the local shop, but didn't expect any different - they are probably not the guys to be discussing this with, and in general they seem to be pretty good people.
Judge Moran denied plaintiff Trading Technologies ("TT") motion to compel additional deposition testimony from third party Brucato, the founder of TT's competitor Catus Technologies. TT subpoenaed Brucato's deposition relating to Catus's work with defendant eSpeed or TT's software. Brucato appeared for the deposition and answered questions on those topics, but refused to answer questions regarding work for clients other than eSpeed. TT argued that evidence of Catus's work with other third party clients was relevant to show proof of widespread copying, which is an indicia of non-obviousness. The Court acknowledged that, but balanced the relevance against TT's need for the evidence and the hardship to Catus. The Court found that TT's request was only based upon TT's suspicions or speculations as opposed to any hard facts and that the connection, therefore, was not strong enough to warrant the risk third party Catus faced in providing such information to its competitor TT.
===================================
JOHN
California Dui
The smart start ignition interlock is the biggest pain in my @ss. I live in AZ where it's required for first time dui offenders. I was involved in a car accident where I blew 0.00 but because they found less than a gram of a green leafy substance, I was charged with a dui to the slightest (not dui drugs thanks to my lawyer). So now I have this interlock for a year when the whole situation that got me in this mess to begin with had nothing to do with alcohol. Our system is jacked!
Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!
I had the Smart Start unit installed in Dec and the technician that installed it told me to just unplug it from the vehicle when I'm not in the car, such as at nights, otherwise the thing will have a problem when I go to use it because it is fickle with varying temperature, especially if it gets cold. He also said that if I get too many aborts prior to starting the car, to just turn the power off and on again and try again. From what I've been reading on the internet I haven't heard of anyone doing things like that. I wonder if he told me to do things that will look bad on the log when I go to get that checked later. He said just to tell my PO that I'm taking the unit out of the vehicle at night. Now I'm thinking this will look bad on me, but it's been very cold so I'm wondering if the unit will work right in the mornings.
Smart Start device - Ok to disconnect handset. I'm responding to the post about disconnecting the smart start handset. The device is designed so the handset can be easily disconnected from the coil cord and taken inside. The purpose of this is to minimize a wait / warm up time for the user when in cold weather..meaning freezing or below. It does not have to be disconnected but doing so will minimize the warm up time. Disconnecting and reconnecting the hand unit is recorded with a date and time stamp by the device. This is not a violation of the interlock program so long as it is done after the engine is turned off. If you disconnect the hand unit while the engine is running you will miss any required re-tests and this would be a violation of the program. Of course what constitutes a violation of the interlock program is set by each state individually and not by the device manufacturer. If your PO or other monitoring authority has any questions about what has been recorded by the device they can call the Smart Start corporate office for a detailed explanation.
I just wanted to say that I would not wish an interlock device on my own worst enemy. I have had it almost a year and I would agree that most of the time it works accurately. I had two fails from residual alcohol where I got a .025 and just recieved a warning letter. But after the first two months I had the device, I found out I was pregnant so have not consumed any alcohol at all. It has failed me no less than four different occasions, after it allowed me to start the car and begin driving. Then at the rolling retest five minutes, it would fail me and then I would immediately blow again and it would pass. Mostly I am doing errands, one time even came right from working all day, still in my uniform. The most recent occasion, I had been having contractions (pre-labor) all weekend so on Monday was told by my OB to go have an NST done at the local hospital. Again, it let me start the damn thing then failed me half way there and then when I reblew fine. Most of these have come back with .028 to .038 which is ridiculous since as I stated, I haven't had a drip since April. I have a court hearing in a week to try to have the judge modify the interlock portion of my probation. It is just not feasible for someone who is a moderate to severe asthmatic who needs to use inhalers (both containing ethanol). Half the time in the colder weather or if I have a cold I can't start it anyway (due to insufficent force). Hopefully, the judge will let me remove it because I have gotten no support/help from the installer, the monitor or the MVA. Any fails are logged as violations regardless of the situation here in Maryland and that is completely unfair that I have no options to even dispute a violation.
i love this blog! keep up good works...its to be nice if we can know each other, do you think so?
If we can stop one person from the nightmare that is Smartstart interlock---if you must use a IID,use anything but smartstart!! Been there done that!!
I am very glad to see such information which I was searching for a long time
Great and fantastic blog. I am interested very much in the subject matter of your blog, it’s my first visit.
leather items
hi, I just wanted to say how much i enjoy reading your blog. in a world full of spin, it's nice to get some fact-based analysis. keep up the good work.
Promotional waterbottlesl
So far this is the most interactive blog that has been on this topic, alcohol ignition interlock device is really one of the most talked about topic in this blog world specially in most states in the US, thanks for posting this and for all those who participate.
Post a Comment