fd-header-book-flyer1

I recently had the opportunity to host the Fair DUI Lawyer, Warren Redlich, featured in several media outlets. He takes the idea of not incriminating yourself to a different level.

The conversation was very revealing. There have been cases of people being charged despite having a 0.0 alcohol reading on the breathalyzer machine, according to Mr. Redlich. The trouble, according to him, is that DUI laws assume a person is guilty until proven innocent; and in a lot of cases, the innocent end up paying the price. A breathalyzer has a margin of error of 15% – that would be considered ridiculous in any other type of crime / scientific purpose, but the public opinion on DUI is so strong that we allow innocents to be prosecuted in the name of safety. Apparently, having consumed wonder bread, and no alcohol, can create a positive reading on a breathalyzer test. So imagine of you have a slice of wonder bread with a glass of wine. A conviction under the DUI laws can be damning. And in many cases, the people being charged have no idea how to get out of the mess.

One of his points is this: if the point is to reduce drunk driving, then the more efficient way would be to offer free rides to drunk drivers, not create DUI checkpoints.

A recent video featuring his technique has gone viral; and as of this post has had more than 2.5 million hits.

My own view of all DUI laws are that they are “pre-crime” laws – a-la-minority report. In other words, laws created to “prevent crime” are on morally dubious grounds. Punishment should be for committing a crime, not for creating a possibility of committing a crime. Mr. Redlich did not dismiss my point of view.

In any case, it is good to see some new perspective and some push back on the encroachment of our freedoms. Especially when there is a distinct possibility of the innocent getting incriminated.

What are your thoughts?