<p>
</p>
<p>Most states, including NC, have mandatory jail requirements for DUI offenses. As NC will treat NC Dad’s son as an adult, I’m surprised the lawyer held out any possibility of the kid not serving some time in jail. See [North</a> Carolina DUI |DWI Drunk Driving Laws, Penalties and Fines | drivinglaws.org](<a href=“http://dui.drivinglaws.org/ncarolina.php]North”>DUI/DWI Laws in NC and the Jail and Fines for Convictions | DuiDrivingLaws.org)</p>
<p>Vladenschutte: If this were a typical DUI, yes, jail would seem ridiculous. But we have a strict law called Laura’s Law here in NC that requires mandatory minimums for DUIs with high BACs, underage passengers, other aggravating factors, etc. Because my son’s passenger (his GF) was under 18, he’s charged with a form of DUI that carries a minimum of 30 days in jail. Our lawyer is going to try to work out a deal to plea to a lesser charge, but apparently when you start from a mimimum of 30 days, they usually want some kind of jail time in the plea bargain.</p>
<p>Cpt: Good point about guidance, I’ll make sure to ask. And it’s moving quickly because our DA is known for take-it-or-leave it type deals with plea bargains, and the last thing we want is to go to trial and have him convicted of the full DUI with the 30 day minimum.</p>
<p>Having a DUI on one’s record can also restrict one’s ability to travel. For example, Canada refuses entry:
[Entering</a> Canada | Embassy of the United States Ottawa, Canada](<a href=“http://canada.usembassy.gov/traveling_to_canada/entering-canada.html]Entering”>http://canada.usembassy.gov/traveling_to_canada/entering-canada.html)
[Rehabilitation</a> For Persons Who Are Inadmissible to Canada Because of Past Criminal Activity](<a href=“http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/applications/guides/5312ETOC.asp#5312E3]Rehabilitation”>http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/applications/guides/5312ETOC.asp#5312E3)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow, that’s rough. Best of luck.</p>
<p>Thanks. My wife and I are really tempted to be PO’ed at the system, but we don’t want our son to go into this with that mindset. It’s really been a tough balance between instinctively protecting our kid from what we feel is over-punishment, and making sure he doesn’t get a victim complex out of this.</p>
<p>You are entitled to complain all you want to one another, CC, your close friends, and your therapists about the law being too harsh and why you disagree with it. I’d just keep all that away from your son.</p>
<p>So, I’m just trying to get my head around it: as I understand it, the reason this is a Level 1 offense is because it wasn’t just a DUI, but there were three aggravating factors:
<p>If there had been four, there would be a minimum one year sentence (120 days of which would have to be served.)</p>
<p>Do I think this is too harsh? My gut instinct is that it isn’t. If I took a person at random, and saw these circumstances, I probably would have said 30 days jail would be quite reasonable. (Laura’s Law, as I understand it, only increased penalties for repeat offenders.) Again, taking a random person whom you don’t know, under these conditions, do others think the penalty is too harsh?</p>
<p>I imagine the defense attorney’s job is to get two of the three aggravating circumstances tossed in a deal. I have no idea if that’s a tough thing to do or not (there probably are lots of precedents in the county.)</p>
<p>For a first offender, yes, I think this is too harsh. The whole purpose of these laws is cut down on the offenses. Most of the time, the first time offender has no idea how much trouble he is in, and the severity of that offense can do more damage than good. It can make families have a bad attitude towards the police and the courts, for instance, and can truly hurt someone before he is even up and running. </p>
<p>I have absolutely no problem intensifying the sentence for second offenders. Any first offender should be thoroughly educated about the seriousness of what he has done and that he is going straight to jail if ever caught drinking and driving again. That it’s game over for him, in terms of any leeway. </p>
<p>I think that every person who gets a drivers license needs to get a very harsh lesson about exactly what happens if you get caught drinking and driving, along with any other serious consequences that come from being negligent and dangerous with the car, so that there is no question about what is in store. Just having it in a driver’s manual isn’t enough I’m willing to bet that OP’s son had no idea about the severity of what he did in terms of jail time, mug shots, fines, permanence of the DUI on his record.</p>
<p>I also advocate, educating all drivers as to how what to do if you are stopped and you have been drinking and driving. Taking that breath test, or that walk the line test, may not be in your best interest. Losing your license is a given, but giving proof positive how drunk you are when the consequences are so severe, is not a good idea. Just as there are directions as to what one should do in an accident situation, so there should be in other situations when stopped by the police. </p>
<p>I don’t know NC law specifially, but a lot of these MADD and SADD laws make it so that the judge and DA cannot reduce aggravating circumstances easily, making it difficult for anyone to get anything but jail time. </p>
<p>We jail more people than just about any other civilized country. These sort of laws that are not carefully thought out do more harm than good The OP’s son at least has a chance at this with parental support, a paid attorney. Some poor kid who gets caught like this could truly end up getting his life truly ruined when a jail sentence is practically mandatory.</p>
<p>NCDad, the reasons the laws are strong is that historically, people didn’t get the message. People would get arrested for DUI, pay a fine, and shrug it off. And then go right out and do the same thing again. </p>
<p>I’m pretty sure that your son would have had information about blood alcohol levels and state drunk driving laws and penalties as part of his driver’s ed course. Certainly here in California that is the case. </p>
<p>There is some room for flexibility around the edges – for example, if your son had been arrested with a BAC of 0.8 rather than 1.6 he might have expected being offered a plea bargain to a reduced charge. But as your lawyer pointed out, there is too much piled on.</p>
<p>This wasn’t an accident. It is something he planned. He had essentially conspired with his friends to buy vodka and sneak it into the prom. He got into his car to drive to the prom knowing that he and his friends planned to drink, and knowing that under NC law, it is not only illegal for him to be in possession of alcohol, but also illegal to drive with any measurable amount of alcohol his bloodstream. So he knew when he walked out of your house with car keys in hand that he intended to be drinking and driving that evening. (And those parties after the track meets that he told you about – was he driving then as well?)</p>
<p>I’m not trying to pile it on. Teenagers do dumb things and make dumb mistakes. But I’m just point out that breaking the law has consequences. </p>
<p>I’m a parent too and because I was still actively practicing law when my son was in high school, I often got confidential calls from other parents when their own kids were in trouble. So I’ve seen a lot worse than what your son did and what he is facing. </p>
<p>I was a criminal defense lawyer for both adults and juveniles. Most of the kids and young adults that I represented were poor African American or latino males. No one seemed to think that they deserved and special breaks or that the law was too harsh for them. A lot of those kids had had things pretty rough growing up as it is. So I have a different perspective: I think that leniency for “a college bound kid kid with no criminal record” (Vladenschlutte’s words, not yours) is a symptom of a two-tiered justice system with one set of rules for the privileged and another for the underprivileged. I saw that in operation all the time. Although not usually with DUI’s – the teenagers from poor homes never had cars. They’d get arrested for possession of alcohol, but not driving. </p>
<p>The problem is, drunk driving kills. When a person is injured or maimed by a drunk driver, it doesn’t make a difference whether it the driver was a high school kid with good grades and no prior record or an adult alcoholic with 3 prior offenses: the injuries are the same. </p>
<p>So to me, “college bound” shouldn’t be an excuse – if anything, it is all the more reason that your son should know better and exercise more care in his life. </p>
<p>I know that your son will be able to attend college. </p>
<p>If he had his heart set on Ivy League, it’s likely that he is going to have to reassess his goals somewhat. It’s not that the schools will reject him for having a DUI, it’s that they are so extremely selective that any spot on his school record can be a reason for reject. I mean – there are also very good kids who won’t get into their top choices because they mess up on a final exam or they have a teacher who is an overly harsh grader.</p>
<p>My point is that when it comes time to apply to colleges, each student needs to target schools based on the academic record they have accumulated, and there is no point trying to focus on “fairness”. Your son will have something on his record that will require some explaining and may hurt him among the most selective colleges. Plenty of other kids have things on their records that are not criminal but also stand in their way (weak SAT scores, learning disabilities, etc.) </p>
<p>But there are plenty of colleges that don’t look at those issues, and you are in a state with terrific public colleges. The main difference is that you are going to have to pay a little more attention to lining up a good array of safeties than you would otherwise.</p>
<p>
If your house was burglarized and it turned out that the burglar was a “first offender”, would you be showing up to court to argue for leniency?</p>
<p>Drunk driving is a serious crime. There shouldn’t be a “first” offense. </p>
<p>A blood alcohol of 1.6 is very bad as far as these things go. (Not the worst – I’ve seen cases where you wonder how the person was even conscious to get behind the wheel). But not something I saw very often among first offenders – usually the first timers would just be slightly above the legal limit - 0.8 or 0.9. </p>
<p>I think NCDad is a good parent and I truly understand the pain he is feeling now. But I also see the other side. </p>
<p>I am opposed to mandatory minimum laws that impose long prison terms and end up locking away minor drug offenders for years on end – but I don’t think a weekend in jail or few weeks in jail in the same category.</p>
<p>I keep coming back to the fact that the OP is angry with the police and system. Why? Your son planned what he did and got caught. The police may very well have saved his life and the life of others. </p>
<p>Drunk driving kills. This is not an “oops”. I think there should never be a plea in drunk driving cases, especially with a juvenile. I can’t even begin to justify being angry at the police or system. Save your anger for DS.</p>
<p>I think a myriad of emotions is understandable and that includes anger. I think when faced with something like this, a person goes through a lot of the same stages as the grief stages- denial, anger, bargaining, etc. It’s generalized anger at the seeming hopelessness of the situation, lack of control, inability to change it, etc. From things he has posted, I’m sure he’s angry with his son too.</p>
<p>Every situation has multiple perspectives. As he noted, he and his wife struggle with the natural instinct to protect their child even though their child did something that had very dangerous consequences. It’s a scary reality that a kid can do something really stupid and dangerous and possibly alter the course of his life. The punishment is going to feel harsh for the parents of the kid with the DUI. Had he killed someone while driving that car, the parents of the kid killed would think there was no punishment harsh enough. </p>
<p>Part of the difficulty with a crime like a DUI is that there is not a malicious intent as there is with other crimes of similar punishment.</p>
<p>NCDad,
My son when recently filled out an apartment rental application. It was his first experience with answering the questions, have you ever been convicted of a misdemeanor or felony? He called and asked how he should phrase it. Our lawyer told us to keep it simple, direct and honest. And so on the application my son checked yes and he wrote, On such-n-such date, I was convicted of a DUI. After having beer to drink at one party, my friends called me to pick them up from another party. I drove after drinking and it was wrong. I have learned my lesson and moved on from this incident.</p>
<p>We arent sure if it was right or wrong, but he did get the apartment and we do know there were other qualified students looking at it cause we viewed it after them. So, I would suggest you ask your attorney after the conviction or sentencing how to write it on the application. Our attorney said it will be a deal breaker in certain instances but to always be honest and brief. He talked to my son at length about disclosing this information and his mistake. I hope your attorney can do that for your son.</p>
<p>It is a life changing event, but you need to remember your son is still on a path. The path just took a very sharp turn in the direction you didnt expect. But, it is still a path perhaps right now a little muddy, too. My prayers are still with you and your family.</p>
<p>NCDad- I understand the need to keep talking about college as a way for your son to see that he still has a future after this is all said and done…instead of large state universities, maybe he should start thinking about urban colleges or universities where cars are not a part of the culture. I agree with the poster above who pointed out the difficulties of seeing DUI as a crime…while there may have been no malicious intent, the consequences could have been deadly and life altering for many families. We know a young lady who is currently in state prison instead of college for killing her best friend in a crash while driving drunk. She had a history of drinking and driving but had never been caught before. Neither family will ever be the same. Although the penalty may seem harsh, the blessing in your case is that there was both families will recover and go on with their lives. I would look at colleges where cars are not a big part of the equation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just to be clear, the OP’s son’s BAC was .16, not 1.6. And the legal limit is .08, not .8. Big difference.</p>
<p>I’ve been following this post for a while and just wanted to add something. A PP commented about the penalty for a first time offender. Often, a first time offender is a “first time caught” offender. My mom was killed by someone stopped 2 days prior for open containers and alcohol on his breath while driving, also underage. He was ticketed but not arrested and within 48 hours he killed her, himself, a friend of his, and seriously injured 2 more of his friends in a drunk driving accident. There weren’t zero tolerance laws in our state - the only reason he wasn’t arrested - and that caused a great deal of frustration for us to learn it could have been prevented (his parents only learned of the ticket after the accident).</p>
<p>OP - I’m so sorry you’re going through this. I fear this ever happening with one of my kids and I would also want to protect them. You definitely want to be cautious in the attitude you pass on to him, else he might view this as him a victim and not as a wake up call to make sure he doesn’t repeat this mistake. Listen to your attorney, go through the legal system and find out what he needs to do to move forward with his life. No one wants his future ruined, even those that support strict DUI laws. </p>
<p>Please be sure to let us know the resolution in this case. I’m thankful for you, him, and everyone else involved that you’re dealing with this aspect of a DUI and not more serious issues.</p>
<p>NCDad, I am sure that this is a devastating and horrible time for your family. Perhaps the suffering of fear of consequences would be enough for your son, but I am sure that you understand that the work of MADD and other similar groups was out of a greater agony than yours - the loss of life of a loved one due to a drunk driver. This work, as in all laws based in grass roots citizen action, is meant to protect society in general. I think if you and your family focus on this, that the result is because society demands protection from drunk drivers, perhaps it can help all of you.</p>
<p>I would think that there will be colleges that will accept your son. This is one of those things where a call to an admissions officer of colleges of interest is probably a good idea. You don’t have to identify yourself particularly. You can ask how so and so college views a DUI on apps, in general. You may be able to figure out colleges where this won’t be as big an issue.</p>
<p>My step D’s mother is an alcoholic, and over the years we have heard stories of crashes, arrests, etc. Fortunately, she never killed anyone, and finally, I believe, they took away her license. I think that kept her from getting another car too. Alcohol ruined her relationship with each of her husbands (yes several), and with her children as well. As I understand it, she was a beautiful, talented person, at one time. Maybe if someone had been able to help her when she was younger, her life would not have been a wreck. Her journey began with drinking in high school.</p>
<p>I keep wondering why I’m the only one who is not sympathetic to this family.</p>
<p>Imagine if only one detail of this story was different. The dad writes the same post about his son’s DUI and wonders how that will affect college, only this time a child was killed.</p>
<p>The only reason why his story doesn’t contain this detail is sheer luck.</p>
<p>And then there was the part about initially being mad at the police. Oh really? You mean the men and women who risk their lives every day to protect society from dangerous drunks like your son? Like my father, who was injured in the line of duty? </p>
<p>You were mad at them? You never did answer why. Why were you mad that they arrested your underage son for speeding and having a .16?</p>
<p>Sheer luck is the only reason why no one was killed. I hope they throw the book at him.</p>
<p>There is a very big difference, IMO in first offenders and repeat offenders. The whole purpose of Laura’s Law and a number of the campaigns that MADD has run have been to get and keep repeat offenders off the roads. It is ridiculous how many of our auto accident casualites have been as a result of those who cannot refrain from driving under some kind of influence, and that they can be out and in a car in very little time. In fact, they can be out and driving the next week. For those repeat offenders, I have no problem in throwing them in jail until their trial date, no bail as they cannot stay out of a car often in direct contempt of a suspension or cancellation of driver’s license and have shown that they will still drive drunk. They are a danger to everyone.</p>
<p>But an underage kid, yes, he is legally a minor in most every way, who stupidly drinks and drives, has a clean record, to throw him into jail for 30 days??? I would fight that one tooth and nail. Yes, I think it is too severe, and NC is crazy to have something like that on the books. I’m a parent who soooo against drinking and driving, and a penalty like that would force me to fight the courts. You want the parents on YOUR SIDE in the law, and anytime you get parents, families who have to fight the law because they truly believe the consequences are too high for an offense you have a problem. The OP is being honest about how he feels, trying to straddle the line of supporting the law and yet having to pay, dearly, I might add in funds and in sentiment to get the sentence reduced. That is what the court system forces family to do when sentences are simply to harsh for a family to swallow. The long term consequences of a jail sentence can really be an issue for a kid, and yes, he is a kid. They have no business, IMO, treating him as an adult. This kids is at very low risk, practically zero that he is going to be driving ANY car, any time soon, so the danger element is not in play which is what jail in part is for.</p>
<p>I think the OP is being very restrained and trying to be very fair about this. But I’ll say it right out. I’d fight this thing with a vengeance. The other thing is, if the kid were a repeat offender, savvy as to how the law worked, he might even get off, because simply refusing to take the breathalyzer and insisting on an attorney to come and advise him would have cut chances of a conviction to a much lower amount. If you know the system, you can truly beat it may times, and Laura’s law is to try to to patch some of those leaks with some mandatory rules so the DA cannot easily deal and the judge can’t use judgement. For repeats, I think that is fine and there is good reason to do this. To have practically 30 days of JAIL time for a first time offender who is a minor, and let’s face it, has done something that probably lot of kids were doing on prom night and holding this up as an example, no, I don’t buy it. It’s too harsh. That some folks will feel that it’s fair is not the issue. I’ll bet that the vast majority of parents who have a kid in that situation will fight this thing as the OP is doing which pits the parent against the very causes that need their support.</p>
<p>Though it’s been some years, I still cannot even go into details of what I went through with my kids situation, and if things had been different, I would have been on the side of those trying to stem this tide, but the when they are out for blood from your kid, few parents, I could not, just let them do it… The way our adversary law system works, the DA is after the max for your kid. Throwing your hands up and cooperating means a very good chance of getting a horrible sentence that only those who don’t have the money for a good attorney. That we were able and lucky enough to get one, plus the fact that in future offenses, yes my kids got in trouble for a number of times, they and we knew the system, they pretty much got off scott free in terms of the courts while those poor kids whose families did not know what hit them or felt they wanted to support the courts were hung out to dry. That’s not the way it should be working. </p>
<p>If you get caught drinking and driving, and you know you were drinking, refuse to take the breathalyzer, the balance/coord tests, anything and just ask for your attorney. You’ll lose your license, but even then if you petition immediately, you have a shot of getting it, but if you cooperate you will not only also lose your license, but could get jail time and a criminal record as well that may not be removable ever. Just by knowing the law and the ins and outs, even in NC you can walk out of such charges–I have a close friend who is a criminal attorney who practices in NC and in NY, and though this is not her area, she has had to defend family members who got so caught. Her kids and family all know exactly what to do and not to do if they get into any trouble or potential trouble with the law, and yes, it makes all the difference in the world in the consequences if you know how to act. That, not the crime, itself, is what can dictate the circumstances.</p>
<p>So,no, I do not believe for one minute that 30 days in jail along with all of the other penalties and fines is a a fair sentence for a 17 year old with an otherwise clean record, and few parents I know would support what this consequence is. If a fair consequence, one that most parents would support were the sentence, the parents would be all on board and even adding their own stuff. When a penalty is far more than MOST , not all, and not those whose loved one isn’t involved, will support, then the whole impact is diminished because of the defense against the penalty requires an all out war and bitter feelings. If they made the kid work in rehab center all summer, clean port a potties, clean the drunk wagons, clean the police cars, ANYTHING like that the parents would be there with banners cheering the system, the police, everything. Instead this is an armed camp and the one who wins out is the danged criminal attorney on the case who as he shakes his head tells you all of these dire possibilities that is enrichening that profession. When it is a case of celebration for a profession that the laws are so harsh that MOST normal families that can, will fight the consequecnces, something is wrong. </p>
<p>So regardless of what people who are not involved think, in cases like this, if the families who tend to find themselves in the situation do not tend to find themselves supporting the consequences and in fact are paying large sums to fight it, the law is not doing what it should. It is making an enemy out of the police, the courts, the system. It is literally doing this as you have look at that way to fight the battle out. </p>
<p>So I disgree with you fully on this one. For a repeat offender, the laws should be mandatory and harsh. For a first time offender, I would cut slack, especially for something that so many kids and people are doing. I hardly know anyone who burglarizes house, I know many, many, many who have driven under the influence, some delibrately doing so, taking the chance. In this, case the kid probalby never even though about it. High on hormones, peer pressure, gala time event, not to mention the booze itself, he wasn’t thinking clearly, and had no idea what the law specifically held for him. I’ll bet he had no idea he could do actual hard time for this sort of thing. Yes, I am excusing it for the first time in terms of doing jail time. Consequences–I can think of many. And I don’t think the poor kid whose family can’t afford the attorney should be facing this either. Shame on the whole system for putting whole families and young people in a position where they are not likely to support it!</p>
<p>Disagree. That argument assumes first time offender equals first time caught. This virtually never true. Throw the book at all drunk drivers!</p>