WV Civil Rights Lawyer

Police Misconduct, Civil Rights Law

Understanding the law of West Virginia Domestic Violence Petitions

So, we end up doing a lot of domestic violence protective order litigation in both Greenbrier and Monroe County, WV.  This past week has to have been one of the craziest weeks on record, with some of the most insane, bizarre, and malicious, human behavior I’ve encountered in the past decade or so…..

As I sat trying to negotiate a resolution with one particular pro se (unrepresented by a lawyer) party a couple of days ago, it became apparent to me that people don’t know what the “F” they are doing….

  1.  Domestic Violence is bad, of course, but what is it, technically?

The West Virginia Legislature has adopted a civil remedy where victims of domestic violence can obtain what is essentially a restraining order.  So what is “domestic violence” according to this law?

The Prevention and Treatment of Domestic Violence Act, West Virginia Code §§ 48-27-101 et seq., defines “domestic violence” or “abuse” as specific acts between family or household members that involve:

1. Attempting to cause or intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing physical harm to another with or without dangerous or deadly weapons;

2. Placing another in reasonable apprehension of physical harm;

3. Creating fear of physical harm by harassment, stalking, psychological abuse or threatening acts;

4. Committing either sexual assault or sexual abuse as those terms are defined in articles eight-b [§§ 61- 8B-1 et seq.] and eight-d [§§ 61-8D-1 et seq.], chapter sixty-one of this code, and;

5. Holding, confining, detaining or abducting another person against their will. W. Va. Code § 48-27-202.

The statutory definition of domestic violence is narrower than the commonly accepted definition of domestic violence because it primarily defines domestic violence as acts of physical violence, and only includes psychological abuse when it creates fear of physical harm. Although psychological abuse may not meet the statutory definition of domestic violence by itself, this type of abuse may be relevant to a proceeding involving domestic violence because it provides evidence of an abuser’s motive, intent, or plan. Additionally, evidence of psychological abuse may provide insight into the actions of both the abuser and the victim.

In addition to the definitions set forth in West Virginia Code § 48-27- 202, the West Virginia Legislature has criminalized acts of domestic assault and domestic battery by the enactment of West Virginia Code § 61-2-28. The distinction between domestic assault or battery and non-domestic assault or battery is that the domestic abuse must occur between family or household members. The Legislature has also established enhanced penalties for subsequent domestic assault and battery convictions. The enhanced penalties demonstrate that the Legislature both recognizes the repetitive nature of domestic violence and punishes it accordingly.

Providing further protection for domestic violence victims, West Virginia Code § 61-2-9a criminalizes stalking, harassment, and threats. As with domestic assault and battery, this code section establishes enhanced penalties for subsequent convictions. It also authorizes a court to issue a restraining order for a period of up to ten years upon conviction. When a defendant is charged with either harassment or stalking, it is a condition of a bond that the defendant shall have no contact with the victim. Although this code section could be applied to situations that do not involve domestic violence, this code section provides meaningful protection for domestic violence victims because it criminalizes behavior typically identified as domestic violence.

 

Family Court Judges are taught the following, in addition to the actual wording of the statute:

Although the motive for domestic violence commonly involves domination and control, domestic violence perpetrators employ various methods to achieve that purpose.4 Common psychological tactics include emotional abuse, such as control over finances, repeated and degrading insults, and threats. An abuser is often extremely jealous or possessive, and may isolate a victim from friends, family and other relationships. As another psychological tactic, an abuser may threaten to gain full custody of children. An abuser may also throw things, punch walls or hurt pets.

In addition to emotional abuse, an abuser may push, shove, shake or grab a victim. Other forms of physical abuse include: slapping, kicking, biting or twisting arms, legs or fingers. An abuser may choke, strangle or smother a victim. An abuser may also threaten a victim with a weapon, such as a knife or a gun, and may commit assault with a weapon. Rape or other forced sexual contact is yet one more type of abuse. Physical acts of domestic violence may constitute criminal behaviors, and should not be minimized or tolerated because they are directed against family members.

See 2012 Domestic Violence Judicial Handbook.

 

2.   Some background on “domestic violence protective orders”

Although the motive for domestic violence commonly involves domination and control, domestic violence perpetrators employ various methods to achieve that purpose.4 Common psychological tactics include emotional abuse, such as control over finances, repeated and degrading insults, and threats. An abuser is often extremely jealous or possessive, and may isolate a victim from friends, family and other relationships. As another psychological tactic, an abuser may threaten to gain full custody of children. An abuser may also throw things, punch walls or hurt pets.

In addition to emotional abuse, an abuser may push, shove, shake or grab a victim. Other forms of physical abuse include: slapping, kicking, biting or twisting arms, legs or fingers. An abuser may choke, strangle or smother a victim. An abuser may also threaten a victim with a weapon, such as a knife or a gun, and may commit assault with a weapon. Rape or other forced sexual contact is yet one more type of abuse. Physical acts of domestic violence may constitute criminal behaviors, and should not be minimized or tolerated because they are directed against family members.

 

A protective order proceeding has the added advantage of a lower burden of proof. Often, there are no witnesses to domestic violence other than the abuser and the victim, and the evidence may not meet the criminal standard of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt.

Although protective order proceedings provide a legal remedy for domestic violence victims, some professionals involved in the proceedings may question their efficacy.48 In a study examining victims’ strategies to combat domestic violence, the results indicated that 30% of the victims who obtained an initial ex parte protective order did not appear at the final hearing.49 Examining the reasons for this occurrence, it was noted that law enforcement failed to serve a petition in 50% of the cases, which in turn either delayed or prevented the entry of a final protective order. Also, petitioners did not attend a final hearing because of conflicts with employment or lack of childcare. A lack of legal representation was an additional reason that victims did not complete the process. Certainly, these institutional barriers must be addressed to increase the effectiveness of protective orders.

The study also indicated that the ex parte orders, in some cases, were sufficient to meet the victims’ needs. Specifically, victims noted that the ex parte order stopped the violence, allowed the victim to separate, or induced the abuser to seek counseling. Based upon these interviews, it was concluded that the failure to obtain a final protective order does not indicate “that the advocate has failed or the woman has been passive in the face of abuse.”50 Rather, protective orders, including ex parte orders, provide an effective legal remedy that can be tailored to meet the needs of domestic violence victims.

 

3.  There must be a “family or household member” relationship

The domestic violence protections and remedies under Chapter 48, Article 27 are tied to occurrences of violence or abuse between “family or household members” as that term is defined under this Act. The only time a proceeding under this Act may involve parties other than “family or household members” is when the petitioner is seeking protection as one who reported or witnessed domesticviolence. See W. Va. Code §§ 48-27-305(3); 48-27-504.

As provided in West Virginia Code § 48-27-204, “family or household members” means persons who:

(1) Are or were married to each other;(2) Are or were living together as spouses;
(3) Are or were sexual or intimate partners;
(4) Are or were dating: Provided, That a casual acquaintance or ordinary fraternization between persons in a business or social context does not establish a dating relationship;
(5) Are or were residing together in the same household;
(6) Have a child in common regardless of whether they have ever married or lived together;
(7) Have the following relationships to another person: (A) Parent; (B) Stepparent; (C) Brother or sister; (D) Half-brother or half-sister; (E) Stepbrother or stepsister; (F) Father-in-law or mother-in-law; (G) Stepfather-in-law or stepmother-in-law; (H) Child or stepchild; (I) Daughter-in-law or son-in-law; (J) Stepdaughter-in-law or stepson-in-law; (K) Grandparent; (L) Stepgrandparent; (M) Aunt, aunt-in-law or stepaunt; (N) Uncle, uncle-in-law or stepuncle; (O) Niece or nephew; (P) First or second cousin; or
(8) Have the relationships set forth in paragraphs (A) through (P), subdivision (7) of this section to a family or household member, as defined in subdivisions (1) through (6), of this section.

The length of this provision is the first indication that the class of persons covered by the term “family or household members” is fairly broad. The statutory definition can be generally broken down into three categories of covered persons. Determinations as to who falls within either of the first two categories is straightforward in most cases. More careful analysis is generally needed if the determination involves the third category of covered persons.

The first category, the “partner” relationships described in subsections (1) through (6) of the statute, encompass parties who are or were — married; living together (whether in a spousal relationship or simply residing in the same household); sexual partners; dating; or parents of a child. Second, the “kinship” categories listed in subsections (7)(A) through (P), cover many of the family connections by blood or marriage. The third category, the subsection (8) “tie-in” provision, brings two parties within the “family or household member” class as long as one party has a “kinship” relationship [under subsection (7)(A)-(P)] with someone who has or had a “partner” relationship [under subsections (1)-(6)] with the other party.

See 2012 Domestic Violence Judicial Handbook.

 

4.  The Logistics

Circuit courts, family courts and magistrate courts have concurrent jurisdiction over domestic violence proceedings. W. Va. Code § 48- 27-301; Rule 25, RDVCP. Emergency proceedings upon the filing of a petition for a protective order are held before a magistrate. W. Va. Code § 48-27-203.

Final hearings, following the entry of an emergency protective order by a magistrate, are typically heard before a family court judge. W. Va. Code § 48-27-205. However, circuit court judges may assist family court judges in the disposition of domestic violence caseloads by conducting protective order proceedings. Rule 25, RDVCP.

Appellate jurisdiction from a magistrate’s denial of an emergency protective order lies in the family court; and appeals from family court

 

5.  The Timeline

A petitioner denied a DVPO may appeal to the family court. The petition for appeal must be filed no later than five days following the denial, and must be heard by the family court within ten days from the date the appeal was filed. W. Va. Code § 48-27-510(a); Rule 18(a), RDVCP.

 

If the Temporary DVPO is granted, a final hearing before the family court must be scheduled to take place no later than ten days following the entry of the Temporary DVPO. W. Va. Code § 48-27-402(e).

Any party may file a petition for appeal following the grant or denial of a DVPO at the final hearing in Family Court. The petition must be filed within ten days following the decision of the family court. Rule 19(a), RDVCP. The circuit court is required to hear the appeal within ten days following the filing of the petition. W. Va. Code § 48-27-510(b) and (c); Rule 19(a), RDVCP.

 

6.  Never walk into court without a lawyer.  Period.  Especially not when the words “domestic violence” are in the subject line of the case…..

 

 

August 2, 2019 Posted by | Domestic Violence, Legislation, West Virginia Gun Laws | Leave a comment

Our new mission: South Carolina man wrongfully imprisoned for murder from 1977 through 2016

We are pleased to have been hired to represent a man named James McClurkin.  James was convicted of murder in 1977.  In late 2016, law enforcement appeared at his parole hearing and testified that the old murder case was reopened, and that James was innocent.  James was released.  He was 63 years old, and had been in South Carolina prisons since the age of 18.

IMG_6230.JPEG

South Carolina is one of the states which does not provide compensation to innocent people who are wrongfully imprisoned and then later exonerated.  Hopefully that legislation can soon be enacted in South Carolina.  But until that happens, we are working hard to compensate Mr. McClurkin for the terrible injustice which occurred in his case.

Here are some of the media accounts of his release from prison:

Chester man paroled after 39 years for crime he denies. Were wrong men convicted?

Judge says Chester men must go to S.C. Supreme Court to seek exoneration for murder

‘I am free’: Chester man in prison 43 years goes home, still hoping to be exonerated

‘The air. It smells different. Like freedom.’ Man freed after 39 years in prison for murder police now say he didn’t commit

The sheriff said he didn’t do it and he was released from prison but stigma impossible to shake.

James McClurkin and his co-defendant were convicted of the 1973 murder of laundromat attendant Claude Killian.  James, and his co-defendant Ray Charles Degraffenreid, both African Americans, were convicted under the brutal 1970’s Chester County, South Carolina justice system, which involved, among other things, a presiding trial judge who was known for using the “N word” while on the bench.

The real murderer actually confessed in 1992, which was corroborated by the fact that he was convicted of a similar murder, and by the fact that he had no alibi on the night of the murder.  However, the justice system once again failed James, and he was sent back to prison for another 25 years. Now law enforcement reopened the case, and have concluded that the real murderer was telling the truth.  How did this occur?  Well, among other issues, the mother of the real murderer was apparently the maid of the prosecutor who prosecuted James and Ray Degraffenreid.

This sounds like a novel, but it’s not.  It’s real, and it was only uncovered because a courageous new sheriff was willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt, and double check an old case.  Follow along as we jump into this case and work to reverse the wheels of justice.

IF YOU LIVE IN SOUTH CAROLINA, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR POLITICIANS AND EXPRESS YOUR SUPPORT IN PLACING THESE CASES BEFORE THE GOVERNOR OF SOUTH CAROLINA.  BOTH JAMES MCCLURKIN AND RAY CHARLES DEGRAFFENREID SHOULD BE PARDONED BY THE GOVERNOR OF SOUTH CAROLINA.

You can donate in order to assist with James McClurkin’s living expenses through the following site:

https://www.youcaring.com/jamesmcclurkin-815274

June 22, 2018 Posted by | Civil Liability, Corruption, John H. Bryan, Judges, Judicial Misconduct, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Legislation, McClurkin Case, Media Coverage, Murder, Police, Police Misconduct, Prosecutors, Trials, Wrongful Imprisonment | Leave a comment

The Federal Officer Removal Statute 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1)

Here is a recent filing in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.  It has to be one of the oddest things I have ever done in the realm of criminal defense.  Most lawyers know that a civil case in state court can be removed by the defendant(s) in certain circumstances.  In fact, most plaintiffs lawyers in West Virginia, usually myself included, do everything they can to avoid such a scenario.  But did you know that in certain instances, state criminal prosecutions can be removed to federal court?  Well it’s true.  Similar to being a plaintiff in the 4th Circuit, usually it would be a really bad idea to handle a criminal case in federal court rather than in state court.  Defendants almost always get hammered in federal criminal prosecutions.  But conceivably there are situations where you do want to be in federal court – especially one in which state court officials (e.g., prosecutors/magistrate judges) have formed a lynch mob and are going after your client.

28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1) is known as the federal officer removal statute, and allows state court cases of almost any sort to be removed (forcibly) to federal court.  It is usually used in civil cases. For instance, if you were to try to sue an FBI agent in state court, it would quickly make its way to federal court using this removal statute, and it would be there about 5 seconds before being dismissed.  But 1442(a)(1) also allows for state criminal prosecutions to be removed.  It has rarely been used, mostly because scenarios which would invoke it rarely occur.  It requires that a federal officer be charged with a crime in state court, and that he or she have a colorable federal defense (usually federal immunity) to the charge.

In our scenario, my client does indeed have a colorable federal defense – LEOSA (Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act).  Passed in 2004, it allows current or required qualified law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons notwithstanding any state or local laws to the contrary.  My client is a federal law enforcement officer and was charged with carrying a concealed weapon. The arresting state cop and the state prosecutors have claimed complete ignorance of the federal law.  And since it is a misdemeanor, it has been in the West Virginia magistrate court system, which in this case at least, equaled complete ignorance and disregard for federal law.  Using 1442(a)(1) I was able to file a Notice of Removal in federal court, which barring a remand by the federal judge, will completely divest the state courts from jurisdiction over the prosecution.

Between the civil lawsuit we filed over this, and the protracted criminal litigation (which is on its way to a state record for volume of misdemeanor litigation) it is mind numbing that state prosecutors and law enforcement would dedicate so many resources and expenses in order to secure a misdemeanor conviction on one person.  Beware, cross your local authorities and you could be next.

View this document on Scribd

December 23, 2010 Posted by | Concealed Weapons, DOJ, John H. Bryan, Judges, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Legislation, Police Misconduct, Prosecutors | 2 Comments

But what about the felony sentencing in WV?

As I was writing the post yesterday about the downward trend in West Virginia misdemeanor sentencing, I was thinking, well what about felony sentencing?  The same principles apply.  Why fill up our prisons – at our cost – for property crimes and other non-violent offenders.  What’s the point?  With all the federal civil rights requirements, we have to provide inmates with medical care, etc.  With the perpetrators in prison, the victims aren’t getting any restitution anyways.  It’s a lose-lose-lose situation.

Today the Register-Herald had just such an article on this topic, titled “WVU examining prison sentencing: Researchers looking at ways to ease overcrowding in jails.”  It quoted senators Kessler and Chafin, both of whom are lawyers:

Back when he was handling criminal law, Chafin recalled how a defendant in court for a property crime likely could have avoided a prison stretch.

But when the victim and his family appeared in court, the sitting judge clearly was moved and came down hard on the defendant, the senator said.

“First thing you know, the guy’s locked up one to 10 and really didn’t need to go,” Chafin said.

Kessler discussed the increase of punishments for many of West Virginia’s criminal statutes:

Within the past decade, Kessler pointed out afterward, the Legislature has raised penalties on two to three dozen statutes, often in response to a sensational crime given voluminous media attention.

“It seems that we do it piecemeal often times in knee-jerk reaction to some type of crime that happens in our communities that gets a lot of headlines,” he said.

“So we go out and double the penalties on those.”

Basically, WVU will be conducting research, and in the end, hopefully someone in the state legislature will be promoting reform with the goal of reducing the state prison population.  Mainly this can be done through the decrease of penalty ranges for common property-type crimes, and the promotion and creation of other forms of alternative sentencing.  But in the end, we will always have the problem of circuit judges facing reelection, and the goal of reducing prison population will never be an election-winner.  Maybe we should also reform the selection procedures for circuit judges, and take politics out of the equation.

– John H. Bryan, West Virginia Attorney

September 17, 2009 Posted by | Legislation, Sentencing | Leave a comment

Proposed West Virginia DUI legislation before Judiciary Committee

Today the Senate Judiciary Committee of the West Virginia Legislature is hearing evidence on proposed legislation that would reign in the WV Division of Motor Vehicles and their rampant disregard for the due process of rights of those accused of DUI in West Virginia.  The Charleston Gazette had an article this morning on the hearings.  In West Virginia, DUI charges take two different routes: a criminal action against the defendant personally, and then a civil action against the accused’ driver’s license.  In these civil hearings, there is a notorious lack of fairness and due process rights accorded to the driver.  The proposed legislation attempts to create more fairness in the process.  Though extremely late notice was given regarding today’s hearing, several criminal defense attorneys from around the state who defend DUI’s in West Virginia, have been invited to speak to the committee.  Let’s wish them luck and encourage the Legislature to enact this legislation.  

We should always err on the side of freedom and liberty – and never on the side of tyranny.  Besides, less government is always better….

 – John H. Bryan, West Virginia Attorney.

March 26, 2009 Posted by | DUI, Legislation | 4 Comments

Important Supreme Court Decision

On Friday, the US Supreme Court settled an argument that had been raging for decades: does the 2nd amendment apply to individuals, or does it apply to “well regulated militia’s”? Thankfully, the Supreme Court got it right this time. West Virginians know this better than anyone else: you can’t depend on the police to wake up, take a shower, and drive thirty minutes to your house to protect you from danger. You have to be able to protect yourself and your family.

What still makes me sick, is that some guy (or gal) convicted of some stupid non-violent felony that has nothing to do with guns, will never be able to own a gun. What about his children? Should they be at the mercy of some armed intruder who is aware of the fact that they cannot protect themselves? Should they be required to die because some bleeding-heart know-it-all is anti-gun?

For a great analysis of this recent Supreme Court decision, take a look at this post from the South Carolina Criminal Defense Blog, by Bobby Frederick.

– John H. Bryan, West Virginia Attorney.

June 30, 2008 Posted by | Legislation, Self Defense | Leave a comment

New West Virginia DUI Law Effective June 6, 2008

I reported on the new West Virginia DUI statute in a previous post, which can be found here. I previously reported that the effective date would be June 1, 2008. From what I have heard from other attorneys, and from the WV Supreme Court, the effective date will actually be June 6, 2008.

This means that if you get arrested for DUI on or after June 6, 2008, then the new law will govern your case.

– John H. Bryan, West Virginia Attorney.

June 10, 2008 Posted by | DUI, Legislation, Vehicular Crimes | Leave a comment

Mercer County Teacher Charged With Sexual Abuse- Illustrates Abuse of the Law

From the Charleston Daily Mail:

A Montcalm High School teacher accused of having a relationship with a student faces sexual abuse and abduction charges.

State Police First Sgt. Gary Tincher says 30-year-old Christi Lee Williams was arrested in late April.

Williams remains free on bond after being charged with sexual abuse by a parent, custodian and guardian and abduction of a student within 1,000 feet of a school.

Tincher says Williams is accused of having a relationship with a 16-year-old male student who allegedly left school property with her.

Tincher says the teacher has been suspended from her job.

What is the deal with young, attractive teachers across the country having these sexual relationships with young boys? I can’t remember hearing anything like this when I was in high school – other than in a Van Halen song.

Let’s look at the charges: First, abduction of a student within 1,000 feet of a school. Okay, that charge is garbage. The kid was 16 – old enough to drive, and actually 16 is the age of consent. The allegations are that he went willingly. Prosecutors and legislators can make up whatever law and charges they want, but the fact is that there was no abduction. This is just a garbage charge to help them get a plea.

Secondly, sexual abuse by a parent guardian or custodian. This is the most abused and misused charge on the books. The reason is this: in almost every situation, like it or not, the legal age of consent in West Virginia is 16 years old. That means that ignoring relationships, this 16 year old kid can have sexual relations with whomever he wants. However, if there is a relationship, then all of a sudden the other party goes to prison for 10 to 20 years. That’s right, that is the punishment for this charge (something that you are not allowed to tell the jury). So, if the prosecutor alleges the other party is a babysitter, teacher, whatever – even if the kid is 16 or 17 and has his own car and drives all over the place, it then becomes punishable by 10 to 20 years. This is an abuse of the law. The charge was meant to cover awful situations where parents or actual guardians abuse children under their care. The problem is that the statute was written much to broadly, thus allowing police and prosectors to abuse it. For instance, this woman is facing 10 to 20 on that charge. Under the statute, technically, she can be convicted on it. The jury never gets to know that she will get 10 to 20. They will assume she will get probation, or maybe 6 months or a year. She will get convicted on the charge, despite the unfairness of it. The end result is, that her lawyer will most likely advise her not to take the chance of going to trial, and to accept the plea offer of misdemeanor battery with a sexual motivation, or something like that, which will put her in jail for a year and make her a registered sex offender for life.

Read the full article here.

– John H. Bryan, West Virginia Attorney.

May 7, 2008 Posted by | Children, Juries, Legislation, Plea Agreements, Police, Prosecutors, Sex Crimes, Sex Offender Registration | 2 Comments

Manchin Signs “Castle Doctrine” Bill

From the Register-Herald today, the full article for which can be found here.

West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin signed the “Castle Doctrine” bill, which provides that residents may use deadly force to repel an intruder or avert a felony crime in the making on one’s property, and it allows such actions to be used as a defense in potential civil litigation.

The name “Castle Doctrine” and the basic theory is the product of a medieval English custom that held a man’s house is his castle, and the wind, but not the king, may enter.

Manchin stated that “Every person’s home is a castle, and every person’s family member is a royal family member.” Senate Majority Whip Billy Wayne Bailey, D-Wyoming, said he considered the measure long overdue.

“It’s part of our culture,” he said. “We’re just codifying in law what is the culture of West Virginia, that a person has a right to defend family and property, even with deadly force. That’s part of culture, without being sued and dragged off to prison. We did quite well on this.”

Manchin agreed, saying, “I think we’ve always felt that. We just now made it legal.”

– John H. Bryan, West Virginia Attorney.

April 11, 2008 Posted by | Legislation, Self Defense | Leave a comment

Change in WV DUI Laws, Effective June 1

From the Register-Herald:

Drunk drivers with .15+ BAC to face harsher penalties June 1

Law also erases mandatory 24-hour lockup, can reduce license suspension to 15 days

By Mannix Porterfield
Register-Herald Reporter

A year-long movement to punish drunken motorists with a blood alcohol content of .15 or higher with harsher penalties and encourage others to use an Interlock before they can start a vehicle becomes law in June.

Gov. Joe Manchin made it official Tuesday by signing SB535, the result of an intense research and lobbying effort by Mothers Against Drunk Drivers in West Virginia.

With West Virginia’s passage of the revised DUI statute, only 11 states are without a law that creates the “aggravated” crime of operating a motor vehicle with a BAC of .15 or higher.

Another feature allows first-time offenders blowing a BAC of less than that level to have their licenses reinstated in 15 days, in lieu of the standard 30-day suspension, provided they install an Interlock, a device that prevents an ignition from starting if alcohol is detected when the driver blows into it.

A third element erases the mandatory 24-hour lockup for those with a BAC under .15, thus saving cities and counties some money on inmates sent to regional jails.

“We are very happy to see this finally come to fruition,” MADD’s state director, Donna Hawkins, said Tuesday after Manchin’s decision was announced.

“Very much so. I think it’s going to save lives. It’s definitely going to be a very positive law for West Virginia.”

In the House of Delegates, all provisions were retained, except for one in the Senate version that called for mandatory BAC tests on suspected drunken drivers in accidents that result in deaths or serious injuries.

Sen. Dan Foster, D-Kanawha, a Charleston surgeon and the chief sponsor of the Senate version, had no difficulties accepting this single change in his proposal.

For aggravated DUI, the mandatory penalty calls for two days to six months in jail. Hawkins said her group wanted to focus on this key provision in going after motorists with higher blood alcohol levels since they are responsible for the most carnage.

Two years ago, the most recent one for which statistics are available, drunken drivers caused 129 deaths and were blamed in accidents causing 2,600 non-fatal injuries.

Hawkins said the movement led chiefly by MADD began across the nation about a decade ago to crack down on motorists in an aggravated DUI category.

For most of last year, Hawkins personally led a series of meetings as director of an ad hoc committee of lawmakers, prosecutors, police officials and the Division of Motor Vehicles, working in tandem with a legislative interims panel.

“There were a lot of meetings, a lot of hours,” she said.

MADD was a chief proponent in lowering the BAC from the old standard of .10 to .08 to be declared intoxicated.

Manchin plans to conduct a ceremony April 10 with MADD officials, including its national director, Glynn Birch, and Hawkins.

In advance of the bill formally becoming law, Hawkins plans to tour the state to meet with law enforcement and DMV officials, raising public awareness about it and demonstrating how the Interlocks work.

“We’re going into different communities and talk about this new law and what it’s going to do,” she said.

— E-mail: mannix@register-herald.com

April 2, 2008 Posted by | DUI, Legislation, Vehicular Crimes | 3 Comments