Posted by jbman on Dec 20 2007 1:24AM - I dont drink alcohol , But come on ,This has to be the most idiotic law our attorney general has come up with yet. How much will this cost us tax payers ? filling up the jails with these people failing their twice daily breathalizers. Dumb!

---

Posted by confused on Dec 20 2007 8:50AM - I dont understand this, considering your 2nd I believe you cant drive for a year . How are these poeple getting back and forth from these tests ,and just how much 3.00 gas is it going to take someone twice a day c'mon. I dont suppose the sheriff will be providing any transportation of any kind. I think this will be affective , but I didn't know that it is illegal to even drink alcohol after being convicted of a DUI.

---

Posted by kr on Dec 21 2007 10:52AM - everyone is so conserned about there tax money. But it does not seem to effect anyone that gets killed by a drunk drive just think how many lives that this could save. and just because you cannot drive for a certain amount of time after you get a DUI does that me that you won't um NO! these people that keep on doing this they know what the charge can be if they get caught so maybe next time know they will think about it. I think this is great just like i think the need to raise the traffic fines in North Dakota also

---

Posted by AD on Dec 21 2007 11:08AM - jbman- Our AG didnt come up with this one. This program has been in use in South Dakota for some time now and their jails havent been filled up as a result of mandatory breath testing. They have reported a less than 1% failure rate among those requried to submit to testing and even less of them repeated the failure after being tossed in the clink and when subsequently tested. Its been a good deterent there and can be here if given the chance. This has already been done in individual cases in ND by court order, but now is on the road to being a more efficient and effective standard of doing business. The cost is minimal and bore mostly by the defendants as they will be required to pay a dollar per test.

confused-This story is a little confusing as written, but there are cases where these folks still will have their licenses, as these folks will have yet to be convicted. This requirement will be a Bond requirement...meaning they have been arrested but the case is not yet disposed. The judge can set a condition of bond/release including not drinking alcohol. So no technically its not a crime for someone over 21 to drink after a conviction like you said. But it IS a crime to disobey a court order. If a person fails to live up to the terms of their bond orders they can be sent back to jail. This instance makes that result rather immediate should the offender have a measurable ammount of alcohol. Im less than worried about how much gas money or how much of a burden an offender will suffer as a result of this requirement. They can use the money they would have spent on another six pack to make up the difference. Can't legally drive to the sheriffs office due to a previous suspension/revokation? Call a cab, take a bus, ride a bike, call a freind, hitchhike, take a skateboard, ride rollerskates, take a scooter, walk, run, skip...dont care! Dont drink and drive they dont have to worry about it...since when should it be the sheriff's responsibilty to ensure you keep your own butt out of jail by obeying the court!?!

---