Texas County Will Use Twitter To Publish Drunk Drivers' Names

alphadogg contributes this snippet from Network World: "If you get busted for drunk driving in Montgomery County, Texas, this holiday season, your neighbors may hear about it on Twitter. That's because the local district attorney's office has decided to publish the names of those charged with driving while intoxicated between Christmas and New Year's Eve. County Vehicular Crimes Prosecutor Warren Diepraam came up with the idea as a way of discouraging residents from getting behind the wheel while drunk. 'It's not a magic bullet that's going to end DWIs, but it's something to make people think twice before they get behind the wheel of a car and drive while they're intoxicated,' he said."

Comments

Oh.

[Adambomb]

And how will they compensate anyone wrongfully put on that feed for the damage to their reputation? The Court of Public Opinion can be brutal about these things, especially when they work in HR somewhere..

Re:Oh.

[Suki I]

And how will they compensate anyone wrongfully put on that feed for the damage to their reputation? The Court of Public Opinion can be brutal about these things, especially when they work in HR somewhere..

They typically ignore their own mistakes and make others pay for them.

Re:Oh.

[Jesus_666]

Well, that's the potential offenders' own fault. They really shouldn't have been suspicious in Texas.

Re:Oh.

[slarrg]

In a community of six million people, how many people do you think share the same name? I can just imagine someone in my community reading my name on this Twitter page and thinking it was me rather than one of the three other people I know about with the same name. What a mess.

Worse, imagine getting fired because your clueless boss decided to fire people because their name was on the list and they drive a delivery truck. Even if you later prove that the person was someone sharing your name but living at a different address you're not likely to get your job back in an "at will" employment jurisdiction.

Re:Oh.

[Rich0]

Most likely your boss wouldn't tell you that he fired you because your name was on the list. He'd fire you "because he doesn't need you any longer" or "because times are tough" or whatever. He might not give a reason at all in an at-will state.

So, unless you could somehow prove that your name being on the list was the real reason (maybe he tells somebody this and it gets back to you), good luck doing anything about it.

Ditto for people with photos of them doing stupid things on the web - you're not going to get a call from a future employer saying "well, your interviews went well but we thought that the photo of the tattoo on your butt was a bit tacky" - you'll get a call saying "thanks for interviewing but you were not selected."

Re:Oh.

[DerekLyons]

Unless you're a minor, the fact of your arrest and the charges surrounding it are part of a public record that gets published daily.

In my community the police blotter isn't published daily, but the local paper does print selected excerpts.) In fact, it appears, from your own link, that any portion of the blotter being published [by the police] is scarce. If they are published, it's excerpts by the local media. (My local paper doesn't print names in their blotter excerpts, only in full stories.) Or, in other words, "public record" != "published".
 
Another thing to consider is that a blotter is a formal legal record, a Twitter post isn't.

Re:Oh.

[gothzilla]

I can't imagine a worse punishment than putting a woman's weight on twitter.

"Innocent until proven guilty"

[seifried]

I guess it's gone out of fashion. Sad.

Re:"Innocent until proven guilty"

[CountBrass]

Then that's a failing in the process not the law. If the police are corruptly allowing other cops to get away with breaking the law (often in collusion with the courts*) then it's the corruption that needs to be dealt with. *"But if you ban this highly trained and skilled police officer from driving then he'll lose his job your honour." "In that case this pillar of society who drunkenly mowed down three people in his car is fined $3."

Re:"Innocent until proven guilty"

[ClioCJS]

First off, you can bet cops will have pull to not be published. Second off, you're kind of asinine/assholey {ass-something, perhaps hat...}... What if you're having a diabetic seizure and mistakenly reported as drunk? Later you can't get employed because archive.org has a copy of this tweet that will never go away. Innocent until proven guilty exists for a reason. Punitive dicks like you want to mess up the balance in favor of casting a few innocent people into your safety net. Oh, and in case you think nothing happens to diabiets, eat it: http://delicious.com/clintjcl/diabetics

That's just one example. Rest assured there are more, and there are things we haven't thought of. In many jurisdictions you can be charged without a breathalyzer.

Think things never go wrong with the DUI process? Here's some more links to think about: http://delicious.com/clintjcl/dui. I especially like the forceful catherization of your penis because a breathalyze showed no DUI. But in your world, you'd permanently mar these people, guilty or not. Have fun with your fascist prictatorship.

Re:"Innocent until proven guilty"

[DJRumpy]

Except these people haven't 'mowed down three people'. They haven't committed any other crime than driving under the influence. No children were hurt in the making of this tweet. No damage done. No insurance claims filed. They were simply caught driving under the influence.

People here keep associating these people with murderers, referencing the M.A.D.D. folks, ad-nauseum. The simple truth, is that the only crime here is DUI until it isn't. This isn't pre-cog court. These folks most likely would have gone home, and no one would have been the wiser if they hadn't been pulled over. Were they pulled over for weaving? Perhaps because the cop camps outside of some winery? They are being treated as if they did hit and kill someone, when such a thing hasn't happened. They are being pre-judged due to every drunk driver who happened to cause some accident.

This does nothing more than to prosecute these people in a public court, without a trial.

My sister was killed in a jeep driven by a drunk driver. Did I hate the driver? Yes. Was it totally his fault? No. I later learned that a construction company failed to put up signs warning that the pavement was uneven due to resurfacing. Could he have avoided the accident if he hadn't been drinking? Who knows. I can't claim to know the future, or predict events. I can only judge the facts after they are known. Somehow I doubt this blog presents the facts that are heard in a trial. This blog won't prevent DUI. It simply serves some sick need for people to butt into other peoples business so that they can feel judgmental and holier than thou.

Re:"Innocent until proven guilty"

[DJRumpy]

Alcohol doesn't prevent the ability to handle situations, it impairs them. I think it's a good point to raise. These people were not arrested for DWI, they were arrested for DUI.

The amount they were impaired isn't known other than a blood alcohol count, as it affects each person differently, but they are being judged as if they had just slaughtered someone with a car, which is obviously not the case.

Are they innocent of a crime? No. Do they deserve to be punished in a public court for something far worse? No.

Re:"Innocent until proven guilty"

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time you get in a car you endanger others, drinking or otherwise. Your implying that these people are all guilty of such a crime when it's obvious that all of them are not intoxicated. You would treat them like dangerous criminals.

Re:"Innocent until proven guilty"

[onepoint]

I learned something recently from a police officer. If you get pulled and you are under the influence, Don't take the breathalyzer. it's the safest course of action since they can not prove that you are drunk... you end up on a lesser charge which you can fight in court, but you don't end up with DWI... and the long term associated punishments ( insurance, job risks, social stigma ... ) are a lot less. IANAL so you need to reconfirm that this is valid outside of Florida.

What? No Due Process?

[hedgemage]

I checked the article to be sure, and yep, it says that those CHARGED will have their names published on Twitter. So, even if you are found not guilty, you are going to be publicly named as a DUI offender before you even get a chance to clear your name.
I'm not trying to excuse drunk drivers, but for some reason, its seen as ok to make those charged or convicted of DUIs out to be the scum of the earth, wantonly careening down the roadways, seeking out innocents to mow down, when in fact most people who get DUIs are just ordinary joes who made a bad decision while not in the best state of mind.
The idea that it is somehow ok to humiliate people who are supposedly INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY seems like a prelude to a morality police state.

Terrible Idea

[228e2]

Now, im as against DUI as any sane person, but theres a law about cruel and unusual punishment.

You cant publicly scorn someone for doing Unlawful Deed A and not for B, C and D.

Re:Terrible Idea

[TubeSteak]

You cant publicly scorn someone for doing Unlawful Deed A and not for B, C and D.

Why not? The arrest is a public record.
I, for one, look forward to the day that police put their arrest archives online, in an easily searchable format, with mugshots.
Information wants to be free.

Doubtful

[MindlessAutomata]

This is one of those, "oh, it sounds good and makes me look tough on crime, therefore, it's a good idea" things. Not that it's a bad idea, but it's ineffective. If someone is drunk and things driving is a good idea I kind of doubt they'll be in the state of mind at the time to thing, "oh golly, if I get caught people on Twitter might know!" Not to mention that most people won't even know this is happening in the first place!

This really is just some inane idea some bureaucrat thought up because it makes them look tough on crime and HEY LOOK TWITTER ISN'T THAT COOL. This is just some stunt someone thought up to make it look like they are getting paid for a good reason. The kind of gimmick that appeals to PHBs in corporate settings.

Re:Doubtful

[mpe]

This is one of those, "oh, it sounds good and makes me look tough on crime, therefore, it's a good idea" things. Not that it's a bad idea, but it's ineffective. If someone is drunk and things driving is a good idea I kind of doubt they'll be in the state of mind at the time to thing, "oh golly, if I get caught people on Twitter might know!" Not to mention that most people won't even know this is happening in the first place!

There's also the problem that if the accused has a common name such "naming and shaming" won't be such a good idea anyway.
If they really wanted to be tough here then a conviction would always result in a driving ban and a need to take a driving test after the ban had expired.

How to avoid this

[Anonymous Coward]

Change your name to something longer than 140 characters.

COPS TV show features drunk drivers

[lena_10326]

But the difference is, they blur the faces of those who haven't been found guilty (yet). They are also a news organization with no legal power, but this is a police (military) organization. These police are assuming guilt for anyone merely charged, so I suppose it's natural for them to also apply punishment.

A few years in the future when the police will be scouring the streets performing judgments and executions on the spot, I'm afraid it will be too late for anyone to do anything about our lost rights. By then the court system will be a rarely used dusty relic of the past.

Good idea

[91degrees]

Because we all check twitter feeds containing nothing but hundreds of random names on the off-chance that someone we know has been drink driving.

Re:What? No Due Process?

[ShooterNeo]

What if it was one of those bullshit cases where you were taking a nap in the back of your own car and the keys were in the ignition? (to run the AC/heat or the stereo)

What if you failed the field sobriety test, but demanded a blood test, which came back clean. (but the prosecutor decided to charge you anyway...that's perfectly legal in Texas)

Heck, in Texas, you can be charged with a crime when exculpatory evidence proving that you did not commit the crime exists. The prosecutor does not have any legal obligation to mention this evidence in the paperwork used to formally charge a person.

That's not the law though is it.

[CountBrass]

That's not the law though is it and the police have proved many times they're not above faking the evidence. The police and the CPS or DA (or local equivalent) are biased, they have an incentive to get convictions, so I certainly wouldn't want them acting as judge as well.

Re:That's not the law though is it.

[mpe]

That's not the law though is it and the police have proved many times they're not above faking the evidence. The police and the CPS or DA (or local equivalent) are biased, they have an incentive to get convictions,

In some cases it appears to have been more "important" to convict someone than to find the "right" person. On the police side the incentive may be more to arrest as many people as possible.

Re:What? No Due Process?

[enjo13]

I agree with you that this sort of publication of charges instead of convictions sucks.

However, your characterization of drunk drivers is just wrong. They ARE incredibly dangerous. They ARE reckless, and while they may not intentionally be seeking out people to mow down, they are showing a tremendous disregard for those same people.

Buying Chocolate when you wanted Strawberry is a bad decision. Getting behind the wheel while drunk shows a fundamental contempt for human life.

Attempting to trivialize it in the way you have is honestly quite disturbing.

The Denton Texas Police Department Already does

[mark076h]

The Denton Texas Police Department already does this, you can follow them on twitter here http://twitter.com/DentonPolicE

Re:What? No Due Process?

[minderaser]

I hate to break it to YOU but ...

You're a fucking moron. There are no bags. Where did you get that idea? YOU obviously have NO clue.
You are a pinched evil bitter moron.

(yes, look at me, I know how to properly use apostrophes)

it's just an electronic perp walk

[YesIAmAScript]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perp_walk

I'm not really a fan of perp walks, but they've been present in US society for 100 years haven't yet pushed us into a morality police state.

Re:What? No Due Process?

[mpe]

I hate to break it to you, but if you blow into the bag multiple times, then get taken back to the machine in the station and STILL blow above the limit, then your guilty as fuck. any process beyond the machine testing is just paper work and your attempts to come up with futile excuses.

If it were that simple then the makers of such machines wouldn't be so reluctant to explain how they actually work. In many places, though possibly not here, a blood or urine test is required.

Your grandkids will love it!

[sosume]

In a hundred years, your grand-grand-grand kids will have fun googling their ancestry and finding that they were driving under influence ...
  nowait - doesn't the DA know that the internet never forgets? That anyone can find this informatiuon by just googling someone's name?
"Hello i'm here for the job interview"- "Oh I see you had a DUI 32 years ago .. sorry we can't employ convicts here"

Re:What? No Due Process?

[TapeCutter]

"Innocent until proven guilty" goes all the way back to the dark ages when it replaced trial by fire in England. This system is a modern day trail by fire and would offically put Texas back to the dark ages when it comes to the rights of the accused.

However I think shaming is a reasonable but insufficient punishment for those convicted, and it is definitely an effective deterent for others. A consistent campagin by the state of Victoria, (Australia) to make drink driving socially unacceptable has dramatically cut the road toll over the past 30yrs. DUI is no longer seen as a "bad decison" as it was when I learnt to drive in the 70's, it's seen as a selfish and reckless act that is worthy of jail time.

There's are few Aussie's alive who have never seen the award winning bloddy idiot ads. These ads combined with "booze buses" were so effective that in the first few years of the campaing the TAC saved several billion in injury payouts. Yeah I know, it's "social engineering", but it's the good kind that fills young heads with images of reality. Of course Aussies being what they are the slogan quickly became; "If you dink and drive you're a bloody idiot, if you make it home you're a bloody ledgend".

Re:What? No Due Process?

[Chief Camel Breeder]

TFA says that the county also tweets names of people charged with "soliciting a prostitute" (whatever that means exactly in Texan law). That sounds like a whole new blackmail industry hatching. At least with DUI you can objectively prove innocence.

Re:Just one question...

[pitterpatter]

Of course a person can be charged with drunk driving if they haven't had anything to drink. Reasons for this might include, but will not be limited to:

1. Evil cops (not likely, IMO, but definitely possible).

2. Deluded cops (more likely, but still a stretch).

3. Overzealous cops, particularly if you're exhibiting something that looks like inebriated behavior but isn't; for example, several neurological conditions can cause you to have slurred speech or an unsteady gait but still be fine to drive.

4. Getting framed by an enemy.

5. Being acquainted with Ashton Kutcher.

In addition, as several posters have already pointed out, a person can be charged with drunk driving if they haven't actually driven and are not going to drive.

I'd be fine with capital punishment for people convicted of causing an accident while driving drunk, but I'm a little uneasy about draconian punishments for those who haven't actually caused damage yet, and I'm adamantly opposed to punishment of people without due process. To me, publishing names of arrestees is punishment without due process.

Re:First!

[Anonymous Coward]

on the off chance that they run into a neighbor?

I see what you did there...

Re:What? No Due Process?

[pinkocommie]

http://news.cnet.com/Breathalyzer-source-code-must-be-disclosed/2100-1028_3-5931553.html Florida police can't use electronic breathalyzers as courtroom evidence against drivers unless the innards are disclosed, a state court ruled Wednesday.

Future News: Wrongfully Charged Awarded Millions.

[jafo]

DUI is a terrible thing, and I won't defend it. However, I also know that beat officers will sometimes abuse their power. I grew up around sheriff's deputies, my mother worked in the department (in administration) and most of her friends were beat officers. So I got exposed to a lot of their stories.

So, yeah, I'm sure that quite a lot of the people who get charged are guilty as hell. And I'm sure that some of the people who get cleared of the charges are cleared only on a technicality and they were guilty. If they have multiple tests

However, I can imagine also that there are officers who, for whatever reason, may wrongfully charge someone. "I saw him leave a bar." Truth is he was the designated driver but had to go home early. "He was staggering." Truth is he had an inner ear infection that messed up his balance, or maybe he was messing with his smartphone while walking to the car. "He had dramatic variances in his speed." The truth was that he was doing the speed limit just fine until the officer started tailgating him, where he slowed down to reduce the chance of getting run into. What may be overwhelming evidence to the officer -- say if his breathalyzer in his car is broken, may be later found by the court to have other reasons, like the stumbling.

This is why we have the courts hear the case before passing judgment, and the police don't do the conviction on the spot.

The speed change part above happened to my wife a few years ago. She was pulled over and asked if she had been drinking because she dramatically slowed down. She slowed down because there was a giant SUV following her less than a car length away 55MPH. It was the officer's SUV. Why he wasn't in the next lane over, which was empty, I can't imagine.

It is not the job of the "beat officer" to make a conviction -- it's the job of the courts to look at the evidence and make that determination. They can charge you with anything, and you can't make any defense of that charge to the officer. You have to make it to the court.

The world today, here in the US, has a reality where posting something on the Internet, particularly from an official source like the police, will probably follow you around forever. And you'll never know if you didn't get that job offer because of this search result (which is probably highly ranked), because HR will tell you they just had a better candidate, if they tell you anything at all, because they don't want to be sued for making a bad decision.

Sean

things have changed re drunk driving.

[stimpleton]

I am from New Zealand but I presume attitudes are similar in other countries.

20 years ago driving drunk was pretty much ignored by police and "as long as the car knew its way home" things were fine. I would imagine "young'uns" must really find this hard to imagine, but there was really nothing seen as wrong with DUI. You just did.

Within 1/2 my lifetime(1/4 for some), the subject has gone from being seen as harmless, and perhaps something to laugh over at monday morning coffee to seeing a person caught going into custody, then potentialy jail, fines, loss of license, but more over, the social stigma, and potential job loss.

I do not drink and drive any more, as I can see the logic of not, buts it mainly to avoid fines and job risk.

Police sure make some money though. Those fines boost those coffers...just sayin'....

Re:things have changed re drunk driving.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's nice to know that "not accidentally killing someone" is 3rd on your list of reasons to not drive drunk. Or maybe the word I'm looking for is sociopathic.

Re:things have changed re drunk driving.

[tangent3]

It doesn't seem so bad until it happens to you.
Most of the victims of drunk driving accidents are innocent bystanders.

Re:What? No Due Process?

[RichardJenkins]

People aren't guilty of DWI until they are convicted - they're a drunk driver the moment they drive while pissed.

Considering that this policy has the potential to harm innocent people, it should really come with a sensible plan to monitor its effectiveness, and to monitor its unintended side effects.

If it doesn't do any good, or if it screws up too many innocent people lives; there should be figures to show it.

And the cops beat me during the arrest...

[denalione]

I think anyone in this district who interacts with law enforcement should twitter accusations of police brutality and prosecutorial malfeasance.

I mean, as long as were making public unproven allegations both sides should suffer the same consequences.

"charged with"?

[nurb432]

if they publish names of people that are only *charged*, it needs to be stopped and those responsible put in jail. While it is technically public record, there is no need to broadcast a persons name just due to suspicion and would just end up ruining peoples lives for nothing.

Now, if they want to publish people *convicted*, and the story just used the wrong term, more power too them.

Contempt for human life?

[jonaskoelker]

Getting behind the wheel while drunk shows a fundamental contempt for human life.

Now, I don't drive, so take what I say with the amount of salt you deem necessary. I do get on my bicycle after partying, though.

When I'm drunk, I'm not particularly thinking that my actions may kill someone. I also don't think I've ever harmed anyone (including myself) in traffic, and in all the dangerous situations I've been in, I think I acted prudently before ending up in that situation (I'm not saying "it's their fault!"---sometimes bad things just happen even though everybody is acting responsibly).

Now, suppose you drive, and your traffic danger history sounds similar to mine. Are you really going to entertain the likelihood of you harming or killing people?

If the though "I might harm someone" never enters your mind, are you really showing a contempt for human life?

It's a different thing to think "I might harm someone" and then not follow through on that thought (the next thought might be "how likely is that?"; not asking that question, or ignoring that answer, that might be contempt).

Re:Contempt for human life?

[jobin]

If the though "I might harm someone" never enters your mind, are you really showing a contempt for human life?

If the thought "I might harm someone" never enters your mind when you are driving a 1000+ pound vehicle at 60+ miles an hour, either you have no clue how kinetic energy works, or you're bloody irresponsible. Either should disqualify you from a driver's license, in my opinion. If you're on the road, you might harm someone; there's no way around that.

Re:the problem is the public's attitude

[partofthepuzzle]

Before you give me the argument that you need a roof over your head more than you need a fair and just employer, the only reason for the power imbalance is so many people like you fearing the loss of little comfort.

Tell that to your kids when you're living in a shelter! Many people (along with their families) who get fired or not hired via the scenario you described, are facing a lot more than than the loss of "little comfort"? In a severely depressed job market, job loss can very realistically lead to not having a place to live and while I agree that it's important to assert our legal rights, the survival of one's family is not a trivial consideration.

Re:What? No Due Process?

[wayland]

Amusing that he mentions "dink and drive", because "dink" is Australian slang for having a second person riding a bicycle (ie. sitting on the handlebars).

In addition to the "If you drink, then drive, you're a bloody idiot" campaign, there was also a "Don't fool yourself; speed kills" campaign.  I once saw a sticker that said "Don't fool yourself, you're a bloody idiot".