FloridaDriversLicenseRevocation.talkspotblogs.com

FRANK'S NEW PHONE NUMBER

Sun, 13 Jun 2010 00:00:00 GMT

THE CREATOR OF THIS SITE, FRANK M. CAN BE REACHED AT 813 340-8332. PLEASE LEAVE YOUR PHONE NUMBER ON MY VOICEMAIL IF YOU DON'T WISH TO LEAVE IT ON THE WEBSITE FOR ANONYMITY REASONS. NO ONES PERSONAL INFO I.E. PHONE NUMBERS OR EMAILS WILL EVER BE DIVULGED TO ANYONE. YOUR PRIVACY IS GUARDED IF YOU WISH TO BE CONTACTED BY ME.

THANK YOU,

FRANK M.
Start your own blog now! Free!

Comment on: FRANK'S NEW PHONE NUMBER

Mon, 28 Jun 2010 12:29:55 GMT

Hello Everyone, My new contact telephone number as of June 26th, 2010 is 813 410-5276. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or comments. Frank M. Site Coordinator

OCTOBER 1ST, 2010 HOUSE BILL 971 GOES INTO EFFECT FOR HARDSHIP LICENSE HEARINGS

Sun, 13 Jun 2010 00:00:00 GMT

ANYONE WHO HAS HAD A LIFETIME DRIVERS LICENSE REVOCATION FOR 4 OR MORE DUI'S CAN AS OF OCTOBER 1, 2010 REQUEST A HEARING TO SEE IF THEY CAN QUALIFY FOR A HARDSHIP RESTRICTED DRIVING PERMIT FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA. 1) A MIMIMUM OF 10 YEARS HAS TO HAVE PASSED SINCE THEIR LAST DUI AND A MIMIMUM OF 5 YEARS SINCE THEIR LAST TRAFFIC VIOLATION OR DRUG/ALCOHOL ASSOCIATED ARREST. CONTACT THE DEPT. OF MOTOR VEHICLES FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS BUT THE 10/5 YEAR TIME LAPSE WILL BE THE BASIC START OF THE REQUIREMENT TO EVEN GET A HEARING. IF YOU ARE IN THIS CATEGORY THEN YOU MIGHT QUALIFY FOR THE HARDSHIP PERMIT. OTHER REQUIREMENTS SUCH AS LETTERS OF RECOMMENDATION FROM PEOPLE WHO CAN ATTEST TO A SOBER LIFESTYLE MAY BE REQUIRED (SOME OF THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE STILL BEING DRAFTED IN PREPARATION FOR OCT. 1, 2010) PLEASE DO NOT DEPEND ON THIS AS OFFICIAL SOURCE OF INFORMATION. ALL PRECISE AND FINAL REQUIREMENTS WILL OF COURSE BE DETERMINED BY THE DEPT. OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND PUBLIC SAFETY FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND ONLY THEY CAN AND WILL DETERMINE GUIDELINES FOR THE HEARING PROCESS AND THE QUALIFYING REQUIREMENTS. ALL THAT IS KNOWN AT THIS TIME IS THAT THE BILL HB 971 HAS BEEN OFFICIALLY SIGNED BY GOVERNOR CHARLIE CRIST AND IT WILL GO INTO EFFECT ON OCT. 1, 2010. THOSE WHO WISH TO LOOK AT THE BILL HB 971 CAN GOOGLE IT AND AROUND LINE 105 YOU WILL SEE THE NEW REFERENCE TO THE ALLOWANCE OF A HARDSHIP RESTRICED DRIVING PERMIT.

Comment on: OCTOBER 1ST, 2010 HOUSE BILL 971 GOES INTO EFFECT FOR HARDSHIP LICENSE HEARINGS

Tue, 05 Oct 2010 16:52:20 GMT

Has anyone had a hearing yet?

To Contact Frank M on this Site

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 00:00:00 GMT

To anyone who tries to contact me and I don't get right back to them then please try calling me again at 813 841-1980. The world unfortunately doesn't stop for any of us. No one is being purposely ignored by not getting a return call right away. Sometimes I have tried to call people back and they simply don't answer the phone or it goes to voice mail and sometimes it's a bad number. So, everyone is welcome to call me directly on my cell or they can email me directly at fmulder30@yahoo.com. It is not my intent to ignore anyone. If you can't get through to me on the telephone then email me and use DRIVERS LICENSE LIFETIME REVOCATION, as the SUBJECT of the EMAIL. I receive alot of email traffic so please be patient with me. I will try to respond to all.

Thank you,

Frank Mulder
813 841-1980 cell

Comment on: To Contact Frank M on this Site

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 22:45:04 GMT

I have 4 DUI's. Been sober since 8/20/2005.I'm going to try for clemency/commutation of sentence. Thought I was one of the only people in this situation. I now have a wife and daughter and driving again is becoming important to me once more. I'm caught between, maybe I deserve not to ever drive again and needing to pick up my little girl. I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that people that are still drinking will drive anyway.

Florida Supreme Court Case, James Lescher vs Florida Dept. of Motor Vehicles

Mon, 07 Sep 2009 00:00:00 GMT

Supreme Court of Florida

____________

No. SC07-32

____________

JAMES LESCHER,

Petitioner,

vs.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES,

Respondent.

[July 3, 2008]

CANTERO, J.

In this case we consider whether a statutory amendment constitutes an ex post facto law. Florida law provides that after four convictions for driving under the influence (DUI), the defendant’s driver’s license shall be permanently revoked. After five years such drivers previously could apply for hardship licenses. The Legislature, however, recently amended the statute to remove that driver’s license eligibility. The petitioner, who could have applied for a hardship license before the amendment, argues that the amendment constitutes an ex post facto law. Because the prohibition against ex post facto laws applies only to criminal punishments, however, and the provisions at issue do not constitute punishment, we conclude that the amendment is not an ex post facto law.

Below, we first explain the relevant factual, statutory, and procedural history of this case. Then we apply the test delineated in Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93, 99 (1997), to the question of whether driver’s license revocation and the unavailability of a hardship license constitutes criminal punishment.

I. FACTS AND RELEVANT STATUTORY HISTORY

Lescher was convicted of DUI four times: in 1979, 1983, 1991, and 2000. Section 322.28(2)(e), Florida Statutes (2000), required that “[t]he court shall permanently revoke the driver’s license or driving privilege of a person who has been convicted four times” for this offense. After his 2000 conviction, therefore, Lescher’s license was permanently revoked.

Section 322.271(4), Florida Statutes (1997), formerly provided that drivers whose licenses had been permanently revoked under section 322.28(2)(e) could, after five years, petition for reinstatement of the “driving privilege.”[1] A petitioner had to establish that he qualified. The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (Department or DHSMV) then had the “discretion” to issue a “hardship license” with specific restrictions. See § 322.271(4), Fla. Stat. (1997).[2] In 1998—before Lescher’s license was revoked—the Legislature amended this provision by eliminating the eligibility for hardship licenses for drivers with four DUI convictions. See 322.271(4), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1998). However, in Florida Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Critchfield, 842 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 2003), we held invalid the session law containing the amendment because of a single-subject violation. In effect, our holding revived the pre-1998 law permitting hardship licenses. Shortly after our decision in Critchfield, however, the Legislature readopted the amendment.[3] The net effect is that when Lescher’s license was revoked, he could have applied for a hardship license after five years.

In August 2005, although five years had not yet elapsed since his license was revoked, Lescher petitioned for a hardship license. The Department denied the petition, concluding that the applicable statute was the one in effect at the time of his application. Under that statute, Lescher was not eligible for a hardship license. [4]

The circuit court denied Lescher’s petition for a writ of certiorari. On review, the Fourth District Court of Appeal denied a petition as well, finding no ex post facto violation. See Lescher v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Veh’ls, 946 So. 2d 1140, 1142 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). However, noting that the court had “a number” of similar petitions and “anticipat[ing] that other districts will also,” the court certified the following question as one of great public importance:

Does the amendment to section 322.271(4), Florida Statutes, which eliminated hardship driver's licenses effective July 1, 2003, violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws as to persons who could have applied for a hardship license before the amendment became effective?

Id. We have jurisdiction and granted review. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const; Lescher v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Veh’ls, 949 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 2007) (granting review).

II. CIVIL PENALTY OR CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT?

Both the United States and Florida Constitutions prohibit ex post facto laws. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 10; art. I, § 10, Fla. Const. The United States Supreme Court has defined an ex post facto law as one that (a) operates retrospectively, and (b) “make[s] innocent acts criminal, alter[s] the nature of the offense, or increase[s] the punishment.” Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 46 (1990); accord Cal. Dep’t of Corr. v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499, 506 n.3 (1995) (“After Collins, the focus of the ex post facto inquiry is not on whether a legislative change produces some ambiguous sort of ‘disadvantage,’ . . . but on whether any such change alters the definition of criminal conduct or increases the penalty by which a crime is punishable.”). Thus, the prohibition on ex post facto laws applies only to criminal or penal provisions. See Westerheide v. State, 831 So. 2d 93, 99 (2002). The answer to the certified question, therefore, depends on whether the unavailability of a hardship license to a driver whose license was revoked after four DUI convictions is a civil remedy or criminal punishment. “Whether a particular punishment is criminal or civil is, at least initially, a matter of statutory construction.” Hudson, 522 U.S. at 99. Under Hudson, the first step in the analysis is to ascertain the legislature’s intent, and then to determine the effect of the statute under the following seven factors:

(1) “[w]hether the sanction involves an affirmative disability or restraint”; (2) “whether it has historically been regarded as a punishment”; (3) “whether it comes into play only on a finding of scienter”; (4) “whether its operation will promote the traditional aims of punishment—retribution and deterrence”; (5) “whether the behavior to which it applies is already a crime”; (6) “whether an alternative purpose to which it may rationally be connected is assignable for it”; and (7) “whether it appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned.”

Id. at 99-100 (quoting Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 168-69 (1963)); see Goad v. Fla. Dep’t of Corrections, 845 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 2003) (concluding under a Hudson analysis that sections of the Florida Civil Restitution Lien and Crime Victims’ Remedy Act did not operate as a criminal punishment). We now apply this analysis to the DUI permanent revocation provision, section 322.28(2)(e), and the hardship license provision, section 322.271(4).

A. LEGISLATIVE INTENT

As stated above, in determining the nature of these provisions, the first question is whether the Legislature indicated whether these statutes were civil or criminal. See Hudson, 522 U.S. at 99. Chapter 322, Florida Statutes, regulates driver’s licenses, and the Legislature has charged the Department with the chapter’s administration and enforcement. The Legislature plainly stated its intent:

It is declared to be the legislative intent to:
     (1) Provide maximum safety for all persons who travel or otherwise use the public highways of the state.
     (2) Deny the privilege of operating motor vehicles on public highways to persons who, by their conduct and record, have demonstrated their indifference for the safety and welfare of others and their disrespect for the laws of the state and the orders of the state courts and administrative agencies.
     (3) Discourage repetition of criminal action by individuals against the peace and dignity of the state, its political subdivisions, and its municipalities and impose increased and added deprivation of the privilege of operating motor vehicles upon habitual offenders who have been convicted repeatedly of violations of traffic laws.

§ 322.263, Fla. Stat. (2005). The Legislature further provided that “[t]his chapter [322] shall be liberally construed to the end that the greatest force and effect may be given to its provisions for the promotion of public safety.” § 322.42, Fla. Stat. (2005).

It is apparent that in chapter 322 the Legislature intended not to punish but to protect the public through a regulatory regime governing driver’s licenses. This intent controls absent the “clearest of proof” on the face of the statute belying it. See Hudson, 522 U.S. at 100 (“‘[O]nly the clearest proof’ will suffice to override legislative intent and transform what has been denominated a civil remedy into a criminal penalty.” (quoting United States v. Ward, 448 U.S. 242, 249 (1980))); Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 617 (1960) (stating that “only the clearest proof could suffice to establish the unconstitutionality of a [civil] statute” as criminally punitive and that “[j]udicial inquiries into Congressional motives are at best a hazardous matter, and when that inquiry seeks to go behind objective manifestations it becomes a dubious affair indeed”); Westerheide, 831 So. 2d at 100 (“While ‘the civil label is not always dispositive,’ the Legislature's stated intent should only be rejected where the challenging party presents ‘the clearest proof’ that ‘the statutory scheme [is] so punitive either in purpose or effect as to negate [the State's] intention’ that the proceeding be civil.” (quoting Allen v. Illinois, 478 U.S. 364, 369 (1986))).

B. APPLYING THE HUDSON FACTORS

To determine whether the “clearest of proof” negates the Legislature’s intent to create a civil remedy, we apply the seven Hudson factors. Two overriding principles govern this analysis: first, “no one factor should be considered controlling;” and second, we evaluate the statute on its face, not on “‘the character of the actual sanctions imposed.’” Hudson, 522 U.S. at 101 (quoting and disavowing United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 447 (1989)). We address each factor in turn.

1. Affirmative Disability or Restraint

The first factor is whether the sanction involves an affirmative disability or restraint. Hudson, 522 U.S. at 99-100. Neither section 322.28(2)(e) (the license revocation provision) nor section 322.271(4) (the hardship license provision) imposes an affirmative disability as the Supreme Court has applied this factor. See Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 100 (2003) (concluding that a state’s sex offender registration statute “impose[d] no physical restraint, and so does not resemble the punishment of imprisonment, which is the paradigmatic affirmative disability or restraint” and its “obligations are less harsh than the sanctions of occupational debarment, which we have held to be nonpunitive”); see also Hudson, 522 U.S. at 496 (concluding that a bar to working in the banking industry was not an affirmative disability or restraint “as that term is normally understood”); Flemming, 363 U.S. at 614 (finding that a termination of Social Security benefits was not an affirmative disability); Turner v. Glickman, 207 F.3d 419, 431 (7th Cir. 2000) (concluding that a denial of noncontractual federal benefits, such as food stamps, because of felony convictions is not an affirmative disability or restraint). The loss of one’s driving privilege is inconvenient. In fact, we have recognized that the revocation of one’s driver’s license constitutes a substantial hardship. See City of Miami v. Aronovitz, 114 So. 2d 784, 787 (Fla. 1959) (“It is a privilege to hold a license to drive. It is a severe handicap to be compelled to do without one.”); Smith v. City of Gainesville, 93 So. 2d 105, 106 (Fla. 1957) (“True the recalcitrant law violator might feel the pain of the loss of a valuable privilege.”). Nevertheless, the loss of the driving privilege is not an affirmative disability. See Brewer v. Kimel, 256 F.3d 222, 228 (4th Cir. 2001) (citing Hudson in holding “that revocation of a driver's license does not involve an ‘affirmative disability’”). If the requirement to register as a sexual offender, the loss of the ability to practice in a chosen profession, the termination of Social Security benefits, and the denial of other federal benefits such as food stamps do not constitute an affirmative disability or restraint, then neither does the inability to apply for a hardship license after one’s driver’s license has been permanently revoked.

2. The Historical View

The second factor is whether the sanction has historically been regarded as a punishment. Hudson, 522 U.S. at 99-100. As to this factor, we have consistently viewed possession of a driver’s license as a privilege and its revocation as a civil remedy necessary for the public’s protection.

“Remedial sanctions may be of varying types. One which is characteristically free of the punitive criminal element is revocation of a privilege voluntarily granted.” Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 399 (1938). In Smith v. City of Gainesville, 93 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 1957), we were squarely faced with the question of whether license revocation constitutes punishment. We stated that a “driver's license is a privilege, subject to proper regulations” and “does not endow the holder thereof with an absolute property right in the use of the public highway.” Id. at 106. Referring specifically to the danger that drunken drivers pose to other drivers and addressing the nature of license revocation, we said:

It is this aspect of protecting the public, rather than as punishment for the offender, that courts have unanimously recognized as justification for revoking drivers' licenses upon conviction of certain offenses. True the recalcitrant law violator might feel the pain of the loss of a valuable privilege. However, the imposition of pain is not the objective of this law. On the contrary, its primary purpose is to relieve the public generally of the sometimes death-dealing pain recklessly produced by one who so lightly regards his licensed privilege.

Id. at 106-07. We have since reiterated this view. See Lite v. State, 617 So. 2d 1058, 1060 (Fla. 1993) (“[T]here is no property interest in possessing a driver’s license. Rather, driving is a privilege, and the privilege can be taken away or encumbered as a means of meeting a legitimate legislative goal.”); Zarsky v. State, 300 So. 2d 261, 263 (Fla. 1974) (“It has been stated that revocation of a driver's license is not regarded as punishment (cruel, unusual or otherwise) of the offender but as an aspect of protecting the public.”); City of Miami v. Aronovitz, 114 So. 2d 784, 787 (Fla. 1959) (“[T]he requirement of obtaining a driver's license and the exercise of the privilege of driving over the public highways, together with the correlative loss of the privilege under certain conditions, is a reasonable regulation of an individual right [to the use of public highways] in the interest of the public good.”); see also Thornhill v. Kirkman, 62 So. 2d 740, 742 (Fla. 1953) (stating that a driver’s license is a privilege and that “[i]f [a person] cannot demean himself as a careful user, considerate of the right of others to do likewise, he becomes a public nuisance and should be excluded temporarily or permanently from their use”).

Florida courts also have upheld as civil other regulatory remedies that deprive individuals of the enjoyment of certain licensed privileges. See, e.g., State v. Bowling, 712 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (holding that revocation of a contractor’s license was a civil sanction, not a criminal punishment, and did not bar criminal prosecution for fraud in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause); Rowe v. Agency for Health Care Admin., 714 So. 2d 1108, 1110 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (finding no ex post facto violation where a dentist’s participation as a Medicaid provider was terminated upon his criminal conviction based on a statute enacted to protect the public but “did not increase the penalty” for the crimes); Borrego v. Agency for Health Care Admin., 675 So. 2d 666, 668 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (holding that “[i]n Florida, the license to practice medicine is considered a privilege granted by the sovereign” and the state’s suspension of appellant’s license following a criminal fraud conviction under a statute intended for public protection did not violate the double jeopardy bar).

Historically, therefore, Florida courts have held that a licensed privilege may reasonably be regulated. The purpose of suspension or revocation of such a privilege is not to punish the offender, but to protect the public. Our prior decisions clearly establish that in Florida, driver’s license revocation and the unavailability of a hardship license for persons with four DUI convictions have not been viewed as criminal punishment.

3. Scienter

The third factor is whether the sanction comes into play only on a finding of scienter. See Hudson, 522 U.S. at 99-100. The license revocation statute, section 322.28, does not contain a scienter element.

4. Punishment and Deterrence

The fourth factor is whether operation of the license revocation and hardship license statutes will promote the traditional aims of punishment, retribution, and deterrence. See Hudson, 522 U.S. at 99-100. Section 322.28(2) provides for lengthening periods of license suspension or revocation as the number of DUI convictions increases. This revocation provision may, to some degree, serve as a deterrent, as may the Legislature’s removal of the opportunity to obtain hardship licenses for drivers with four DUI convictions. Both these provisions, however, also serve the Legislature’s stated purpose of protecting those traveling the highways by removing those who persist in endangering others. See § 322.263, Fla. Stat. (2005) (providing that one purpose of chapter 322 is to “[d]eny the [driving] privilege . . . to persons who, by their conduct and record, have demonstrated their indifference for the safety and welfare of others”).

That the statutes at issue may serve a deterrent purpose does not necessarily render them criminal punishment. As the Supreme Court warned in Hudson, the “mere presence of this [deterrent] purpose is insufficient to render a sanction criminal, as deterrence ‘may serve civil as well as criminal goals.’” Hudson, 522 U.S. at 105 (quoting United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267, 292 (1996)); see also Flemming, 363 U.S. at 614 (“Where the source of legislative concern can be thought to be the activity or status from which the individual is barred, the disqualification is not punishment even though it may bear harshly upon one affected.”).

5. Criminal Behavior

The fifth factor is whether the behavior to which the statutes apply is also a crime. See Hudson, 522 U.S. at 99-100. Section 316.193 specifies that a fourth conviction for DUI constitutes a third-degree felony. Thus, the requirement of permanent license revocation upon a driver’s fourth DUI conviction is based on criminal behavior. Further, section 322.271(4) now contains no provision for such a felon to obtain a hardship license. That the conduct addressed by the statutes is also criminal, however, also is insufficient to make the civil remedy of license revocation criminally punitive. See Hudson, 522 U.S. at 104 (stating that a monetary penalty and employment debarment are not criminally punitive merely because the conduct on which the sanctions were based is also a crime).

6. Alternative Purpose

The sixth factor is whether an alternative purpose to which the sanction may rationally be connected is assignable for it. See Hudson, 522 U.S. at 99-100. In other words, we analyze whether the imposition of permanent license revocation serves a legitimate governmental purpose other than punishment. As explained earlier, the Legislature has expressly stated the purpose behind chapter 322: “Provid[ing] maximum safety for all persons” on the highway and “deny[ing] the [driving] privilege” to those incapable of exercising that privilege without endangering the safety of others. § 322.263, Fla. Stat. (2005). Both revocation and unavailability of a hardship license are rationally related to that regulatory purpose. Together they protect the public by permanently prohibiting drivers with four DUI convictions from driving Florida’s highways where they have repeatedly demonstrated their utter disregard for the safety and well-being of others. See United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303, 324 (1946) (Frankfurter, J., concurring) (“The fact that harm is inflicted by governmental authority does not make it punishment. Figuratively speaking all discomforting action may be deemed punishment because it deprives of what otherwise would be enjoyed. But there may be reasons other than punitive for such deprivation.”).

7. Relationship of Restriction to Purpose

The seventh and final factor is whether the sanction appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned. See Hudson, 522 U.S. at 99-100. We find that the restriction here—permanent license revocation—is not excessive in relationship to the statute’s purpose of protecting the public. Section 322.42 requires that chapter 322 be “liberally construed” to give “the greatest force and effect . . . to its provisions for the promotion of public safety.” A driver’s license is not permanently revoked upon a single—or even the second or third—DUI infraction. Rather, section 322.28(2) requires revocation of driver’s licenses for increasing amounts of time with each DUI conviction. A driver must accumulate four such convictions before his license is permanently revoked. § 322.29(2)(e), Fla. Stat. (2005). “The legislature has consistently indicated its intent to provide greater protection to the public from persons who had accumulated multiple DUI convictions.” Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Veh’ls v. Bender, 497 So. 2d 1332, 1334 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). The restriction of license revocation, made permanent by the unavailability of a hardship license, is therefore not excessive. “Obviously, the public is more susceptible to harm from one who has a pattern of driving under the influence.” Id. Thus, the permanent revocation is a measured and legitimate exercise of the Legislature’s power to protect the public.

8. Summary

Of the seven factors reviewed, only two support Lescher’s claim that the statutes are in effect so punitive that they constitute criminal punishment. As explained above, however, administrative or civil remedies often serve a deterrent effect, and these statutes fully relate to the Legislature’s stated purpose of protecting the public. Nor is the felonious nature of a fourth DUI conviction sufficient to convert this civil remedy into a criminal punishment. Therefore, the petitioner has failed to show by the “clearest of proof” that sections 322.28(2)(e) and 322.471(4) are “so punitive either in purpose or effect as to negate th[e] intention” of imposing a civil penalty thus effecting a civil remedy. Ward, 448 U.S. at 249.[5]

III. CONCLUSION

The Fourth District asked whether the elimination of the availability of hardship licenses from section 322.271(4) for drivers with four DUI convictions constitutes an ex post facto law. As we stated at the beginning of our opinion, the prohibition against ex post facto laws applies only to criminal provisions. Our application of the Hudson factors to the statutes at issue reveals that, as the Legislature intended, they are part of a civil regulatory scheme for the protection of the public. We therefore conclude, as did the Fourth District, that “the amendment eliminating the hardship license, when applied to petitioner, is not unconstitutional as an ex post facto law,” Lescher, 946 So. 2d at 1142. We answer the certified question “no” and approve the district court’s decision.

It is so ordered.

WELLS, PARIENTE, LEWIS, and BELL, JJ., concur.

QUINCE, C.J., and ANSTEAD, J., concur in result only.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND IF FILED, DETERMINED.

Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - Certified Great Public Importance

Fourth District - Case No. 4D06-2291

(Palm Beach County)

Richard W. Springer and Catherine Mazzullo of Richard W. Springer, P.A., Palm Springs, Florida,

for Petitioner

Judson M. Chapman, General Counsel and Heather Rose Cramer, Assistant General Counsel, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Lake Worth, Florida,

for Respondent

[1]. The statute provided in pertinent part as follows:

(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of s. 322.28(2)(e), a person whose driving privilege has been permanently revoked because he or she has been convicted four times of violating s. 316.193 or former s. 316.1931 or because he or she has been convicted of DUI manslaughter in violation of s. 316.193 may, upon the expiration of 5 years after the date of such revocation or the expiration of 5 years after the termination of any term of incarceration under s. 316.193 or former s. 316.1931, whichever date is later, petition the department for reinstatement of his or her driving privilege.

§ 322.271(4), Fla. Stat. (1997).

2. The petitioner had to demonstrate to DHSMV that in the last five years, (1) he had not been arrested for a drug-related offense, (2) had not driven a motor vehicle, (3) had been drug- and alcohol-free, and had completed an approved DUI program. § 322.271(4), Fla. Stat. (1997).

3. Specifically, the Legislature readopted the 2002 Florida Statutes, which in turn implemented the 1998 amendment. See Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Veh’ls. v. Gaskins, 891 So. 2d 643, 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (noting that by reenacting the statutes effective July 1, 2003, “[t]he legislature cured the defect”); see also Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Veh’ls v. Critchfield, 805 So. 2d 1034, 1038 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (“Once reenacted by way of an adoption act as a portion of the Florida Statutes, a chapter or session law is no longer subject to challenge on the grounds that it violates the single subject requirement.”), aff’d, 842 So. 2d 782 (2003).

[4]. Section 322.271(4), Florida Statutes (2005), reads as follows:

(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of s. 322.28(2)(e), a person whose driving privilege has been permanently revoked because he or she has been convicted of DUI manslaughter in violation of s. 316.193 and has no prior convictions for DUI-related offenses may, upon the expiration of 5 years after the date of such revocation or the expiration of 5 years after the termination of any term of incarceration under s. 316.193 or former s. 316.1931, whichever date is later, petition the department for reinstatement of his or her driving privilege.

[5]. We reject without discussion Lescher’s reliance on cases addressing various prison gain time provisions: Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24 (1981); Gwong v. Singletary, 683 So. 2d 109, 113 (Fla. 1996); and Waldrup v. Dugger, 562 So. 2d 687, 688-89 (Fla. 1990).

Comment on: Florida Supreme Court Case, James Lescher vs Florida Dept. of Motor Vehicles

Thu, 24 Feb 2011 16:54:08 GMT

this is a test on February 24th, 2011

Frank's Florida Supreme Court Ruling

Mon, 07 Sep 2009 00:00:00 GMT

Supreme Court of Florida

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2008

CASE NO.: SC07-169

Lower Tribunal No(s).: 4D06-3272

FRANKLIN MULDER vs. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT

OF HIGHWAY SAFETY

AND MOTOR VEHICLES

______________________________________________________________

Petitioner(s) Respondent(s)

Upon review of petitioner's response to this Court's order to show cause

dated July 23, 2008, the Court has determined that it should decline to exercise

jurisdiction in this case. See Lescher v. Fla. Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor

Vehicles, 985 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 2008). The petition for discretionary review is

therefore denied.

No motion for rehearing will be entertained by the Court. See Fla. R. App. P.

9.330(d).

QUINCE, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, and PARIENTE, JJ., and CANTERO,

Senior Justice, concur.

A True Copy

Test:

Served:

RICHARD W. SPRINGER HEATHER ROSE CRAMER

CATHERINE MAZZULLO JUDSON M. CHAPMAN

HON. SHARON BOCK, CLERK

HON. EDWARD HASKELL FINE, JUDGE

HON. MARILYN BEUTTENMULLER, CLERK

HON. THOMAS HENDRY BARKDULL, III, JUDGE

HON. ELIZABETH MARIE T. MAASS, JUDGE

COME ONE, COME ALL AND COMMENT

Sun, 17 May 2009 00:00:00 GMT

WE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR YOUR COMMENTS, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO POST.

Comment on: COME ONE, COME ALL AND COMMENT

Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:19:45 GMT

HI Frank; My husband lived in florida 1988-1991 got 4 dui went to prision and left never to return. Now almost 20 years later he can not renew his drivers license in california in which his job requires. I have written my legislators here with very little response because of the national drivers registery in wich they all passed in law not knowing the effect it would have on peoples lives. The states are all to have basically the same laws then WHY is Florida an exception?? GOD BLESS you if you can have any impact on this states riduculous law. It scares me to think that the government can have this kind of control from keeping people from being whole. Well thanks again glad I ran into your website.

Comment on: COME ONE, COME ALL AND COMMENT

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 13:27:54 GMT

A very interesting article. I received my second DUI almost 2 yrs ago. My first one was in Dallas, Tx 16 yrs prior to the one in florida. My feelings are mixed. To begin with since i could not afford an attorney in St. Lucie county I had no choice but to use a Public Defender which could have given a rats ass about my case. Leaving me to do all of the investigative work they are suppose to use. Furthermore, it was obvious he was afraid of the state Prosecutors. I stood a better chance with a chimp as a defender. By the time I got to court I had spent several hundred dollars on an anklet to monitor for alcohol. Remember my first of offense was 16 years prior. Well, I knew if I had selected a jury trial I stood a damn good chance at winning, on the other hand should I have lost the hanging judge Yamacussi would have thrown the book at me. I was forced to accept a last minute plea for 90 days in county, 1 yr probation, loss of driving priveledge for 1 yr and then after reinstatement an interlock system on my vehicle. My complaints are the fairness, the fact that only 2 cities in all of florida provide this service which has to be calibrated once a month. You have no guarantee that they will honor your appointments and from talking to others in this situation tell me that you are treated like dirt by the employees. I feel if it is to be mandatory then this service should be much more accesible to all. It seems to me as a monopoly and just another way for the state to rape you. Let's face it the whole paper system of the DUI is nothing but a racket. You can place a scarlet letter on a habitual offender but if he/she wants to drink they will. I would also pose this question. Isn't having to blow and hum into one of the aniquated systems just as dangerous as driving impaired?

Comment on: COME ONE, COME ALL AND COMMENT

Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:13:52 GMT

Ok, you have made your point with the video's on drunk drivers. However, many people out there are getting behind the wheel of their vehicle right now after having to many drinks including, government officials, off duty police officers, judges and other people of status and they do this everyday yet their very lucky that they made it home without killing themselves or someone else? And yes they could be reading this and you know who you are...and yet you feel no guilt on blaming others for drinking and driving because lets face it, if you have money and prestige your all set you basically can get away with murder. Let us not be hypercritical when thousands if not millions of people drink and drive everyday....What about the people who have changed their lives for the better and have given up drinking and not because they found "god" or some other organization that made them see the light...Some people realize their mistakes and take a hard long look at life and realize alcohol or drugs are not the solution to life's problems. People do change some sooner than others... Child Molesters have more rights than people busted for DUI's they live among us in every state and they even drive to get their victims...why don't you take their driving privileges away so they can't hunt the poor innocent children...Belive me their are as my Child molesters out there as there are drunk driver's.....

Comment on: COME ONE, COME ALL AND COMMENT

Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:34:20 GMT

I to have lived in good ole Florida all of my life and had my drivers license suspended for LIFE after getting my 4th DUI. My actions back then were of course irresponsible and one would think that I would have straightened out or at least had the common sense to after the 4th DUI, But I didn't. So here I am today older and wiser and clean and sober going on 5 years. I have since moved away from Florida 4 years ago and am living in beautiful New Hampshire and will continue living here for the rest of my life...The biggest problem I have is Florida has listed me on the National Driver's Registry and therefore I can never drive for the rest of my life in all 50 states. My question is how can Florida have the right to deny my right to drive in all 50 states?... I have long since straightened out my life have worked for the same Construction Company in NH for the past 4 years but recently had to quit because the job I was doing was complete. The Company then wanted me to go to the next job which was located to far away I could not go because I have no transportation... The past 4 years have been pretty rough for me but I weathered through it..I took a taxi cab every day to meet my ride so I could get to the job site. Never missed a day of work unless I had a Dr's appointment. I am not looking for anyone to sympathize with me because I have done my time for these DUI's I just want to drive again....I am not a murder or a rapist or a child molester yet these people once released from prison get to start a new life and THEY are able to drive...Can't quite figure this out because they have done more harm than I did to anyone. I am currently in the process of applying for Unemployment not that I want to but I can not find a job without my drivers license at least one that pays well. I am an experienced Concrete Finisher/Laborer and have done this most of my life. I have written many letters to the Florida DMV and get the same response back, LICENSE SUSPENDED FOR LIFE...this is not fair for those of us out there who have turned our lives around.

Comment on: COME ONE, COME ALL AND COMMENT

Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:39:59 GMT

Hi Frank, Your post is very interesting. I two am recovered since May 1991. Haven't had a ticket since 1984 (good old Tampa) But they got me retroactivly too. I recently got a ticket for driving while suspended. This was quite expensive. I now have taken interest in defeating this law. The only way is to REPEAL. We can do it if enough will step up. I moved to Oregon in 1986 and got a DUI there in 1990. That is when I discovered what Florida had done. I came back to Florida to fight this law and now I am more determined then ever. I will be glade to discuss my record with anyone that has a need to know. You have some wonderful ideas and I would be interested in supporting them. Please feel free to Email me. Thanks Bob

Comment on: COME ONE, COME ALL AND COMMENT

Tue, 21 Jul 2009 11:56:53 GMT

Like you Frank, I received my lifetime revocation in Hawaii over ten years ago. I too am in recovery and have been enjoying the clean and sober life for over 5 years. Hawaii is currently enacting Act 171 a interlock device law that will shorten the maximum revocation period to ten years. Unfortunately this Act "does not affect rights and duties that matured, penalties that were incurred, and proceedings that were begun, before its effective date." So it looks like those whose license was previously revoked for life are stuck. This law will not take affect until 1/1/2011. However, I wonder if this would violate the 14th amendment of equal protection under the law. Citing Moore vs. State of Missouri the courts held that "The general doctrine of the Fourteenth Amendment, in respect to the administration of criminal justice, requires that no different or higher punishment shall be imposed on one than is imposed on all for like offenses, but it was not designed to interfere with the power of the state to protect the lives, liberty, or property of its citizens, nor with the exercise of that power in administering the process provided by the law of the state. And the state may undoubtedly provide that persons who have before been convicted of crime may suffer severer punishment for subsequent offenses than for a first offense against the law, and that a different punishment for the same offense may be inflicted under particular circumstances, provided it is dealt out to all alike who are similarly situated." So while this case upholds the a states right to have increasingly more severe punishment based on prior convicitons, it also holds that must be dealt out to all alike. I wonder if I would have grounds to use the 14th amenmdment to request the courts to lessen my revocation period to 10 years.

Comment on: COME ONE, COME ALL AND COMMENT

Sat, 11 Jul 2009 07:32:59 GMT

Hi Frank, My brother is in the same situation. He was holding a FL driver's license and went to Washington state to work. On his way to MO he got a dui and had 3 previous ones in MO. He never returned to FL but they will not release his license since he was holding a FL license when he received the 4th on in 1993. Missouri holds your license for 10 years after the 4th one. He only stayed in FL for a short amount of time. If you have anything to sign to get the law changed please let me know. I would be happy to sign it. CC

Comment on: COME ONE, COME ALL AND COMMENT

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 10:10:55 GMT

Believe it or not a Marion County Florida Judge recently ( May or June, 09)suspended an individual's right to drive in Florida "for life" because the individual was found not guilty of drunk driving. The judge was,evidently, upset with the verdict so he found the defendent guilty of a civil violation of careless driving, which was the alleged reason that the individual was stopped by the police, and then took it upon himself to suspend the individual's right to drive. The person whose license was suspended had a few minor civil violatons on his driving record but no drunk driving or reckless driving charges or convictions. The judge must have wanted to satisfy his police buddies or had a reason to dislike the defendant. HOWEVER, no one should be allowed on their own ( Judges are elected officials with no more impartiality, insight,or common sense) or without constitutional safeguards be able to destroy a person's "LIFE". If our forefathers were drafting the constitution today, Driving would be a inalienable right and not a privilege. It is a necessity to sustain life in America. How will this individual support his family and himself without the ability to drive. I hope cases as outrageous as this one will help you in getting a law change. God luck to you. If anyone out there knows of this case by name, please let us know. I received this info from a person who worked at the court.

BLOG CREATORS OPENING STATEMENT

Sun, 03 May 2009 00:00:00 GMT

GREETINGS,

   THIS BLOG WAS CREATED TO START A GRASS ROOTS MOVEMENT TO EFFECT A CHANGE IN LEGISLATION REGARDING THE PENALTIES AND PUNISHMENT FOR DUI OFFENSES IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA. BY STARTING THIS FORUM WE INTEND TO RALLY SUPPORT FOR THE REVIEW AND LESSENING OF THE LIFETIME REVOCATION POLICY THAT IS CURRENTLY IN FORCE FOR ANY DRIVER WHO HAS RECEIVED THEIR 4TH DUI. THE JULY 1998 LAW CHANGE, AFTER RECEIVING 4 DUI's IMPOSES A PUNISHMENT OF A LIFETIME REVOCATION OF THEIR FLORIDA DRIVING PRIVILEGES WITHOUT ANY CHANCE OF EVER GETTING A HARDSHIP DRIVERS PERMIT, NOT EVEN IF THEY CAN SHOW THAT THEY HAVE TOTALLY REHABILITATED THEMSELVES AND CAN PROVE THAT THEY NO LONGER DRINK ALCOHOL. I WELCOME ANY AND ALL COMMENTS TO BE EXPRESSED ON THIS SITE FROM BOTH PEOPLE WHO HAVE LOST THEIR DRIVING PRIVILEGES AFTER RECEIVING THEIR FOURTH DUI AND ALSO FROM THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN VICTIMIZED BY DRUNK DRIVERS WITH THE LOSS OF A FAMILY MEMBER OR LOVED ONE. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO SHARE YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCES WITH YOUR HARDSHIPS OR LEGAL SITUATIONS THAT YOU MAY BE ENCOUNTERING, GOOD, BAD OR INDIFFERENT.
   THIS FORUM IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE A FORUM TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC AS TO THE HARDSHIPS THAT A LIFETIME REVOCATION CAN IMPOSE. I AM PERSONALLY ONE OF THESE REFORMED INDIVIDUALS AND HAVE BEEN CLEAN AND SOBER FOR A PERIOD OF 6 1/2 YEARS AND CAN DOCUMENT THIS FACT.  I WOULD ESPECIALLY LIKE TO WELCOME COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF M.A.D.D. AND THEIR FAMILIES AS WELL AS FROM ANY OTHER PUBLIC SAFETY FIGURES THAT WOULD LIKE TO SHARE THEIR COMMENTS, TO PLEASE FEEL FREE TO DO SO. I KNOW PERSONALLY, THE IMPACT THAT HAS COME FROM THE DEVASTATING EFFECTS THAT ALCOHOL AND DRUGS CAN HAVE ON FAMILIES AND THEIR LOVED ONES.
   THIS SITE IS NOT INTENDED IN ANY WAY TO GAIN SUPPORT FOR THE ACTIVE DRUNK DRIVER BUT CONVERSLEY TO OPEN A FORUM FOR DISCUSSION TO LOOK AT GETTING THE DRUNK DRIVER OFF OF THE ROAD THROUGH EDUCATION AND PUBLIC AWARENESS. RESTRUCTURING AND REWRITING SOME OF THE CURRENT LAWS IN ORDER TO MAKE THEM MORE EFFECTIVE IN OBTAINING THE GOAL OF MAKING OUR NATIONS HIGHWAYS TOTALLY FREE OF DRUNK DRIVING WOULD BE A POSITIVE ACCOMPLISHMENT. THIS CAN BE DONE BY PROMOTING BETTER EDUCATION IN OUR SCHOOLS TO PRETEEN SCHOOL CHILDREN. ALSO, I THINK THAT REVIEWING THE CURRENT DUI DRIVING LAWS,THAT ARE CONSIDERED BY MANY TO BE TOO HARSH, SHOULD ALSO BE DONE. IT IS THE OPINION OF THIS WRITER THAT NO ONE SHOULD DRINK AND DRIVE BUT THAT THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO DEAL WITH THIS SERIOUS PROBLEM BY STRESSING BETTER EDUCATION OF OUR YOUTH ABOUT DRINKING ALCOHOL AND TAKING DRUGS. I FEEL THAT THE PERMANENT REVOCATION OF ONES DRIVING PRIVILEGES IS NOT NECESSARILY A SOLUTION BUT SIMPLY AN ACTION OF LEGISLATURES THAT THOUGHT IT WOULD BE AN EFFECTIVE NEW INFORCEMENT TO STOP DRUNK DRIVING. THIS HAS NOT APPEARED TO BE THE END ALL CURE. EDUCATION IS THE REMEDY AND CURE. THINKING IT A SOLUTION WHEN IN FACT IT HASN'T PROVEN TO BE SO BEARS FURTHER INVESTIGATION AS TO WHETHER IT IS A REMEDY OR NOT. IT HAS BEEN STATED BY A RECENT FLORIDA SUPREME COURT RULING THAT TAKING AWAY SOMEONE'S DRIVING PRIVILEGES FOR LIFE IS NOT A PUNISHMENT BUT A MEASURE TO PROTECT PUBLIC SAFETY.
   MANY OFFENDERS WHO CAN AFFORD TO DO SO SIMPLY HIRE AN EXPENSIVE ATTORNEY WHO IS ABLE TO GET THE DUI CHARGE LESSENED TO A WRECKLESS DRIVING AND IN MANY CASES TOTALLY DROPPED. THIS DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE PERSON WAS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL WHEN THEY WERE STOPPED. THIS PERSON WAS ABLE TO CIRCUMVENT THE DRUNK DRIVING LAW BECAUSE OF EITHER WHO THEY KNOW OR THEIR ABILITY TO AFFORD A GOOD ATTORNEY TO FIGHT THE CHARGE. IS IT FAIR THAT A PERSON WHO COULDN'T AFFORD AN EXPENSIVE ATTORNEY HAVE TO TAKE A MORE EXTREME PUNISHMENT OF A LIFE TIME REVOCATION WITH NO POSSIBILITY OF EVER GETTING AT LEAST A HARDSHIP PERMIT.  I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THAT IT IS PUNISHMENT WHEN SOMETHING THIS DRASTIC, THAT CAN EFFECT A PERSONS ABILITY TO MAKE A LIVING, IS SO IMPOSED AND PUNISHMENT IS CERTAINLY IN ORDER, BUT NOT A PUNISHMENT THAT WILL BE IN FORCE FOR LIFETIME. THE ONLY WAY A HARDSHIP WOULD BE ALLOWED IS IF THE OFFENDER CAN PROVE THAT THEY NO LONGER CONSUME ALCOHOL ON ANY LEVEL. IN OTHER WORDS, TOTAL SOBRIETY WOULD HAVE TO BE IN EFFECT. IN THE NAME OF PROTECTING PUBLIC SAFETY, I PROPOSE THAT THERE ARE BETTER WAYS THAT WILL HELP THE GENERAL WELFARE WITH BETTER SOLUTIONS THAN THINKING THAT IMPOSING THIS TYPE OF PUNISHMENT ON SOMEONE WHICH IS CRUEL AND UNUSUAL. IT IS SIMPLY TOO EXTREME NOT TO ALLOW SOMEONE THE CHANCE TO PROVE THAT THEY CAN BE REHABILITATED. HOW DOES PENALIZING SOMEONE FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES HELP TO CHANGE THE PROBLEM. IF SOMEONE WANTS TO CONTINUE DRINKING AFTER RECEIVING A LIFETIME REVOCATION THEN I GUESS IT'S THEIR RIGHT AS LONG AS THEY DON'T DRIVE. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF SOMEONE CAN PROVE THAT THEY HAVE TOTALLY REHABILITATED THEMSELVES AND ABSOLUTELY DO NOT DRINK ALCOHOL ANYMORE THEN I DON'T THINK IT IMPROPER TO ALLOW THIS PERSON ANOTHER CHANCE AT HAVING A HARDSHIP DRIVING PERMIT. WHY NOT DO A REVIEW OF THE CURRENT LAWS AND COME UP WITH A MORE SOUND SOLUTION TO DRUNK DRIVING ? HOW DOES IMPOSING A LIFETIME REVOCATION EFFECT BETTERING THE SITUATION OF THE STILL SICK INDIVIDUAL THAT IS STILL OUT THERE ON THE ROADS OF OUR STATE AND COUNTRY STILL DRIVING DRUNK OR MEDICATED OR BOTH? STATISTICS SHOW THAT PERMANENT REVOCATION IS NOT THE SOLUTION. IF YOU COMPARE THE NUMBERS OF INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE UNDER PERMANENT REVOCATION OF THEIR DRIVING PRIVILEGES TO THE NUMBER OF RISING DUI ARREST THEN IT BECOMES APPARENT THAT LIFETIME REVOCATION IS NOT A REMEDY. WHEN WILL WE WAKE UP AND FIGURE OUT THAT EDUCATION IS THE BEST INSURANCE ALONG WITH MANDATORY INSTALLATION OF A INTERLOCK DEVICE INSTALLED AFTER THE FIRST DUI WITH NO EXCEPTIONS. I GUARANTEE YOU THIS WOULD GET PEOPLES ATTENTION BUT AT LEAST THEY COULD DRIVE TO WORK AND SUPPORT THEIR FAMILIES IF THEY ARE WILLING TO FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES OF THE INTERLOCK PROGRAM. THE REASON THERE ARE REPEAT OFFENDERS IS ONE OF TWO THINGS. THEY ARE EITHER ALCOHOLIC AND NEED SERIOUS HELP OR THEY SIMPLY REFUSE TO RECOGNIZE THE DANGERS BECAUSE OF LACK OF EDUCATION OR A TOTAL DISREGARD OF OUR LAWS. THIS IS A NATIONAL EPIDEMIC AND THERE ARE STILL A LOT OF DRUNK DRIVERS ON OUR ROADS KILLING PEOPLE, SO THERE HAVE TO BE SOME BETTER AND MORE PRODUCTIVE SOLUTIONS. IMPOSING LIFETIME REVOCATION HAS DONE NOTHING TO KEEP THE ACTIVE DRUNK DRIVER FROM GRABBING SOMEONES KEYS AND DRIVING DRUNK. LET'S REEVALUATE WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING HERE. ONE MIGHT AS WELL TRY TO PERFORM BRAIN SURGERY WITH BARBEQUE TONGS THAN TO TRY TO BRING DOWN THE NUMBERS OF DEATHS ON OUR NATIONS HIGHWAYS WITH THINKING THAT A LIFETIME REVOCATION HELPS TO PREVENT DRUNK DRIVING. IT IS A FAILED ATTEMPT AT A SOLUTION AND IS NOT A CURE FOR THE PROBLEM. IF SOMEONE WANTS TO DRIVE A VEHICLE DRUNK THEN THEY SEEM TO MAKE THAT BAD DECISION AND JUST DO IT. A STRONGER EDUCATIONAL APPROACH WOULD ATTACK THIS PROBLEM IN OUR YOUTHS FORMULATIVE YEARS AND BETTER SERVE AS A SOLUTION, NEVER ALLOWING THE BAD BEHAVIOR TO BEGIN IN THE FIRST PLACE.
   IF SOME NEW DISCUSSION COULD BE OPENED UP TO LOOK AT THE PROBLEM AND TO FIND SOME BETTER SOLUTIONS THEN POSSIBLY SOME REHABILITATED FORMER DRUNK DRIVERS COULD BECOME BETTER CONTRIBUTORS TO OUR SOCIETY BY PARTICIPATING IN THE EDUCATION OF OUR YOUTH SO THAT THEY BETTER UNDERSTAND THE FATAL CONSEQUENCES THAT DRINKING AND DRIVING CAN HAVE.
   WHAT IS PROPOSED IS THAT THE PEOPLE ,WHO HAVE LOST THEIR LICENSES, WOULD BE ALLOWED TO VINDICATE THEMSELVES BY SERVING THEIR COMMUNITY IN THIS CAPACITY. THIS WRITER DEFINITELY FEELS THIS WOULD HAVE A TREMENDOUS POSITIVE IMPACT ON OUR SOCIETIES FUTURE WHICH HAPPENS TO BE OUR CHILDREN. WOULDN'T IT BE A GREAT WORLD TO LIVE IN IF THERE WERE NO DRUNK DRIVERS ON THE ROAD? I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS POSSIBLE WITH PROPER EDUCATION.
BY TAKING AWAY A PERSONS DRIVERS LICENSE FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIFE DOES NOT TAKE THE OTHER DRUNK DRIVERS OFF THE ROAD, STATISTICS SHOW. EDUCATION IS THE KEY TO CORRECTING THE PROBLEM. THE PROBLEM IS NOT GOING TO BE CORRECTED BY NOT ALLOWING A PERSON TO DRIVE LEGALLY. AN INDIVIDUAL WHO CAN PROVE ABSTINENCE FROM ALCOHOL FOR A PERIOD OF AT LEAST 5 YEARS AND CAN UNDOUBTEDLY PROVE THIS TO BE TRUE, CERTAINLY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO AT LEAST HAVE A HARDSHIP LICENSE TO ALLOW THEM TO ATTEND AA AND NA MEETINGS, ATTEND RELIGIOUS SERVICES, DRIVE TO AND FROM WORK AND SHOP FOR GROCERIES. THE HARDSHIP LICENSE IS NOT A FULL DRIVING LICENSE AND IF THIS PLUS AN  IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE OR BREATH ALCOHOL IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE (IID AND BIID) WERE BOTH USED THEN THE REHABILITATED INDIVIDUAL COULD GIVE BACK TO SOCIETY RATHER THAN BEING A NON PRODUCTIVE BURDEN.
THIS COULD ALSO GENERATE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT COULD BE USED TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC AND TO HELP WITH ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE RESEARCH. THE INTERLOCK DEVICES WOULD HAVE TO BE PAID FOR BY THE INDIVIDUAL WHO WANTS TO DRIVE. FEES GENERATED FROM THE HARDSHIP LICENSING REQUIREMENTS COULD ALSO HELP NEEDED STATE FUNDS. THIS OF COURSE WOULD BE A STATE SUPERVISED PROGRAM. PROOF OF CONTINUAL RECOVERY MEETING ATTENDANCE AND TOTAL ABSTINANCE FROM ALCOHOL WOULD BE MANDATORY PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS. THIS COULD BE A ZERO TOLERANCE PROGRAM WITH NO SECOND CHANCES ALLOWED.

THIS BLOG WAS STARTED BY FRANK M.( AN INDIVIDUAL WITH 6+ YEARS OF SOBRIETY AND WHO HAS HAD HIS DRIVERS LICENSE PERMANENTLY REVOKED IN FLORIDA AS A RESULT OF 4 DUI'S). FRANK M. HELPS MANY PEOPLE THAT ARE IN RECOVERY BY SETTING A SOBER EXAMPLE AND HE OPERATES AN ALCOHOL REHABILITATION PROGRAM IN TAMPA, FLORIDA  THAT WAS STARTED IN JANUARY 2003. MIRACLES DO HAPPEN!

I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE ANY PARTICIPATION FROM OUR GOVERNMENT LEADERS, ATTORNEYS AND THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL IF THEY FEEL THEY WOULD LIKE TO CONTRIBUTE TO OUR BLOG. PLEASE TELL ME YOUR THOUGHTS.

                                REMEMBER, DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE!!!!

FRANK M., MAY 3, 2009

Comment on: BLOG CREATORS OPENING STATEMENT

Sat, 16 May 2009 19:45:44 GMT

Please leave your comments by posting if you want to try and be heard. This is for anybodies use that would like to express their opinion. FPM

Comment on: BLOG CREATORS OPENING STATEMENT

Mon, 04 May 2009 11:11:52 GMT

Right on, it's time for new thinking, you should run for a seat in the legislature. We could use some progressive ideas in Tallahassee.

Comment on: BLOG CREATORS OPENING STATEMENT

Mon, 04 May 2009 08:26:15 GMT

I find your blog very interesting! Good idea!