MADD not mad at influential State Rep

MADD decided to enter the picture to defend Ocean City PD officer Douglas A. Smith's (AKA OCPD's toughest DUI enforcement officer) decision that Delaware State Rep John C. Atkins was drunk enough that a friend had to come get him from his pulled over vehicle, but not drunk enough to merit a charge. Lest you doubt Officer Smith's judgment, a breathalyser tested the Honorable Atkins at .14 (well over the state limit of .08).

Fun quote.

"(Smith) followed the same procedures and protocol for this arrest as he would for any other," she said. "He did smell alcohol on his breath, but there was no hesitation or fumbling, no confusion as to what was being asked, no slurring, no delay. None of the clues were really there."

And,

"He administered the (test) after he had decided not to make an arrest and he made the right call by not letting him continue driving," Elzey said. "He probably saved lives by not letting him drive home."

Yet...

"He's had a couple hundred DUI arrests in a few years,"

Now frequent readers of the H-Blog (Hi Ma!), know I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer (wait, Ma look away!), but I'm a bit confused. Alcohol is so damaging that a level of .08 is illegal, yet you can have a BAC of .14 and not be exhibiting any signs of impairment? Which begs the question, if "none of the clues were really there" why did Officer Smith pull Atkins over in the first place?

Also, Officer Smith "probably saved lives by not letting him drive home" but made the right call by not making an arrest? Did Rep Atkins teleport to the place where Officer Smith pulled him over? What about all the risk the other drivers were taking before Officer Smith found him? It's not like Officer Smith intercepted the good Rep before he started his car (but sitting behind a parked care with a BAC above the legal limit does qualify you for an arrest). In that vein, how can MADD, with a straight face, say that Officer Smith treated Rep Atkins the same as all the other people he pulled over? The guy's "toughest" DUI officer in the state with "a couple hundred arrests in a few years." You don't get those kinds of numbers if you sitting around waiting for friends to come get a drunk driver you just pulled over (I accept that I may be wrong here, maybe Officer Smith pulled over four hundred drunks and only arrested 200 hundred, but I'm skeptical).

So what gives?

Balco's take: Reb Atkins sits on Delaware legislature's public safety committee and has apparently had some positive votes on MADD-favored DWI issues (nows a good time to thank Mr Balco for bringing this to my attention). This is also supported by Rep Atkins' actions after being pulled over. Again, according to Balco (I found back up here), "Immediately after getting pulled over, he flashed his Delaware Legislature ID, after which the officer assured him that he wouldn't be arrested."

Maybe MADD's not playing favorites, but here's the thing, MADD's savvy enough to know that the best move is to stay out of this. A simple "This is a police matter" would have been the better response. Getting directly involved only muddies the picture and makes them look bad. I don't imagine that many readers are sitting back and thinking, "Good for MADD, supporting the release of a State Rep, while simultaneously supporting more road blocks (plus, I assume hiring more police officers to sit with caught drunk drivers while their friends come and pick them up), putting alcohol detection devices in every vehicle (I guess we're all guilty now), zero tolerance (or I guess, zero plus one)." - all spot taken from the MADd website.

Look I want to be clear. I get MADD. I'm also a fan of DUI laws. My particular brand of libertarianism is basically, do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't threaten me. Not much more threatening than a 5000lb vehicle under the control of a drunk. But I also think they push it. Getting arrested for being drunk behind the wheel of a parked car? Nope. Roadblocks? Nope. Breathalysers in all cars? No way, no how. But I've always given them a pass because so many of their volunteers have been directly affected by drunk driving. But this little incident, and getting directly involved to give cover to both the Officer and the Rep, well that just blows the "monomaniacs with a dream" exemption.

I'm also a fan of officers working with citizens to find an acceptable solution (anything that gets around the fact that citizens are a source of income for police departments is for the better - I'll save that for another post). But this just doesn't seem to be the case. Officer Smith, at least according to MADD, is fairly hardcore about this.

So now the way I see it, Mothers are Against Drunk Driving, unless you're in a position to vote for things said mommies like.