Drunk Driving and Teenagers

Teenagers and Drunk Driving

Historically, a major threat to teenagers in the United States is drunk driving injuries and fatalities. There has been great improvement on this issue. Since 1991, drunk-driving incidents involving high schoolers has dropped by 54%. 

However, many high schoolers continue to drive drunk. Alcohol is attributed to have caused or been a factor in 40% of all teen deaths in vehicular accidents. Teen drunk driving, by some estimates, every fifteen minutes a teenager will die from a drunk driving incident. 

Lastly, 60% of all teen car crashes are alcohol-related and 1 in every 10 American teenagers will drive under the influence of alcohol.

Alcohol is a big part of teen communities and therefore some statistics should be absorbed to understand the gravity and prevalence of alcohol-use in teenage communities. In 2003, the average boy tries his first tries of alcohol at 11 and the average girl at 13. On an average day, 11,318 teens will try alcohol for the first time. 

Alcohol abuse is more likely for those who begin drinking regularly before 15 years old. Lastly, three million American teens are alcoholics. These statistics show that alcohol is a big part of growing-up and holds a hallowed place in teenage communities. This must be tempered with policies that help to combat the potential threat teenage drunk driving can pose to the teenage community as well as the community at-large.

Zero Tolerance Laws

The tremendous drop in teenage drunk driving shows that effective strategies do exist o combat this specific threat. One of the most effective are known as “zero tolerance” laws. Zero tolerance laws are designed to deter drunk driving by making it illegal for all under the age of 21 to imbibe any alcohol at all and drive. 

This means in a jurisdiction where zero tolerance laws have been enacted, if someone under the age of 21 has any modicum of alcohol in their system, they will be considered to be driving drunk. The research has shown that laws like these have been effective in reducing drinking and driving crashes involving teenagers. 

The classification of these types of offences can vary depending on the jurisdiction in which the violation occurs. Some jurisdictions classify them as administrative infractions while others consider these offences are misdemeanor crimes. The facts of the case also play a role in what penalties are doled out.

The penalties, in cases such as these, can vary depending on how the state classifies the violation and the individual facts and circumstances of the incident. In many cases underage drivers with alcohol in their system can face: fines fluctuating from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars, up to a year in jail, community service, substance abuse classes or treatment, and/or having to install an ignition interlock device. Although most often underage DUI penalties are less severe than normal DUI penalties, they can still have major repercussions in a young person’s life.

Less Known Adverse Effects of an Underage DUI Conviction

All young people should be aware of the extent to which a DUI can affect their life. Yes, underage DUIs can cause fines and even jail time. However, there can be other adversities posed by such a conviction. 

Applications to colleges and universities can be compromised by an underage drunk driving conviction. Most undergraduate institutions have a section in their application process devoted to crimes and infractions. On a college application, a misdemeanor can be lumped in with more serious crimes. 

Therefore, whether the underage DUI is a misdemeanor in that teenager’s students state can be a big deal for any potential students. It is true that underage DUIs do not necessarily disqualify you from getting your undergraduate degree, but it can be a factor that is given significant consideration and can materially hurt a teenager’s chance at an acceptance.

An underage DUI can potentially affect your ability to get certain types of employment. However, it is not common that an underage DUI (assuming it wasn’t followed with a pattern of irresponsible behavior and that offence occurred a number of years ago) will not substantially affect your search for employment. 

Again, this can depend on whether your state considers violation of zero tolerance laws a misdemeanor or merely an administrative infraction. Background checks are common for many employment applications and thus it is essential to be aware of your state’s policy on if they have a zero tolerance law on the books and if so how stringent it’s penalties are.

What Can Be Done to Avoid all of This?

First and foremost, teens must take the responsibility unto themselves to comport with behavior that minimizes the risk of being in alcohol-related vehicular accidents. Perhaps the most important thing teens can do is to not drink and drive. Teens should also not ride in a vehicle with another teen who has been drinking. In fact, they should make reasonable attempts to dissuade other teens from driving inebriated. Furthermore, obey the speed limit, don’t text and drive, and put on your seatbelt. All of these steps will make teens safer on the roads and hopefully will not only diminish drunk driving rates as well as promote safe driving in general.

Second, parents must be the vanguards of safety for their children and make reasonable efforts to ensure responsible behavior. Parents must understand that teenagers will drink and when they do they may be doing so to get drunk. Parents should also understand that drunk driving is more dangerous for teenagers than adults, in large part, because teenagers aren’t used to drinking and knowing their alcohol limits. Studies show that an effective way to respond is not to enforce draconian rules for your kids, but rater give them options. Offer to give them a way to get home safe and sound. This may be done by picking them up or sending a cab to get them. It is essential that teenagers do not feel desperate to hide their drinking as this is what often underpins desperate behavior. Lastly, be a good role model for your teenager by always adhering to the rules of the road.

Ignition Interlock Program

What is the Ignition Interlock Program?

The Ignition Interlock Program was made to help limit the ability of those under the influence of alcohol to drive a vehicle. When an individual is in the program, a device is installed in their vehicle.

This device will only allow the driver to start the ignition of their vehicle when they are sober. Ideally, this would result in a reduction in the number of inebriated drivers on the roads and streets of Maryland.

The device installed in the vehicle has a mouthpiece that must be blown into by any prospective driver. This mouthpiece connects to the ignition of a particular vehicle and will only allow the vehicle to be turned on when breathed into by a person who does not have alcohol on their breath. 

The mouthpiece, when breathed into, connects to a component to the device that will analyze your breath to determine if the person is over the limit of inebriation.

This limit is measured by the blood alcohol content (BAC) which is the same measure the police use when stopping and testing drunk drivers.

The BAC required to disallow the vehicle’s ignition from starting is .025%. This is a lower BAC, then what is needed to arrest an inebriated driver for a DWI or DUI. 

The device also keeps records of all of it’s interactions with users and other types of information that will be reviewed by the service provider every thirty days. 

Lastly, the device will also ask for retests at certain points during your drive to ensure safety. The retests do not require the car to be stopped and can be done with little effort during your drive.

The Ignition Interlock Program and Maryland

Drinking and driving is a serious issue in America and results in property damage, injury, and fatality. In Maryland, roughly a third of roadway deaths are a result of impaired driving. The state averages 7, 884 impaired riving crashes annually. 

Additionally, 171 fatalities and 4,026 injuries occur every year in Maryland as a result of impaired driving.

Maryland established the Ignition Interlock Program in 1989. It is administrated and monitored by the Maryland Department of Transportation’s Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA). The program has evolved since its inception. Currently, the Ignition Interlock Program is entirely automated.

This allows the MVA to monitor the participants of the program efficiently and effectively. The MVA also makes use of automation in taking action against program violators. 

Maryland Vehicle Law and the Code of Maryland Regulations mandate the requirements for “participation, the standards for certification, installation, repair and removal of interlock devices, the eligibility requirements for participants, and the standards for Service Providers.”

How do Driver’s Get into the Ignition Interlock Program?

Under normal circumstances, an individual is enrolled in the Ignition Interlock Program after some kind of drunk driving incident. An accused individual can elect to enter the program for a number of reasons, but the most common one is that it can be evidence used to show good behavior or a change of heart for the Court.

If the individual is eligible, the drunk driver can opt into the program thereby becoming a participant in the Ignition Interlock Program. Participation in the program is an alternative to requesting a hearing or upon the suspension or revocation of your driver’s license. On October 1, 2016 Noah’s law was enacted which would require certain offenders to enroll in the program.

These offences include DUIs, DWIs while transporting a minor under the age of 16, driving while intoxicated with an initial breathalyzer test refusal, and homicide or life-threatening injury by motor vehicle while DUI or DWI.

When you elect to participate in the Ignition Interlock Program, an individual will be enrolled for a certain amount of time. When you submit a test indicating a BAC of at least 0.08 but less than 0.15, you will be enrolled for 180 days. This term will 1 year if the test submitted indicated a BAC of 0.15 or higher. The term will be the same if you refuse to submit to the test.

What are Violations of the Ignition Interlock Program

For those who elect or are required to enroll in the Ignition Interlock Program, they must adhere to the requirements of the program or otherwise risk failure or addendums to their term of enrollment. One such violation is the failure to have the device installed in their car and obtain a license that reflects that they may only operate a vehicle that possesses an ignition interlock device.


Another is the failure to appear at the monthly monitoring visits or to operate a motor vehicle not equipped with the ignition device. Some more violations include: failure to abide by terms and conditions of the service provider, tampering with the device, or attempting to start a vehicle with a BAC greater than .025%.

The Cost of the Ignition Interlock Program

All participants in the program are responsible for all expenses incurred by participation in the program. The MVA charges a fee for obtaining a special license that notes the participant may not drive a vehicle that does not have an ignition device.


The MVA also charges a fee to correct the participants license after completion of Ignition Interlock program. Lastly, the installation and monthly servicing cost are charged to participants. These costs may vary.

How Long Does the Program Last?

When an individual receives information about the program, the information should include the minimum amount of time so that the program may be completed. However, this time period is subject to change.

Violations of the program’s rules and guidelines can result in change in terms. Therefore, an individual’s term in the program can be increased by violations. Duration in the program can also be increased by other driving incidents.

Another important note is that credit toward Ignition Interlock Program achievement will not be given until the ignition is installed in the individual’s vehicle and have obtained a restricted license. The program is only officially completed when a letter is sent by the service provider of the Ignition Interlock Program to the MVA.

Uber and Drunk Driving

Does Uber help drunk driving statistics?

The rise of Uber and other alternatives to traditional taxicab services have led to claims that such services have been responsible for a drop in the national drunk driving incident rate. This claim has been promulgated by Uber itself who claim, “Services like Uber—where passengers push a button and get a ride in minutes—are helping to curb drunk driving.”

However, the American Journal of Epidemiology (“AJE”) believes the real story is a little more complicated. The AJE conducted a survey that was notable for examining the effect Uber has on different cities as opposed to the more conventional academic approach of compiling and analyzing statistics nationally. 

So, did the AJE find that Uber and other rideshare services have helped deter drunk-driving incidents. The answer is complicated.

Uber Does Help, Sometimes

The tempting assertion to hail Uber as a hero in the struggle against drunk driving is tantalizing. Uber, seemingly, would give potential inebriated drivers access to convenient, low-cost transportation. 

Why would someone drink and drive when given the readily-available alternative presented by ridesharing companies? Well, these assumptions are based on a few false premises. To begin, the argument that Uber presents a low-cost alternative to driving drunk is unsubstantiated. 

As the AJE puts it, “because drivers are unlikely to get caught drinking and driving, paying for a rideshare service may still be far more costly than driving drunk for many individuals.”

Drunk-drivers are motivated to drive home inebriated because they believe they will not be caught. This means just because uber is inexpensive does not mean that it will deter people from drunk-driving. 

When an inebriated person makes the decision to drive drunk, they might be doing so to avoid Uber costs all-together. In other words, Ubers might be relatively cheap, but more often than not they are not cheaper than just taking your car home.

The Assumption of Rationality

Another fallacy the presumption Uber helps lower drunk driving incident rates rests upon the assumption of rationality. The AJE writes, “the average inebriated individual contemplating drunk driving may not be sufficiently rational to substitute drinking and driving for a presumably safer Uber ride.” 

It is fair to assume that most drunk-drivers make the decision to drive under the influence of alcohol when already inebriated. While under the influence of alcohol, decision-making prowess and rational thought can be compromised. 

Therefore, it cannot be assumed that most drunk-drivers are operating under the same level of rationality as they would while sober. This loss of rationality makes it unreasonable to assume people will make the smart decision and call an Uber.

Ubers are Substitutes for Taxis, but Not for Drunk-Driving

Another presumption made by those who believe Uber to be lowering drunk-driving rates is that Uber will be used as an alternative to drunk driving. It was mentioned above that Uber’s convenience is what may make it a plausible alternative to driving home under the influence. This presumption is unsubstantiated.


Uber is not a substitute for drunk-driving and is merely a substitute for public transportation, walking, or taxis. A potential drunk driver often does not see Uber as a viable option for a few reasons. One of the biggest reasons, is the inconvenience of leaving their car where it is rather than taking it home. 

It is inconvenient for a drunk person, who used their car to get to the area in which they now seek to leave, to leave it there overnight because they feel they are under the influence. Therefore, more often than not, Uber does not eliminate the inconvenience of leaving your car somewhere far from where you want it.

How the AJE Conducted Its Experiment

Now that some presumptions have been challenged, it is time to delve into the experiment itself and its results. The AJE conducted this experiment in Las Vegas, Portland, Reno, and San Antonio. These cities were picked because they are urban environments and Uber had launched, ended, and then resumed operations there at some point. 

The study wanted to test the claim made by Uber asserting drunk-driving had been curbed by their company. It is clear immediately one of the biggest limitations this test suffers from. They do not represent and do not purport to represent anything other than urban environments. 

The researchers sought to analyze the data from the first five years of Uber’s presence in the city and come up with evidence that either supports or disagrees with the claims made by Uber.

What are the Results?

As mentioned above, the results are complicated. It seems for now Uber is partially correct in their assertion, but not entirely. Uber has helped curb drunk driving in some places, but not others. Thus, it is an oversimplification to claim that Uber curbs obesity. 

To start, crashes involving alcohol lessened as Uber resumed its presence in Portland and San Antonio. Reno does not show any less car crashes as a result of drunk-driving. Las Vegas showed more positive numbers as a result of Uber’s presence than Reno, but the prevalence of Uber use in 

Las Vegas is much higher due to the constant influx of tourists. In sum, Uber does help curb drunk driving in the right circumstances.

What Circumstances Does Uber Lower Drunk-Driving 

In urban environments, there can be many factors that allow Uber success in deterring drunk driving. As mentioned above, high influxes of tourists normally indicate greater usage of ridesharing services like Uber. Cities that have less tourism seem to have not been affected by Uber’s presence as the majority of people simply use their vehicles to get around resulting in more instances of drunk driving. 

Other unique variables exist such as topography and availability of public transportation. Traffic and population density are big indications of whether Uber will have success in curbing drunk-driving, as people are more inclined to travel by Uber in high-density areas. 

Thus, Uber’s claim that they help lower drunk-driving rates is not exactly correct and not exactly wrong. Certainly, other factors exist outside of Uber’s control and thus those looking to deter drunk-driving should look to what other successful cities have that they do not have.

Maryland DUI Per Se Explained

What is Maryland DUI Per Se?

Many people are aware of DUIs and DWIs. These acronyms are so famous (or infamous) people who have never experienced either could probably tell you at a moment’s notice with little hesitation exactly what they mean.

However, if you are a Marylander you likely will not know that a third major impaired driving offense is on the books. 

A DUI per se charge has changed the way impaired driving is litigated in Maryland. Therefore, Marylanders should be aware of the ways DUI per se chargers differ from its brethren.

How a DUI Per Se Works for the State

The DUI per se law is an instrument of the state and is often utilized as a means of getting tough on impaired driving. Maryland is not the only state with these per se laws on the books and thus this discussion carries weight in many other places around the country, but this post is geared toward Marylanders. 

Primarily, what you should know about DUI per se laws is that they make it easier for the government to prevail on its claim that a certain individual has driven impaired. 

The per se legal mechanism is meant to deter the act of impaired driving by increasing the likelihood of repercussion for individuals who drive irresponsibly by categorically declaring all those above the legal limit of impairment to be in violation of the law.

What DUI Per Se Means for You

So, what does this look in real life? Well, normal DUI’s call for a tougher threshold of evidence. A normal DUI charge requires that the alcohol or drugs that have allegedly compromised a driver’s cognitive ability must be shown to have affected your mental or physical acumen. 

In other words, to make the case against a driver under a DUI charge, the state would have to show objective deficiencies in driver behavior or ability. 

This can be shown by a law enforcement agent having observed a vehicle swaying or being operated erratically in some fashion. 

This can also be shown by certain examinations when your vehicle has been stopped such as a field sobriety test or any displays of slurred speech. It is clear that the emphasis is on the driver and the quality of their driving.

DUI and BAC, What Does it All Mean?

The DUI per se charge switches the emphasis from driver/driving quality to a formulaic measurement of an individual’s blood alcohol content (BAC). If you are shown to have had a BAC that exceeds the .08%, you will likely be given a DUI per se charge. 

So, how is this different than a normal DUI? Well, if a driver is found to have a BAC that is higher than the legal limit, then that is the ball game. There is no need for the state to show that it had any effect on your driving, or that it impaired your speech, or that you failed a sobriety test. 

It is an easier process for the state because it relies on objectively measurable data, but it also sheers away the extra evidence required in a normal DUI proceeding.

More About BAC

Now you might be asking yourself, how is BAC measured. BAC is measured by a blood test that you will be submitted to upon reasonable suspicion of impaired driving. When you get your license, it is assumed that you have been put on notice that you will be required to submit to such a test if you are alleged to have driven impaired. 

Another test used to measure BAC, is a breath test. This often uses a breathing apparatus which contains chemicals that react to the level of alcohol in your system. Again, when you receive your license it is assumed that you have consented to such tests. 

This legal concept is called “implied consent.” Briefly, implied consent here means that the above tests are part of the agreement you make when being issued a driver’s license by the state. This means you will face consequences for refusing to take the test when requested to by a law enforcement officer. 

In Maryland, if you refuse to submit to either a breath test or a blood test, you can be given a fine and an immediate license suspension. The first refusal typically results in a 120-day suspension, but a second refusal often results in a year suspension.

The Process of a DUI Charge

If you ever have to face a DUI per se charge, then your experience will likely go something like this. DUI per se charges carry with them a unique proceeding along with the potentially criminal charges. These proceedings are overseen separately by the Motor Vehicle Association (MVA). 

They adjudicated by administrative law judges from the Office of Administrative Hearings. Unlike, in a potential criminal case, these adjudications will happen quickly and overwhelmingly result in the suspension on the accused’s license. This is regardless of what happens in any other parallel proceedings.

Proving a DUI in Court

Now these laws have not gone without their fair share of criticism in some legal and advocacy circles. Many believe that the amount of proof required in a normal DUI proceeding is what should be required to show and DUI per se charges are a shortcut meant to deter drunk driving, but really deprive accused drivers of fairness. 

These critics insist that actual effects on the driver and/ or their driving should have to be shown. Additionally, the critics believe that the field sobriety test, talking, and walking are necessary precursors to any proper impaired driving accusation. 

Advocates that support DUI per se laws believe that merely showing a person has a higher than allowed BAC is sufficient evidence to show wrongdoing. These laws are favored by those that seek to deter drunk driving by getting tough on those that commit such offences.

Finding a Maryland DUI Lawyer for Your Charges

At the Law Offices of Randolph Rice, we represent our clients zealously and with an appreciation for both sides of the debate. Whether charged with a DUI or a DUI per se, we know how to best represent your interest in the courtroom or any other proceedings imposed as a product of the state’s allegations. 

We have decades of legal experience at our firm and know how to navigate drunk driving offences. Come in today for a free consultation.