DRUGGED DRIVER BILL NEEDS RECRAFTING

Drugged drivers would join drunken drivers in the penalty box under a
provision that advanced last week in the state Legislature.

The Senate and Assembly Judiciary Committees both endorsed the "Baby
Luke Bill", a proposal that would make it easier to prosecute persons
driving under the influence of drugs.

The bill, sponsored by State Rep. Mark Gundrum, R-New Berlin, was
prompted by the case of a Waukesha woman whose car was hit by a van in
December, 2001.

The woman, Michelle Logeman, was 30 weeks pregnant. She was seriously
injured and her baby was delivered by emergency Caesarean section and
died.

Prosecutors said the driver of the van ingested cocaine and ran a red
light. Forensic toxicology experts believed the driver was impaired,
but lacked scientific proof and the driver was able to strike a plea
deal in which he pleaded no contest and was sentenced to the maximum
two years in jail.

The case justifiably aroused a furor. Wisconsinites don't like the
idea of someone getting whacked out on cocaine and causing the death
of a baby - and then walking away with a light jail term.

But sometimes legislation that is crafted to remedy such ills poses
problems of its own.

The legislation proposed by Gundrum is essentially a zero-tolerance
law that makes no distinction whether a driver is actually impaired by
a drug when he is behind the wheel.

Prosecutors would not have to show that drivers are substantially
impaired to prove that they are driving under the influence - only
that the drug is in their system, even in trace amounts.

Does that mean that a driver who takes a few puffs of marijuana on a
Friday night can be prosecuted for drugged driving for an accident
that occurs on Monday afternoon? That's conceivable.

And that's a very large net.

Wisconsin has just gone through a fight over the tightening of it's
drunk driving limit to 0.08 blood alcohol. Central to that argument
was the a dispute over the number of drinks a person could have before
driving was impaired.

We can only imagine the howls that would have erupted if legislators
had proposed a 0.0 standard - zero tolerance. The difference, of
course, is that the other drugs - marijuana, methamphetamines, cocaine
or what have you - are illegal.

And that seems reason enough for Gundrum who said as he introduced the bill
last June: "We've already made it public policy that you shouldn't have any
of these drugs in your possession. We're just taking the next logical step."

We're not sure that is the next logical step.

The issue here is impaired driving abilities that cause accidents -
not filling our jails with drivers who test positive for lingering
traces of illicit drugs. Gundrum's bill doesn't appear to make that
distinction and should be more tightly crafted.