Think Pink.
Senator from New Port Richey proposes pink DUI plates
CLEARWATER, Fla. - A Republican senator wants a law to require bright pink license plates on vehicles driven by people with restricted driving privileges due to convictions for driving under the influence. Sen. Mike Fasano, of New Port Richey, filed a bill earlier this month that requires the first three characters on the plate to read “DUI.”“Maybe it will embarrass people and keep them from drinking and driving,” Fasano said. “Maybe they’ll think twice.”
The bill also says police “may stop any vehicle that bears a DUI plate without probable cause to check the driver.” Ohio and Michigan have similar laws in place. Other states have debated the issue, but failed to pass it due to privacy reasons.
“Pink plates would hold out individuals for punishment as well as ridicule. We are very opposed to it,” said Larry Spalding, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union in Florida.
About 840,000 of Florida’s 15 million licensed drivers have an active DUI sanction on their driving records, said Frank Penela, Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles spokesman. A small percentage of those have limited driving privileges, such as permission to drive only to and from work, Penela said.
This is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. The fact that it would give police officers the right to pull over and search any driver and their vehicle without question is beyond Orwellian. What if you borrow someone’s car? Sen. Fasano also says that if he can’t find a sponsor for this bill in the House he will go to the Senate and try to attach it to a major piece of transportation legislation. This could sneak in right under our noses. There are enough penalities for getting a DUI, this is taking it too far.
Oh, and just so you don’t get the wrong idea I’m not trivializing drunk driving or condoning it in any way. I just think that this is a horrible piece of legislation that shouldn’t even be considered.
Related posts:
I don’t think there are enough penalties for a DUI. However, I agree with you that this is “the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.” Do they believe all DUIs are caused by men? Did they not think about women liking the color pink? How would that be embarrassing for us? “Oh, no, not a color I actually like. In fact, it matches the color of the 4 cosmpolitans I just downed before starting the car…”
I have to disagree. Wouldn’t YOU want to know when you’re behind someone who has had DUIs?? I know I would!
My son was involved in a terrible car accident two months ago. He’s six years old. He spent a week in a hospital and had to have surgery to put him back together. It wasn’t a drunk driver, but it was a sleepy one (just as dangerous).
If a pink plate would spare just one person even half of what I went through (which is far less than someone who’s actually LOST someone), then I say go for it!
If it embarasses you, then don’t drink and drive. Don’t borrow the car of someone who has a pink plate. Nobody will force you to borrow it.
And give the owners of a pink plate a way to redeem themselves and earn back a standard plate. Make them volunteer in a hospital or a rehab clinic that helps seriously injured people or maybe a drunk tank in the jail.
I dunno… but I see nothing wrong with putting the public on notice for people who can’t make good decisions.
We put out child predator lists and photos of convicted sex offenders who might live in your area. You want to know about those people… and yet you don’t want to save your life or the life of someone you love by being cautious and aware of someone who is operating 2 tons of a death machine right next to your precious family?? I don’t get it.
Ever read The Scarlet Letter? That’s what’s wrong with it. It’s called the right to privacy. There are penalties in place to deal with drunk drivers and DUI offenders. Making a public spectacle of them isn’t going to deter them any more than the death penalty deters criminals. The fact that this would give police the right to pull over someone with the pink plate and search them without probable cause is even more draconian and wrong.
You say I don’t want to save lives because I don’t support an unjust law that violates our rights, that’s simply absurd. As is equating sex offenders to those who’ve had a DUI. People make mistakes, and sometimes a DUI is just that, a mistake that you do end up paying for. Violating a child sexually is not a mistake, it’s a sickness and a crime far more egregious.
I understand what you are saying and perhaps there should be an increase in penalty for drunk drivers, but not this.
I completely disagree. I think it’s a great idea. But only if it were for a limited time, like probation. I used to work for a criminal lawyer and the people we had coming in there were on their 2nd, 3rd even 4th DUI. Fines and jail don’t deter them. Maybe public embarrassment will. If it keeps one drunk driver off the road, and prevents one fatal accident, bring it on!
This is a silly idea and a complete waste of our government’s time. Not because drunk drivers don’t deserve punishment, but because the threat of a pink license plate isn’t a deterrent! If the threat of your own death or someone else’s, jail time, the loss of your license and thousands of dollars spent doesn’t make you think twice about driving drunk, a LICENSE plate certainly won’t.
I never once said that the pink plate would be a deterrant… except maybe if you want to borrow someone’s car who has a pink plate.
I don’t think a pink plate will do a darned thing for the people who cannot control their drinking and driving. I think the benefit is for those of us who have to live with these people who cannot control their impulses and KNOW when you’re on the road with one. That’s it.
I like it because in a small way it helps ME. Not them.
As to rights to privacy… you only get those when you obey the laws of our society. When you cannot do that, then your right to privacy goes out the window. Everyone who’s been arrested loses their right to privacy. Everyone. So don’t scream privacy as if you deserve it when you’ve been driving around a 2 ton death machine.
Do people make mistakes? Sure they do. Do they pay the consequences associated with those mistakes too? One would hope so. Doesn’t mean it has to be private… doesn’t mean it has to be permanent… but in the meantime the rest of know who to be careful of when we’re on the road at midnight on a Saturday night.
The pink plate idea is completely out of the question. A few years ago we had license plates that designated which cars were rental cars in the state and that was done away with due to all the road rage it caused. Why not put ZZZ on license plates for narcoleptics who are prone to sleep at the wheel? It’s just as stupid an idea as the DUI plate legislation!!!
Fryguy-
Just so you know. There is no right to privacy. Check out the Constitution.
BEN -
Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Having a previous (and most likely paid for) DUI on your record is not probable cause to pull you over and search your vehicle. Swerving, speeding, and violating the law; sure that’s probable cause. This is a violation of rights, no if’s, ands, or buts.
My biggest problem with this is that this is the best that Congress can come up with. Our people in charge are supposed to come up ways to better our economy and society, not further polarize and segregate it. Using an antiquated method akin to one used in a mid-19th century novel to deal with modern day offenders is backward thinking.
Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint though and I respect that, I am just expressing mine. There is no right or wrong in this instance, just differences in the kind of world we want to live in. This debate could go on forever.
All for it. As a local LEO I believe that any additional deterrence to keep someone from getting behind the wheel after consuming alcohol and/or drugs is good. As far as abuse of the right to stop these vehicles… I’m sure the law would state, like it usually does, that the P/C would end after the condition of the driver is known.
As someone mentioned earlier in the chat- “What if someone borrowed the car”? Because most ligimate borrowing is among family and close friends, the person looking to drive the vehicle would probably know that the owner had been arrested for a prior DUI and has this special tag, If they do not know… well had better not be intoxicated. If sobor… “good bye, drive safely”- no big deal, if they are (intoxicated), we’ll there’s another one off the street before impact is made with one of YOUR family members.
The present penalties are a not working well enough. This past week I arrested four drivers for DUI, one a woman with her 6 year old granddaughter in the vehicle. All over the road, could not stand up without stepping around to keep her balance, almost fell twice… 2.5 times the legal limit.
One strung out on xanax, swerved up onto a sidewalk downtown, could not stand well- almost fell several times had to assisted by LEO’s, did not know what state he was in. For three different citizens to take the time to notify law enforcement was a blessing because that guy could very well have caused a bad crash. Time of stop… around 8:00 pm, think of who in your family travels at this time of day, pretty much everyone.
The other two were more than twice the legal limit. I only wish for safer streets as most citizens do, but I have the direct ability to help. Citizens of Central Florida, use you cell phones they are a big help, if you find yourself behind a possible impaired driver, simply call. Law enforcement bases their stops on what an ‘average’ citizens would believe needs to be checked out. If you call ask if you can provide a statement, I know no one likes spending time in court but it may not be needed and it helps prosecute these drivers before a jury.
Only down fall is that during a DUI investigation a driving pattern is great to have… to have “swerving across both lanes” or “ran two other vehicles out of their lanes” is a great help in demostrating that he/she did not have their normal facilities and should not have been driving.
It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that the people who are against this are likely against it for a personal reason. And the only reason that could be is that it might affect them in a direct way.
There is a right and wrong on this issue… the right is fighting to protect our very lives and the lives of those we love. The wrong is to keep your own skin out of hot water. Pathetic.
If I drive drunk, I deserve whatever punishment the judicial system deems appropriate. Once I break the law by putting myself and others in physical danger, my rights are severed… at least temporarily.
-Dawn
No offense, but I think that is a bit of an ignorant assumption. Just because someone is against something doesn’t mean they are merely for personal reasons. You are basing your assumption on the comments of less than half a dozen people, most of which actually support it.
I’m against marijuana laws too, but I don’t smoke pot. I’m against the war in Iraq, yet I don’t have a personal stake in it, and I’m against all of the local decency laws, yet I don’t go to porn shops or strip clubs. It’s about a violation of rights.
Yes, I understand the whole “protecting the lives of those we love” mantra, but that goes without saying. Of course I love my friends and family and of course I want them to be safe, but you are in danger the moment you step out of the door and every second you are on the road. Perhaps a heads up in the form of a pink plate might change the stakes a little, but I doubt the cost will outweigh any benefit. Like someone mentioned earlier, you might as well try and place colored places on other infractions too; blue for narcoleptics, red for speeders, green potheads, brown for coffee drinkers, etc. Soon the streets would be such a myriad rainbow of colored plates people would be crashing all over the place trying to decipher the past of their fellow drivers. I’m exaggerating to make a point.
The reason I am against this is two-fold: it violates civil rights, and it is a terrible solution to this problem that will act as no more a deterrent than the laws already in place. This is a poor solution, that’s all I’m saying.
“Maybe it will embarrass people and keep them from drinking and driving,” Fasano said. “Maybe they’ll think twice.”
As stated by a a pink plate advocate (see above), the entire point of the plate would be to KEEP people from driving drunk in the first place, ostensibly by making them think twice about it due to the threat of “embarrassment.”
Anyone who has ever met a drunk person knows that the problem is that they don’t think they’re drunk! They’re not worried about the stigma of a pink plate because at the time, they simply don’t think that they are too drunk to drive and therefore have no reason to be concerned about being embarrassed later on. Once they sober up they usually themselves for their incredible, dangerous stupidity. By that time they could have killed someone.
The answer isn’t a pathetic form of punishment that really isn’t punishment at all. Not that drunk drivers don’t deserve any (everyone knows that they obviously do), but because a plate really wouldn’t make a difference. Our government’s time and money should be spent elsewhere.