Local News

Senate Toughens Stance on Habitual DWI

Posted May 15, 2007

— The North Carolina Senate wants to make it easier for courts to label DWI suspects as habitual offenders.

Late Monday, the Senate passed a bill to eliminate the 10-year time period the courts can consider to tag an offender as a habitual drunk driver.

Under current law, someone is habitual if they’re convicted of drunk driving three times within 10 years.

The bill now moves to the House for debate.


Please with your WRAL.com account to comment on this story. You also will need a Facebook account to comment.

Oldest First
View all
  • Dayum Krazy May 15, 2007

    what Rosebud said...best idea and no repeats within 3-5 years hahaha

  • nc lover May 15, 2007

    Sidekick good post. Also, if repeaters are allowed to drive again anytime in the future their license plates for their cars should read I am a DUI Repeat Offender along with the same thing on their Drivers License. Or make their renewed Drivers License Red or somethig -that way everyone will know they are repeaters everytime they have to flash their ID to a store or something. Humiliate them!

  • Sidekick May 15, 2007

    The way it seems now is if you are charged 10 times in 3 years. How about this, if you are convicted drunk while driving, you go to jail for 1 year.

  • RoseBud May 15, 2007

    its real simple, If you drive drunk, you go to jail & stay
    for awhile, Not 2 hrs not even 45 days... a minimum of 3-5 yrs.

    Its hard to drive when you're locked up

  • wish_I_were_flyin May 15, 2007

    taking away license is a joke. i work in the system, and driving w/out valid license is an everyday offense. i like the idea of seizing the car plate, but the legalities would likely kill that idea, because unless driver is sole owner they probably couldn't take them. whoever made the comment about speeders, get a grip, that is a joke. there are new oversights in place now, where judges and district atty's are having to answer (via a court form i believe) as to why a charge of dwi was reduced, etc.

  • My Two Cents May 15, 2007

    The problem is, so many times there is no conviction. Our lawmakers, for example, can afford to hire expen$ive lawyers, and get off without conviction. That is the key. Maybe they should look at how many arrests. I understand innocent until proven otherwise, but still there is an indicator.

  • CarolinaK May 15, 2007

    I had to take a defensive driving class once (speeding ticket, argh) and the teacher of the class said she won't even accept drunk drivers in her class. Drunk drivers, she said, were more often than not completely unrepentant. And a lot of them think the government shouldn't try to tell people how they're allowed to drive. Scary stuff.

  • readme May 15, 2007

    I just want to say that I consider myself a functioning alcoholic, and I would never, ever get behind the wheel and drive. No matter how drunk I get, I still know right from wrong. There is NO medical excuse for drunk driving, and there is no other good excuse either. Cracking down with stiffer penalties is what is needed here. These people don't need rehab, they need to be punished. I support these stiffer laws.

  • LoneWolf72 May 15, 2007

    Speeders kill more people in NC than intoxicated drivers..


    ....so should first time speeders get the same punishment as first time, non accident, DUI's?

  • ncfishfinder May 15, 2007

    You know that was hard for them, considering senators and lawyers are offenders too.