That’s what the headline to this story should read.
Public records examined by the Austin American-Statesman show that most elected officials who have been stopped on suspicion of driving while intoxicated in recent years have declined to consent to a blood or breath sample.
The newspaper reported Sunday that it turned up cases involving more than a dozen elected officials in Texas — including representatives, senators, judges and commissioners — in which police on the scene asked for a sample to determine whether the driver’s blood-alcohol concentration exceeded the 0.08 legal limit.
Except for two cases, both of which occurred outside the state, the politicians refused, the paper reported.
“Among the general public, the refusal rate is about 50 percent, but at the Capitol, the refusal rate is about 100 percent,” said Shannon Edmonds, governmental relations director for the Texas District and County Attorneys Association.
“Many people refuse to blow; it’s a growing problem in Texas,” said Karen Housewright, executive director of Texas Mothers Against Drunk Driving. “But we like to think our elected officials would behave as role models and hold themselves to a higher standard.”
That’s one way of looking at it. Another is to note that most elected officials are knowledgeable enough to realize that breathalyzer tests have high rates of error, and consenting to take the test can only help the prosecution. Which, despite the fulminations of MADD and the TDCAA and Williamson County DA John Bradley is not something that anyone accused of a crime is required to do. In fact, as the original story notes, all of the elected officials in recent years who had been pulled over for DWI and refused to take the breathalyzer test wound up either being acquitted or having the charges dismissed. With a track record like that, who among us wouldn’t do the same?
Now, if you want to argue that there’s a certain hypocrisy here, especially with state legislators who routinely vote to get tuff on crime as long as it applies to someone else, I won’t dispute that. But as long as we still have the freedom to not make it any easier for the state to prosecute us, I don’t have any objection to those who exercise that freedom.