Pubdate: Sun, 06 Sep 2015
Source: Boston Globe (MA)
Copyright: 2015 Globe Newspaper Company
Contact: http://services.bostonglobe.com/news/opeds/letter.aspx?id=6340
Website: http://bostonglobe.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/52
Author: David Scharfenberg

SUSPENDING LICENSES OVER DRUG CRIMES QUESTIONED

1989 Mass. Law Leaves Poorest Unable to Drive

WORCESTER - Edwin Melendez was stealing Buicks and snorting cocaine 
by age 13. And for decades he stumbled in and out of jail, sometimes 
landing in a homeless shelter here called People in Peril.

Life is different now. Melendez, 45, is married. He volunteers with a 
ministry that serves food to homeless people every Saturday in his 
scruffy Main South neighborhood. And he is heavily involved in the 
drug-addiction recovery movement.

But when he was offered a state job collecting data on substance 
abuse treatment, he had to turn it down. The work required travel by 
car, and an old drug-possession conviction carried a lingering 
penalty: the suspension of his right to operate a vehicle.

"It hurt me a lot," he said. "Recovery is something I'm passionate 
about. It saved my life."

Massachusetts is one of several states that suspend a person's 
driver's license after a conviction for drug offenses - such as 
possession and distribution - that have nothing to do with driving. 
The 26-year-old law was designed, in part, to deter drug use.

There's little evidence it has served as a deterrent. However, it has 
left tens of thousands of former convicts struggling to find work and 
do other basic things, like get to the grocery store. On a 
snow-encrusted day last winter, Melendez had to bundle his infant son 
to his chest and set out to the hospital on foot when he feared the 
boy was catching pneumonia.

Many have been unable to scrape together the hundreds of dollars in 
license reinstatement fees once their suspensions are up. And some 
have resorted to driving without a license, putting themselves at 
risk of extended suspensions, hundreds of dollars in new fines, and 
even jail time.

Advocates for recovery efforts say financial and familial strains 
make it difficult for offenders to get off drugs and stay out of 
prison. Nancy T. Bennett, a deputy chief counsel at the state's 
public defender agency, said, "If you were going to develop a public 
policy to promote recidivism, isn't this just the way you would do it?"

Repealing the measure is a top priority for activists pushing for a 
broad reconsideration of the state's tough-on-crime policies of the 
1980s and 1990s. The campaign has built some momentum in recent 
months, with Attorney General Maura Healey backing it and Senate 
President Stanley C. Rosenberg declaring his support.

Governor Charlie Baker, cautious about changes in criminal justice 
laws, has indicated he is open to signing a repeal if it lands on his desk.

The debate has plunged the state into a national conversation on the 
issue. Lawmakers in Delaware and South Carolina in recent years 
repealed laws requiring suspensions for non-driving-related drug crimes.

Just last month, the Ohio Legislature took up a bill that would 
eliminate mandatory suspensions and give judges discretion over the 
penalty. "It never made any sense to me, frankly, why we should be 
suspending people's driving privileges for things that have precious 
little to do with their driving habits," said state Senator Bill 
Seitz, a Republican from the Cincinnati suburbs who introduced the legislation.

In Massachusetts, the length of a suspension varies with the severity 
of the offense. Possession brings a one-year revocation, possession 
with intent to distribute means three years, and trafficking carries 
a five-year penalty, the maximum under the law. For an offender 
without a license, the suspension serves as a temporary bar.

State data suggest the penalty falls disproportionately on those 
least able to afford it. Forty-four percent of those convicted of the 
drug crimes that trigger a suspension are minorities. And many live 
in low-income neighborhoods.

In the ZIP code that includes Melendez's neighborhood, a tattered 
collection of churches, auto body repair shops, and faded apartment 
buildings, 580 people faced suspensions between 2010 and 2014 alone.

Melendez's suspensions, for the drug possession conviction and for 
driving without a license, expired years ago. But he has been unable 
to muster the $850 he owes in reinstatement fees and related court costs.

He earns $11 per hour from a part-time job at an addiction recovery 
program that is a 1.4-mile walk from his apartment, and his wife 
collects $700 per month in disability payments for a child from a 
previous relationship.

Their combined income, he said, is consumed by rent, diapers for 
their youngest son, and school clothes for the older kids. 
"Everything is to make ends meet," he said. "Nothing is wasted."

Melendez's struggle, it appears, is typical.

Last year, the state suspended licenses for 5,431 people convicted of 
drug crimes. Fewer than half that number, 2,441, paid to get their 
licenses back after suspensions ran their course (the figure does not 
include offenders who had reinstatement fees waived when they paid 
other fines).

Defense lawyers say the tally of suspensions and reinstatements does 
not tell the full story of the law's impact. Many clients who would 
otherwise fight a drug charge decide against it, they say, worried 
about losing their licenses if convicted.

Instead, they admit to the offense in the hopes of getting something 
one step short of a conviction, known as a "continuation without a 
finding," which allows them to hold onto their licenses but can come 
with other burdens - months of probation and mandatory drug treatment 
among them.

"I've had clients who vehemently disagreed with the police report and 
took pleas, sometimes against my advice, merely on the license 
issue," said Scott Martin, a Randolph-based defense lawyer who works 
all over the state. "I've had that dozens of times. Probably more."

Massachusetts lawmakers passed the driver's license suspension 
measure in 1989, at the height of a tough-on-crime era here and 
around the country. Governor Michael Dukakis, at a signing ceremony, 
said he wanted to crack down on "neighborhood drug dealers who cruise 
the area looking for business and avoiding police."

A year later, President George H.W. Bush signed a law withholding a 
portion of federal highway funds unless states agreed to suspend 
convicted drug offenders' licenses for at least six months. The law 
allowed states to opt out, though, and 36 have done so, including 
every New England state but Massachusetts.

The Bay State repeal effort has been gathering force in recent 
months. Several sheriffs have spoken in support of it. And the 
Massachusetts District Attorneys Association has come out in favor, 
stating in a letter to lawmakers that license suspensions and 
reinstatement fees "add to the difficulty people face when trying to 
reintegrate into society."

Not everyone, though, is convinced that repeal is necessary.

Brian E. Simoneau, a Framingham defense lawyer who specializes in 
motor vehicle law, notes that those truly in need of a license have 
some recourse. After they have served half of their suspensions, they 
can appeal to the Registry of Motor Vehicles for early reinstatement 
of their full licenses, or for hardship, or "Cinderella," licenses 
that allow holders to drive 12 hours per day.

And while some drug offenders deserve to keep their licenses, 
Simoneau said, there are others who do not. "The government shouldn't 
be giving hard-core drug dealers a tool to conduct distribution and 
trafficking of drugs," he said.

Delia Vega, a community organizer with Ex-Prisoners and Prisoners 
Advocating for Community Advancement, a Worcester-based group that is 
the main force behind repeal, counters that drug dealers have no 
qualms about driving without a license.

"It's only hurting people who are trying to move forward with their 
lives," she said.

Part of the problem, advocates say, is that drug-related suspensions 
leave a permanent mark on offenders' driving records. And employers 
frequently check those records when making hiring decisions.

State Representative Elizabeth A. Malia, a Jamaica Plain Democrat, 
says employers should no longer have access to information on 
years-old convictions; the state, after all, recently moved to seal 
criminal records sooner than it once did in order to give former 
convicts a better shot at finding work.

So she has introduced legislation that would not only repeal the 
driver's license suspension law, but also remove any mention of past 
suspensions from offenders' driving records.

Malia says she will fight to keep that provision in her bill, even in 
the face of business opposition. And there is some business opposition.

Jon B. Hurst, president of the Retailers Association of 
Massachusetts, said a job applicant's drug history is a legitimate 
area of concern for an employer selling pharmaceuticals or putting 
workers on the road.

"I understand that people make mistakes and need to move on," he 
said. "But you can't totally erase history."

Michael Earielo lives with his history every day. His heroin use led 
to a debilitating spinal abscess.

"I just had my second surgery last year," he said, lifting his shirt 
to reveal a large scar between his shoulder blades.

Earielo, 45, first felt the back pain while in custody at the 
Worcester County House of Correction. In a lawsuit, he alleges that 
the medical staff repeatedly ignored his complaints.

If he wins, he says, he may be able to do what feels like an 
impossibility now: pay the $1,400 he owes in driver's license 
reinstatement fees for a drug offense and other unrelated violations.

"I made a lot of mistakes in my time," he said. "But I'm trying to 
turn it around."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom