Texas House Bill HB543

Texas 2015 - 84th Regular

• Filed: 12/18/14

Caption

Relating to the creation of a specialty court for certain first-time DWI offenders; imposing fees for participation and alcohol monitoring.

Impact

The proposed DIVERT program entails early identification of eligible participants who must successfully complete the program to have their records closed under certain conditions. This highlights a significant shift in how first-time DWI cases are handled, focusing on treatment rather than punishment. The bill also includes provisions for the imposition of fees for program participation and alcohol monitoring, with a total fee not exceeding $1,000, illustrating a blend of accountability and rehabilitation. Additionally, successful participants can have their records sealed, which can lead to opportunities for reintegration into society without the burden of a DWI arrest record.

Summary

House Bill 543 proposes the establishment of a specialty court specifically geared towards first-time driving while intoxicated (DWI) offenders. The legislation aims to create a 'DIVERT program' that encompasses various essential characteristics such as the integration of treatment services in the judicial process and a nonadversarial approach to promote public safety. By providing a structured program, it aspires to raise community awareness of the consequences associated with drinking and driving while safeguarding the due process rights of individuals involved in the program.

Contention

While the bill is geared towards improving the handling of first-time DWI offenses, there are notable points of contention regarding the potential financial burden placed on participants through program fees. Critics may argue that imposing fees could be discriminatory against low-income offenders, making access to rehabilitation less equitable. Moreover, the bill mandates that counties establish the DIVERT program if certain conditions are met, raising concerns about the resource allocation and the varying capabilities of different counties to implement such programs effectively. There may also be opposition regarding the centralized authority given to the state in determining the standards and structure of local programs.