March 4, 2019 • 26 mins
On this episode of Tony Talks Charles County Crime, part 2 of a two-episode discussion, State's Attorney Tony Covington offers solutions to the drunk driving problem discussed in part one. He is joined by Executive Assistant Kristen Schulz and Public Relations Specialist Kandes Carter, both of the State's Attorney's Office, in a question/answer style format.
00:03:05 Responsibility of Drivers
00:05:58 Technology Assessing Sobriety
00:08:37 Expansion of Portable Breathalyzer Tests
00:11:44 Fixing Society's Attitude About Drunk Driving
00:15:10 Law Enforcement & Catching Drunk Drivers
00:20:15 Behavior-Changing Sentencing
To listen to Part One of the Drunk Driving podcast, which discusses the drunk driving problem and its causes, please click here.
Website: https://bit.ly/2FEFilB
Facebook: https://bit.ly/2QWIPOw
Twitter: https://bit.ly/2FwRaHn
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Tony Covington (00:16):
Hello.
Welcome to the official podcastof the Charles County State's
Attorney's Office.
I'm Tony Covington, your State'sAttorney.
Today we have part two of ourdrunk driving podcast.
In part one of the podcast, Ilaid out the serious problem
that drunk driving is to ourcommunities.
It was all about the problems.
Today is all about solutions.
(00:37):
This episode, however, is in aquestion answer format as
opposed to me just running mymouth as I did last time.
As we'll hear in a little bit, Ihave Kandes Carter and Kristen
Schultz, both of the State'sAttorney's Office, here with me.
They've taken the time to boildown the many questions that
folks have out there on drunkdriving and the solutions there
(00:57):
too.
So they're going to ask mequestions.
I'm going to answer thequestions, and that's going to
be the entirety of this podcast.
I hope you enjoy it, but beforewe get into that, please listen
to the following message.
Thanks.
Tony Covington here.
I want to take this opportunityto invite all of our listeners
to the Salome A.
(01:17):
Howard Bar Association's SeventhAnnual Scholarship Affair will
be held on April 12, 2019 at7:30 in the evening at the
Greater Waldorf Jaycee's inWaldorf.
Salome A.
Howard Bar Association, of whichI'm a founding member, is a
nonprofit organization.
The scholarship affair raisesmoney for students to attend the
(01:38):
College of Southern Maryland.
It's a great cause and it's agreat time.
You have to believe me on that.
This is the seventh time we'redoing it and it is a fun time
for all.
It's a black tie event with alive band, open bar, and trust
me, very little people talkingon the microphone boring
everybody to death.
It's a gala type atmosphere, soplease come on out.
(02:01):
In order to get your tickets,you can email
SalomeAHowardBar@gmail.com.
Salome is spelled S-a-l-o-m-e,so it's
SalomeAHowardBar@gmail.com.
You can also go to the Facebookpage for the Bar Association.
That's also Salome A Howard Bar.
(02:24):
Thanks a lot.
Hope to see you there.
Welcome back everybody.
As promised, I'm joined byKandes Carter.
Kandes say hello.
Kandes Carter (02:33):
Hello everybody.
Tony Covington (02:34):
And Kristin Schultz.
Kristen say hello.
Okay.
Kristen Schulz (02:37):
Hello.
Tony Covington (02:37):
Which one of you is going to hit me with the
first question first?
Kandes Carter (02:41):
I am going to take the first question, Mr.
Covington, and thank you forhaving us on the show.
Tony Covington (02:45):
My pleasure.
You know that.
Kandes Carter (02:46):
During part one of the drunk driving podcast,
which was excellent by the way,very eye-opening, you
highlighted the most basicproblem about drunk driving and
that is we foolishly rely onpeople that are drinking to
determine whether they are fitto drive.
So I have two questions based onthat.
The first being, drunk peoplecan't be expected to make good
(03:07):
decisions about driving.
Therefore should the courtstreat them harshly and like
others engaging in criminalconduct?
And before I get to the secondone, do you want to answer that
first?
Tony Covington (03:16):
Sure.
Let me answer that one first.
Some people think that because Iacknowledge and other people
acknowledge that people who havebeen drinking can make poor
decisions.
Their judgment is flawed sosomehow they kind of get a pass
that it's not their fault fordeciding to drive drunk.
(03:36):
Nothing could be further fromthe truth as far as I'm
concerned.
Because guess what?
People don't walk around in aperpetual state of drunkenness.
People are sober and this kindof gets to one of the solutions
that folks need to have forthemselves is it's called
planning.
All right?
You have the obligation.
Everybody has the obligationwhen they get behind the wheel
(03:58):
that they are fit to drive.
A lot of people don't know this,but we've charged any number of
people over the years forfalling asleep at the wheel,
getting in an accident, andkilling somebody.
They get charged with the samething as a drunk driver.
Okay.
Why?
Because- obviously it depends onthe situation and it depends on
the facts- but if you havesomebody who's worked, you know,
(04:21):
24 hours straight, hasn't gottenany rest, and they start to
drive and they're on the beltwayand fall asleep and end up
killing somebody, they knew theydidn't have the right or the
requisite sleep under theirbelt.
They knew that they were not fitto drive.
Look, people know when they'regoing to drive.
People know when they're goingto drink.
(04:42):
I don't know too many people inmy lifetime who have
accidentally got drunk onalcohol.
By that I mean tripping andfalling in a vad of alcohol and
next thing you know, they'redrunk.
It doesn't happen that way.
Adults know that they're goingto drink and they should plan
accordingly.
So we don't start with or startat the point where somebody is
(05:07):
getting behind the wheel afterthey'd been drinking.
You have the obligation to haveplanned your evening, your
morning, your afternoon,whatever it happens to be, so
that you are not driving drunk,putting people at risk just like
the person who didn't get enoughsleep or any other thing that
you can think about wheresomebody had the decision-making
(05:28):
ability to make sure that theywere fit to drive.
So do I believe that the courtshould treat, should treat
people less harshly because atthe time they decided to drink
and drive, they were drunk.
Absolutely not.
You've got the obligation to befit and prepared to drive at all
times.
(05:48):
You owe it to yourself.
And you owe it to all thoseinnocent victims out there that
we see almost 10,000/11,000every year when people die.
Kandes Carter (05:56):
Right.
Okay.
So in addition to planningbeforehand, are there any
realistic alternatives torelying on drinkers
self-assessment of theirsobriety?
Tony Covington (06:07):
Yes; there certainly are.
I guess the first ones are kindof pie in the sky.
We have technology.
Right now the government alongwith some private organizations
are working on making evensmarter cars, if you will.
Cars that will be able todetect, believe it or not,
whether or not a driver hasalcohol in his system.
Kandes Carter (06:30):
Oh Wow.
Tony Covington (06:31):
Yeah, they can do it a couple ways.
One, right this second- theyhave technology out there that
if you have a band around yourankle, they can check your blood
for alcohol 24/7 365 and thoseare actually in use.
That is going to be adapted intoyour car.
Maybe they put in your steeringwheel, whatever it is, but also
(06:51):
secondly, they can also checkthe alcohol level from the
ambient air in the vehicle ofthe driver.
Even if there are other peoplein the car, it's focused right
on the driver.
So that technology is going toget here sooner or later.
And of course we all have seenalready that these car makers
(07:12):
have gotten cars to parkparallel park themselves, stay
in lanes, all that.
Self driving cars are going tohappen.
It's not gonna happen in mylifetime.
Probably not going to happen inyour lifetime, but that will
happen.
So that technology willeliminate us having to rely on
people who are drinking to selfassess their sobriety and get
(07:34):
behind the wheel.
It's not going to be necessary.
Car can drive itself, but again,that's not here anytime soon.
So let's talk about the stuffthat is around right now.
First of all, folks who have allheard of interlock ignition
systems.
Here in Maryland, thoseinterlock systems have been in
the news in the past couple fewyears because of Noah's law.
(07:55):
If you recall, um, it's namedafter a police officer that was
killed by a drunk driver up inMontgomery County.
The interlock system requiresthe driver of the car to blow
into a tube.
And as long as they don't have xamount of alcohol in their
system, the car will start.
If they have more than thatlimit, the car doesn't start.
So that's technology that'shere, right here, right now.
(08:15):
Um, it needs to be expanded,quite frankly.
Um, Noah's law is a good start.
But to me, there needs to bemore of it.
That's technology that excludesthe driver's decision-making,
right?
From actually getting behind thewheel and driving the car.
So that's the interlock system.
It's there.
We should expand it to beuseful.
(08:37):
But we also have what we calleither portable breathalyzer
test or pre-breathalyzer test,but depending upon who you talk
to.
And it essentially is somethingthat police officers use on the
side of the road.
It is something they use todevelop evidence, if you will,
more information to see ifsomebody is actually drunk
driving.
You all heard about the sobrietytest that they'll give, you
(08:59):
know, you got to do the alphabettest, you do the walk and turn
test, you stand on one leg, thattype of stuff.
Well the PBT is a chemical test.
All right.
As a little, little thing thatactually they have systems that
go on people's key rings.
Kristen Schulz (09:14):
Yeah, I've seen them before.
They're like$30 on Amazon.
Every one should have one.
Tony Covington (09:18):
That's right.
Everyone should have one.
But those should be expandedbecause they're fairly accurate.
Officer's use them to developinformation- say hey, if you
have a 0.10 in your system,which is over the legal limit,
they're probably gonna arrestyou based on the PBT and their
other observations.
Then you go down to the stationand you have the formal
(09:39):
intoximeter or breathalyzertest, the one that is actually
used in court.
But folks should have these.
I think a great solution wouldbe our local establishments,
government- if you have analcohol license to sell alcohol
at a tavern or bar or whateverit is, you should be required to
make PBTs available for people.
(10:01):
All right.
It's just something that givespeople more information, more
information.
Also education on trying tosolve the problem with folks not
understanding that they aredrunk.
See, the problem is nobody getstraining in it, right?
No one gets training in it andnobody knows really how they
feel if they're at a 0.05 whichis still under...
Kristen Schulz (10:23):
Everyone's different, someone that drinks
all the time is not going to beslurring and, and you know,
stumbling around, but they aregoing to be over the limit, but
they feel fine, they sound fine,they look fine, but they're not.
Tony Covington (10:37):
That's absolutely correct and that's
the whole problem.
It's so subjective.
Right.
And people don't get anytraining on it.
They would be amazed if they hada PBT and they drank some say,
'Oh man, I'm over the legallimit already.' Right?
Kandes Carter (10:53):
Yeah.
Tony Covington (10:54):
Or'I was drinking, I stopped drinking.
Man.
I'm still over the legal limitbecause the alcohol hasn't been
metabolized through my bodyyet.' So if people have the
information there for them-until we get to the, you know,
technology many, many years downthe road, which will alleviate
these decisions- if people havethat information, if they have
PBTs available to them.
(11:15):
All right.
Wherever they- they might nothave their own personal PBT, but
they can certainly use one at abar or something else.
Right?
It's very inexpensive.
I think there ought to be arequirement on that, but even if
there isn't, again, you have theobligation and responsibility to
be fit to drive.
Kandes Carter (11:31):
Right
Tony Covington (11:31):
Folks should spend the$30-$60-$100, whatever
it happens to be, whatever stylethey want to get for themselves,
and they can always make surethey're under the limit before
they get behind that wheel.
Kandes Carter (11:42):
Makes Sense.
Kristen Schulz (11:43):
Absolutely.
Tony, you pointed out in DrunkDriving Podcast One that as a
society, we simply don't careenough or take drunk driving
seriously enough.
We all know how difficult it isto change what society cares
about enough to try and fix aproblem.
How do you propose we fix thisnon-caring attitude about drunk
driving?
Tony Covington (12:01):
It is very, very difficult to get people to care
about certain things that don'timpact them personally.
As we said before, though, theodds are that most people are
going to have to deal with drunkdriving sometime in their
lifetime.
But to make them care right nowbefore it impacts them.
As with everything, you gottaeducate people.
Doing what we're doing rightnow, talking about it, putting
(12:23):
the problem in play and thentalking about the solutions.
The mothers against drunkdriving, great organization,
they've been for years doingwhat they call victim impact
panels, where, where people-many of course are coming out of
the court system- they'reobligated by the courts to go to
one of these victim impactpanels and they are heart
(12:45):
wrenching.
They talk about- they havevictims' families get up there
and talk about this is theimpact of the type of conduct
that you are engaged in.
Okay.
You killed somebody.
This is what happens.
Matter of fact, in the firstepisode of this podcast, we did
a little victim impact thing aswell.
And it's difficult.
Those panels, however, makethese folks fully understand and
(13:05):
think twice before they getbehind the wheel of a car.
Also we gotta teach ourchildren, you know, we ought to
take a page from- although we'lldo it in a good way- take a page
from the old tobacco folks.
Okay.
How they targeted children foryears in order to get children
hooked on cigarettes.
Well, we need to do it theopposite way.
Let's target children, let'seducate them not just for
(13:28):
alcohol, but drugs as well.
And I'm sure everybody talksabout that and say,'Oh,
Covington, yeah, everybody knowsthat.' Well yeah everybody knows
it, but do we put the resourcestowards it?
And the answer that is notenough.
And we continue educating peoplethrough elementary school to
high school as young adults, allof that.
You know, I've heard, I've seen,I don't know if it was a
Superbowl commercial and I thinkit was before that, but you
know, Heineken has a line ofcommercials out that I think a
(13:50):
real good.
Matter of fact, I think it waslast year and Jackie Stewart,
the old race car driver.
You young ladies probably don'tremember Jackie Stewart, but I
do.
And they had Jackie at a barand,'Hey Jack, you want to
drink?
No, I don't want to drink.
Oh, come on Jackie it's justone.' And he said, I'm still
driving.
Right.
Which went to, in fact, he'snot, he's retired from race car
driving, but he's still driving.
And that kind of impresses uponpeople just one is too much if
(14:15):
you're driving.
We don't need to drink anddrive.
I wish our law said that.
It doesn't.
Our slogan certainly does and Ithink that people should.
And on that line, that's acommercial for Heineken beer.
But, what about just PSAs.
You know, we have plenty of PSAsout there.
We need to have more of them.
(14:35):
The non-caring attitude that wehave about drunk driving, it
needs to change.
But the only way it's going tochange is if people, one,
certainly understand about allthe deaths, they understand
about the carnage that itcauses, and people who have been
there, victims' families reallylet people know what's going on,
the damage that it's doing.
(14:56):
And I like to think thatAmericans are good-hearted
people, generally speaking.
And because of that, they willcare, but they have to
understand what's going on outthere.
So that's why education is thekey as far as changing the
attitudes about drunk driving.
Kandes Carter (15:11):
Okay Mr.
Covington, you were mentioningPSAs and we've all seen the PSA
where they say drive sober orget pulled over.
But in the last podcast youmentioned that only 1% of drunk
drivers are actually caught.
How can the police decrease theoverall number of drunk drivers
and increase the number ofarrests?
Tony Covington (15:30):
Well, obviously the police have a crucial role
in catching drunk drivers.
And unfortunately that stat istrue.
About 1% of those folks on theroadways who are driving drunk
actually get caught in anygiven, any given year.
The police need more, moreresources.
High visibility on the roadwaysis a key to deterring folks from
(15:53):
driving drunk and the morepolice officers and cruisers out
there, especially during thosehours when people drive drunk
the most, it's critical.
It's helpful.
That just comes from resources.
That just comes from having morepolice officers and more cars.
And of course, a police strategythat's going to put police
officers on the road.
Doesn't make a difference ifyou've got all these cars and
(16:14):
all these police officers andthey're, they're sitting at the
barracks.
But also sobriety checkpoints,which is part of visibility.
The sobriety checkpoint, I don'tknow if any, if you all have
ever been through one.
Kristen Schulz (16:24):
Yeah.
Tony Covington (16:25):
But the police actually set up and they stop
every single car that comesthrough that checkpoint and they
check people for their sobrietyand invariably they're going to
catch a couple people dependingon how long they're out there.
The more sobriety checkpointsthere are, the more they're
going to catch and it's going toreduce guys on the roadway and
it acts as a deterrent.
(16:46):
I know mothers against drunkdriving has stats on that
definitively showing thatsobriety checkpoints work and
that's something that everypolice agency ought to do to try
to increase catching those guys.
Again, that's just a matter ofresources.
They could do one of those everynight, you know, in a different
location in whateverjurisdiction.
But of course they have to catchother folks doing their crime
(17:09):
too.
So this a matter of resources, amatter of where you're going to,
to put those resources and alsothe police.
And I think for the most partthey try to, but they need to
increase it just like we do.
They need to help educate.
One of the things when we goback to people drinking and not
knowing what a 0.05 or 0.08 intheir system feels like, you
know, during the academy,sometimes during the academy,
(17:31):
I'm talking about the, thepolice academy, I know that some
jurisdictions actually havevolunteers come in and they will
drink alcohol and the officersand that person, you know, they
will check taking a PBT everynow and then and actually gauge
this person, observe the person,okay.
These are the effects ofalcohol.
I'm pretty sure that the policecould set those type of
(17:53):
trainings up for citizens.
Hey, you want to know- You wantto know what a 0.05 looks like?
Here's what you do.
Of course, you could do ityourself.
We talked earlier about thePBTs, right?
If you buy one yourself and youhave one yourself, you can test
yourself on that one, right?
Kandes Carter (18:06):
Yeah.
Tony Covington (18:07):
So of course we have the PBT.
You don't have to just go basedon your, your subjective
feeling, but that's part of theeducation that they can do.
Also, and this is importantbecause I haven't said anything
about this too much in boththese episodes, Drug Recognition
Experts, they are policeofficers who are specially
trained to recognize whensomebody is under the influence
(18:28):
of controlled dangeroussubstances, whether it's
marijuana, whether it's pills,whether it's heroin, cocaine,
that type of thing, we do nothave enough of them anywhere.
All right.
And with the advent of thepermissiveness about marijuana
out here throughout the country,you are having more and more and
(18:48):
more people driving under theinfluence of drugs.
And everything that I talkabout, um, driving under the
influence of alcohol applies todriving under the influence of
drugs.
All right?
So the more DREs we have outthere- because here's what
happens, somebody may get pulledover, officer doesn't smell any
alcohol, doesn't see any alcoholperson, doesn't say they'd been
drinking, but they're clearlyunder the influence of
(19:10):
something.
What do the police do?
Well, they've got to get a DREout there, Drug Recognition
Expert, to this person, evaluatehim and say, okay, this is what
this person is under.
That's the only way we can holdthem accountable.
We cannot force, there are nolaws on the books yet, unless
there's a death involved, wecannot force anybody to take a
blood test.
There are no breathalyzer testsfor drugs.
(19:30):
You have to take blood tests.
So the more DREs we have outthere, all right, folks can be
held accountable for drivingunder the influence of drugs as
well.
And right now I'm telling you itis- there's a paucity of
officers out there.
I think here in this county youcan count it on maybe one or two
hands the number of officers whoare qualified as Drug
(19:51):
Recognition Experts.
They are certainly sendingpeople to training.
They're trying to increase thatas we go.
They don't have enough yet.
And again, that's money.
That's manpower.
Again, budgeting.
What does the community reallycare about?
Are we going to put moneytowards these things?
So that's what I think thepolice can do and along with
continuing to do the great jobthat they always do.
Kandes Carter (20:13):
Okay.
Kristen Schulz (20:15):
In the first drunk driving podcast, Tony, you
used the phrasebehavior-changing sentences
regarding drunk drivingaccidents that don't involve
death or serious injury.
What specifically did you meanby behavior-changing sentences?
Tony Covington (20:29):
30 days.
A first time offender fordriving under the influence of
alcohol should get 30 days injail.
No weekend sentencing, no workrelease where you're there only
12 hours a day, not you getsentenced on January 1st.
Won't have to turn yourself inuntil March 1st.
No.
You plead guilty or you're foundguilty at your sentencing, you
(20:50):
go to jail for 30 days.
You get taken out the back ofthe courtroom where all the
other prisoners go.
Not walk out the front of thecourtroom where everybody who's
watching goes.
Why?
Why do I think that woulddecrease sentencing?
Excuse me, decrease drunkdriving.
(21:10):
Most people, as I've been toldfor years and years and years by
defense attorneys, most peoplethat are guilty of drunk driving
are working every day, takingcare of their family, don't have
a criminal record.
They're doing what they'resupposed to be doing.
Those are the people, unlikeyour career criminals who really
(21:31):
don't care about staying withinthe law and living within the
law, most drunk drivers, theyare law abiding citizens with
this exception of driving drunk.
And let's not forget themajority of drunk driving
deaths, they're first timeoffenders, right?
The majority of those killingpeople while drunk driving are
(21:54):
first time offenders and Ibelieve that these folks who are
good citizens, they can't affordto go to jail for 30 days.
I'm not talking about money, I'mtalking about their life.
I mean, not too many employersare going to just keep you
around,'well, I got a drunkdriving charge.' Not a whole lot
of folks have 30 days of leavesaved up, and even if you do, is
your boss really going to letyou use 30 days?
(22:16):
That's a lot of time.
Now it sounds fairly harsh andremember, especially in the
climate where three, four, fivetime offenders don't get 30
days.
I mean it's ridiculous.
Okay?
But let us remember howimportant and how impactful
drunk driving is real quickly.
In 2017, let me give you acomparison.
(22:42):
One hundred, seventy thousandarmed robberies in America back
in 2017.
More than 300,000 drunk drivingcases that ended in injury.
Most robberies don't involve aninjury.
Not saying it's an easy thingfor a victim, it's awful,
(23:02):
something that stays with youthe rest of your life.
But guess what?
Being in a drunk drivingaccident stays with you for the
rest of your life too.
There are far more injuries andwhatever.
Somebody asked me, would yourather put a drunk driver in
jail or an armed robber?
Well, I hate to say it, but thedrunk driver is more dangerous.
They're almost 11,000 deaths bydrunk driving every year right
(23:25):
now.
There's no way that armedrobberies are responsible for
even half that amount.
Most robberies don't end inviolence.
Okay, so we need to keep this inmind when we talk about it.
Well, dag on Covington, thatsounds awful harsh.
Maybe it is.
Maybe it isn't.
And we can also put that in withMotor Vehicle Manslaughter.
(23:46):
Motor Vehicle Manslaughter-again, I said this in the first
podcast- you get 10 years.
You get 10- you can get 10 yearsfor a simple assault for just
touching somebody.
You can get 10 years- you canget 20 years for theft, right?
You get 20/25 years for therobbery that we were just
talking about.
You can get 20 years for dealingdrugs, not marijuana, but
(24:06):
cocaine, heroin, all that, 20years.
And you're going to tell me thatin a motor vehicle manslaughter
where the sentence is only 10years, that somebody's life was
worth 10 years.
If you want me to be specific,25 years sounds like a good
number to me.
You should be subject to 25years of your life for taking
somebody else's life.
25 years.
That's what you can get for afirst-degree assault.
(24:27):
First-degree assault isinflicting serious bodily harm
on somebody.
Obviously, if you killedsomebody, a drunk driving case,
you inflicted more than seriousbodily harm.
So we need to increase thatpenalty.
It really is, as I said lasttime, an insult, a slap in the
face to families out there whohave to endure this.
And I am a firm believer thatsentencing can make a
(24:53):
difference, can be a deterrent,and if nothing else, it can be
the necessary punishment thatpeople deserve as well.
So that's how I feel aboutsentencing.
I believe, and I'm not foolishenough to think that tomorrow
somebody is going to pass a lawthat says, hey judges, you gotta
give people 30 days.
(25:13):
But guess what?
There are other crimes outthere.
Possession, simple possession ofa handgun.
The statute, the statute saysyou got to get 30 days.
Now judges are allowed tosuspend that, but the law could
change on that too.
We want to have impact on peopleand deter people from drunk
driving, one of the mostdangerous things we have going
(25:34):
on in this world.
Because remember, there's 17,000murders, 11,000 drunk driving
deaths.
Kristen Schulz (25:41):
Wow.
Tony Covington (25:42):
Only 17,000 murders, which is 17,000 too
many, but two-thirds the numberdrunk driving deaths out there
too.
Drunk driving is a seriouscrime.
It needs to be taken serious.
Kristen Schulz (25:55):
Yeah.
Tony Covington (25:55):
It's preventable.
We don't have to lose theselives.
We need to do something to deterit.
The total lack of serioussentencing of first timers and
on folks who were charged withmotor vehicle manslaughter, I
think adversely impacts theseriousness factor here.
(26:16):
Folks do not take it seriouslybecause the courts don't take it
seriously.
So that concludes part two ofour drunk driving episode.
Thank you for listening.
I really appreciate it.
Please take the time tosubscribe to the Tony Talks
Charles County Crime podcast.
Our next topic will be on thedreaded subject of plea
(26:36):
agreements, or what some folkscall plea deals.
Trust me, plea deals, pleaagreements, whatever you call
them are a good thing.
You don't believe me now, pleaselisten to the next podcast and
you'll understand why.
Thank you, Tony Covingtonsigning off.
Hello.
Welcome to the official podcastof the Charles County State's
Attorney's Office.
I'm Tony Covington, your State'sAttorney.
Today we have part two of ourdrunk driving podcast.
In part one of the podcast, Ilaid out the serious problem
that drunk driving is to ourcommunities.
It was all about the problems.
Today is all about solutions.
(00:37):
This episode, however, is in aquestion answer format as
opposed to me just running mymouth as I did last time.
As we'll hear in a little bit, Ihave Kandes Carter and Kristen
Schultz, both of the State'sAttorney's Office, here with me.
They've taken the time to boildown the many questions that
folks have out there on drunkdriving and the solutions there
(00:57):
too.
So they're going to ask mequestions.
I'm going to answer thequestions, and that's going to
be the entirety of this podcast.
I hope you enjoy it, but beforewe get into that, please listen
to the following message.
Thanks.
Tony Covington here.
I want to take this opportunityto invite all of our listeners
to the Salome A.
(01:17):
Howard Bar Association's SeventhAnnual Scholarship Affair will
be held on April 12, 2019 at7:30 in the evening at the
Greater Waldorf Jaycee's inWaldorf.
Salome A.
Howard Bar Association, of whichI'm a founding member, is a
nonprofit organization.
The scholarship affair raisesmoney for students to attend the
(01:38):
College of Southern Maryland.
It's a great cause and it's agreat time.
You have to believe me on that.
This is the seventh time we'redoing it and it is a fun time
for all.
It's a black tie event with alive band, open bar, and trust
me, very little people talkingon the microphone boring
everybody to death.
It's a gala type atmosphere, soplease come on out.
(02:01):
In order to get your tickets,you can email
SalomeAHowardBar@gmail.com.
Salome is spelled S-a-l-o-m-e,so it's
SalomeAHowardBar@gmail.com.
You can also go to the Facebookpage for the Bar Association.
That's also Salome A Howard Bar.
(02:24):
Thanks a lot.
Hope to see you there.
Welcome back everybody.
As promised, I'm joined byKandes Carter.
Kandes say hello.
Kandes Carter (02:33):
Hello everybody.
Tony Covington (02:34):
And Kristin Schultz.
Kristen say hello.
Okay.
Kristen Schulz (02:37):
Hello.
Tony Covington (02:37):
Which one of you is going to hit me with the
first question first?
Kandes Carter (02:41):
I am going to take the first question, Mr.
Covington, and thank you forhaving us on the show.
Tony Covington (02:45):
My pleasure.
You know that.
Kandes Carter (02:46):
During part one of the drunk driving podcast,
which was excellent by the way,very eye-opening, you
highlighted the most basicproblem about drunk driving and
that is we foolishly rely onpeople that are drinking to
determine whether they are fitto drive.
So I have two questions based onthat.
The first being, drunk peoplecan't be expected to make good
(03:07):
decisions about driving.
Therefore should the courtstreat them harshly and like
others engaging in criminalconduct?
And before I get to the secondone, do you want to answer that
first?
Tony Covington (03:16):
Sure.
Let me answer that one first.
Some people think that because Iacknowledge and other people
acknowledge that people who havebeen drinking can make poor
decisions.
Their judgment is flawed sosomehow they kind of get a pass
that it's not their fault fordeciding to drive drunk.
(03:36):
Nothing could be further fromthe truth as far as I'm
concerned.
Because guess what?
People don't walk around in aperpetual state of drunkenness.
People are sober and this kindof gets to one of the solutions
that folks need to have forthemselves is it's called
planning.
All right?
You have the obligation.
Everybody has the obligationwhen they get behind the wheel
(03:58):
that they are fit to drive.
A lot of people don't know this,but we've charged any number of
people over the years forfalling asleep at the wheel,
getting in an accident, andkilling somebody.
They get charged with the samething as a drunk driver.
Okay.
Why?
Because- obviously it depends onthe situation and it depends on
the facts- but if you havesomebody who's worked, you know,
(04:21):
24 hours straight, hasn't gottenany rest, and they start to
drive and they're on the beltwayand fall asleep and end up
killing somebody, they knew theydidn't have the right or the
requisite sleep under theirbelt.
They knew that they were not fitto drive.
Look, people know when they'regoing to drive.
People know when they're goingto drink.
(04:42):
I don't know too many people inmy lifetime who have
accidentally got drunk onalcohol.
By that I mean tripping andfalling in a vad of alcohol and
next thing you know, they'redrunk.
It doesn't happen that way.
Adults know that they're goingto drink and they should plan
accordingly.
So we don't start with or startat the point where somebody is
(05:07):
getting behind the wheel afterthey'd been drinking.
You have the obligation to haveplanned your evening, your
morning, your afternoon,whatever it happens to be, so
that you are not driving drunk,putting people at risk just like
the person who didn't get enoughsleep or any other thing that
you can think about wheresomebody had the decision-making
(05:28):
ability to make sure that theywere fit to drive.
So do I believe that the courtshould treat, should treat
people less harshly because atthe time they decided to drink
and drive, they were drunk.
Absolutely not.
You've got the obligation to befit and prepared to drive at all
times.
(05:48):
You owe it to yourself.
And you owe it to all thoseinnocent victims out there that
we see almost 10,000/11,000every year when people die.
Kandes Carter (05:56):
Right.
Okay.
So in addition to planningbeforehand, are there any
realistic alternatives torelying on drinkers
self-assessment of theirsobriety?
Tony Covington (06:07):
Yes; there certainly are.
I guess the first ones are kindof pie in the sky.
We have technology.
Right now the government alongwith some private organizations
are working on making evensmarter cars, if you will.
Cars that will be able todetect, believe it or not,
whether or not a driver hasalcohol in his system.
Kandes Carter (06:30):
Oh Wow.
Tony Covington (06:31):
Yeah, they can do it a couple ways.
One, right this second- theyhave technology out there that
if you have a band around yourankle, they can check your blood
for alcohol 24/7 365 and thoseare actually in use.
That is going to be adapted intoyour car.
Maybe they put in your steeringwheel, whatever it is, but also
(06:51):
secondly, they can also checkthe alcohol level from the
ambient air in the vehicle ofthe driver.
Even if there are other peoplein the car, it's focused right
on the driver.
So that technology is going toget here sooner or later.
And of course we all have seenalready that these car makers
(07:12):
have gotten cars to parkparallel park themselves, stay
in lanes, all that.
Self driving cars are going tohappen.
It's not gonna happen in mylifetime.
Probably not going to happen inyour lifetime, but that will
happen.
So that technology willeliminate us having to rely on
people who are drinking to selfassess their sobriety and get
(07:34):
behind the wheel.
It's not going to be necessary.
Car can drive itself, but again,that's not here anytime soon.
So let's talk about the stuffthat is around right now.
First of all, folks who have allheard of interlock ignition
systems.
Here in Maryland, thoseinterlock systems have been in
the news in the past couple fewyears because of Noah's law.
(07:55):
If you recall, um, it's namedafter a police officer that was
killed by a drunk driver up inMontgomery County.
The interlock system requiresthe driver of the car to blow
into a tube.
And as long as they don't have xamount of alcohol in their
system, the car will start.
If they have more than thatlimit, the car doesn't start.
So that's technology that'shere, right here, right now.
(08:15):
Um, it needs to be expanded,quite frankly.
Um, Noah's law is a good start.
But to me, there needs to bemore of it.
That's technology that excludesthe driver's decision-making,
right?
From actually getting behind thewheel and driving the car.
So that's the interlock system.
It's there.
We should expand it to beuseful.
(08:37):
But we also have what we calleither portable breathalyzer
test or pre-breathalyzer test,but depending upon who you talk
to.
And it essentially is somethingthat police officers use on the
side of the road.
It is something they use todevelop evidence, if you will,
more information to see ifsomebody is actually drunk
driving.
You all heard about the sobrietytest that they'll give, you
(08:59):
know, you got to do the alphabettest, you do the walk and turn
test, you stand on one leg, thattype of stuff.
Well the PBT is a chemical test.
All right.
As a little, little thing thatactually they have systems that
go on people's key rings.
Kristen Schulz (09:14):
Yeah, I've seen them before.
They're like$30 on Amazon.
Every one should have one.
Tony Covington (09:18):
That's right.
Everyone should have one.
But those should be expandedbecause they're fairly accurate.
Officer's use them to developinformation- say hey, if you
have a 0.10 in your system,which is over the legal limit,
they're probably gonna arrestyou based on the PBT and their
other observations.
Then you go down to the stationand you have the formal
(09:39):
intoximeter or breathalyzertest, the one that is actually
used in court.
But folks should have these.
I think a great solution wouldbe our local establishments,
government- if you have analcohol license to sell alcohol
at a tavern or bar or whateverit is, you should be required to
make PBTs available for people.
(10:01):
All right.
It's just something that givespeople more information, more
information.
Also education on trying tosolve the problem with folks not
understanding that they aredrunk.
See, the problem is nobody getstraining in it, right?
No one gets training in it andnobody knows really how they
feel if they're at a 0.05 whichis still under...
Kristen Schulz (10:23):
Everyone's different, someone that drinks
all the time is not going to beslurring and, and you know,
stumbling around, but they aregoing to be over the limit, but
they feel fine, they sound fine,they look fine, but they're not.
Tony Covington (10:37):
That's absolutely correct and that's
the whole problem.
It's so subjective.
Right.
And people don't get anytraining on it.
They would be amazed if they hada PBT and they drank some say,
'Oh man, I'm over the legallimit already.' Right?
Kandes Carter (10:53):
Yeah.
Tony Covington (10:54):
Or'I was drinking, I stopped drinking.
Man.
I'm still over the legal limitbecause the alcohol hasn't been
metabolized through my bodyyet.' So if people have the
information there for them-until we get to the, you know,
technology many, many years downthe road, which will alleviate
these decisions- if people havethat information, if they have
PBTs available to them.
(11:15):
All right.
Wherever they- they might nothave their own personal PBT, but
they can certainly use one at abar or something else.
Right?
It's very inexpensive.
I think there ought to be arequirement on that, but even if
there isn't, again, you have theobligation and responsibility to
be fit to drive.
Kandes Carter (11:31):
Right
Tony Covington (11:31):
Folks should spend the$30-$60-$100, whatever
it happens to be, whatever stylethey want to get for themselves,
and they can always make surethey're under the limit before
they get behind that wheel.
Kandes Carter (11:42):
Makes Sense.
Kristen Schulz (11:43):
Absolutely.
Tony, you pointed out in DrunkDriving Podcast One that as a
society, we simply don't careenough or take drunk driving
seriously enough.
We all know how difficult it isto change what society cares
about enough to try and fix aproblem.
How do you propose we fix thisnon-caring attitude about drunk
driving?
Tony Covington (12:01):
It is very, very difficult to get people to care
about certain things that don'timpact them personally.
As we said before, though, theodds are that most people are
going to have to deal with drunkdriving sometime in their
lifetime.
But to make them care right nowbefore it impacts them.
As with everything, you gottaeducate people.
Doing what we're doing rightnow, talking about it, putting
(12:23):
the problem in play and thentalking about the solutions.
The mothers against drunkdriving, great organization,
they've been for years doingwhat they call victim impact
panels, where, where people-many of course are coming out of
the court system- they'reobligated by the courts to go to
one of these victim impactpanels and they are heart
(12:45):
wrenching.
They talk about- they havevictims' families get up there
and talk about this is theimpact of the type of conduct
that you are engaged in.
Okay.
You killed somebody.
This is what happens.
Matter of fact, in the firstepisode of this podcast, we did
a little victim impact thing aswell.
And it's difficult.
Those panels, however, makethese folks fully understand and
(13:05):
think twice before they getbehind the wheel of a car.
Also we gotta teach ourchildren, you know, we ought to
take a page from- although we'lldo it in a good way- take a page
from the old tobacco folks.
Okay.
How they targeted children foryears in order to get children
hooked on cigarettes.
Well, we need to do it theopposite way.
Let's target children, let'seducate them not just for
(13:28):
alcohol, but drugs as well.
And I'm sure everybody talksabout that and say,'Oh,
Covington, yeah, everybody knowsthat.' Well yeah everybody knows
it, but do we put the resourcestowards it?
And the answer that is notenough.
And we continue educating peoplethrough elementary school to
high school as young adults, allof that.
You know, I've heard, I've seen,I don't know if it was a
Superbowl commercial and I thinkit was before that, but you
know, Heineken has a line ofcommercials out that I think a
(13:50):
real good.
Matter of fact, I think it waslast year and Jackie Stewart,
the old race car driver.
You young ladies probably don'tremember Jackie Stewart, but I
do.
And they had Jackie at a barand,'Hey Jack, you want to
drink?
No, I don't want to drink.
Oh, come on Jackie it's justone.' And he said, I'm still
driving.
Right.
Which went to, in fact, he'snot, he's retired from race car
driving, but he's still driving.
And that kind of impresses uponpeople just one is too much if
(14:15):
you're driving.
We don't need to drink anddrive.
I wish our law said that.
It doesn't.
Our slogan certainly does and Ithink that people should.
And on that line, that's acommercial for Heineken beer.
But, what about just PSAs.
You know, we have plenty of PSAsout there.
We need to have more of them.
(14:35):
The non-caring attitude that wehave about drunk driving, it
needs to change.
But the only way it's going tochange is if people, one,
certainly understand about allthe deaths, they understand
about the carnage that itcauses, and people who have been
there, victims' families reallylet people know what's going on,
the damage that it's doing.
(14:56):
And I like to think thatAmericans are good-hearted
people, generally speaking.
And because of that, they willcare, but they have to
understand what's going on outthere.
So that's why education is thekey as far as changing the
attitudes about drunk driving.
Kandes Carter (15:11):
Okay Mr.
Covington, you were mentioningPSAs and we've all seen the PSA
where they say drive sober orget pulled over.
But in the last podcast youmentioned that only 1% of drunk
drivers are actually caught.
How can the police decrease theoverall number of drunk drivers
and increase the number ofarrests?
Tony Covington (15:30):
Well, obviously the police have a crucial role
in catching drunk drivers.
And unfortunately that stat istrue.
About 1% of those folks on theroadways who are driving drunk
actually get caught in anygiven, any given year.
The police need more, moreresources.
High visibility on the roadwaysis a key to deterring folks from
(15:53):
driving drunk and the morepolice officers and cruisers out
there, especially during thosehours when people drive drunk
the most, it's critical.
It's helpful.
That just comes from resources.
That just comes from having morepolice officers and more cars.
And of course, a police strategythat's going to put police
officers on the road.
Doesn't make a difference ifyou've got all these cars and
(16:14):
all these police officers andthey're, they're sitting at the
barracks.
But also sobriety checkpoints,which is part of visibility.
The sobriety checkpoint, I don'tknow if any, if you all have
ever been through one.
Kristen Schulz (16:24):
Yeah.
Tony Covington (16:25):
But the police actually set up and they stop
every single car that comesthrough that checkpoint and they
check people for their sobrietyand invariably they're going to
catch a couple people dependingon how long they're out there.
The more sobriety checkpointsthere are, the more they're
going to catch and it's going toreduce guys on the roadway and
it acts as a deterrent.
(16:46):
I know mothers against drunkdriving has stats on that
definitively showing thatsobriety checkpoints work and
that's something that everypolice agency ought to do to try
to increase catching those guys.
Again, that's just a matter ofresources.
They could do one of those everynight, you know, in a different
location in whateverjurisdiction.
But of course they have to catchother folks doing their crime
(17:09):
too.
So this a matter of resources, amatter of where you're going to,
to put those resources and alsothe police.
And I think for the most partthey try to, but they need to
increase it just like we do.
They need to help educate.
One of the things when we goback to people drinking and not
knowing what a 0.05 or 0.08 intheir system feels like, you
know, during the academy,sometimes during the academy,
(17:31):
I'm talking about the, thepolice academy, I know that some
jurisdictions actually havevolunteers come in and they will
drink alcohol and the officersand that person, you know, they
will check taking a PBT everynow and then and actually gauge
this person, observe the person,okay.
These are the effects ofalcohol.
I'm pretty sure that the policecould set those type of
(17:53):
trainings up for citizens.
Hey, you want to know- You wantto know what a 0.05 looks like?
Here's what you do.
Of course, you could do ityourself.
We talked earlier about thePBTs, right?
If you buy one yourself and youhave one yourself, you can test
yourself on that one, right?
Kandes Carter (18:06):
Yeah.
Tony Covington (18:07):
So of course we have the PBT.
You don't have to just go basedon your, your subjective
feeling, but that's part of theeducation that they can do.
Also, and this is importantbecause I haven't said anything
about this too much in boththese episodes, Drug Recognition
Experts, they are policeofficers who are specially
trained to recognize whensomebody is under the influence
(18:28):
of controlled dangeroussubstances, whether it's
marijuana, whether it's pills,whether it's heroin, cocaine,
that type of thing, we do nothave enough of them anywhere.
All right.
And with the advent of thepermissiveness about marijuana
out here throughout the country,you are having more and more and
(18:48):
more people driving under theinfluence of drugs.
And everything that I talkabout, um, driving under the
influence of alcohol applies todriving under the influence of
drugs.
All right?
So the more DREs we have outthere- because here's what
happens, somebody may get pulledover, officer doesn't smell any
alcohol, doesn't see any alcoholperson, doesn't say they'd been
drinking, but they're clearlyunder the influence of
(19:10):
something.
What do the police do?
Well, they've got to get a DREout there, Drug Recognition
Expert, to this person, evaluatehim and say, okay, this is what
this person is under.
That's the only way we can holdthem accountable.
We cannot force, there are nolaws on the books yet, unless
there's a death involved, wecannot force anybody to take a
blood test.
There are no breathalyzer testsfor drugs.
(19:30):
You have to take blood tests.
So the more DREs we have outthere, all right, folks can be
held accountable for drivingunder the influence of drugs as
well.
And right now I'm telling you itis- there's a paucity of
officers out there.
I think here in this county youcan count it on maybe one or two
hands the number of officers whoare qualified as Drug
(19:51):
Recognition Experts.
They are certainly sendingpeople to training.
They're trying to increase thatas we go.
They don't have enough yet.
And again, that's money.
That's manpower.
Again, budgeting.
What does the community reallycare about?
Are we going to put moneytowards these things?
So that's what I think thepolice can do and along with
continuing to do the great jobthat they always do.
Kandes Carter (20:13):
Okay.
Kristen Schulz (20:15):
In the first drunk driving podcast, Tony, you
used the phrasebehavior-changing sentences
regarding drunk drivingaccidents that don't involve
death or serious injury.
What specifically did you meanby behavior-changing sentences?
Tony Covington (20:29):
30 days.
A first time offender fordriving under the influence of
alcohol should get 30 days injail.
No weekend sentencing, no workrelease where you're there only
12 hours a day, not you getsentenced on January 1st.
Won't have to turn yourself inuntil March 1st.
No.
You plead guilty or you're foundguilty at your sentencing, you
(20:50):
go to jail for 30 days.
You get taken out the back ofthe courtroom where all the
other prisoners go.
Not walk out the front of thecourtroom where everybody who's
watching goes.
Why?
Why do I think that woulddecrease sentencing?
Excuse me, decrease drunkdriving.
(21:10):
Most people, as I've been toldfor years and years and years by
defense attorneys, most peoplethat are guilty of drunk driving
are working every day, takingcare of their family, don't have
a criminal record.
They're doing what they'resupposed to be doing.
Those are the people, unlikeyour career criminals who really
(21:31):
don't care about staying withinthe law and living within the
law, most drunk drivers, theyare law abiding citizens with
this exception of driving drunk.
And let's not forget themajority of drunk driving
deaths, they're first timeoffenders, right?
The majority of those killingpeople while drunk driving are
(21:54):
first time offenders and Ibelieve that these folks who are
good citizens, they can't affordto go to jail for 30 days.
I'm not talking about money, I'mtalking about their life.
I mean, not too many employersare going to just keep you
around,'well, I got a drunkdriving charge.' Not a whole lot
of folks have 30 days of leavesaved up, and even if you do, is
your boss really going to letyou use 30 days?
(22:16):
That's a lot of time.
Now it sounds fairly harsh andremember, especially in the
climate where three, four, fivetime offenders don't get 30
days.
I mean it's ridiculous.
Okay?
But let us remember howimportant and how impactful
drunk driving is real quickly.
In 2017, let me give you acomparison.
(22:42):
One hundred, seventy thousandarmed robberies in America back
in 2017.
More than 300,000 drunk drivingcases that ended in injury.
Most robberies don't involve aninjury.
Not saying it's an easy thingfor a victim, it's awful,
(23:02):
something that stays with youthe rest of your life.
But guess what?
Being in a drunk drivingaccident stays with you for the
rest of your life too.
There are far more injuries andwhatever.
Somebody asked me, would yourather put a drunk driver in
jail or an armed robber?
Well, I hate to say it, but thedrunk driver is more dangerous.
They're almost 11,000 deaths bydrunk driving every year right
(23:25):
now.
There's no way that armedrobberies are responsible for
even half that amount.
Most robberies don't end inviolence.
Okay, so we need to keep this inmind when we talk about it.
Well, dag on Covington, thatsounds awful harsh.
Maybe it is.
Maybe it isn't.
And we can also put that in withMotor Vehicle Manslaughter.
(23:46):
Motor Vehicle Manslaughter-again, I said this in the first
podcast- you get 10 years.
You get 10- you can get 10 yearsfor a simple assault for just
touching somebody.
You can get 10 years- you canget 20 years for theft, right?
You get 20/25 years for therobbery that we were just
talking about.
You can get 20 years for dealingdrugs, not marijuana, but
(24:06):
cocaine, heroin, all that, 20years.
And you're going to tell me thatin a motor vehicle manslaughter
where the sentence is only 10years, that somebody's life was
worth 10 years.
If you want me to be specific,25 years sounds like a good
number to me.
You should be subject to 25years of your life for taking
somebody else's life.
25 years.
That's what you can get for afirst-degree assault.
(24:27):
First-degree assault isinflicting serious bodily harm
on somebody.
Obviously, if you killedsomebody, a drunk driving case,
you inflicted more than seriousbodily harm.
So we need to increase thatpenalty.
It really is, as I said lasttime, an insult, a slap in the
face to families out there whohave to endure this.
And I am a firm believer thatsentencing can make a
(24:53):
difference, can be a deterrent,and if nothing else, it can be
the necessary punishment thatpeople deserve as well.
So that's how I feel aboutsentencing.
I believe, and I'm not foolishenough to think that tomorrow
somebody is going to pass a lawthat says, hey judges, you gotta
give people 30 days.
(25:13):
But guess what?
There are other crimes outthere.
Possession, simple possession ofa handgun.
The statute, the statute saysyou got to get 30 days.
Now judges are allowed tosuspend that, but the law could
change on that too.
We want to have impact on peopleand deter people from drunk
driving, one of the mostdangerous things we have going
(25:34):
on in this world.
Because remember, there's 17,000murders, 11,000 drunk driving
deaths.
Kristen Schulz (25:41):
Wow.
Tony Covington (25:42):
Only 17,000 murders, which is 17,000 too
many, but two-thirds the numberdrunk driving deaths out there
too.
Drunk driving is a seriouscrime.
It needs to be taken serious.
Kristen Schulz (25:55):
Yeah.
Tony Covington (25:55):
It's preventable.
We don't have to lose theselives.
We need to do something to deterit.
The total lack of serioussentencing of first timers and
on folks who were charged withmotor vehicle manslaughter, I
think adversely impacts theseriousness factor here.
(26:16):
Folks do not take it seriouslybecause the courts don't take it
seriously.
So that concludes part two ofour drunk driving episode.
Thank you for listening.
I really appreciate it.
Please take the time tosubscribe to the Tony Talks
Charles County Crime podcast.
Our next topic will be on thedreaded subject of plea
(26:36):
agreements, or what some folkscall plea deals.
Trust me, plea deals, pleaagreements, whatever you call
them are a good thing.
You don't believe me now, pleaselisten to the next podcast and
you'll understand why.
Thank you, Tony Covingtonsigning off.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.