A Batavia woman faces a Leandra's Law felony drunken driving charge following a reported hit-and-run accident on Farnsworth Street in Oakfield last night.
Tonya Marie Weber, 26, a School Street resident, was allegedly driving a 1992 Dodge Shadow on Farnsworth when she struck at least one parked car.
The front license plate reportedly fell off the car at the scene and the car reportedly suffered heavy front-end damage.
Within 10 minutes of the 6:44 p.m. accident, Weber's car was reportedly found at another residence in the Village of Oakfield.
Upon investigation, Deputy Joseph Graff concluded that Weber was allegedly driving the vehicle in an intoxicated condition at the time of the accident and a child under 15 years old was in the car.
Weber is charged under Leandra's Law and with DWI, driving with a BAC of .08 or greater, endangering the welfare of a child, leaving the scene of a property damage accident and moving from lane unsafely.
An arraignment date was set for Dec. 20.
Poor kid in the car
Poor kid in the car
Poor kid in the car, what?
Poor kid in the car, what? There's no indication of the child's age other than he or she was under 15. There's also no indication the child was injured. I still don't understand how having a child in the car makes the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor.
DWI is what it is no matter who is or is not in the car. If you're DWI there's a high probability that you have driven in close proximity to a car with a child under 15 in it. I shake my head at these silly laws that make everyone oooh and ahhh. The severity of DWI is the same, child in the car or not.
It's the same for cell phone laws. You're either driving recklessly or you're not. We already had a reckless driving law and didn't need another one specifically covering cell phones. Why not have a nose picking law? Why not have a CB radio law? Why not a law targeted at changing the radio station while driving? I've seen people applying makeup while driving so why isn't there a specific law for that? Don't get me going on seat belt laws, either.
Goofy I tell ya..it's all just feel good BS.
Doug, I see your point- to an
Doug, I see your point- to an extent... Those who support Leandra's Law maintain that children under 15 lack volition to choose whether in or out of the vehicle driven by an intoxicated adult. Anyone injured by an intoxicated driver is ostensibly innocent and likely didn't choose to be at risk. The crime level should increase based on the number of injuries or potential injuries, regardless of age.
Not really Doug, it not
Not really Doug, it not feelgood Bs at all, it necessary as lawyers today make it so. I still get disgusted by commercials for DWI lawyers that say they can keep you from facing the stiff penalties of DWI cases.
If you dont have it in writing then the lawyers can get you off on some technicality or another.
There is a law about distracted driving if I am not mistaken, so its up to the officer's discretion to pull you over or not.
Anyways just look at our local headlines and stories, nowadays common sense isn't common at all, the proof is right here everyday.
"I still don't understand how
"I still don't understand how having a child in the car makes the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor."
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Whether having the child in
Whether having the child in the car makes it a felony or not shouldn't be the issue. DWI is serious and harms people everyday, they should all be felonies. Why are laws so lenient to begin with?? And I would imagine this individual probably had her child in the vehicle, so how is it not right that she be charged at this degree? If something more serious had happened you would all be saying to throw the book at her. The age doesn't matter, she is putting an innocent child in harms way due to her own chemical problems and selfishness. If nothing is done, this child will continue to grow up in harms way and learn the unhealthy and unsafe lifestyle. Is that better than charging mom with a felony?
Hmm well lets see whats a
Hmm well lets see whats a more serious offense....
Going out driving after drinking?
Or Putting your kids and their friends in a vehicle and driving after drinking.
Kinda obvious isnt it?
its not your $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Mike that they are taking its the idiot who decided not only to drink and drive but to endanger children who cant make the choice to not ride with them....
So why does it make a difference to you if they take the offenders money?