The Student News Site of Colorado State University

The Rocky Mountain Collegian

The Student News Site of Colorado State University

The Rocky Mountain Collegian

The Student News Site of Colorado State University

The Rocky Mountain Collegian

Print Edition
Letter to the editor submissions
Have a strong opinion about something happening on campus or in Fort Collins? Want to respond to an article written on The Collegian? Write a Letter to the Editor by following the guidelines here.
Follow Us on Twitter
African American female student studying from home during lockdown
Pediatric NP Online Programs: Alleviating Gaps in Colorado's Healthcare System
April 10, 2024

In Colorado's intricate healthcare sector, the provision of specialized care to its pediatric population remains a challenge. Pediatric Nurse...

Colorado bill lessening DUI punishment is a disgrace to the deceased

DWI Enforcement
DWI Enforcement (Photo credit: versageek)

Under a new Colorado State Law, drivers who are caught driving drunk or while intoxicated could see less punishment than those who have been caught in the past.

House Bill 1077 reconstructs the punishment proceedings for those arrested on DUI, quite significantly. The adjustments this bill brings are both unneeded and embarrassing to the State of Colorado.


Under House Bill 1077, drivers pulled over by police are given the opportunity to argue that they were unjustifiably pulled over by law enforcement. If they argue this case successfully, even if they are clearly drunk upon being stopped, their license suspension could drop from a one-year suspension to only two months.

After two months of not having a license, 1077 gives DUI offenders the ability to have a system installed in their car that tests their blood alcohol level prior to vehicle operation.

Long story short; if you get pulled over and you are drunk, the state thinks you should be able to argue that it was not “fair” for the officer to stop you. In that case, I am sure a drunk driver would prefer to have the smallest punishment possible. Therefore, if you want to be back on the road as soon as you can following your DUI, just argue that the officer did not have the right to stop you, and you could be driving again in two short months.

Of course I do not condone drunk driving. There is no time where anyone should feel good about driving drunk. And, although this bill may lessen your punishment, you will still have to carry your car-breathalyzer everywhere you go. I’m sure there is nothing that impresses your crush more than taking them to dinner, and having to blow into a tube before your car starts.

I personally believe this bill is ridiculous. I have never heard of anyone who thought the one-year suspension punishment was too harsh.

I also am sure that those who have lost a loved one and/or friend to someone driving over the legal intoxication limit believe that even the one-year suspension is not sufficient for a person putting lives in jeopardy.

Years ago as a student at Mission Viejo Elementary School in Aurora, Colo., the Cherry Creek School district had us partake in a program called D.A.R.E. The program helped teach us about drug usage and safety in the “adult world.” Part of the “adult world” consists of the dangers of alcohol.

I remember them showing us a video talking about people being killed by intoxicated drivers. In that time, you feel bad for those who have lost someone, but you never really think that you will lose someone yourself.

Unfortunately, that day came for me last year.  In January of 2012, an intoxicated driver killed one of my childhood friends, Shawn Yoho. A driver who was high on marijuana crashed into Shawn’s stopped vehicle. Shawn left us too soon at the young age of 20. I can say, full-heartedly, Shawn was legitimately the kindest person I have ever known. And to think that someone killed him in a completely preventable scenario, it devastates myself, and all of those who were blessed by God to have the opportunity to know him.


Shawn Yoho, 20, of Aurora, CO.
Shawn Yoho, 20, of Aurora, CO.

Sadly, there is nothing I can do to bring Shawn back. But, as a state, we can do our best to honor the memories of those who have lost their lives to intoxicated drivers by not supporting leniency for laws against intoxicated driving.

House Bill 1077 does not affect DUI offenders who have also taken a life. However, it does give off the impression that our state does not believe driving while intoxicated is as serious as it really is.

One of the final sentences on House Bill 1077 was the part that confused me the most. I was trying to find a way to justify the bill. I truly wanted to find something that would make me think this bill was good for the state of Colorado. Needless to say, the final sentence of the bill did the complete opposite for me.

House Bill 1077 reads: “SECTION 2. Safety clause. The general assembly hereby finds, determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety.”

Lessening the punishment on DUI cases screams to citizens that our state thinks that DUI is not as severe as it is. I was appalled to read “this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety.”

Managing Editor Dillon Thomas can be reached at

View Comments (11)
More to Discover

Comments (11)

When commenting on The Collegian’s website, please be respectful of others and their viewpoints. The Collegian reviews all comments and reserves the right to reject comments from the website. Comments including any of the following will not be accepted. 1. No language attacking a protected group, including slurs or other profane language directed at a person’s race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, social class, age, physical or mental disability, ethnicity or nationality. 2. No factually inaccurate information, including misleading statements or incorrect data. 3. No abusive language or harassment of Collegian writers, editors or other commenters. 4. No threatening language that includes but is not limited to language inciting violence against an individual or group of people. 5. No links.
All The Rocky Mountain Collegian Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • P

    PortaJohnApr 19, 2015 at 10:40 pm

    I think DUI punishments are absurdly extreme. I’m very, very glad to see a little common sense come back into the picture. The simple fact is that the vast majority of people can’t even hold a JOB if their driving rights are taken away for a year. And in some states, someone thin enough can have ONE drink and have a blood alcohol level over the limit. For a person in that situation to get a DUI and all its attendant, draconian punishments, is a crime in and of itself.

  • D

    Denise PooleDec 21, 2013 at 12:40 am

    Shawn was in a completely different car. The person who was high hit the car Shawn was in, including 2 others( One of which was my son). Shawn was killed because of someone who was high, and pled guilty to being high. That person only got 5 days in jail, $750 in fines and 1 year unsupervised probation. It didn’t matter that this person had lost the license to drive 7 times before the accident or had a DUI 2 weeks before he hit Shawn. The problem is everyone wants their freedom to do what they want, then when they get caught doing something wrong they don’t want to own up to their decision they willfully made. In the end innocent people get hurt or killed. If you are going to make bad decisions on purpose then accept the outcome, and realize that outcome will ultimately be devastating for everyone.

    • T

      TimothyTiptonDec 21, 2013 at 1:01 am

      Sorry for your loss! I will, however, point out your own statement that the perp had previous DUI’s. You say he was ‘High’, High on what, what does the official record show? Alcohol & Pot? Just Alcohol? Would be nice to examine that police report to Bring Closer and this question to the ‘Light of Day’, Please. email a copy to

      • D

        Denise PooleDec 21, 2013 at 11:54 am

        High on marijuana .

  • T

    Trent PooleDec 21, 2013 at 12:03 am

    Simplistic argument to defend the indefensible act of killing another while intoxicated. No wonder our society is coming apart at the seams, you hate the police and the state so much you will let criminals go. Look at your own reasoning.