Oklahoma’s Senate Bill 137 is making waves after it was presented to Governor Kevin Stitt for approval. The bill is designed to address concerns over drunk driving offenders who cause great bodily harm but are released on a GPS monitoring program before serving their full sentences.
Proponents argue that the bill is necessary to close loopholes in the justice system, ensuring that individuals who cause significant harm are kept behind bars. However, critics claim it is unconstitutional due to its retroactive application to past cases.
What the Bill Proposes
SB 137 would exclude DUI offenders convicted of great bodily harm from participating in the GPS monitoring program. Additionally, it would mandate that individuals currently on the program be sent back to prison to serve the remainder of their sentence.
This measure aims to address situations like that of Sara Polston, who, after causing a serious crash in Norman, Oklahoma, was sentenced to eight years in prison but was released after serving only 73 days on an ankle monitor.
Support for SB 137
Advocates of SB 137, including the Victims of Impaired Drivers (VOID) organization, strongly support the bill, believing it is essential for justice. According to Jeff Murrow, Executive Director of VOID, drunk driving that causes great bodily injury should be treated as violent under Oklahoma law.
Advocates argue that keeping offenders in prison would ensure public safety, especially since individuals with addictions or alcohol issues might still pose a danger, even when wearing a GPS monitor.
VOID expressed that the bill is crucial in closing an unintended loophole in the Electronic Monitoring Program, which was designed to help relieve prison overcrowding but should not apply to violent offenders. They emphasize the severe impact on victims, citing the case of Micaela Borrego, who sustained life-altering injuries in a crash caused by Polston.
Opposition to SB 137
Critics of the bill, including Brian Carroll, a defense attorney, argue that it is unconstitutional because it applies retroactively to individuals who were sentenced before the bill’s passage. Carroll contends that the retroactive nature of the bill would force people who are already serving sentences to face additional, unforeseen penalties.
He argued that this would violate the constitutional principle that laws should apply going forward and not punish individuals for actions taken under previous laws.
The Oklahoma Criminal Defense Lawyers Association (OCDLA), led by President Jacqui Ford, echoed these concerns. The OCDLA urges Governor Stitt to veto SB 137, emphasizing that while the intent behind the bill is understandable, it oversteps constitutional bounds by attempting to apply changes to past cases. Ford called for lawmakers to revisit the issue and ensure that future changes to the law align with the state’s Constitution.
Context Behind the Bill
The bill was introduced in response to a case in Cleveland County, where a woman, Sara Polston, was convicted of DUI causing great bodily harm after severely injuring Micaela Borrego in a crash. Despite her conviction and an eight-year prison sentence, Polston was released early after serving only 73 days on a GPS monitoring program. This case sparked widespread outrage, as Borrego’s injuries were life-changing and she spent months in recovery.
Supporters of the bill argue that the GPS monitoring program was never intended for violent offenders and that the program should not be used to fast-track individuals who have caused serious harm back into the community.
The Legal Debate: Retroactive Application
The constitutional issue raised by opponents of SB 137 is significant. The argument centers around the retroactive application of the law, which would affect individuals who entered the criminal justice system before the bill was passed. This could potentially extend their sentences and violate the principle of fair notice, where individuals are subject to the laws that were in place when they committed their offenses.
The OCDLA calls for a different approach in the form of House Bill 3114, which proposes similar reforms but with a focus on preventing retroactive penalties. They urge the legislature to remove the retroactive component from both bills and pass a version that complies with constitutional standards.
What’s Next for SB 137?
As the bill sits on Governor Kevin Stitt’s desk, it is expected that he will have to balance the public outcry for stronger justice measures with the concerns about its constitutionality. The Oklahoma Supreme Court may ultimately play a role if the bill is signed into law and later challenged in court.
Lawmakers and legal experts are also pushing for House Bill 3114, a similar measure, to be reconsidered without the retroactive clause. Supporters of this bill believe it could achieve the intended safety benefits while ensuring that it respects the rights of individuals previously sentenced under the existing laws.
