\ Click to Call Click to Text

Tag: Michael Goodove

Categories
STS&G News Goodove in the News Virginian-Pilot Archive 1998

Beach puts brakes on police chases now officers can’t pursue non-violent fleeing criminal

Virginian-Pilot, The (Norfolk, VA)

Author: MIKE MATHER, STAFF WRITER

The Virginia Beach Police Department’s new pursuit policy will allow pursuits for cases involving violent crimes against people, or for crimes involving guns or bombs. A headline in Friday’s newspaper only referred to the violent crimes.

Police Chief Charles R. Wall has banned all police pursuits in the city except for cases involving violent felons armed with guns.

The order, effective immediately, could eliminate nearly all police chases using motor vehicles, officers said Thursday. Police officers can no longer pursue drunken drivers, car thieves, burglars or other non-violent criminals who flee, according to the new order.

The June 2 memo from Wall was distributed to officers Wednesday night and Thursday morning. Some officers still had not seen the memo as of late Thursday. A copy was given to The Virginian-Pilot.

No other Hampton Roads jurisdiction has such a strict pursuit policy. The new order will affect other jurisdictions that chase fleeing motorists into Virginia Beach. Wall said those officers will be allowed to continue a hot pursuit in Virginia Beach, but they would not get help from his department’s officers unless the pursuit was justified under the new criteria.

The order is an interim step. Department officials are rewriting the pursuit policy, and the city’s officers will be given a chance to comment on a draft of the proposed orders. But Wall said he expects the final orders to be similar to the interim policy.

The new order is a sharp departure from the former policy, which allowed officers discretion as to when to begin a pursuit. The Police Department has in recent years allowed officers more latitude to aggressively halt fleeing motorists. Officers have been trained to use tire-deflating spikes and to box in fleeing vehicles with rolling roadblocks.

Also, a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision made it very difficult for citizens to sue police in federal court for damages or injuries resulting from pursuits.

Wall said it was the safety of the community, and not the Supreme Court decision, that guided him.

“I am very concerned, as you should be, about the dangers inherent in police pursuits of vehicles,” Wall said in the memo. “The conflict between our efforts to protect the lives of citizens . . . and engaging in high-speed pursuits through city streets should be obvious.”

The new order will allow a pursuit only when an officer believes a car’s occupant or occupants have used a gun or a bomb to commit, or to try to commit, a violent felony.

“All other pursuits are prohibited,” the memo said.

Wall said Thursday the decision to curtail pursuits wasn’t taken lightly. He and others studied the pursuit policies of jurisdictions in at least seven states. They also consulted with national experts on police pursuits.

The chief said, after the review, he and his staff determined a more restrictive policy will be safer for the public and the police officers.

The new rules come against a backdrop of several controversial police pursuits in Virginia Beach, including some that have killed innocent people.

On Jan. 21, 1995, a drunken driver eluded police for 15 miles before the van he was driving slammed into a sports car in Norfolk and killed two people. Although state police had taken over the pursuit, the chase started in Virginia Beach. That chase would not be allowed now.

On March 25, 1997, Bruce V. Quagliato led police on a low-speed pursuit that ended when his car and at least two police cars collided on Independence Boulevard. He died after several police officers shot him, thinking he was armed. He wasn’t.

Twice in 1997, motorcyclists being chased for traffic or equipment infractions died after crashing at high speeds. Neither pursuit would be allowed now.

On Feb. 6, police said a 14-year-old girl was driving a stolen car when she sped from a police officer on Shore Drive. She and a companion survived a crash that killed an innocent motorist, 56-year-old Michael Boynton, a retired Navy SEAL and war hero. That pursuit would not be allowed today.

On March 14, five teen-agers in a stolen car crashed after trying to elude police. The car’s driver and one passenger, both 14, died. That pursuit would not be allowed today.

“We considered (these crashes) and we considered the danger to our officers,” Wall said. “We have looked at this for quite a while.”

Mary Boynton, wife of the man killed by the 14-year-old car thief, said Thursday she never blamed the police because they were doing their job. She said she instead blames the teen-agers who stole a car and killed her husband.

The new policy drew mixed reactions.

“I think it is great. It is something they should’ve done a long time ago,” said attorney Jim McKenry, who represents Quagliato’s family. Quagliato was shot to death at the end of a police pursuit when he refused to comply with officers’ orders. Under a strict interpretation of the new policy, a similar pursuit would not be initiated now.

His client “would still be alive and well,” McKenry said. Quagliato’s family is suing the city for $5 million.

But Mike Goodove, president of Southside MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, said he is concerned about any policy that could hamper police from aggressive DUI enforcement. Under this policy, police can’t chase a drunken driver who flees.

“The Virginia Beach Police Department should first of all be applauded for its efforts to combat impaired driving,” he said. “We would certainly interpret impaired driving as a violent offense because of the potential injuries and death the drunk driver would cause. Because an impaired driver poses a serious threat to others on the roadway, the proposed policy change to ban pursuits, with respect to drunk driving, gives us some concern.

“We are confident that the Virginia Beach police department will allow its officers to remove impaired drivers from the roadway while protecting the safety of those on the road,” Goodove said.

Lillian DeVenny, state president of Virginians Opposing Drunk Driving, said she can see both sides of the issue. An advocate for stringent police enforcement of DUI, she also knows a family whose son was killed in a police pursuit.

“In a way, (the new policy) angers me, but I have had ambivalent feelings on that matter for quite some time,” she said. “I feel the police officers have been doing their jobs as best as they can, but when I look at the other side of the coin, and see the victims of pursuits, I have second thoughts.”

The city’s new policy represents exactly the kinds of police guidelines that Wyoming-based STOPP, or Solutions to Tragedies of Police Pursuit, lobbies for. That group studies police pursuits and ways to reduce them.

“That is wonderful,” said STOPP’s Jeff Maceiko of the Virginia Beach policy. “We don’t want them to ban all pursuits, per se, but we do want to ban all except for the pursuits of violent felons. This exactly what we want.”

Several police officers contacted Thursday said the new policy will limit their effectiveness, and it may cause more motorists to run because they know the police won’t chase. They said drunken drivers, unlicensed drivers and other criminals would probably take the chance to escape. Many officers said only law-abiding drivers would stop for them now.

Wall said he doesn’t think that will happen.

“Every place we have looked that has similar policies, we found that simply has not been the case,” Wall said. “They reported that was not the result.”

Before Thursday, the decision to chase a suspect was left to the individual officer. The officer would have to consider, among other things, the risks involved, the severity of the offense, and the possibility of catching the motorist at a later time. Now, most of that discretion is eliminated.

“While none of us likes the thought of letting someone go who has committed a violation and compounded that by fleeing when we signal them to stop,” the memo said, “the overriding factor guiding all of our actions must be our concern for the safety of the officers involved and the citizens of the community, as well as the violators themselves.”

One of the city’s police-union representatives, Officer Bobby Mathieson, said his organization doesn’t yet have an opinion on the new policy.

“We welcome the public input on this,” he said. “The public should be a big part of this, to see if they support (the new rules), or if they don’t.”

Although the Supreme Court has granted police departments more protection, Virginia Beach is one of many agencies across the country adopting more restrictive pursuit policies.

Authorities in Florida said Hampton Roads fugitive Carl Douglas Consolvo outran a police officer because the Miami Shores Police Department doesn’t allow pursuits. Federal authorities said Consolvo then continued his crime spree, which included a wave of bank robberies and the shooting of a Utah police officer.

But even though police may sometimes fail to catch criminals, no-pursuit policies could save more than 100 innocent lives a year, advocates said.

In 1996, the latest year for which complete national statistics are available, 377 deaths resulted from police pursuits. Of those deaths, 111 were innocent third parties. The remaining 266 were in the fleeing cars.

Some states have tried to quell the number of police pursuits. Some of those efforts have targeted the motorists, and some have curbed the police.

Oregon lawmakers, for example, made it a felony instead of a misdemeanor to run from police. Other state lawmakers, like those in Delaware, are trying to craft statewide pursuit policies that all municipalities must follow.

Wall said the final version of revised orders could be approved and in place by next month.

More on PILOT ONLINE: Do you agree with the restrictions on Virginia Beach police pursuits? Cast an instant-poll vote and tell your reasoning in TalkNet at

http://www.pilotonline.com

Copyright (c) 1998 The Virginian-Pilot
Record Number: 9806050663

Categories
STS&G News Goodove in the News Virginian-Pilot Archive 1998

Parents feel pressure of teen drinking, too

The school year is winding down, proms and summer vacations are looming, and parents at Norfolk Collegiate School are talking about peer pressure and underage drinking.

Not just pressure on their kids. Pressure on themselves, the parents.

Pressure to be the nice guys and not the cops with their children and their children’s friends when it comes to them experimenting with alcohol. Pressure to want their kids to like them, to think they’re cool. Pressure to not look like a prude in front of other parents.

A mother with 14- and 17-year-old sons complained that she was the only parent she knew who checked to see if other parents were chaperoning parties in their homes. If she raised the question of alcohol use, the other parents often shrugged and said the kids were going to drink anyway. Better that it be under their roofs.

“They looked at me like I was nuts,” she said.

More than 50 parents of students at this private school met in its cafeteria Monday night for a panel discussion on underage drinking. What are the legalities? What can parents do to discourage it?

“I was kind of hoping to get some ideas on how to handle it,” said George M. Kemp of Virginia Beach, who’s struggled over the issue with his 17-year-old son. “Prohibition doesn’t work.”

Maybe not, but don’t give up, panel members told the crowd.

For one thing, giving or even unintentionally allowing your children to use alcohol – such as by retreating upstairs behind a closed bedroom door while the kids party unsupervised downstairs – is against the law, reminded Judge James H. Flippen Jr. of Norfolk’s Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court. It’s called contributing to the delinquency of a minor. And it’s punishable by up to a year in jail and a $2,500 fine.

“It’s serious business,” the judge said.

Helping children “get used to” drinking before they, say, head off to college sends a confusing and immoral mixed message, said Michael L. Goodove, a lawyer and president of the local chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

MADD calls for zero tolerance for underaged drinking. Goodove’s brother was killed at college by an underaged drunken driver. Parents, he and the other panel members said, need to repeatedly talk with their children about why drinking is inappropriate as well as illegal for them.

But don’t try horror stories – they won’t work on savvy teens, said Richard H. Jaglowski, a therapist who’s coordinator of the Child and Adolescent Program at Maryview Psychiatric Hospital.

A firm, consistent and honest stand against their drinking – parents can at least control their own homes – and a game plan to deal with slip-ups is what’s needed.

“There’s nothing you can do to stop your child from drinking,” Jaglowski told the parents. “Nine out of 10 kids, by the time they reach 17, have had alcohol. Forty percent have tried marijuana.

“The only way that’s not going to happen is if you Velcro your kid to your hip.”

Mary Gauthier knows this. The mother of four teenagers and a Norfolk Collegiate faculty member, she regrets not taking a harsher stand when she caught her oldest son with a beer in ninth grade. She cared too much about what her children thought of her.

Years later, on one of the son’s visits home, friends came over late. There was drinking that Gauthier didn’t know about until one of the son’s underaged college friends drunkenly called her the “coolest mom” because she didn’t get angry.

“I was really ashamed of myself,” Gauthier said.

The National High School Senior Survey, an annual study by the University of Michigan, showed in 1995 that illegal drug use was rising among American high-schoolers, and alcohol use was remaining fairly stable, although increasing slightly for seniors.

In 1995, almost 81 percent of seniors had tried alcohol, and 55 percent of eighth-graders had. Thirty percent of 12th-graders had had five or more drinks in a row in the two weeks before the survey; 15 percent of eighth-graders had. More than 63 percent of the seniors had been drunk at least once in their lives, and more than a quarter of the eighth-graders had.

Students at Monday’s discussion agreed that alcohol was prevalent – at parties, driving around, at homes after school when parents weren’t home. Start alcohol education when children are 11 and 12, they said. Talk to children, but don’t come down too hard – they’ll rebel, the youngsters said.

Parents were hoping for more answers. “We know our kids are going to drink,” said Stephen B. Ballard Sr. of Norfolk. “I did it. I imagine nine out of 10 here did it.”

“It’s a tough issue,” the father of two said later. “I don’t know what I’m going to do.”

One of his friends serves alcohol to teens, Ballard said. Going the other way, parent Kemp and his wife stopped drinking at home, believing that setting responsible examples was the key.

Roz Klein’s oldest child is 14, so it’s still easy for Mom and Dad to lay down a black-and-white line concerning alcohol. But it won’t always be, Klein acknowledged.

“I agree with one of the parents who said your kids aren’t going to like you no matter what, so you might as well do what’s right.”

Caption:
Graphic
WHO IS DRINKING
Percent of students who …
Have tried alcohol:
12th grade – 80.7 percent
10th grade – 70.6 percent
8th grade – 54.6 percent
Have been drunk:
12th grade – 63.2 percent
10th grade – 48.9 percent
8th grade – 25.3 percent
Drink daily:
12th grade – 3.5 percent
10th grade – 1.7 percent
8th grade – 0.7 percent

Source: University of Michigan’s National High School Senior
Survey of about 16,000 students in 144 public and private schools
nationwide, December 1995.

Copyright (c) 1996 The Virginian-Pilot
Record Number: 9605080396

Categories
STS&G News Goodove in the News Virginian-Pilot Archive 1998

Hospital settles lawsuit filed by abortion patient

Sentara Norfolk General Hospital has settled an unusual medical malpractice lawsuit that accused the hospital and a nurse of mistreating an abortion patient in 1994.

The lawsuit, filed in 1996, accused a labor-and-delivery nurse who opposed abortion, Nancy C. Benson, of criticizing and harassing a patient who was about to undergo an abortion.

The lawsuit accused Sentara of not protecting the patient from the nurse and of negligently hiring, supervising and training her.

The case was settled confidentially last week. It is not known how much money Sentara paid to the complaining patient, who was identified in court papers as Jane Doe.

“We were very satisfied with the resolution of this matter,” said Doe’s attorney, Michael L. Goodove. “We felt we were dealt with very fairly by Sentara.”

The nurse’s attorney, Dante M. Filetti, said his client did not participate in the settlement. She was voluntarily dismissed from the case just before it was settled.

“I’m just really happy that the matter is closed,” Filetti said. “It was a tough matter for her.”

Sentara’s attorney could not be reached for comment.

This is the second lawsuit concerning this particular abortion and this nurse. The first case was a religious discrimination lawsuit filed by Benson against Sentara. Benson claimed she was forced out of the hospital because she refused to help with abortions. Benson lost that case in January 1997 when a judge ruled she was properly suspended for her unprofessional behavior and “complete lack of judgment” in this particular abortion.

The incident happened Dec. 22, 1994. The patient was 4 1/2 months pregnant with a deformed fetus. Benson was assigned to help her prepare for an abortion.

In her lawsuit, the patient said Benson did not help. She said Benson criticized her for choosing the abortion, told her she would never get over it, and said she would have to celebrate her dead child’s birthday just as she celebrated her living child’s.

Then, the lawsuit said, the nurse started crying and said she was opposed to abortion, acknowledged that she had never assisted in an abortion before and told the patient that she – the patient – would have to help her – the nurse – through the difficult procedure.

The patient and her husband complained, Benson was taken off the abortion and suspended. She quit a few days later.

Benson has said in an interview and court papers that the hospital knew she opposed abortions, yet constantly pressured her to help with them. She said she refused several times, then finally was forced to help with this one.

Benson said she did not harass the patient but tried to help the woman understand what she was about to go through. She said the hospital forced her out of her job because of her religious beliefs.

In January 1997, U.S. District Judge John A. MacKenzie ruled that the nurse was wrong.

“Benson was not fired for refusing to care for an abortion patient,” MacKenzie ruled. “Quite the opposite, she was disciplined for the type of care that she did render to the patient. In fact, the discipline of suspension came about for her complete lack of judgment in the 15 minutes” in which she cared for the patient. “By her conduct,” the judge wrote, “Benson created anxiety in the mind of a patient awaiting sensitive surgery and she created a customer service disaster for her employer.”

Benson appealed, then settled with Sentara before the appeal could be heard.

The patient then sued Benson and Sentara in December 1996. The lawsuit said Benson was negligent for forcing her personal beliefs onto a patient about to undergo an abortion, for criticizing the patient’s decision to have the abortion, and for failing to provide nursing care and comfort. Benson and Sentara denied the charges.

Even though the case was 14 months old, it was never set for trial.

Caption:
Graphic
FACT
This is the second lawsuit concerning this abortion and this nurse.
The first case was a religious discrimination lawsuit filed by the
nurse, Nancy C. Benson, against Sentara. Benson claimed she was
forced out of the hospital because she refused to help with
abortions.

Copyright (c) 1998 The Virginian-Pilot
Record Number: 9802120524

Categories
STS&G News Goodove in the News Virginian-Pilot Archive 1996

Nurse, Sentara sued over traumatic abortion

The patient felt nervous enough. She was 4 1/2 months pregnant with a deformed fetus, lying on a hospital bed, waiting for an abortion. She knew it would be traumatic.

Into her room walked a nurse who, she says, turned her morning into a horror.

The nurse criticized the patient for choosing the abortion, told her she would never get over it, said she would have to celebrate her dead child’s birthday just as she celebrated her living child’s, the patient says.

Then, she says, the nurse started crying and said she was opposed to abortion. The nurse said she had never assisted in an abortion and told the patient that she would have to help her through the difficult procedure.

That was in December 1994. This month, the patient – using the pseudonym Jane Doe – sued Sentara Norfolk General Hospital and the nurse, Nancy C. Benson of Norfolk, for medical malpractice and other alleged misdeeds.

She is seeking $1 million in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages.

This is the same abortion that prompted another lawsuit earlier this year. In that case, the nurse sued the hospital, claiming religious discrimination: She says she was fired for refusing to help with the Doe operation. That case is pending in federal court.

All sides agree that the nurse was taken off the abortion soon after the incident, suspended, then quit a few days later.

The patient sued Dec. 6 in Circuit Court under a pseudonym to protect her privacy. She says, in court papers, that she feared the nurse would withhold pain medication and would not help her through the procedure.

“This really doesn’t come down to whether you’re pro-life or pro-choice,” said Doe’s attorney, Michael L. Goodove. “She (the patient) has made a lawful decision to terminate a pregnancy and she should not be subject to someone else’s views. . . . A professional nurse should never, ever subject a patient to this kind of treatment.”

Sentara agrees that the nurse was out of line, even though it is a co-defendant in the new case. The company says it took swift action against the nurse for acting improperly.

“Sentara suspended (Benson) for imposing her views and judgment on a patient,” says a legal brief by Sentara’s attorney, William M. Furr, in the discrimination case. “(The nurse’s) conduct was totally inappropriate.”

The nurse’s attorney did not return repeated phone calls.

Taken together, the two lawsuits put Sentara and the nurse in awkward legal positions.

First, it means Sentara must defend itself against two lawsuits involving the same abortion. The suit filed by Benson says Sentara acted too strongly against the nurse. The suit filed by the patient says Sentara didn’t act strongly enough to protect her from the nurse.

Second, the two lawsuits put the nurse in an odd spot: She is suing Sentara in one case, but she is a co-defendant with Sentara in the other.

“Litigation makes strange bedfellows,” said a Sentara attorney, William E. Rachels Jr.

“The hospital is certainly caught between a rock and a hard place,” said Goodove, the patient’s attorney.

The nurse’s lawsuit was filed in March and is pending in federal court in Norfolk. A judge heard arguments last week and will rule soon on Sentara’s motion to throw the lawsuit out. The trial is scheduled for Jan. 14.

Court documents, including sworn depositions by the nurse, patient and her family, spell out what happened in the hospital room the morning of Dec. 22, 1994.

Jane Doe was about 20 weeks pregnant – halfway to her baby’s birth – but there were problems. Medical examinations found severe abnormalities in the fetus, including spina bifida, water on the brain and clubfeet, Goodove said.

After much agonizing, the patient and her husband decided to abort.

At Norfolk General, Nancy Benson was one of five nurses in the labor-and-delivery unit. She was assigned to the abortion.

Benson did not want to do the abortion, she says in her lawsuit. She says she had strong religious and moral objections. She says Sentara knew her feelings, yet ordered her to help with the Doe abortion.

Sentara says in court papers that Benson never told her supervisors how she felt and certainly never filed her objections in writing. If she had, Sentara says, the nurse never would have been assigned to abortions. Sentara also says that Benson could have swapped assignments with another nurse.

Benson says there was not enough time and, anyway, it violated her religious beliefs to ask someone else to help with an abortion.

About 7:30 a.m., Benson started an intravenous line and began giving the patient medications. What happened next is spelled out in Sentara’s legal brief in the discrimination case:

The nurse said, “I don’t do these,” meaning abortions. The nurse told Jane Doe that the abortion would always be with her, that she would never forget it, that it might be traumatic and it might come up later in her life.

The nurse also told Doe that she would need to celebrate the dead child’s birthday the same as her living child’s.

The nurse questioned the fetus’ deformity, according to the legal brief. She told Doe that there are boys and girls at Children’s Hospital of The King’s Daughters born with this defect and they are beautiful. She told Doe there was some doubt as to the fetus’ birth defect and asked if Doe had gotten a second opinion.

At that point, the brief says, Doe asked Benson if she was opposed to abortion, and Benson said yes. The nurse started crying, told Doe she would have a hard time dealing with this and said she might never get over it. She asked the patient to help her – the nurse – get through the procedure.

John and Jane Doe complained and the nurse was removed. She was later suspended and eventually quit.

Benson says she was forced out because of her religious views. Sentara says Benson’s conduct was intolerable.

“Health care providers have a right to their religions,” Sentara’s legal brief states, “but they do not have a right to impose their religious views on their patients.”

The new lawsuit has not yet been served on Benson or Sentara, so they have not yet replied.

Meanwhile, a third lawsuit involving abortion at Norfolk General has been settled out of court.

In that case, another nurse – Deborah J. Michael of Gatesville, N.C. – claimed Sentara fired her for refusing to help with abortions. It was filed in March at the same time as Benson’s lawsuit and was scheduled for trial this month.

“Sentara was ready and willing to take this case to trial,” Furr said, “but agreed to a resolution of this case when Ms. Michael decided to conclude the lawsuit for personal and emotional reasons.” Further details are not available.

Copyright (c) 1996 The Virginian-Pilot
Record Number: 9612200471

Categories
Goodove in the News Virginian-Pilot Archive 1995 STS&G News

THESE CANDY-LIKE CHUGGERS PACK A POWERFUL SHOT

THE KEEPER OF the shooters is standing guard at a small makeshift bar just inside the door of the Bayou, the popular Virginia Beach club, when you stroll in one Saturday night.

You peruse her offerings. There’s tequila. The familiar Jack Daniels. Beer. And a bottle labeled “Goldschlager,” wrapped around a transparent fluid sparkling with tiny flecks of real gold.

“Try it,” she chirps. “It’s my favorite.” Why not?

Going down, the liquid delivers a blast of cinnamon. Then a sharp slash tears through your nasal passages. Your brain has only a moment to note this before its attention shifts to the blaze that has erupted in your throat. Congratulations. You’ve just joined a growing army of locals who, along with their beer and highballs, make room for “shooters” – syrupy, often brightly hued concoctions of alcohol and sugar.

They seem as much candy as liquor. They’re especially popular with women. They’re big business at many Hampton Roads nightspots.

That’ll be $3.75.

With drinking a major American pastime, it’s easy to see the appeal of tossing back an ounce or two of high-test with a fruity or minty taste. Call it convenience booze.

These candylike chuggers aren’t so harsh as shots of straight alcohol, but their kick is much the same. Usually concocted of fruit juice and two, three or four liquors – often varieties of schnapps – shooters are smoother than the rough medicine favored by cowboys, bikers and Keith Richards.

If you’re a shooter drinker, you’re probably a younger person; these are not Mom’s cocktails.

And if you’re having a shooter, you’re probably sharing the experience. Despite the popularity of cocktail and cordial products, including schnapps, state Alcoholic Beverage Control statistics show retail sales have remained steady over the past five years.

That means that not many twentysomethings are imbibing one shooter after another in the privacy of their homes. It’s a club thing, a night-on-the-town thing, a bonding experience sealed with a belt.

“You never sell just one shooter, ever,” says David, a bartender at Private Eyes in Norfolk. “When you’re having a good time and you wanna have a better time, shooters are always fun.”

Across the room, a tableful of men and women takes on a tray of Buttery Nipples – butterscotch schnapps mixed with Bailey’s. This is a thrice-weekly habit, though the number they order varies.

“Depends on what kind of night we’re having,” says one.

“One night we had 88,” another jokes.

Jim Beam’s Cincinnati-based DeKuyper arm trumpets about 50 cordials, including more than a dozen flavors of schnapps. Its Peachtree schnapps is the country’s best-selling domestic cordial. One of its latest triumphs is After Shock, a liqueur that melds cinnamon and mint.

Although there are one or two such biggies each year, one Bayou bartender says that about 30 shooters are regularly in circulation. The current favorite is the Volleyball: Wilderberry and BluesBerry schnapps, blue caracao, vodka and pineapple juice. The Wild Thing, which continues the tradition of innuendo-laden shooter tags like Buttery Nipple and Sex on the Beach, is also big this summer.

Some staples are enduring. Watermelon shooters. Orange Crush. Woo Woo, composed of vodka, cranberry juice and peach schnapps.

The Bayou runs regular shooter specials. Two bucks for a Blue Bayou or a shot of Jagermeister, a macho favorite that looks like blackstrap molasses and smells volatile enough to burn through the bottom of the cup.

“Why do people drink it?” wonders Jennifer, who’s having a beer at the bar. “It tastes like NyQuil.” Her theory: “It’s got a cool name and it gets you (messed) up.”

Bayou patrons sometimes underestimate a shooter’s muscle. “People think they can drink these all night,” the bartender says, “and they can’t.”

Mike Goodove, chairman of Mothers Against Drunk Driving’s Southside Community Action Team, says the promotion of sweet drinks is “still being studied” by his organization.

“It is something you’re gonna look at – how the restaurants and bars are marketing things.”

DeKuyper’s publicity handouts are careful to paint its fruits as adult. One photo depicts a ready-to-swig couple old enough to be the parents of a Bayou regular.

Dr. Roy Williams, an ODU chemistry professor and head of its enological, or wine-studies lab, calls shooters “just a way of getting people involved in alcohol. It’s a terrible way to introduce people to alcoholic beverages.”

He notes that even after one shooter, “your enzymes are saying, `Forget it, I’m not doing anything else.’ ”

That said, the country’s fitness mania may be part of shooters’ appeal. “Creamy drinks went out about two years ago,” one bartender says. “Girls, you know, they’re so health-conscious. It sounds silly – they’re drinking – but they’re into watching their weight. And there are a lot of calories in those things.”

Jell-O shooters, which also represent the gigglingly sexual side of the trend, enjoyed a brief popularity. With the prep time required, many bars don’t bother anymore.

But where old shooters have fallen, new ones have risen to take their place. “For tomorrow,” a distillery handout vows, “DeKuyper is already hard at work creating a future of great new cordial products for you.”

Think of the flavors that might exist by the time the Bayou kids’ kids are ready to partake. Perhaps right now, in a Midwestern lab, some visionary is charting the territory on which a million 21st century collegians will dance, will laugh, will love.

How long before we face Nacho Cheese Schnapps?

Caption:
Color photo by Beth Bergman, Staff
Shooters, concocted of fruit juice and a variety of liquors, are big
business at many Hampton Roads nightspots.

Copyright (c) 1995 The Virginian-Pilot
Record Number: 9508180070

Categories
STS&G News Goodove in the News Virginian-Pilot Archive 1995

NO SYMPATHY FOR PETERSON

Shame on you for giving print to the ramblings of Arnold Peterson, driver of the chased van that killed two people on Brambleton Avenue the night of Jan. 21.

I’m horrified and sickened by his message that society is being “too harsh,” “funny and ambivalent about alcohol,” “out to give him the maximum sentence” and it was the “fault” of the Virginia Beach police that he ran!

How absurd! How disgusting! How irresponsible! How twisted!

CAROLE TESTWUIDE

Virginia Beach, March 9, 1995

Regarding “Driver breaks silence on fatal car chase in downtown Norfolk” (news, March 8): Arnold O. Peterson say, “Our society is so funny about this (alcohol). It is legal to buy, it is legal to use. But it is not legal to get behind the wheel with.”

Gee, Mr. Peterson – I wonder why?

Mr. Peterson made the choice to continue drinking and the subsequent choice to drive under the influence and not stop for authorities. Law-abiding citizens must begin demanding that criminals be held accountable for their actions. Mr. Peterson does not get the sympathy vote from me.

MARGARET A. FABIK

Norfolk, March 9, 1995

Two people were taken from this world on Jan. 21 by the reckless actions of Arnold O. Peterson as he fled police while intoxicated. After two previous DUI convictions, two other charges of DUI, a reckless-driving conviction, an improper-driving conviction and finally the deaths of two innocent people, Mr. Peterson now has the audacity to “admit that he did wrong” while remarking that the news media are being unfair to him and he believes “that anti-drunken-driving groups are being harsher than they should.”

In Mr. Peterson’s case, the only things that are not harsh enough are the criminal laws and maximum sentences which he is facing. The fact that Mr. Peterson still considers himself a “good driver” is enough reason to keep him off the roads forever.

MICHAEL L. GOODOVE, chairman

Mothers Against Drunk Driving

Southside Community Action Team

Norfolk, March 8, 1995

Copyright (c) 1995 The Virginian-Pilot
Record Number: 9503140005

Categories
Virginian-Pilot Archive 1994 STS&G News Goodove in the News

DRUNKEN DRIVING LAW TO TOUGHEN ON FRIDAY

Beginning Friday, anyone younger than 21 who downs just one beer in an hour and then gets behind the wheel will face a $500 fine and six-month driver’s license suspension under Virginia’s “zero-tolerance” for underage drinkers, part of the state’s tough new drunken-driving law.

Older motorists are also targeted by the new law, which will make driving with a blood-alcohol percentage of .08 illegal. The current standard in Virginia is .10.

For virtually anyone, a blood-alcohol percentage of .02 happens with just one drink in an hour, according to information provided by the Automobile Association of America.

“What that means is, in reality, if you are under 21 and have any measurable percentage of alcohol in your system, you are going to be charged,” said Peninsula resident Brenda Vaccarelli, co-chairman of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, or MADD. Vaccarelli’s sister was killed by a drunken driver. “If you are under 21, alcohol isn’t an option, or shouldn’t be, if you abide by the law.”

Because of the lower limit across the board, an average of 2,266 more motorists each year could be charged with drunken driving, according to figures provided by the Virginia Division of Forensic Science.

From 1990 to 1992, about 6,800 motorists who were stopped and tested had blood-alcohol contents of .08 or .09. Those people would be considered drunk by the standard that takes effect Friday, but not by the current standard.

Last year, more than 35,000 people were convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol in Virginia, according to the Division of Motor Vehicles.

For a 160-pound person, four drinks in an hour will push the driver past the legal limit, according to AAA figures. An underage drinker could be fined and have his or her license suspended for virtually any blood-alcohol content, but could also face a full drunken-driving charge if the level reaches .08.

The law was signed April 6 by Gov. George F. Allen.

“It’s MADD’s goal and my goal that if one impaired driver is removed from the road . . . one member of your family may live to enjoy the rest of the summer and the rest of their life,” said local MADD chairman Mike Goodove of Virginia Beach.

Virginia will be one of only 10 states to enforce a .08 standard, which will also be the benchmark for drinking boaters.

The new law also provides for the impoundment of a driver’s car for 30 days – if the driver’s license is suspended from an earlier alcohol-related offense. A court could add another 90 days to the impoundment if the driver is convicted.

One key part of the new legislation – curbside revocation of a driver’s license – won’t take effect until Jan. 1, 1995. Starting then, motorists who refuse a breath test, or who fail one, will have their licenses revoked by the arresting police officer for seven days.

“Without a doubt, people are going to know, `I will lose my license if I drive drunk,’ ” said Lillian DeVenny of Virginia Beach, a founder of Virginians Opposing Drunk Driving. “And drunk will be .08.”

DeVenny’s 21-year-old daughter, Carrie, was killed 15 years ago by a drunken driver.

Also, beginning Jan. 1, motorists will no longer have the option of requesting a blood test instead of a breath test. The first parts of the law take effect in the middle of what the DMV categorizes as the deadly summer driving season. Last year, from May through September, 368 people died on the state’s roadways. Almost half the fatalities were alcohol-related. In those five months, 5,234 people were hurt in drunken-driving accidents, according to DMV figures.

The law also begins in the middle of National Sobriety Checkpoint Week, which begins Tuesday.

State and local police announced Friday that they will stop motorists at checkpoints throughout South Hampton Roads during the week. The Coast Guard also will be enforcing BUI, or boating under the influence, laws.

“I feel that perhaps, at last, all my work and all the work done by the members of my group and others has given some meaning to these people’s deaths,” DeVenny said. “I remember going to my daughter’s grave and saying, `Damn, I am going to do something about this.’ It was a long fight, it was a hard fight, and it certainly wasn’t a cinch. . . . It has been a long time coming.”

Caption:
Graphic
STAFF
ALCOHOL IMPAIRMENT CHART
SOURCE: Division of Motor Vehicles Information
[For complete graphic, please see microfilm]

Copyright (c) 1994 The Virginian-Pilot
Record Number: 9406260105

Categories
Goodove in the News Virginian-Pilot Archive 1993 STS&G News

DUI DEATHS DOWN SHARPLY SINCE ’82 BUT FOUR RECENT FATALITIES HAVE RENEWED CALLS FOR MORE ACTION.

In a recent 10-day span, four people died and three others were critically injured in alcohol-related car crashes in South Hampton Roads.

The accidents stirred outrage, brought cries for tougher laws and caused the phones to ring almost nonstop at the offices of Mothers Against Drunk Driving and Virginians Opposing Drunk Driving.

But statistics released this week indicate that laws now on the books and the lobbying efforts and public awareness campaigns of such organizations have produced dramatic results.

In recent years, the number of alcohol-related fatalities has fallen sharply in Hampton Roads, in Virginia and across the nation:

Between 1982 and 1992, the number of drinking-related deaths nationwide dropped by about 8,500.

During the same decade, the percentage of all auto fatalities in Virginia that were alcohol-related fell by almost 10 percent, from 52.8 percent to 43.1 percent.

In 1990, 58 people were killed by drunken drivers in South Hampton Roads – 59 percent of all driving fatalities. Last year, that number had fallen to 35 – 40 percent – in the cities of Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, Portsmouth and Suffolk.

Experts attribute the decline to tougher law enforcement and more awareness, particularly among teenagers, of the dangers of drinking and driving.

Lillian DeVenny, who heads and helped form Virginians Opposing Drunk Driving, said her organization and groups like it deserve some credit for that trend. “We do believe that what we’re doing is working,” she said.

But DeVenny and others point out that their work is far from over, as the two recent fatal accidents, one in Virginia Beach and the other in Suffolk, clearly show.

“We’ve still got a segment of the population out there who’s not listening,” said DeVenny, of Virginia Beach. “We’ve come a long way and the figures show it. But, oh my God, we’ve still got a ways to go . . . Any time we see what we’ve just seen, we know the drunk drivers are still out there.

“The mood is indignation and anger. I don’t think in all the years I’ve been doing this I’ve seen the public respond in such a positive manner. These cases have set people off. The public is crying out, `We’ve had enough.’ ”

A 23-year-old woman called to tell DeVenny that two family friends had just been killed in West Virginia. “It’s time I get involved,” she said.

Two homebound women offered to stuff envelopes. Survivors of accidents involving drunken drivers have called to talk about their experiences. People offered to go to Richmond to lobby for tougher laws. Others wanted statistics for papers or speeches.

The outrage may have an impact on the 1994 General Assembly, which begins next month. Several lawmakers plan to show up armed with bills to further combat highway carnage.

State Sen. Kenneth W. Stolle, R-Virginia Beach, who saw his share of fatal accidents as a Virginia Beach police officer, has been active in efforts to keep drunken drivers off the roads.

“It doesn’t affect most Virginians until someone they know or someone in their family is killed or hurt by a drunk driver,” he said. “Unfortunately, society as a whole is still willing to tolerate the drunk driver. Until that changes, we can do anything we want at the legislative level and we’re not going to resolve the problem.

“We have to have that commitment that it’s not going to be tolerated to go out and drink and then drive. I can’t think of anything else that society accepts that we know kills people.”

Stolle said citizens need to remember that they have a voice in getting the laws changed through their lawmakers.

“These bills will save lives,” Stolle said.

Del. Glenn Croshaw, D-Virginia Beach, says he is horrified by each new report of a death or injury caused by a drunken driver, especially since laws he believes could have made a difference have failed in past legislative sessions.

“It’s devastating,” he said. “Many of these fatal accidents that are alcohol-related are multiple-conviction individuals. There is just story after story.”

Croshaw is convinced that a law that would allow police officers to pull a suspected drunken driver’s license at the scene is a good way to save lives.

“We’ve said as a society, `We don’t want you drinking and driving,’ ” Croshaw said. “We need to get serious about it . . . I think what we’re moving to in society is zero tolerance for everyone.”

Some of the calls into local MADD and VODD offices are from people with children too young to drive. Their parents are thinking ahead.

“I don’t care what age you are,” said Brenda Vaccarelli, founder and current president of the Peninsula chapter of MADD. “Alcohol-related fatalities don’t discriminate. They affect everyone . . . Alcohol-related deaths have decreased, but one is one too many. That’s the bottom line. We want to be put out of business.”

Michael Goodove, chairman of the Southside Community Action Team of MADD, said the latest statistics reflect enhanced public awareness of the problem.

“People use designated drivers much more,” he said. “They think before they drink. People are more aware that when you get behind the wheel after you’ve been drinking, it’s the same thing as firing a weapon into a crowd.”

Caption:
Color photo
BETH BERGMAN/Staff
Police from all over Hampton Roads attend a meeting Wednesday at the
Hampton Coliseum parking lot to raise awareness of drunken driving.
The event kicked off National Drunk and Drugged Driving Prevention
Month. Recently, the Virginia State Police announced plans to set up
sobriety checkpoints in cooperation with local law enforcement
agencies in a monthlong campaign to battle drunken driving on
Virginia highways.

Graphics
STAFF
ALCOHOL-RELATED DRIVING DEATHS DECLINE
SOURCE: Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles
[For complete graphic information, please see microfilm]

LEGISLATION
Proposed in the 1994 General Assembly:
Reduce from 0.10 to 0.08 the blood alcohol level at which a
driver is considered to be drunk.
Make a third offense of driving under the influence punishable by
one to five years in prison or up to 12 months in jail and a fine.
Add “driving after drinking” to the offenses underage drinkers
can be charged with. The law calls for punishment as a Class 1
misdemeanor and suspension of driver’s license for a year.
Recoup from drivers the money that accidents cost localities.
Allow police to pull a suspect’s license at the scene.
Voicing your opinion
Call your state legislator or send word through these
organizations:
Mothers Against Drunk Driving
South Hampton Roads: 670-3830
Peninsula: 595-4101
Virginians Opposing Drunk Driving: 497-2494

Copyright (c) 1993 The Virginian-Pilot
Record Number: 9312020796

Categories
STS&G News Goodove in the News Virginian-Pilot Archive 1993

HOT LINE WILL LET DRIVERS REPORT DUI SUSPECTS \ THE STATE POLICE SERVICE IS AVAILABLE TO SPRINT CUSTOMERS

When the Norfolk man saw a car swerve along Interstate 264, hit another car on Waterside Drive and then drive on, he grabbed his cellular phone and called police.

A dispatcher told him to wait for an officer. But when the drunk drove on, so did the man – through Norfolk, Portsmouth and Chesapeake, until three patrol cars ended the chase and he was finally able to hang up.

“I kept seeing my wife in that damaged car,” said the man, who asked not to be named. “I previously worked in an emergency room. I used to see what drunk driving can do.”

State police on Thursday urged other car-phone owners to report drunken drivers.

Along with Sprint Cellular and Hampton Roads Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the troopers announced the creation of a DUI hot line that will allow Sprint customers in southeastern Virginia to report suspected drunken drivers toll-free by dialing *DUI (*384).

It is the first time such a service has been available in Virginia, where there were 40,107 drunken-driving arrests last year, according to the Department of Motor Vehicles. Forty-five percent of the state’s 839 auto fatalities in 1992 were alcohol-related.

Sprint officials said the hot line has been successfully tested in Las Vegas and New Mexico. In Las Vegas, such calls have resulted in an average of five drunken-driving arrests a month.

But the extent of the local program is unknown because Sprint officials would say only that they had “many thousands of customers” and would not release an exact number.

There may be some minor problems with the new system.

The calls go into one of only three 911 phone lines at state police headquarters in Chesapeake. Police are asking callers to stay on the line if there is no answer.

Robert Sage, Sprint’s general manager for Hampton Roads, also said the new system is meant to encourage callers to report drunken drivers, not police them.

“This is going to put people on notice,” said Michael Goodove, a local MADD official. “Now, everyone with a cellular phone is going to have the power to turn suspected drunk drivers in.”

Copyright (c) 1993 The Virginian-Pilot
Record Number: 9305140630