This proposal would require special plates for repeat drunken drivers.
According to the article, Georgia, Minnesota, and Ohio require special license plates for convicted drunk drivers, and the plates in Ohio are bright orange.
Would driving with these special plates create enough reasonable suspicion to justify a stop? Or, even if they do not create reasonable suspicion per se, could they contribute enough to make even otherwise overlooked behavior, such as driving just slightly above the speed limit, grounds for a stop? The obvious slippery slope argument here is that we could have every kind of criminal labeled so that the police could keep a special eye on them, a la The Scarlet Letter.
"Hey, that guy with the 'M' on his shirt was previously convicted of marijuana possession. Let's go search him!"
And what in the world makes them think that this would be effective? It doesn't stop drunk drivers from driving rental cars. And, as the article points out, there's no guarantee that it's the convicted drunk driver driving at any particular time, and not a friend or family member.
Ostensibly, the purpose is to prevent deadly accidents. But how is this going to prevent accidents? People will jump out of the crosswalks when they see license plates beginning in "D" coming at them? Cars will pull over and let them pass? Parents will make their kids, who had been jumping around in the back seat, buckle their seatbelts? No, they'll just get pulled more over. I guess the concept is that this will cause less accidents because they'll spend more time pulled over, digging out their license and registration, and less time actually driving?
It just amazes me how much power MADD and similar organizations have over the legislature. I guess drunk driving is an easy issue to get tough on and not look bad to anyone. That and sex offenders. So sad that they can't spend their time doing something to actually help somebody.