Michael Iannettoni had been charged with driving while intoxicated five times when he killed Vincent Russo.
Iannettoni had four previous convictions for DWI and was awaiting sentencing on a fifth when he struck Russo’s car on Buckley Road in Liverpool on Jan. 9, 2011. Russo, 82, of Liverpool, was on his way to Mass. Iannettoni was drunk. Russo died three days later.
Iannettoni was convicted of aggravated vehicular homicide, first- and second-degree vehicular manslaughter, reckless driving, crossing a double solid line and failure to keep right. He was sentenced to eight and a third to 25 years in prison.
But for Russo’s family, it wasn’t enough; they believed he never should have been on the road that night in the first place, given his dangerous history. With the help of State Sen. John DeFrancisco, the Russo family pushed forward a law that would increase penalties for those with repeat drunk driving offenses.
“His brother and his entire family were totally devastated by this,” DeFrancisco said. “This was an 82-year-old man on his way to Mass, minding his own business, doing what he’s supposed to be doing. Then you have some guy who’s continuously in trouble [for drinking and driving] who caused this man’s death. It was very emotional for the family.”
Vincent’s Law went into effect Nov. 1. The new law increases the look-back period for DWI related offenses from 10 years to 15 years for an individual arrested for a third drunk driving incident. In the past an individual was considered a three-time DWI offender if both subsequent offenses occurred within 10 years of the initial offense. The new law requires that he or she be treated as a three-peat DWI offender if subsequent offenses occur within 15 year duration of the first conviction. The law also makes the third offense a Class D felony, meaning the offender faces up to 10 years in prison and/or a $10,000 fine.
“The most important thing is that we need to have tougher laws on repeat DWI offenders, for someone who continues doing it,” DeFrancisco said. “The public needs more protection.”
Criminal attorney Don Kelly of Tully Rinckey, PLLC, said the law addresses a need that had previously been overlooked.
“I think the manner in which it was drafted is directed at a very real issue, which is the recidivism rate among drunk drivers,” Kelly said. “Perhaps the 10-year look-back period was insufficient to appropriately address the issues of the people driving drunk, so they opted to extend that period. It was a need, and the legislation is directed at that need.”
Kelly said the law represents a shift in society’s view of driving while drunk that has been taking place over the last few decades.
“I think we’re seeing throughout our culture that the manner in which we treat DWI has changed dramatically since I was a kid,” he said. “Now people, before they even leave the house, are making alternate arrangements. That was never the case when I was younger. Overall, the more stringent laws have had a dramatic effect on the populace as far as being a deterrent is concerned.”
Kelly did note that those who are predisposed to drinking and driving will likely be undeterred by the harsher penalties.
“The unfortunate thing is that DWI is based by its very nature in a lack of judgment,” he said. “I’m not sure if someone walking out to their car that otherwise would have an inkling to drink and drive will change that because of the fact that this law exists.”
DeFrancisco agreed that the promise of increased jail time likely wouldn’t stop a serial offender, but the law still had merit.
“If you have someone who has done this repeatedly, like this individual, this was his fifth DWI. He was driving at a time when his [blood] alcohol content was four times the legal limit. There are some people you can’t stop by threatening stiffer penalties. Those people are kind of beyond repair,” DeFrancisco said. “But on the other hand, there should be a corresponding penalty that results in someone spending many years in prison instead of just a couple of years and then they’re out on the road to do it again. Taking away someone’s driver’s license isn’t going to stop some of these idiots from getting behind the wheel. But if they’re in jail, they’re incapacitated and they’re not going to be able to put other people’s lives in jeopardy.”
The law will likely discourage at least some people from drinking and driving.
“People should know that the chances of a person who is otherwise an honest citizen ending up in a prison cell will dramatically increase,” Kelly said. “You have people who otherwise wouldn’t have any interaction with law enforcement suddenly convicted of a felony, losing their civil rights and being imprisoned in the same facilities as rapists, murderers and other bad people. You have to understand that before you leave the house, there’s a very real possibility that your life could be turned upside down with one lapse of judgment. And that’s even falling short of the damage it would do to yourself or someone else if you were to drink and drive and get into an accident and seriously injure or kill someone.”
DeFrancisco said Paul Russo is still hopeful that even stiffer penalties would eventually be enacted for repeat offenders.
“We were originally looking for stiffer penalties, but the assembly watered it down. We finally passed a law that [Paul] was happy with,” he said. “I don’t think [it goes far enough], and neither does Paul, but we have to start somewhere. We thought it was best to get this one passed and continue to work on additional safeguards and penalties later on.”
