Danny Lee Bettcher was back in an Otter Tail County courtroom this month, again for driving drunk. This time, he was facing his 27th DWI conviction a Minnesota record.

Bettcher, who spent more than four years behind bars for a prior drunken driving offense, was arrested after downing a few rounds of beer and Jagermeister and sailing his motorcycle through a four-way stop. He was released from prison nine months earlier. “I drink to get drunk,” said Bettcher, 57.

Though his lawyer pleaded for leniency, Judge Mark Hansen decided the roads would be safer with Bettcher locked up. Hansen sentenced him to four years in prison, the recommended penalty in Bettcher’s case. “I don’t want you to kill somebody,” the judge said.

State officials say Bettcher is one of 139 people who have been charged with at least 15 DWIs. Altogether, 46,748 drivers have been arrested at least four times for driving while intoxicated. Minnesota legislators took aim at this group in 2001, when they passed a felony DWI law creating stiff penalties for those with four DWI convictions in 10 years. Since then, at least 4,400 drivers have been sentenced under the statute, which carries a minimum of three years in prison, typically converted to probation with some jail time for first-time felons.

But the prospect of prison might not be much of a deterrent. The number of people with a second felony DWI has increased each year, reaching 156 in 2008, or 20 percent of all felony DWI convictions.

For many chronic offenders, the issue isn’t whether they’re going to drink and drive again. It’s how to get away with it. Experts say repeat offenders are often alcoholics who simply don’t respond to treatment or tough punishment. They drive without licenses. If their vehicle is taken away, they drive someone else’s car. They’ve driven drunk so many times they mistakenly believe they’re in control of their vehicles, even if they can’t walk a straight line.

Police said Pratt, 23, was arrested at around 3:45 a.m. outside a nightclub in Los Angeles and taken into custody, with bail set at $5,000, according to Sergeant Mark Cohan of the Los Angeles Police Department. Before her arrest, Pratt was reportedly out with some fellow “Hills” stars at Empire, celebrating Holly Montag’s 26th birthday.

Pratt was released with a ticket later Sunday morning and was not required to post bail but will return for a court hearing, according to a spokesperson at the Van Nuys Division, where Pratt was held.Shortly before heading out to the club, Pratt tweeted, “It’s my sissy @hollymontags bday party! Just finished dinner and going to Empire but I’m pretty tired aka yes i am the party pooper ”

Cohan said that he did not know the circumstances of the arrest and could not say whether Pratt was pulled over for another violation or if the stop was DUI-related.

Pratt was arrested in Hawaii in May of 2006, along with Hannah Owens-Bender, daughter of the director of ABC’s “Lost,” for second-degree theft and drug violations.

Pratt has spoken in the past about her struggles with bulimia and self-esteem issues, as well as her battles with substance abuse.

The issue is whether an Intoxilyzer reading of .08 within two hours of driving is sufficient evidence to get a DUI conviction.

The case stems from the Aug. 19, 2007 arrest of Paul Finch. A sheriff’s deputy stopped Finch for weaving in and out of his lane, according to court records.

He was taken to the county jail where he submitted to a breath test. The Intoxilyzer 5000 measured his breath to have .080 grams of alcohol content.Finch’s atorney argued the .08 reading was insufficient to find him guilty of DUI beyond a reasonable doubt. State District Court Judge Robert Fairchild agreed, granting a motion to acquit. Finch pleaded guilty to a remaining charge of failure to maintain a lane.

In his argument to the Kansas Supreme Court, Assistant District Attorney Mark Simpson says the DUI law is clear — a person who is driving and has an alcohol concentration of .08 is violating the law.

But Janine Cox, with the Kansas Appellate Defender Office, argues that in test trials in the week before Finch’s arrest, the Intoxilyzer machine showed inconsistencies between the first and second tests. While the inconsistencies were small, they were enough to support an acquittal, she said.

She also argued that resolving this case was not crucial to the uniform administration of the law statewide, but only applied to Finch’s case.

Arguments in the case will be heard Wednesday by the state Supreme Court.