Attorney Blog

Alexandria Police Chief charged with .19 DWI out of Arlington, Virginia car accident

tom@fosterwebmarketing.com (Blog Author)15847 — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 08:00:00 EST

David Baker, the Alexandria Virginia Police Chief was arrested on July 25, 2009 for DWI with a reported blood alcohol level of .19. Chief Baker was involved in an automobile accident that sent at least one person to the hospital. Chief Baker was placed on paid leave. This accident and arrest occurred in Arlington. Chief Baker was in an Alexandria police department vehicle.

Bob Keefer: Harrisonburg Rockingham County Virginia VA DUI DWI & Drunk Driving Lawyer: Even North Carolina State Troopers get charged with DWI DUI & Drunk Driving

Bob@BobBattleLaw.com (Blog Author)14415 — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 08:00:00 EST

North Carolina State Trooper John C. Fogg was arrested in June, 2009 for driving while intoxicated after he was involved in a two car crash on the Durham NC Freeway.

Fogg blew a .17 BAC on the ECIR2 breath tester in use in North Carolina. The ECIR2 is not as effective in detecting mouth alcohol as its predecessor the I-5000.

Fogg is 40 years old and a North Carolina State Trooper since 2007.

You Don't Have to Be Driving to Be Convicted of Connecticut DUI

mindywein@cox.net (Blog Author)10415 — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:00:00 EST

A ruling by the Connecticut Supreme Court means that you don’t have to actually be driving to be convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) in Connecticut. The Supreme Court’s ruling, which was 5-0 in the case of Michael Cyr, showed that drunk drivers do not have to be driving their cars to be charged with operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Michael Cyr had been arrested in Manchester in February 2005 after he was found in a parking lot near a bar. Cyr had started his vehicle remotely and then sat in the driver’s seat intoxicated. However, he never put the key in the ignition and did not drive anywhere.

The Appellate Court had thrown out Cyr’s conviction, but Supreme Court Justices have ordered to court to reinstate it and send the case back to Manchester Superior Court for sentencing.

Cyr, a 50-year-old Andover resident, faces a jail sentence of up to one year followed by a three year probation period. This DUI offense would make it Cyr’s third DUI conviction, as he had prior convictions in 1997 and 1998.

According to Chief Justice Chase Rogers, “In starting the engine of his vehicle remotely then getting behind the steering wheel, the defendant clearly undertook the first act in a sequence of steps necessary to set in motion the motive power of a vehicle.”

The phrase, “motive power,” comes from a 1939 Connecticut court decision, which defined what constitutes “operating” a motor vehicle.

Cyr’s case is one in many that have raised questions concerning the definition of operating a motor vehicle under Connecticut’s drunk driving laws.

Fairfax County Virginia DUI Machines Are Inaccurate

mindywein@cox.net (Blog Author)10414 — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:00:00 EST

Earlier in March, Richmond, Virginia DUI defense attorney Bob Battle cast doubt regarding the accuracy of Fairfax County’s breath testing machines. According to Mr. Battle, one of the machines used by the county, the 10-year-old Intoxilyzer 5000, has significant weaknesses. Police officers and courts often use the results of this machine to convict a driver of driving under the influence (DUI) in Virginia.

Bob Battle was representing a driver accused of DUI, when he discovered the weakness in the Intoxilyzer 5000. According to Mr. Battle, when he received the records of the machine, he found out that one of the motors had been replaced. After further investigation, he discovered that Virginia had purchased a number of replacement motors from various companies and that they couldn’t even tell you what motor was in the machine. Without knowing the details of the replaced motors, the entire Intoxilyzer 5000 can be inaccurate.

The Fairfax County, Virginia General District Court judge presiding over the case agreed to allow experts to test the accuracy of the breath machine. However, the prosecution wanted to avoid the testing and offered to reduce the DUI charge to reckless driving, which allowed the motorist to keep his license. The deal offered by the prosecution was too good to turn down, but Mr. Battle believes that the breath machine will be tested one day.

"I sincerely believe it's going to be like that scene from the Wizard of Oz. Once they roll back that curtain, they're going to find that this machine is not the perfect machine they try make it out to be -- that this is an outdated contraption. That's why Virginia, when they contracted for the new replacement machines, one of the conditions was that it couldn't have this type of motor in it," said Mr. Battle.

Why You May Have Been Pulled Over for DUI/DWI

mindywein@cox.net (Blog Author)10324 — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:00:00 EST

You do not have to be driving drunk to be arrested for DWI or DUI. Drivers are frequently accused of driving under the influence, when in fact, they were never drunk. Even if you have only had a couple of drinks, you can be arrested for drunk driving if you are pulled over by a police officer.

A police officer has to have a justifiable reason to pull you over for suspected drunk driving. However, it is not difficult for them to find an excuse, but they usually only focus on the vehicles with obvious violations. For example, if you are speeding, run a red light or roll through a stop sign, chances are that you will be pulled over by a police officer. You should also be aware that if you have had a prior DUI or DWI conviction and are driving around late at night, police officers will be looking for a reason to pull you over. Police officers are known to spend a lot of time reading license plate numbers by inputting them into a central database. A prior DWI or DUI conviction will show up for the registered driver of the vehicle.

The time of day that you are on the road can also make the difference as to whether or not you will be stopped for DUI or DWI. Police officers will be looking for drunk drivers during regular bar hours and during special events, such as festivals and sporting events. Try to avoid areas that are highly concentrated with bars and nightclubs, which will reduce your odds of being pulled over for drunk driving.

The article, What to Expect During a DUI or DWI Stop, has more information about this topic.

Local MADD Volunteer and Warren County Attorney at Odds

mindywein@cox.net (Blog Author)10323 — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:00:00 EST

Mildred “Millie” Jenkins, a local Mothers Against Drunk Driving volunteer, continues to be at odds with the way Warren County Commonwealth’s Attorney Brian M. Madden’s office prosecutes DUI (driving under the influence) cases.

Jenkins cited four recent DUI cases in the county, voicing concern that a blood-alcohol certificate was not entered for the defendants, during a March 5th story in the Northern Virginia Daily. The certificate would have triggered mandatory jail time and a mandatory ignition interlock device on their vehicles. An ignition interlock device will not allow the engine to start if a driver’s blood alcohol level is 0.02 percent or above.

Madden responded to Jenkins’ comments in a March 6th e-mail and press release. He stated that Jenkins had a dual standard when it comes to the prosecution of DUI cases. Madden cited a case involving Lauren Peterson Cummings who had a blood-alcohol level of 0.19 percent, more than double the legal limit in Virginia, in his response to Jenkins. He said that Jenkins had asked for clemency for Cummings because she wanted to volunteer with MADD. However, the prosecution did not agree to Jenkins’ request.

According to court documents, Cummings pleaded guilty to DUI and was given a 60-day jail sentence, with all but four days suspended. Her blood-alcohol certificate was not entered. Madden commented that, “no one recalls Ms. Jenkins objecting to this result.”

Jenkins has adamantly denied that she asked anyone to give Cummings a break.

Madden stated in his press release that Jenkins should have come to him or a General District judge before taking her concerns to the newspaper.

Hundreds of Arizona Drivers Arrested for DUI During Five-Day Sweep

mindywein@cox.net (Blog Author)10271 — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:00:00 EST

During a five-day task force sweep that targeted drunk drivers in Arizona, there were 276 total arrests on suspicion of driving under the influence. The task force sweep involved 300 officers and deputies from the Arizona Department of Public Safety, the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office and at least eight police departments. Valley police officers made nearly 150 DUI arrest on St. Patrick’s Day, which accounted for close to half of the total arrests during the entire sweep.

The average blood alcohol level for this year’s arrests was .14 percent, which borders on “extreme” DUI of .15. There were 74 DUI arrests made that fell into this category.

The task force sweep also issued nearly 1,800 traffic citations for speeding, seat-belt violations, and other infractions. There were almost 4,000 initial traffic stops, which is more than twice what it was last year.

In Arizona, a DUI conviction can result in jail time, fines and court fees, driver license suspension, vehicle impoundment and a mandatory ignition interlock device. A DUI conviction is also considered a criminal offense and will go on the driver’s criminal record, which could affect insurance rates, applications for licenses and future employment.

If you have been arrested for DUI in Arizona, you need to contact an experience DUI attorney immediately. Call 888-DUI-Answer for legal advice today.

Virginia Beach Police Officers Set Up DUI Checkpoints During Holiday

mindywein@cox.net (Blog Author)10240 — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 08:00:00 EST

At least five arrests were made at three Virginia Beach checkpoints for driving under the influence on St. Patrick’s Day. Police set up these checkpoints as a way to catch drunk drivers on the roads.

"I view the checkpoints as proactive rather than reactive," Officer J.M. Baker said. "They make people think, maybe there's going to be a checkpoint on the way home, maybe I should drink responsibly."

St. Patrick’s Day, along with July 4th and Labor Day, are some of the biggest days for DUIs, even bigger than New Year’s Eve, according to Sgt. Scott Wichtendahl, who is the head of the Selective Enforcement Team that specializes in DUI and traffic. The Selective Enforcement Team made eight DUI arrests this St. Patrick’s Day, which was more than New Year’s Eve.

Police officers at the St. Patrick’s Day checkpoints stopped 328 vehicles between 8:00 PM and 1:00 AM. The DUI checkpoints were set up in the 2400 block of Shore Drive, on General Booth Boulevard and on the I-264 West access ramp on South Independence Boulevard. Checkpoints are usually set up in areas where there is a high concentration of bars.

During the stop, drivers were asked for their driver’s license and registration and officers were looking for any sign of impairment. Some drivers were also asked to complete field sobriety tests. Many of the police officers are experts in identifying drunk drivers based on their behavior.

Facing a DWI Conviction in New York?

mindywein@cox.net (Blog Author)10179 — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 08:00:00 EST

If you have been arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI) in New York, there are some facts you need to know. In New York, DWI cases can be brought under one of two legal theories – DWI “per se” law, which is solely based on alcohol level, not driving impairment, and common law, where the prosecutor must prove that the defendant was intoxicated.

When it comes to the common law theory, the DWI accusation can be based on the opinion of the arresting officer and does not require a blood alcohol level (BAC) reading. The arresting officer may conclude that a driver is intoxicated if he or she shows an inability to operate a motor vehicle as a reasonable and prudent driver.

A DWI conviction in New York not only may result in a criminal offense, which will go on the driver’s criminal record, it will also cause driving privileges to be suspended. There are also fines associated with DWI offenses in New York and possible jail time. The punishment will depend on whether the DWI arrest was for a misdemeanor or felony. A felony drunk driving conviction can result in time spent in state prison.

If you have been accused of DWI, you should consult with a New York DWI lawyer immediately. There are drunk driving defenses available and many drivers are wrongfully accused of DWI. Contact an experienced DWI attorney today at 888-DWI-Answer.com.

Former New Jersey Judge Convicted of Second DWI

mindywein@cox.net (Blog Author)10123 — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 08:00:00 EST

George Korpita, a former municipal court judge in Morris County, New Jersey was found guilty March 19, 2009, of his second DWI charge.

Korpita was pulled over last February 15, 2008 for careless driving as his vehicle was swerving in and out of traffic. He recently admitted to driving drunk and was convicted of his second drunk driving charge, as well as refusing to take a breath test.

Korpita did announce in court that he has been attending Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings and has been sober for over a year. In light of this information, the judge suspended Korpita’s 45-day jail term ruling and ordered him to go to AA meetings six days a week for two years; however, the former judge will be jailed if he misses any meetings.

The court also suspended Korpita’s driver’s license for two years and fined him $2,000. In addition, the New Jersey Supreme Court suspended Korpita’s license to practice law after he admitted to driving drunk.

Korpita’s first conviction came after his admittance to driving drunk in Roxbury in 2007 and threatened police who arrested him. Soon after his arrest, Korpita stepped down from his position in Dover, Rockaway Borough and Victory Gardens.

Arizona Budget Cuts Turn DUI Offenders into Janitors

mindywein@cox.net (Blog Author)10100 — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 08:00:00 EST

In light of the recent budget adjustments, Arizona state officials have been forced to cut full time janitor positions and replace them with prisoners in hopes of saving money. The new plan is controversial, and state officials find themselves on both sides of the idea.

Arizona has experienced a $1.6 billion budget cut this year, and Allen Ecker, spokesman for the Department of Administration stated, “Every other option has been explored, and this is literally the absolute last resort.”

The Department of Administration recently cut 20 full-time custodians and will bring in low-level offenders to clean the bathrooms. The state has already seen a successful program where DUI offenders worked as janitors in the Department of Corrections and Administration building.

Supporters of this plan confirm that the inmates would be highly supervised, but others argue that it does not make for a safe work environment to have prisoners in the Statehouse. The proposed plan could also take place at the Senate, House and other buildings at the Capitol.

Defenses You Need to Know About if You Have Been Arrested on DUI in Virginia

mindywein@cox.net (Blog Author)10064 — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 08:00:00 EST

There are many sobriety field tests (SFTs) that police will use on someone such as repeating the alphabet backwards. What many people don’t know is that this test among others, are not the standardized tests recommended by NHTSA.

There are only three scientifically reliable tests: the horizontal gaze nystagmus test (follow the pen with the eyes), the walk-and-turn test, and the one-leg stand test.

Virginia police have been known to make mistakes during a DUI arrest. For example, in the one-leg stand test an officer should not test people who are 50 pounds overweight or are physically impaired. Also, the SFTs were designed to predict a .10 level or above and the legal BAC limit is currently .08, leaving room for error. Another defense in a DWI case is the reliability of the breath testing machine itself.

If you have taken one of these field tests, there are many possible defenses available for DUI charges. An experienced Virginia DUI attorney can help you if you have been wrongfully accused of driving under the influence.

The article “Is It Possible to Get Out of a DUI or DWI Charge” has more information on this topic.

California Police Gear Up for St. Patrick's Day DUI Crackdown

mindywein@cox.net (Blog Author)10032 — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 08:00:00 EST

California police statewide are joining forces this St. Patrick’s Day in the DUI Crackdown Campaign which began Friday, March 13 and will continue through Tuesday, March 17, St. Patrick’s Day.

Enforcement efforts include DUI patrols, speed belt enforcement, roving DUI patrols and sobriety checkpoints. The campaign is designed to educate the public about the dangers of driving impaired. Funding for the campaign was provided by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

CHP Commissioner Joe Farrow has indicated that “safety on the roadways is everyone’s responsibility. If you are going to be drinking, make sure you have a designated driver.”

On Friday, the Costa Mesa police department conducted a sobriety checkpoint where they stopped 364 vehicles and screened 34 drivers for driving under the influence. Out of those screened, four were arrested on DUI charges.

Law enforcement statewide will be staffed and equipped to man sobriety checkpoints with the main hours of operation focused between Tuesday night and into early Wednesday morning. In the Sacramento area, officers who have been trained in detecting alcohol and drug impaired drivers will be at checkpoints Tuesday night equipped with hand-held breath-testing devices. CHP is cracking down hard, and will be looking to arrest anyone under the influence who is operating a vehicle.

According to CHP, last year on St. Patrick’s Day, 50 people were injured in 110 alcohol involved traffic accidents. The number of people killed in alcohol involved collisions in California has risen from 1,233 in 2000 to 1,489 in 2007. Police are hoping that their aggressive campaign and urging the public to call 911 to report a drunk driver will make California roads a safe place this holiday.

Virginia Police Arrest NFL Cornerback on DUI Charge

mindywein@cox.net (Blog Author)9998 — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 08:00:00 EST

Kansas City Chiefs cornerback David Macklin was arrested for drunk driving in Newport News, Virginia on March 13, 2009.

State police spokeswoman Corinne Geller confirmed Macklin was driving a 2005 BMW west on J. Clyde Morris Boulevard and was initially pulled over around 3:30 a.m. Friday morning for illegal window tint.

Reports indicated that a police officer approached the vehicle and the smell of excessive alcohol was apparent. The Virginia State trooper proceeded to give Macklin several field sobriety tests, in which he performed poorly.

“Further investigation determined that the driver’s blood alcohol level was in excess of Virginia’s legal limit of .08,” stated trooper JR Street. Macklin’s blood alcohol test actually showed a level of .11 BAC.

Macklin’s hometown is Newport News, Virginia, where he played basketball and football for Menchville High School. He went on to play football at Penn State and was drafted into the NFL in 2000. Last season he played cornerback for the Kansas City Chiefs.

The charges Macklin was arrested for are having illegal window tint and DUI, a first-time misdemeanor offense. He was held at the Newport News city jail and was released after he posted a $2,500 bond. His hearing is being held Monday, March 16 at the Newport News General District Court.

Macklin’s arrest is one of many that has occurred during this St. Patrick’s Day holiday weekend. Virginia is cracking down on dangerous drivers. The cities of Richmond, Lynchburg and several surrounding jurisdictions in the state of Virginia have launched campaigns to keep the roads safe this St. Patrick’s Day. Every year, hundreds of people die in alcohol related accidents, and several cities in the sate of Virginia are trying to do their part in decreasing this statistic.

Virginia Sentence Enhancements for DUI Conviction

mindywein@cox.net (Blog Author)9698 — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 08:00:00 EST

Virginia issues harsh punishments on drivers convicted of DUI. A first time DUI offense in Virginia could result in a court fine up to $2,500 and a license revocation of one year. Plus, you will be on probation for one year. A second DUI offense in Virginia could result in a license suspension for three years and another substantial court fine. However, the punishment becomes even worse in some circumstances when there is a sentence enhancement.

A sentence enhancement increases the amount of punishment for a DUI conviction. There are certain factors that lead to sentence enhancements including:

• A child was in the vehicle at the time of suspected DUI
• There was a past offense within 5 to 10 years
• Blood alcohol content (BAC) was higher than .15 percent, almost twice the legal limit
• Property was damaged
• Someone was injured
• The driver was under the age of 21
• A chemical test was refused

Any of these situations could result in a harsher punishment. Virginia courts hear so many cases each year that the prosecution often puts pressure on the defendants to quickly admit to guilt. If you have been accused of drunk driving in Virginia, you do not have to promptly admit to being guilty, as there are many DUI defenses available. You should contact an experienced Virginia DUI attorney immediately following a DUI arrest for expert legal advice.

Blood Alcohol Level Rises Over Time Causing Inaccurate BAC Reading

mindywein@cox.net (Blog Author)9697 — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 08:00:00 EST

A breath test or blood alcohol test only shows your blood alcohol content (BAC) at the time of the test, which is not necessarily the same as it would have been at the time you were driving.

Breath tests and blood alcohol tests are given at some point after you have been pulled over for suspected drunk driving. If you have been drinking, your blood alcohol level will rise over time, but that does not mean you were driving drunk. Your blood alcohol level will reach its highest about one hour after drinking. When it comes to using the results of a blood alcohol test as evidence of DUI, all it proves is your blood alcohol content at the time the test was taken. An experienced DUI attorney can show that such a test does not reflect your true BAC when you were driving. A successful DUI defense can help reduce your charges and get you a lesser punishment.

It is not against the law to have a BAC of 0.08 percent, but it is against the law to drive with that blood alcohol level. The prosecution will make assumptions and use circumstantial evidence to estimate what your BAC was at the time you were driving. These assumptions and evidence can and should be challenged.

If you are facing a DUI charge, you need to contact a DUI lawyer to review your case, including the results of your breath test, to build a strong argument on your behalf. Call 1-888-DUI-ANSWER or 1-888-DWI-ANSWER to speak with an attorney today.

What Happens If You Are Convicted of DUI in Georgia?

mindywein@cox.net (Blog Author)9696 — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 08:00:00 EST

A DUI conviction in Georgia carries severe consequences. DUI is considered a criminal offense and will therefore go on your criminal record. That means every time you fill out a job application or apply for some type of license, you will need to disclose that you do in fact have a criminal past.

The minimum sentences for DUI in Georgia are severe. Even a first time DUI offense can land in you in jail for 10 days, but your jail sentence could be as long as 12 months. If you are over the age of 21 and found guilty of drunk driving in Georgia, your first offense will result in a one year license suspension and a fine of up to $1,000. In some jurisdictions, you will be required to attend a Victim Impact Panel.

If you are found guilty of a second DUI offense within 5 years, you may be given a jail sentence anywhere from 90 days to 1 year. Your license may be suspended for 3 years and you may have to pay a $1,000 fine. You will have to complete at least 30 days of community service and the local paper will print your photo with case disposition (and you have to pay $25 for it).

The more DUI convictions you have in Georgia, the worse your penalties become. A third DUI offense in 5 years will result in a jail sentence of 120 days to 12 months. Your license may be suspended for 5 years and you could face a fine up to $5,000.

If you are facing a DUI charge in Georgia, you need to contact an experienced DUI attorney immediately.

New Jersey Sheriff's Officer Charged with Second DWI Offense

mindywein@cox.net (Blog Author)9695 — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 08:00:00 EST

A Hudson County Sheriff’s Officer was charged with a second DWI offense, which caused her suspension. Sheriff’s Officer Aleisha Cruz was arrested on a drunk driving charge after being involved in a crash.

Cruz has been suspended without pay pending the outcome of the police investigation into her arrest early Sunday morning on March 1, 2009. She was involved in an accident near the entrance to the Lincoln Tunnel and she was arrested because of her behavior after she refused to take a breathalyzer test, according to officials.

Almost three years ago, Cruz had pleaded guilty to drunk driving and refusing to submit to a breath test in connection to a July 2005 incident in Lyndhurst. During that incident, Cruz became extremely upset when her date informed her that he wasn’t going to spend the night with her. She was so angry that she drove her 2005 Ford Explorer into this vehicle, police said. When her date got out of his car to try to calm her down, she hit him with the SUV, but according to police, he was not seriously injured.

After the July 2005 incident, Cruz entered a pre-trial intervention program and the charges of aggravated assault and assault with an automobile were to be dropped, as long as she stayed out of trouble for 18 months.

Cruz has not been allowed to carry a gun and has been assigned duties that can be completed by an unarmed officer.

What You Need to Know if You are a Diabetic Accused of Virginia DUI

mindywein@cox.net (Blog Author)9694 — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 08:00:00 EST

If you are a diabetic and have been pulled over for suspected DUI in Virginia, there is a good chance that you will be arrested, even if you haven’t been drinking alcohol. Drivers who have diabetes and suffer from hypoglycemia are often mistakenly accused of being intoxicated. Some of the symptoms associated with hypoglycemia are similar to those linked to intoxication, including slurred speech, impaired motor skills, poor balance and drowsiness. A diabetic may also stagger as a result of hypoglycemia.

Drivers who have diabetes and are experiencing hypoglycemia, which refers to low blood sugar levels, frequently fail the standard field sobriety tests in Virginia. A breath test used to measure blood alcohol content may give a false reading for a diabetic. When someone who has diabetes has developed hypoglycemia, there can be acetone in their mouth, which can also be smelled on the breath. A breathalyzer will often mistake the acetone for ethyl alcohol that is found in alcoholic beverages. As a result, the diabetic’s BAC reading will be high, although they haven’t been consuming alcohol.

An experienced Virginia DUI attorney can help you if you have been wrongfully accused of driving under the influence. You should not be punished for DUI when a preexisting health condition, such as diabetes, caused you to fail the field sobriety tests and give a false BAC reading.

The article, “Diabetes Can Give an Inaccurate BAC Reading,” has more information on this topic.

Breath Test Results in Virginia Are Sometimes Wrong

mindywein@cox.net (Blog Author)9619 — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 08:00:00 EST

You can’t always rely on the results from a breath test to prove DUI. There are too many factors that affect the readings given from breathalyzers in Virginia. Prosecutors often use BAC readings as their main argument against a DUI defendant, but an experienced Virginia DUI attorney knows when these tests are inaccurate.

Breath testing equipment is frequently used when a police officer pulls over a suspect for DUI. These devices are used to measure the blood alcohol content (BAC) of the driver, by utilizing a ratio to convert the alcohol in the breath to alcohol in the blood. The first potential problem with breathalyzers is that it is automatically assumes that this ratio will be the same from person to person.

If you have been arrested for DUI in Virginia and your BAC was above the legal limit, you need to have an expert review your case. The various factors that can skew the results of breath tests are endless. Radio frequency from a police officer’s radio or a nearby airport can affect your breath test results. Mouth alcohol can throw off the reading, especially if you wear dentures. Other chemicals are often mistaken for ethanol, which is found in alcoholic drinks. Even certain medical conditions, such as diabetes can give false results from breathalyzers.

Don’t let your Virginia DUI conviction be based on the results from a breath test, without first looking into other possible causes that could have altered your BAC reading. Talk with an experienced DUI attorney today by calling 888-DUI-ANSWER.

Newport News Former Assistant Police Chief Appeals DUI Conviction

mindywein@cox.net (Blog Author)9618 — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 08:00:00 EST

Dawn D. Barber, a high-ranking Newport News police official admitted that she was driving drunk on Interstate 64 in Hampton last summer, but she is now appealing her conviction.

Barber is a former assistant police chief who was demoted to captain following her DUI conviction in Virginia and is actively trying to appeal her DUI case.

On August 16, 2008, Barber was pulled over at approximately 9:40 PM after a Virginia State Police Trooper said she was weaving in traffic and almost hit another vehicle on I-64 near North King Street.

Barber told the trooper that she drank a “Texas-size” margarita at a restaurant about 30 minutes prior to being pulled over. According to the state trooper, Barber did not do well on sobriety tests and a breath test showed a blood alcohol content of 0.12 percent.

In an article posted on the Dailypress.com, Barber was quoted as saying, “of course I regret it. I take full responsibility.” She made this comment after being found guilty at a hearing in Hampton General District Court in November.

Barber’s appeal is being heard in Hampton Circuit Court. In her appeal, she contends that her case should have been dismissed because a judge would not accept a legal maneuver that would have given her the opportunity for a lesser conviction of reckless driving instead of DUI. According to Barber’s attorney, the judge was required under state law to accept the plea.

The Hampton Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office is requesting a jury trial in Barber’s case and has stated that the judge did nothing wrong.

Barber’s motion for dismissal is scheduled for April 13 and her trial is supposed to start May 26.

Connecticut Casinos May Be Allowed a 24-Hour Bar

mindywein@cox.net (Blog Author)9589 — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 08:00:00 EST

If Governor M. Jodi Rell’s proposal passes, Connecticut casinos will be allowed to have a 24-hour bar. Governor Rell and Republican lawmakers have made this proposal in the hope of stimulating the economy and to bring more money to Connecticut.

Currently, Connecticut has a potential $1.35 billion deficit and this proposal could produce around $5 million every year for the state.

However, democrats are opposed to this plan for many reasons, including the risks to drivers, passengers and pedestrians. Many believe that Connecticut would have to spend extra money on DUI enforcement and roadblocks, since there could potentially be many more drunk drivers on the roads. The proposal was not unusual, as Nevada and New Jersey already allow casinos to serve alcohol around the clock.

There is a fear that if this plan passes, there would be more drunk driving accidents in Connecticut. The body burns off alcohol at approximately .016 BAC per hour, which is usually equivalent to one drink. People who are consistently drinking are generally not pacing themselves that way. Drinking and gambling at all hours of the night and morning could cause more people to get behind the wheel drunk in Connecticut.

According to an article posted on Dailycampus.com, a bar that is not open 24 hours, does not necessarily deter people from drinking, as many people have liquor hidden away somewhere.

Those in agreement with Governor Rell’s plan believe that casinos with 24-hour bars can help the economy, but the casino should take measures to prohibit late night drinkers from driving.

If You Are Under 21 and Pulled Over for DUI in California

mindywein@cox.net (Blog Author)9565 — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 08:00:00 EST

Every year, college students are caught drinking and driving and often found guilty of DUI in California. Just like the rest of the states, California has a set minimum legal drinking age of 21. If you are under the age of 21 and caught drinking alcohol, it can be considered a crime.

When it comes to California DUI law html, there is very little leniency if you are found drinking and driving and are under the age of 21. According to California drunk driving law, anyone who is under 21 years of age is not allowed to drive if they have a blood alcohol concentration of .01 or above. That blood alcohol concentration could be as little as one beer. So, if you are under 21 and pulled over for DUI in California, even just a small amount of alcohol in your system could get you a DUI conviction.

DUI carries significant penalties in California and since it is generally considered a misdemeanor, it could go on your criminal record. Penalties for a DUI conviction in California include a license revocation, possible jail time, a significant fine and attendance at DUI school. A DUI offense could also affect your future employment, as job applications usually ask about criminal records, plus your insurance rates will go up.

If you are facing a DUI conviction in California, you need to contact an experienced DUI attorney immediately. Call 888-DUI-ANSWER today.

Sucking on a Penny or Mint Will Not Beat a Breath Test

mindywein@cox.net (Blog Author)9527 — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 08:00:00 EST

Wouldn’t it be nice if you could fool breath testing devices when pulled over for a suspected DUI? An email has been widely forwarded that basically claims that sucking on a penny or a breath mint will help a suspected drunk driver defeat a breath test. However, this claim is false.

Many people have made the assertion that various substances or objects placed in the mouth can improve the reading on a breathalyzer test. Some of these items include pennies, Listerine Breath Strips, Icebreakers gum, Binaca spray, Certs, Tic Tacs and Clorets.

People have claimed that a mouthful of pennies could negate the test because of the presumed copper content. Pennies held in the mouth in no way lowers the BAC reading on a breath test. Mints and gum can help cover the scent of alcohol on the breath, which could help if a police officer has pulled you over, but it will not change your BAC results from a breathalyzer.

According to Snopes.com, a man actually tried the penny trick, but it did not work. When an East Hampton man was pulled over for drunk driving, the police officer found that he was sucking on a penny. The driver had a slurred speech and couldn’t stand up straight. He failed all of the standard sobriety tests.

Breath testing equipment uses a ratio when converting alcohol in the breath to alcohol in the blood. In most states, if you have a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .08 percent or above, you will be considered to be driving under the influence (or driving while intoxicated).

Man Facing DUI Charge in Virginia After Hitting School Bus

mindywein@cox.net (Blog Author)9429 — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 08:00:00 EST

A 41-year-old man from Halifax was recently charged with DUI (driving under the influence), after he hit a Halifax County school bus. He has also been charged with hit-and-run.

Virginia State Trooper K.R. Martin charged Glenn H. Spell of Chatham Road following the accident. Spell sideswiped a school bus operated by Willie Francis Jr., 43, of South Boston. The bus only sustained minor damages, including a black streak along the side of the vehicle. However, Spell did not stop after hitting the school bus, but later returned to the scene of the crash on Thompson Store Road where he had struck the bus at 4:40 AM.

There was no significant damage and no one was hurt in the accident, but school transportation officials still responded to the call from the bus driver. When the school transportation officials arrived to the accident scene, Spell had already returned, but left again when state police were called. Spell was later identified as the driver and was charged with DUI and hit-and-run.

In Virginia, the consequences for DUI are severe. A first time DUI offense can result in a court fine of up to $2,500 and a jail sentence. A DUI conviction will go on your criminal record and could affect your insurance premium, future employment and your family’s wellbeing. Virginia courts hear so many DUI cases, that they frequently encourage DUI defendants to quickly admit to guilt. If you are facing a DUI charge in Virginia, contact an experienced DUI attorney immediately.

Georgia DUI Checkpoint Leads to Driving Under the Influence of Drugs Arrests

mindywein@cox.net (Blog Author)9428 — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 08:00:00 EST

State troopers from the Georgia State Patrol’s Colquitt post and Sheriff’s deputies set up a DUI checkpoint at the intersection of Georgia 262 North and Georgia 97 North near the Vada community.

According to GSP Cpl. Kyle Duke, two vehicles, a passenger car and a SUV, started to approach officers before turning around. This action caused suspicion and the two vehicles were stopped. As a state trooper searched the SUV, he found several small plastic bags filled with suspected marijuana. The SUV’s driver, Violet Argo, 40, of Douglasville, Georgia, was arrested for possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute and also for driving under the influence of drugs. Her passenger, Ricky Lee Maxwell, 45, of Atlanta, Georgia, was charged with misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

Belinda Suzette Stewart, 47, of Brainbridge, was charged with misdemeanor possession of marijuana, driving under the influence of drugs in Georgia and having an expired vehicle tag.

Captain Chip Nix of the Sheriff’s Office went to a house on Swindell Road in connection with the same incident. Nix conducted a probable-cause search and found additional marijuana, which resulted in another man’s arrest for misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

According to Decatur County Jail records and the Georgia State Patrol, there have been a slightly higher than usual number of drug-related arrests made by local law enforcement over the past two weeks.

A conviction for driving under the influence of drugs in Georgia can carry significant consequences, including a loss of license, higher insurance rates, mandatory ignition interlock, travel limitations, and possibly jail time.

Former Phoenix Suns Star Charles Barkley Apologizes for DUI Arrest

mindywein@cox.net (Blog Author)9403 — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 08:00:00 EST

On a NBA telecast on TNT, Charles Barkley, a former Phoenix Suns star, apologized for his DUI arrest in Arizona. Barkley said that he will never get behind the wheel when he’s drunk and encouraged other people to do the same.

Barkley went on to say in the on-air apology that he embarrassed everyone in his life and was sorry for doing that. He said that many people stopped him on the street and told him that even though he messed up, he should keep moving forward with his life. Barkley also said that he appreciates his bosses at TNT, as they offered support during his situation. Following the arrest, Barkley had taken a leave of absence as a NBA commentator with TNT Sports.

Barkley was arrested on December 31, 2008 after he was pulled over in Old Town Scottsdale. At the time of the arrest, he was driving his wife’s SUV and had a blood-alcohol content of .149 percent, which is nearly twice the legal limit of .08 percent under Arizona law. He was arrested, cited and released on suspicion of two counts of misdemeanor DUI in Arizona.

According to a police report, Barkley informed police that he had driven 30 seconds and was in a hurry to pick up a woman. He was stopped by an officer after he was spotted rolling through a stop sign at 75th Street and Sixth Avenue.

Barkley admitted to drinking vodka with some friends at the Dirty Pretty bar. He did not perform well during the field sobriety test and would not take a portable breathalyzer test, but did agree to a blood test.

Barkley was sentenced with 10 days in jail and a fine of $2,000 by a Scottsdale, Arizona judge. If he completes a court-approved alcohol program, his jail sentence will be reduced to 5 days.

STOP DWI Coordinator Named in Madison County, New York

mindywein@cox.net (Blog Author)9347 — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 08:00:00 EST

Stephen Goodfriend was appointed as the new coordinator for Madison County’s STOP DWI program.

STOP DWI, which stands for Special Traffic Options Program for Driving While Intoxicated (D.W.I.), was developed by New York State government on July 31, 1981. According to Madison County’s website, “this law became effective on November 28, 1981 and provided for the return of fine monies for drinking and driving violations to the counties in which they occurred, provided that those counties established a ‘STOP-DWI’ program.” The mission of the STOP-DWI program is to "provide a plan for coordination of county, town, city, and village efforts to reduce alcohol-related traffic injuries and fatalities."

As the STOP DWI coordinator for Madison County, Goodfriend is charged with the tasks of analyzing DWI statistics and assisting local law enforcement with DWI-related issues, which may include training sessions or purchasing new breathalyzers. In addition, he is involved in local education, including Students Against Destructive Decisions programs and the Victims’ Impact Panel.

Madison County’s STOP DWI Program also helps fund a DWI patrol, helps fund an Assistant District Attorney who prosecutes misdemeanor DWI arrests in Madison County, provides funds for community awareness and education presentations and assists with the purchase, repair and caliberation of equipment used in DWI enforcement.

Approximately $145,000 to $170,000 in DWI arrest-related fines collected in Madison County goes back into STOP DWI initiatives, which Goodfriend said is something unique to New York.

Goodfriend said that DWI arrest in Madison County is typically hard for an officer to make.

When is DUI a Felony Offense in Virginia?

mindywein@cox.net (Blog Author)9345 — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 08:00:00 EST

If you have been arrested for DUI in Virginia, chances are you will be charged with a misdemeanor, not a felony. Even though both are considered criminal charges, a misdemeanor carries a lesser punishment.

A DUI conviction that is classified as a misdemeanor in Virginia may still carry a short jail sentence and fine, but the punishment is far less severe than a felony offense. If your DUI conviction is tried as a felony, you could be facing a state prison term of more than a year, in addition to a fine, license revocation and other consequences.

Every state is different in regards to how DUI convictions are classified. In Virginia, a DUI offense is a misdemeanor unless it is the third offense within ten years. A third DUI offense will be prosecuted as a Class 6 felony. A fourth DUI offense will require mandatory time in jail of one year.

The Commonwealth of Virginia is particularly tough on convicted drunk drivers. The section of the Virginia Code that addresses DUI is over 40 pages in length. Even a first time DUI offense in Virginia can result in jail time, a fine of up to $2,500, a license revocation of one year and mandatory attendance of a DUI educational program provided by the Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program (VASAP). If you are given a sentence enhancement, you could be facing an even worse punishment.

The article, When is DUI a Felony Offense, has more information regarding when DUI is charged as a felony versus a misdemeanor.

Essex County Man Faces DUI Charge Following Accident

mindywein@cox.net (Blog Author)9284 — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 08:00:00 EST

On January 30, 2009, two vehicles were totaled and two men injured following an accident on Rt. 621 in Warsaw. The crash occurred at approximately 9:00 PM on Chestnut Hill Road when a BMW sedan and pickup truck struck head on.

According to Virginia State Trooper Jene Brooks, who was in charge of the crash scene initially, the two men sustained minor injuries and refused medical treatment. The men were released.

At the time of the crash, Franklin Taylor of Caret was driving a 1991 BMW 525i and Sherland Balderson of Warsaw was driving a 1988 Ford F-150 pickup truck. The accident was described as an “angled impact” between the BMW and Ford F-150, according to Brooks.

“It appears that the BMW rode the guard rail and then popped off veering into the other vehicle,” said Brooks.

Following the crash, Taylor was charged with DUI and arrested, according to Virginia State Trooper Joseph Benson. Benson was the one who finished the accident report for the state police. There have been no other charges filed in connection with the accident.

Taylor was arraigned on February 6 in Richmond County General District Court. His hearing is set for May 1, 2009 at 9:00 AM.

Virginia has extremely strict laws when it comes to DUI convictions. First-time DUI offenders may be fined as much as $2500 in Virginia. If you are facing a DUI charge in Virginia, you should contact an experienced DUI attorney who can review your case and help you with your defense.

Connecticut Judge Suspended for DUI

mindywein@cox.net (Blog Author)9276 — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 08:00:00 EST

Superior Court Judge E. Curtissa Cofield has been suspended for 240 days from the bench, following her DUI arrest in October.

Connecticut’s Judicial Review decided to suspend Cofield for 240 days instead of issuing a one-year suspension or recommending that she be removed by the Connecticut Supreme Court. Before this decision was made, legislators had considered action to remove her from the bench.

Cofield was arrested in Glastonbury for driving drunk. The night of her arrest, she had sideswiped a state police car, which was occupied by a trooper and parked in a construction zone.

When Cofield was taken to Glastonbury police headquarters, she became uncooperative and started using racist language against police officers. Cofield especially targeted state police Sgt. Dwight Washington, who is black. The event was videotaped by police. Even though her blood-alcohol level was twice the legal limit in Connecticut, she lied about drinking.

Cofield became the first black female judge in Connecticut in 1991. She is now 60 years-old. Many of Cofield’s supporters attended the council’s hearing.

Rep. Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven, said the initial reaction of legislators was that the suspension was sufficiently severe. However, he did say that he doesn’t think Cofield should be assigned to criminal cases in the future. “Her ability to appear as impartial in a criminal case has been destroyed,” said Lawlor.

Some people are upset by the 240 day suspension, as they feel that the punishment is not harsh enough. A staff member with the Connecticut Post wrote, “Her continued presence as a judge will undermine the integrity of the judicial system and invite comparisons of the penalties that face judges who break the law and the penalties that face other defendants.”

Report of DUI Arrests in Napa County in January

mindywein@cox.net (Blog Author)9220 — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:00:00 EST

According to a recent report, there were 68 DUI arrests in Napa County in January alone.

The NapaValleyRegister.com released a report reflecting the number of DUI arrests and DUI convictions, including so-called “wet reckless” convictions, in Napa County. The information comes from the Napa County Sheriff’s Department and reflects monthly statistics. There are even names, convictions and blood-alcohol levels listed in the report that come directly from Napa County Superior Court.

The DUI convictions listed in the report are cases where the defendants pleaded guilty or no contest to one or more drunk driving charges or where one or more of the charges led to a guilty verdict at trial.

NapaValleyRegister.com’s report shows vehicle code violations, which are driving under the influence (Vehicle Code section 231512), reckless driving while under the influence (23103.5) and causing injury to another person while driving while under the influence (23153).

The Napa County Superior Court provided blood-alcohol levels based on the results from various tests. Some of the blood-alcohol tests were taken at the time of the arrests, while others were taken with a blood sample at a later time. The results of these tests have not necessarily been proven or admitted in court. In California, a person is not allowed to drive if he or she has a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent or higher.

Below is a summary of the number of arrests, DUI convictions and blood alcohol levels. Names are listed in the report, as well, which can be found on NapaValleyRegister.com.

DUI Arrests: 68

DUI Convictions/pleas: 63

Reported blood-alcohol below .10 or unavailable: 18

Reported blood-alcohol between .10 and .19: 32

Reported blood-alcohol between .20 and .29: 12

Reported blood-alcohol between .30 and .39: 1

Pathological Intoxication Defense Used by New Jersey DWI Suspect

mindywein@cox.net (Blog Author)9190 — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:00:00 EST

A man being accused of DWI in New Jersey, is using a rare legal defense known as “pathological intoxication.” Eugene Baum Jr., a Dover man, has been accused of drunk driving and killing two teenage pedestrians in Kinnelon almost three years ago.

According to the pathological intoxication defense, someone can have a condition where they regularly become so intoxicated that they have no control over their alcohol or drug addictions and are unaware of their actions.

Baum’s DWI defense attorney claims that Baum had been hospitalized three times before the fatal accident two years ago for alcoholism. On the evening of the crash, he was operating as if he was on “autopilot” and was oblivious to his actions. His attorney went on to describe Baum as “a sick individual who suffers from a medical condition of pathological intoxication.”

The attorney from the New Jersey Crime Victims’ Law Center feels that Baum’s defense is just a gimmick and said the only time you see such a defense is on a television show, such as Law and Order.

John Kip Cornwell, an associate dean and professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, likened Baum’s pathological intoxication defense to an insanity defense.

“It’s a very rare defense. He’s trying to thread a needle that would link all of these things together,” said Cornwell.

Baum has been charged with two counts of first-degree aggravated manslaughter in the April 20, 2006 deaths of Mayada Jafar of Kinnelon, 15, and Athear Jafar of Jefferson, 16. When Baum was arrested for DWI, his blood-alcohol level was 0.305 percent, almost four times higher than New Jersey’s legal limit of 0.08 percent.

The pathological intoxication claim may be allowed, as involuntary intoxication is not prohibited as a defense.

How Accurate is the HGN Test in Virginia?

mindywein@cox.net (Blog Author)9170 — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 08:00:00 EST

If you are pulled over for a suspected DUI in Virginia, there is a good chance that you will have to do a horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test, as part of a series of field sobriety tests. Police officers use the HGN test in Virginia to help determine if you are intoxicated. Even though scientists believe the HGN test is reliable, there are my factors that can alter the results.

Nystagmus is defined as an involuntary movement of the eyeball that occurs when there is a disturbance of the inner ear system or the oculomotor of the eye. Consuming alcohol is supposed to hinder the ability of the brain to control the eye muscles, which is where the HGN test comes in to play. The more alcohol that is consumed, the great amount of involuntary movement of the eyeball.

During the HGN test, a police officer will be looking for movement in the eye when you look to the side. The officer will most likely ask you to follow an object with your eyes, such as a pen or penlight. Generally, the object is held about 12 to 15 inches from your face and at a slightly higher eye level. It is important that the police officer is able to clearly see your eyes, if not, the results could be wrong.

There are many causes of nystagmus, besides alcohol consumption. Neural or muscle activity, brain damage, eye strain, brain tumors, inner ear diseases and other health problems can all result in nystagmus. If a police officer is not properly trained in administering the HGN test, the results could be skewed.

If you have been arrested for a Virginia DUI charge, it is crucial that you contact and an experienced DUI attorney who can review the details of your HGN test and other field sobriety tests.

The article, “The Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test Used in DUI Arrests,” has more information on this topic.

Should Ignition Interlocks Be Required for First Time DUI Offenders in Virginia?

mindywein@cox.net (Blog Author)9083 — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 08:00:00 EST

Various states, including Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Nebraska and Washington, have already enacted laws requiring first time DUI offenders to install ignition interlock systems into their vehicles. These devices are similar to breathalyzers and are installed into the vehicle’s dashboard. The engine will not start until the driver blows into the device and has a low reading (according to the programmed blood alcohol concentration, BAC).

Virginia has proposed a similar law that would require drivers who are convicted for a first time DUI offense to install an ignition interlock in Virginia, even if there was a low BAC at the time of arrest. This proposed law would revise the state’s existing law that requires ignition interlocks for repeat DUI offenders and for those who were arrested with a high BAC in Virginia.

This proposed law, and similar proposed laws in other states, has been a topic of many intense debates, which is discussed in the article, “Ignition Interlocks for First Time Offenders is a Heated Topic.” The critics of this law feel that the requirement of an ignition interlock for a first time DUI offender is unfair and basically gives the same punishment to that driver as someone who has multiple DUI offenses. Opponents to the law believe that ignition interlocks do not solve the problem of drunk driving. A former MADD president was even quoted as saying that the drunk driving problem has been reduced to “a hard core of alcoholics who do not respond to public appeal.”

Advocates of the law have cited a 2008 study by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, which showed that interlock devices in New Mexico reduced the number of repeat DUI offenses by about two-thirds in the state. However, critics believe that this decline could also be contributed to other factors, such as education programs.

If laws, such as the one being proposed in Virginia, are passed, many feel that judges will not have the ability to distinguish between drivers who have had a few drinks and barely go over the legal limit and those who go way over.

Congressman Wants Illegal Immigrants Deported for DUI in Arizona

mindywein@cox.net (Blog Author)9046 — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 08:00:00 EST

Congressman Jeff Flakes, R-Arizona, is planning to introduce a bill that would require an illegal immigrant who has been convicted for a third drunken driving offense in Arizona to be deported.

“I keep hearing again and again that illegal immigrants with several drunken driving convictions are still here and still on the road,” Flak said when he announced that he will sponsor the proposed bill. “In many cases, people have been killed or severely injured, and it’s simply not right.”

According to Flake, high profile cases have brought more attention to the problem of illegal immigrants with multiple DUI offenses in Arizona. One of the high profile cases included the death of Phoenix Police Officer Shane Figueroa last fall who was killed in a car accident caused by an illegal immigrant who was driving drunk. Figueroa was responding to a call when a truck turned in front of his patrol car. The impact of the collision spun Figueroa’s patrol car and he crashed into a block wall. He was taken to St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center where he died from his injuries.

Flake said that people are understandably upset that there isn’t a simpler way to deport illegal immigrant who have multiple DUI offenses.

“Right now, a drunken driving offense has no immigration consequences in and of itself. So this legislation would say, ‘If you have three drunken driving incidents, then you’re out. It’s a deportable offense,’” said Flake.

Flake hopes that his proposed bill will lead to a similar federal law, where “three strikes and you’re out – out of the country.”

New York Police Investigator Faces DWI Charges

mindywein@cox.net (Blog Author)9001 — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:00:00 EST

A New York State police investigator was charged last Friday, February 6, 2009, with driving while intoxicated, DWI. He is known for his involvement with the Great American Irish Festival in the local community, which was confirmed by state police on Monday.

In New York, DWI is defined as having a blood-alcohol content (BAC) of at least 0.08 percent. The penalties for a DWI conviction in New York include the loss of driving privileges, fines, and a possible jail sentence. A driver convicted of first time DWI offense in New York may have to pay a fine of up to $1,000 and may have to serve up to one year in jail.

Matthew Sullivan is facing DWI charges in New York. He was suspended with pay pending an internal investigation, said state police Lt. Glenn Miner, a spokesman based out of Albany.

He was arrested for DWI by another member of the state police, said Miner. According to police records from Friday night, Sullivan was arrested on Rt. 12 in the Town of Trenton, said an Oneida County Sheriff’s deputy. The details behind Sullivan’s DWI arrest have not been released.

Sullivan is a police investigator who works in the Troop D area based out of Oneida. He is also the president of the annual Irish Festival and a 2007 recipient of the Accent on Excellence award for local community leaders.

Troop D Public Information Officer Trooper Jim Simpson was able to confirm that Sullivan is the Great American Irish Festival president, but directed any further questions regarding Sullivan’s arrest to the Albany office.

Sullivan declined to comment when he was contacted by a news reporter.

Albemarle County Police Cracked Down on Drunk Drivers on Super Bowl Sunday

mindywein@cox.net (Blog Author)8968 — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 08:00:00 EST

Albemarle County Police kicked off a campaign to nab intoxicated drivers on Super Bowl Sunday in Central Virginia.

Before the Super Bowl, Corporal Ken Richardson explained, “We are going to have heavy patrol from the roads during the time of the Super Bowl to look for intoxicated drivers.”

Albemarle County Police added seven traffic patrol units that Sunday to watch county streets before the official kickoff into the early hours of Monday morning, said Richardson.

Richardson said that they were looking for any unusual driving habits that people were doing, such as crossing the lines.

Central Virginia bars also helped out in the efforts to keep drunk drivers off the roads in Albemarle County. Kiersten Kaufman of the Wild Wing Café in Charlottesville said that her staff was prepared to cut off fans who had enough to drink. “We train our staff very, very well to know the signs of when someone is a little too intoxicated, and often times those signs present themselves before they’ve gotten to that point,” said Kaufman.

Some of the signs that Kaufman said to watch out for that would indicate someone had too much to drink include slurred speech, not walking properly, putting their head down or slowing down as far as drinking.

Richardson said that he hoped everyone would have come up with a plan to get home safely from Super Bowl parties. One of the ways that people could prevent an arrest for driving under the influence (DUI) was by designating a driver.

Georgia's Strict Immigration Law Affecting DUI Offenders Goes Un-enforced

mindywein@cox.net (Blog Author)8929 — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 08:00:00 EST

The Georgia immigration law from 2006 is going un-enforced. The immigration law, which was meant to crack down on illegal immigration has been called one of the nation’s toughest because it orders local governments, contractors and subcontractors to confirm the legal status of new hires. It also has a provision addressing illegal immigrants who have been arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) in Georgia.

Based on this 2006 law, illegal immigrants arrested for DUI in Georgia, must be reported to immigration authorities. However, supporters of this law do not feel confident that this provision is being taken seriously. Proponents believe that the state government has not been enforcing the law and no one at the state level has checked to see whether governments and businesses are complying.

The DUI arrest provision of the Georgia immigration law, which requires jailers to check the legal status of anyone booked on a felony or a DUI, has had some problems. For example, someone who has been arrested for DUI in Georgia may post bond to get out of jail before the feds are called to hold that person on immigration violations.

“There is no state oversight of any of this stuff,” Terry Norris, executive vice president of the Georgia Sheriff’s Association said.

Some believe that this law has not been properly enforced because of a lack of accountability, as the Legislature never provided money to monitor the law.

“As far as any enforcement responsibilities under the law, we don’t have any,” said Labor Department spokesman Sam Hall.

Hall said that the agency offered to conduct random audits, if it received funding. He even said that the agency posted guidelines on its website. According to Hall, there is no central agency that has the authority to monitor who is complying with the law.

Staunton Police Arrest Over 100 Each Year for DUI in Virginia

mindywein@cox.net (Blog Author)8816 — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 08:00:00 EST

Over the last three years, Staunton’s law enforcement has been the most stringent by area authorities, according to statistics. In 2006, Staunton police arrested 121 motorists and in 2007, this number jumped to 183. Last year, there were 174 DUI arrests.

When Officer Lisa Klein, a spokeswoman for the Staunton Police Department, was asked why the number of arrests went down in 2008, she said that she thought the public was getting the message that driving under the influence in Staunton was not going to be tolerated. “I do think people are responding. We’ve been hitting it pretty hard,” said Klein.

According to Klein, there were no directives from top brass to target intoxicated drivers, but the fresh batch of police officers could have had an affect on the number of DUI arrests.

Staunton law enforcement has led the way in DUI arrests with a total of 478 arrests over the past three years. Waynesboro arrested 395 suspected drunk drivers and the Augusta County Sheriff’s Office arrested 195 drivers. Area 17 was placed first in “Operation Checkpoint Strikeforce” two of the last three years.

Miles Bobbit, director of Staunton’s Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program (VASAP) said that DUI referrals to his organization have been increasing by 100 per year. He said that the agency is on track to continue that trend this year.

The financial costs of a DUI arrest are high, which include towing bills, storage fees, court costs and fines, jail costs, lost work days, VASAP expenses and increased insurance fees.

Arizona Passed Strictest DUI Laws in the Country

mindywein@cox.net (Blog Author)8814 — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 08:00:00 EST

Arizona Legislature proudly passed the strictest DUI laws in the country and began enforcement last year.

The legal limit for blood-alcohol content (BAC) is now .08 percent in Arizona and punishment for DUI conviction has become more severe. Under the new law, a first-time DUI offender in Arizona may be required to install an ignition-interlock device in the car. This device reads the driver’s BAC before the engine will start.

Another major change to Arizona DUI laws is the elimination of a certain quantitative BAC requirement to charge the driver with DUI. Drivers have been charged with DUI with a BAC as low as .06 percent. Some critics of the Arizona DUI laws have claimed that they are too ambiguous, allowing police officers to have too much power.

If you are pulled over for DUI in Arizona, the police officer will ask you to submit to sobriety tests and will use the evidence collected against you. The police officer will take notes as you perform certain tasks and if you appear to be intoxicated, you may be arrested for DUI.

Drinking and driving is a problem in Arizona. Research by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) shows that more than 30 percent of traffic fatalities in Arizona are related to alcohol. People are encouraged to designate a driver, call a taxi or use public transportation, but that is not always an option. Arizona’s public transportation system does not run late enough for many people and taxis can get expensive. For example, the last bus leaving Tempe departs at 1:00 AM. Increasing the hours of public transportation may be one way to lower the number of drunk driving accidents in Arizona.

New Jersey Breathalyzer Bill

mindywein@cox.net (Blog Author)8812 — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 08:00:00 EST

Last week, New Jersey bill SB1926 was heard by the New Jersey Senate Law, Public Safety and Veterans’ Affairs Committee. The New Jersey bill would require the installation of breathalyzers in the cars driven by DUI first-time offenders who had a low BAC.

The American Beverage Institute (ABI), “an organization dedicated to the protection of responsible on-premise consumption of adult beverages,” has opposed the New Jersey bill requiring ignition interlocks for drivers convicted of DUI with a low BAC. However, the organization is in favor of focusing on high BAC drivers and repeat DUI offenders, who the American Beverage Institute believes makes up the core of the drunk driving problem today.

According to ABI Managing Director Sarah Longwell, who was invited to provide expert testimony before the Committee, “we believe that this bill denies judicial discretion and ignores proportional response by mandating ignition interlock devices for low-BAC, first-time offenders. This bill mandates that even those only one sip over .079 receive a punishment primarily reserved for the high-BAC, repeat offenders who cause the vast majority of alcohol-related fatalities in New Jersey.”

Even the former Mothers Against Drunk Driving president Katherine Prescott has said that the drunk driving problem has to do with “a hard core of alcoholics who do not respond to public appeal.”

Research from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has shown that the average BAC of a drunk driver involved in a fatal crash is .18 percent, which is more than twice the legal limit.

The New Jersey bill would target low BAC, first-time DUI offenders instead of the dangerous drunk drivers on the roads. Many experts believe that first-time DUI offenders should not receive the same punishment as repeat offenders, which is essence, is what the New Jersey bill would accomplish.

Proposed Virginia Bill Would Require Installation of Ignition Interlock

mindywein@cox.net (Blog Author)8789 — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 08:00:00 EST

Based on a proposed bill, if you have been convicted of DUI in Virginia, you would be required to install an ignition interlock even if your BAC was below 0.15 percent. The bill, known as House Bill 2041, would revise the current state law that requires only repeat DUI offenders and drivers with a BAC above 0.15 percent to install these devices. This bill is being discussed for the second year in a row and many Virginia legislators are concerned. If it passes, Virginia would join eight other states that have similar laws.

An ignition interlock system is a small handheld device that attaches to the dashboard. Before a driver can start the car, he or she has to blow into the device, which will measure BAC. The driver is also required to blow into the device at designated times while driving. The engine will only start if the driver’s BAC is lower than .02 percent.

According to a member of the House Courts of Justice committee, the cost of obtaining and installing the ignition interlock system is estimated at $455.

Del. Sal Iaquinto R-84 is the sponsor of the bill and believes that if passed, it will deter repeat DUI offenses. He said that there is a 64 percent decline in DUI recidivism after the ignition interlock system is installed.

Critics of the bill are concerned that it could negatively impact people who need to drive for their jobs and people with multiple vehicles. Del. G. Manoli Loupassi, R-68 said that since so many people rely on company vehicles for their jobs, the proposed bill could have “desperate impact on a large number of people.”

If the bill is passed, it will go into effect January 1, 2010.

San Diego Chargers Defensive Tackle Faces DUI Charges

mindywein@cox.net (Blog Author)8755 — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 08:00:00 EST

Jamal Williams, the defensive tackle for the San Diego Chargers was arrested on suspicion of drunk driving early morning on Sunday, February 1, 2009. He is the second Chargers’ player within the last month to be arrested for DUI.

Williams was initially pulled over for speeding on a freeway outside downtown. He submitted to a blood-alcohol test, but it will take a few weeks for the results to be completed. Williams was taken to a county jail where he later was released on bail.

Williams is an 11-year veteran and recipient of the Chargers’ Most Valuable Player Award this season.

According to the City Attorney’s office, Williams’ case had not been submitted as of Tuesday, February 3, 2009.

The team’s general manager, A.J. Smith said that “we’ll continue to monitor the situation and let the legal process run its course.” He went on to say, “the Chargers have always been leaders and positive contributors to our community. We take our stature in the community very seriously. Through the Chargers and the NFL, our players receive one of the most comprehensive education and support programs in sports to help them deal with issues that affect all segments of society.”

Vincent Jackson, the Chargers receiver, was also recently arrested on allegations of DUI. His DUI arrest occurred five days before San Diego’s playoff loss at Pittsburgh. Jackson’s court date is set for February 17, 2009. When he was arrested, he was on probation for a previous DUI arrest, according to the California Highway Patrol.

Arizona tosses dui breath results

Bob@BobBattleLaw.com (Blog Author)6128 — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 08:00:00 EST

The machine manufacturer refused to give up it source code.
Larry Taylor had an interesting post about Arizona DUI'S
Thousands of Tucson-Area DUI Cases May Get the Boot

Intoxilyzer 8000 May Be Ruled Unreliable

Tucson, AZ. Nov. 9 – A dozen years ago, 3,000 drunken-driving prosecutions in Tucson were dismissed in one day – about 5,000 cases within a few months – because the breath-test device that said the drivers were drunk was deemed unreliable.

Those numbers could easily be surpassed if one of the current alcohol detectors in Arizona, the Intoxilyzer 8000, is found to be unreliable, a leading driving under the influence defense attorney said.

"This is going to be huge," said Tucson lawyer James Nesci, because the current machine is widely used statewide as opposed to the older device, which was used in Tucson and at a smaller agency…

Despite court orders across the country, CMI has declined to divulge the code, which defense attorneys say will show that the device is error-prone. The company has racked up more than $1 million in fines by refusing to comply with a similar Florida court order, records show.

CMI President Toby Hall didn’t return phone calls for comment. When Bernini first ordered CMI to release the code, Nesci said a process server couldn’t get Hall to accept the court order.

Last month, Bernini told prosecutors to get the source code from CMI.

Deputy County Attorney Robin Schwartz told Bernini that she didn’t think the state could force CMI to reveal the code.

Bernini also set a Nov. 24 hearing for Hall to appear and explain why she shouldn’t hold him and CMI in contempt for refusing to comply with her orders…

Recent events echo those in the mid-1990s when defense attorneys challenged the integrity of the RBT IV breath test machine, manufactured by Intoximeters Inc., based in St. Louis. Prosecutors eventually agreed that the device was faulty, which led to 3,000 cases being dismissed at once in 1997 and the total number thrown out about 5,000, Nesci said.

Losing your driver's license in California based on a DUI

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)5419 — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 08:00:00 EST

When you are arrested for a DUI in San Francisco, the officer will take your driver's license away from you and give you a temporary license. When you are offered a blood or breath test, you submit to the test, and your BAC is 0.08 or more, your license will be suspended for four months. If you have a previous DUI in the last ten years, your license will be suspended for one year.

If you are under 21 years of age, and a preliminary alcohol screening test or other test shows a BAC of 0.01 or more, your driving privileges will be suspended for one year.

Refusing to take a chemical test of any kind when asked will result in a suspension of your driving privileges for one year.

A qualified San Francisco DUI attorney can explain the various driving suspension times, as well as avenues to prevent the suspension through a hearing with the Department of Motor Vehicles. You must request a DMV hearing within ten days of your arrest.

California Drinking Driver Program

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)5327 — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 08:00:00 EST

In California, every person convicted of a first offense DUI is required to complete an approved drinking driver program. For second and subsequent convictions, completion of an 18 or 30-month program is required. The court will order completion of the program as a condition of probation or parole.

The program must be one that is approved by the court, and the court will accomodate you in terms of where you take the program. However, the program is not free, and you should be prepared to pay an initiation fee as well as additional fees as the program progresses.

Finally, the DMV will allow a temporary license to include, along with driving to and from work, driving to and from the program. You however must be enrolled in the program to obtain this exception.

A qualified San Francisco DUI attorney can give you information regarding the programs, and the options available to you to complete the program successfully.

Having a DUI and the California DMV point system

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)5303 — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 08:00:00 EST

When you are arrested for a DUI in California , you will lose your license. However, that is not the only thing you should be concerned about.

If you have a driver's license in California, any serious violations of the driving laws will accumulate “points” to your driving record. Enough points could result in losing your privilege to drive.

Most driving offenses, such as hit and run, reckless driving, and driving under the influence, are designated as 2 points and will remain on your record for seven years from the violation date. Most other offenses are designated as 1 point and will remain on your record for three years from the violation date. For example, an at fault accident will get you one point on your record.

You are considered a negligent operator by the California DMV if you have the following point count totals:

4 points in 12 months, or

6 points in 24 months, or

8 points in 36 months

A qualified San Francisco DUI attorney can explain the point system to you, and determine how best to proceed with your DUI keeping in mind your license record.

Consequences in San Francisco and California of not taking a breath or blood test

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)5227 — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 08:00:00 EST

You have just been arrested by the San Francisco police department for DUI. After you have been arrested, you will be asked to submit to a test to determine the alcohol content of your blood. You can choose to take a breath test using a breathalyzer, or a blood test, or both.

In California, if you refuse to take the test, there are severe consequences to your privilege to drive a motor vehicle. If you were 21 years of older at the time of arrest and you refused or failed to complete a blood or breath test, a first offense will result in a 1-year suspension. A second offense within 10 years will result in a 2-year revocation. A third or subsequent offense within 10 years will result in a 3-year revocation.

If you were under 21 years of age at the time of being detained or arrested and you refused or failed to complete a blood or breath test:, a first offense will result in a 1-year suspension. A second offense within 10 years will result in a 2-year revocation. A third or subsequent offense within 10 years will result in a 3-year revocation.

If having a drivers’ license is not of major importance to you, then not having a test result makes it more difficult for the San Francisco District Attorney’s office to prosecute your case, and prove that you were under the influence of alcohol while driving. A qualified San Francisco DUI attorney can explain both the pros and cons of taking a breath or blood test.

Avoid common mistakes after arrest for DUI in San Francisco

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)5005 — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 08:00:00 EST

You've just been released from the San Francisco police department after your DUI arrest. Avoiding common mistakes that persons with pending DUIs in California make is critical.

Hire a qualified San Francisco DUI lawyer. Hiring a good DUI attorney to help you through the process gives you a much better chance of having the charges eliminated or reduced. You may think that representing yourself will be easy and much cheaper, but you are fighting against the San Francisco District Attorney's Office and an officer who is trained to obtain a conviction. The end result? You lose.

Handling your own case is not wise. There could be mistakes that the officer made, errors in the BAC result procedures or the machine itself. These mistakes will never be discovered, and you will pay a lot of fines and other financial consequences as a result. A qualified San Francisco DUI attorney can reduce the consequences significantly. Nothing is "cut and dried."

Another mistake is waiting until your court date or afterward to hire a DUI attorney. If you speak to an attorney immediately after your arrest will allow you to relate facts to your attorney that are fresh in your mind, and help your lawyer to assist you in your case. Another mistake is waiting too long, and missing the ten day time limit to challenge your license suspension with the DMV.

Don't take advice from friends or associates who had previous DUI convictions. Each case is different. A qualified DUI attorney knows the laws, and the potential defenses you have. Your friends don't.

Missing court appearances is another mistake people make after a DUI arrest. A judge can order an arrest warrant for you if you fail to appear, unless you have an attorney appear on your behalf.

You also can enhance your DUI woes by continuing to drive while your license is suspended or revoked. It is a separate criminal charge with its own penalties, including jail time. In addition, your license suspension will be increased. I know of one person with eight separate convictions for driving while suspended who is now spending several months in jail.

Avoid the mistakes. Hire a qualified San Francisco DUI attorney.

Taking the breath test in California

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)4923 — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 08:00:00 EST

You are driving in the Sunset District in San Francisco, California. You are pulled over, and the officer suspects you are under the influence of alcohol. You are arrested and taken to the San Francisco Police station for a breathalyzer test. The breathalyzer estimates the concentration of alcohol in the blood.

Can you control the breath test? In other words, can you fool a breathalyzer into showing a lower BAC reading? The answer is No.

There are a lot of people who believe certain myths regarding a breathalyzer and BAC. For example, sucking on pennies does not lower a BAC reading. Breath mints? No. They only mask the odor of alcohol, they do not change the alcohol content being measured. Indeed, you don’t have to drink alcohol to get arrested for a DUI, because the human body produces its own supply of alcohol naturally on a continuous basis. Therefore, we always have alcohol in our bodies and in some cases, some people produce enough to become legally intoxicated.

Are breathalyzers are always accurate? No, and many errors are made in tests because they lack precision. The police or sheriff department official administering the test can also affect the results of a test.

So what can you do? A qualified San Francisco DUI attorney can examine the test procedures, as well as the accuracy of the results. The attorney can determine if there were errors, or if there are other factors effecting the final read out. Don't assume the BAC taken at the police station is accurate. You may not be able to control the results of the breathalyzer, but your attorney can control how those results are used. In some cases, the results can be voided.

Having a San Francisco DUI lawyer on your side

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)4807 — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 08:00:00 EST

If you have been arrested for a DUI in San Francisco or the Bay Area, there is the tendency to simply admit you're guilty, and avoid the costs of hiring a qualified DUI attorney. In some criminal cases, such as traffic tickets, that may be the case. In a DUI, it is not, especially in California.

The DUI arrest itself has already created chaos in your life for you and your loved ones. Having an experienced attorney on your side will minimize the stress related to a DUI.

This is especially true when you are looking at your second or third or more DUI charge. The punishments go up incrementally each time. Also, if there are extentuating circumstances in your case that could increase the punishment, such as driving under the age of 21, having minor children in the vehicle, or having a high BAC. You need to hire a qualified DUI lawyer.

If you are in an accident, and someone, even you, have been injured, there are a multiitude of reasons why you need an attorney, not only for the DUI, but also the tangent consequences of the injuries, including a possible civil lawsuit.

The results of a DUI conviction can be costly to you and your loved ones. You could lose your job if you lose your license. You could spend time in jail. You could pay large fines and penalties. An experienced lower can reduce or minimize these consequences, or get rid of the DUI charge all together.

In other words, i you don’t know what you need to do, or what steps you need to take, hire a DUI attorney. A qualified San Francisco DUI attorney can walk you through the steps of the entire DUI process at the criminal level and the Department of Motor Vehicles. The attorney can review the facts of your case and challenge the charge in a trial, or plea bargain a better dea.

What do you do when you are stopped for a DUI in San Francisco?

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)4660 — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 08:00:00 EST

What can you do when you are pulled over for a DUI by the San Francisco Police Department? Here are some basic things you can do, and have the right to do:

1. If you see the police lights, try to pull over carefully, but not too carefully. Show you are in command of your vehicle. Turn on your turn signal. Slow down and brake gradually.

2. How do you look? Is your shirt tucked in, do you look ruffled or disheavaled? Is your makeup smeared? Make adjustments accordingly before you roll down the window.

3. Remember that the police officer is noting EVERYTHING you do and say. The first impression is most important. In other words, be nice to the officer, be cooperative, and not defensive.

4. Before you go out for the evening, put your car registration and insurance in an easily accessible place in your car. Make sure you can easily find your driver's license. It saves you searching your vehicle while you're nervous.

5. You should remember that you do not have to submit to a preliminary breath test. This test is used by the officer to determine whether to arrest you. You also do not have to submit to the field sobriety tests. Will this get you out of an arrest? Probably not, but these tests are unreliable, and will be used against you.

6. Other than your name and address, you do not have to talk to the officer about your activities. Invoke your right to an attorney during any questioning.

A qualified California DUI attorney can help advise you regarding your rights during a stop, and if you have been stopped and subsequently arrested, the DUI attorney can evaluate the circumstances of the stop to determine if anything was done improperly.

Statements made to an officer: Miranda rights in California

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)4505 — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:00:00 EST

Once you've been stopped by a San Francisco police officer for a possible DUI, the officer has already made a decision that he or she has probable cause to stop you. As you roll down your window to talk to the officer, and the officer smells alcohol on your breath, the likelihood that you can leave at that point is slim. And then you begin to speak.

The most damaging evidence in a DUI case are the statements you make to the officer. Admissions of drinking, the amount you've consumed, and other responses to questions the officer is asking you. A San Francisco DUI attorney is going to try to determine if these damning statements can be suppressed under Miranda.

In a situation where you have been "arrested" the officer must give you your Miranda advisals: telling you that you have the right to remain silent, seek advice of an attorney, that anything you say can be used against you. The question becomes "when" you've been arrested. In a DUI case, the officer most likely has determined you are under the influence based on errative driving, slurred speech, the smell of alcohol, and other usual factors. Additional questions are asked in an effort to further allow you to incriminate yourself, and have the statements used against you in court. Without the advisals.

A qualified San Francisco DUI attorney will determine which statements are "spontaneous" and thus allowed into a trial, and those which are solicited after you are technically under arrest. Those statements can be suppressed because they were made without the Miranda advisal.

Beyond the obvious advice, which is to say nothing other than your name during an arrest, sometimes that advice goes out the window when you are in a panic, or are attempting to get out of a DUI at the road stop. It doesn't work. If you remain silent, there are no statements to suppress. If you talked too much, hire a DUI attorney to get those statements thrown out.

Avoiding a DUI in California by not driving? Not so fast.

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)4429 — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 08:00:00 EST

It's 2 a.m. in the morning, and you have been out and about in San Francisco, and it's time to drive home to the Marina District. You know you have had too much to drink, but you get in your car anyway. You drive one block and are in a residential area. You stop your car, turn the engine off, and fall asleep.

Later an officer taps on your window, and begins the DUI stop procedures. You are arrested for DUI. But you weren't driving. Can you get out of a DUI conviction? Maybe. Maybe not.

You may not know this, but you can be convicted of a DUI even if you aren't operating, moving or driving a motor vehicle. The issue is whether you have control of the vehicle. This comes into play if you have the car keys, either in the ignition or within reach. In addition, you are in control if you are in the driver's seat. More obvious signs are a running engine, or stopped in traffic, asleep, or having been observed by a police officer driving.

Other circumstances are less obvious. Sitting on your car hood or fender. Sleeping in the back seat. Again the issue is control. You do not need to be seen driving by an officer.

What it all comes down to is the issue of driving and control - a fact issue. A good San Francisco DUI attorney can help to sort through the facts and the law, and fight to throw out the charge. It's never cut and dried.

Arrested in California for DUI. What could make it worse?

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)4328 — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:00:00 EST

You've been charged with a DUI after a night out in the Mission in San Francisco. You have a court hearing coming up. The San Francisco police officer gives you a citation, along with your temporary driver's license. What else could go wrong?

At the arraignment hearing, you receive your trial information, telling you what you are charged with. You notice a few extra things. These are called enhancements or aggravating factors. They are either charged by the District Attorney or added later by the judge. They are meant to increase the punishment of the DUI.

Some examples: Driving under the influence with children in the car. Soeeding or driving reckless. Having a blood alcohol level above a certain level. Refusing a test for measuring blood alcohol content. Being in an accident, or worse, causing injury to another person, even one who is a passenger in your car.

If you haven't consulted with a qualified San Francisco DUI attorney yet, now's the time. Any one of these enhancements could result in additional fines, additional jail time, or increased time in revocation of your license. Don't try to handle this on your own. A qualified DUI attorney can try to eliminate the enhancements, challenge the arrest itself, or do other legal maneuvers to your benefit.

Richmond Virginia DUI Lawyer Bob Battle: Is Harris County Sheriff's Department Racist?

Bob@BobBattleLaw.com (Blog Author)4151 — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 08:00:00 EST

Sheriff Tommy Thomas has been accused of being racist due to some emails that were discovered.
You decide for yourself: http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/feature?section=news/13_undercover&id=6231156
As you may remember from other blogs, the Harris County Texas Sheriff has been criticized and sued.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxf67bhoVVg

Thanks to Harrisonburg Virginia DWI Attorney Bob Keefer, www.BobKeeferLaw.com, for keeping me informed of this apparent abuse of police power.

Richmond Virginia DUI Lawyer Bob Battle: Harris County Sheriff's Department went over the Line

Bob@BobBattleLaw.com (Blog Author)4150 — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 08:00:00 EST

The Harris County Sheriff's Department had to know that conducting surveillance on Plaintiffs in a civil rights violation suit was wrong.

The Ibarra brothers, a local business owner and a Judge sued Harris County.

Business Owner Loyd Henderson was a plaintiff; his security camera showed Henderson being shoved to the floor and cuffed without warning by a Harris County Sheriff's Deputy.

Henderson had called the Sheriff's Departmetn for help after a robbery.

Municipal Judge April Walker was also a Plaintiff in that suit; Judge Walker was arrested after calling the Sheriff's Office for help.

The Deputy that was called to help calm a neighborhood dispute threw Judge Walker to the ground and handcuffed her.

Judge Walker was charged with impersonating a public officer and assault on a police officer.

The Ibarro Brothers, as mentioned in an earlier blog, were arrested while videotaping the arrest of a neighbor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1V74ZjZ74o

Richmond Virginia DUI Lawyer Bob Battle: Even Deputy Sheriff's drive Drunk

Bob@BobBattleLaw.com (Blog Author)4149 — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 08:00:00 EST

Harris County Texas Sheriff's Deputy Craig Miller was killed in an unfortunate motor vehicle collision on February 21, 2008.

Deputy Miller was on his way to relieve another Deputy conducting surveillance on a suspected criminal activity.

Jose Vieyra, driving a box truck, pulled out onto Katy Freeway in Houston, Texas, in front of Deputy Miller.

Deputy Miller did not attempt to brake as there were no skid marks in his lane; Miller passed away at the scene.

Vieyra was charged with criminally negligent homicide.

Now the Rest of the Story:

- Deputy Miller was not wearing his seatbelt,

- Deputy Miller had a .27 blood-alcohol content,

- Vieyra had a valid driver's license at the time of the accident,

- Vieyra had no criminal record,

- Initially Sheriff's Dept. indicated that the .27 would not effect Vieyra's charge,

- Charges against Vieyra, in light of Deputy Miller's .27 bac,were dismissed,

- Vieyra may be deported as his papers had expired.

Harris County is known for its surveillance efforts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1V74ZjZ74o

Thanks to Harrisonburg DWI Lawyer Bob Keefer, www.BobKeeferLaw.com, for providing us with this information.

Why Bother Fighting a DUI in California?

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)4080 — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:00:00 EST

You have your first court date in San Francisco Superior Court coming up. It's the arraignment, where you'll get a copy of your charges filed by the District Attorney. The judge asks you what your plea is. You just want this all to end. What are your options?

If you plead guilty, the judge will then find you guilty of a DUI. You will be sentenced on that day to jail time, huge fines, a DUI three month course, probation, and a permanent conviction on your record.

This is guaranteed. And you will have done it without the benefit of seeing the police report, or testing the BAC results, or seeking the advice of a San Francisco DUI attorney. And once it's done, there's little chance of going back and changing your mind. It's over.

Fighting your case will allow a qualified San Francisco DUI attorney to review the evidence, talk with the District Attorney, and do everything possible to affect the outcome of your case to your advantage. Perhaps the officer had no reason to stop you at 2 a.m. in the morning on Geary Boulevard in the Richmond District. Perhaps the BAC device is defective, and that 0.08 is really a 0.05. Maybe the witnesses in the case are unavailable for trial.

In the end you have nothing to lose, and everything to gain. Don't go into a DUI charge alone. A DUI conviction will plague you long after that first scary court appearance.

What if I lose my DMV hearing but win my criminal case in California?

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)4054 — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 08:00:00 EST

You've gone out for drinks in San Francisco. Later, on the ride home through the SOMA district, you get stopped by the San Francisco police. You are arrested, and a subsequent Blood Alcohol Content test has you at 0.14, over the legal limit in California. When you are arrested in California, there are two different cases: the criminal case and the Department of Motor Vehicle administrative case.

You must request a DMV hearing within ten days of your arrest. Otherwise you automatically lose. By losing, you lose your license for 120 days. You also need to obtain SR-22 insurance proving you in fact have insurance. You will need to obtain proof of enrollment in a DUI school for at least three months.

If you have a DMV hearing and win, and you win your criminal matter, then nothing will happen to your license. If you, however, lose your DMV hearing, but win your criminal matter, you still need to get the SR-22 insurance proof, take the DUI school, and have your license suspended. Why? Because the DMV case and the criminal matter are completely separate, and one does not effect the other.

Hiring a qualified DUI attorney in San Francisco will help guide you through the maze of the DUI laws, and explain the consequences of every possible result from a DUI arrest.

Lasting effects of a DUI in California: Expungement and Erasing Your DUI Conviction

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)3942 — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 08:00:00 EST

You are applying for a new job. You are asked if you have ever been convicted of a crime. You remember back to that DUI you got when you were out on the town in the Richmond District in San Francisco three years ago. You have to admit that you have a DUI. Say good bye to that job. Even if the question isn't on the application form, your potential employer will run a criminal background check, and that DUI will be there.

What do you do? One option is to expunge your DUI record from your criminal history. If you have successfully completed probation, paid all your fines, committed no other crimes (other than traffic infraction tickets) you can petition the court to expunge or erase the conviction. When the Court grants your petition, you can mark "No" on an employment application asking for criminal conviction.

The expungement does not free you from future enhancements if you get another DUI, nor does it prevent you from admitting to a conviction that was expunged for certain California licenses and immigration applications. But it does allow you to lessen the burden of a prior conviction to let you get that job you want.

A qualified San Francisco DUI can explain the process of expungement and its benefits, and prepare your petition.

California definition of "Drunk Driving"

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)3883 — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 08:00:00 EST

Whether you are driving in the Richmond District in San Francisco, or asleep at the wheel in the Mission District, it is important to know what exactly is "drunk driving" in California.

The legal definitions of "driving" and "drunk" can be inteprreted in many ways. You can be driving even though you are approached by a police officer in a parked park with the engine off, or in an accident with the keys out of the ignition. The key is whether the police, and the District Attorney, can place you in the driver's seat.

Being "drunk" doesn't necessarily mean having a lot of drinks in the SOMA area. The key is whether you are legally impaired. This can be accomplished not only by alcohol, but illicit drugs, prescribed drugs, cough mediicine, or other substances which impair your ability to drive.

Obviously, once you have been arrested and charged with a DUI, a qualified DUI attorney in the San Francisco area can help determine whether you fall into the legal definitions under the law.

I Got a DUI. What else can they charge me with in California?

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)3815 — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 08:00:00 EST

After a night out with your family in the Mission District of San Francisco, where you had too much to drink at dinner, you are stopped by a San Francisco police officer. The embarassment of being arrested for DUI in front of your family is humiliating. You get released the next day, and figure all you need to worry about is the DUI charge, and trying to keep your license at the DMV hearing.

Wrong. As any San Francisco DUI attorney can tell you, there are potential enhancements and additional charges that can come out of that family night out. The most serious is a misdemeanor child endangerment charge. You were driving, under the influence, with your young chidren in the car with you. This can add jail time and fines to your DUI charge. It potentially could involve the child welfare department, depending on the circumstances, and the blood alcohol level.

Obviously a DUI, and a loss of license privileges, will create even more problems for your family. In addition, potential jail time, enhanced by the child endangerment charge, will cause havoc for you and your family. While a good DUI attorney can work to reduce the impact of the child endangerment charge, including dismissal of the charge, it is something to keep in mind when you go out with your family, and consume alcohol.

Talking your way out of a DUI in California

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)3744 — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 08:00:00 EST

As a San Francisco DUI lawyer, I have clients come into my office from all over the Bay Area with their DUI citation. Once I get the police report, I become frustrated by the statements made by the client to the police officer. The problem is that most people do not know that they have the right to refuse to answer questions that might incriminate them before they are arrested.

It is important to know that everything you say from the point you are approached y the officer until you are released from custody can, and most likely will, be in a subsequent police report, and it may be used against you at trial. You do not have to say anything to the officer other than your name and insurance information. Do not offer information such as "I only had three beers" or "I'm upset because my boyfriend broke up with me." Don't make jokes to the officer. Don't argue with the officer, or swear at the officer. You will later regret it.

While it is possible for a DUI attorney to get the statements thrown out, it is possibly that a judge may leave them intact. They will then be intact for a jury to hear.

So remember, be quiet, give out only essential information, and hope for the best.

Going out on the road in California and avoid a DUI

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)3677 — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 08:00:00 EST

As a San Francisco DUI attorney, many clients inquire about how to avoid a DUI charge in the first place. I have discussed the "rules of the road" which give the San Francisco police officer or California Highway Patrol officer probable cause to stop your vehicle.

THere are other things you can do before you even go out for a few drinks, whether it's a road trip to San Jose, or a short trip to the Richmond District. Know your vehicle. If you are uncomfortable or unfamiliar with your car, you are more likely to make mistakes. If you fit in this category, sit in the car before you leave. Take a moment to know where everything is before you start to drive. Simple things such as turn signal levers, emergency brake lights, headlights, high beams, windshield wipers and so on. Adjust the seat and steering wheel BEFORE you drive away.

If you normally drive a car with a clutch, acclimate yourself to an automatic transmission. Drive the vehicle for a while before you make your trip.

Another thing you should do is make sure everything works in the vehicle. All the lights are in good working order, the registration tags are current, and so on. Avoid being stopped simply because your tail light is out, or broken.

Taking the time to go over the car itself can make your evening more enjoyable, and avoids an arrest for a vehicle infraction while you're driving home in San Francisco. Don't make the officer's job easy.

Avoiding a DUI in California

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)3651 — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:00:00 EST

Before you get out on the roads in California, there are simple ways to avoid a DUI stop. The most common reasons for a California police officer to stop a vehicle are :

Driving on or over the lane divider;
Drifting into the other lane;
Making a wide turn;
Making an illegal turn;
Weaving or swerving;
Frequent braking, or inappropriate braking;
Nearly missing an object, pedestrian, or another car;
Driving over or under the speed limit;
Driving at night with the headlights off;
Failing to initiate a turn signal, or leaving the turn signal on;
Stopping in the middle of the road;
Following a car too closely;
Accelerating or deaccelerating too quickly.

Being careful when you drive will significantly lower your chances of a DUI in California.

No one saw me driving, how can I get a DUI anyway in California?

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)3616 — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 08:00:00 EST

You have been charged with a DUI in California. You have a court date coming up. You were not driving at the time the office came up to you. How can you be charged with "driving" under th influence?

There are actually several ways this can happen. The most common way is that the officer was following you and observing your driving. You perhaps made some errors, swerving, driving too slow, no turn signals, or some other traffice violation. Perhaps there is a mechanical defect with your vehicle.

Another way to prove you were driving under the influence is if you were "called in" by another driver or pedestrian via cell phone. The officer will receive the tip, and then locate you. If you are still driving, he will follow you and make his own observations. If you have stopped, and the person who called you in is reliable or known, he will come up to your car and begin the process. At a trial, the person who called will have to be a witness in order to show probable cause for the officer to detain you and administer sobriety tests.

Finally, it comes down to location, location, location. Unless you can prove someone else was driving, your presence in the driver's seat with the car engine off on the side of the highway could be sufficient to prove you were driving.

There may be other ways to prove driving as well. It is the job of the District Attorney to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were driving. If it is an issue, don't handle it yourself. Contact a qualified California DUI attorney to tackle your case. If it can't be shown that you were driving, you can't be convicted of a DUI in California.

Did you ever wonder what the police did with all those impounded cars? Well stop wondering, now we know.

Bob@BobBattleLaw.com (Blog Author)3551 — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 08:00:00 EST

What do they do with the cars? Well first they drive them and then they buy them for ridiculiously low prices.

In St. Louis, Missouri,like in many municipalities, the powers that be have legislatively enabled law enforcement to seize cars of persons suspected of DUI. If the vehicle is not recovered within a certain time by its true owner then law enforcement and their family members can purchase the seized vehicle at a cheap price, sometimes at 25% of the real value.

The city and the tow service split the loot from the towing. The "abandoned" cars become no cost rental cars to be driven for months without cost. In St. Louis, Aimie Mokwa, 33 years old, the daughter of Joe Mokwa, police chief, has helped herself to several cars on the cheap. Actually, it is a good thing the cars are so cheap as she has wrecked a Dodge Neon and a Ford Escort. She had a .17 blood alcohol content when she wrecked the Escort but somehow was not charged with DUI. Sounds fair to all concerned.

Harrisonburg DUI Lawyer Reveals that VA DUI Road Block is a Waste of Money

tom@fosterwebmarketing.com (Blog Author)3493 — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:00:00 EST

Harrisonburg Virginia DUI Lawyer Bob Keefer recently wrote a blog post about a DUI Road Block in Harrisonburg, Virginia conducted by the Harrisonburg Police Department that produced absolutely zero drunk drivers. So, not a single driver was "wasted;" the only thing that was wasted was the taxpayer's money and the time of the sober drivers who were delayed for no reason!

Richmond Virginia DUI Lawyer Bob Battle has previously posted on a history of "sobriety checkpoints."

If you have been arrested for DUI at a sobriety checkpoint, there are many possible defenses based on the set-up and implementation of the checkpoint. All of the Virginia DUI Lawyers on DUIanswer.com are experienced in investigating and raising these issues and other issues relating to Virginia DUI Laws for you at trial.

California DUIs and Naturalization

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)3423 — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 08:00:00 EST

A DUI conviction in California carries with it penalties and consequences. For aliens, a conviction, or even just an arrest, has additional consequences.

One of the eligibility requirements for naturalization is that a person must be of "good moral character" for five years prior to submitting an application. Generally this means that an alien must show that he or she has not violated any laws or pursued conduct that was inappropriate.

This, of course, includes a DUI conviction. It may also include a DUI arrest which resulted a plea to a lesser included offense. An alien can not be on probation at the time a naturalization aplication is filed.

If an alien has the DUI conviction expunged, or erased, from his or her record, the conviction is still relevant for purposes of immigration. In other words, it must be revealed to the immigration agency.

A qualified DUI attorney competent in immigration can advise an alien as to the effect of a DUI conviction on a naturalization application, and the options that are available to the alien.

Underage DUIs and drinking in California

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)3410 — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:00:00 EST

Some interesting facts that underage drinkiers should know regarding DUIs and drinking in California:

1. Along with the possibility of a DUI charge, drivers and passengers under 21 that possess alcohol in a car can face a fine up to $1,000 and/or six months in jail, impoundment of the car, and suspension of driving privileges for one year. In addition, possession of alcohol underage anywhere in public will result in similar fines.

2. Possession of an altered California license can earn an underaged person a fine up to $1,000 and/or six months in jail, along with confiscation of the license.

3. Purchasing alcohol underage, or attempting to purchase alcohol, will result in a minimum $250 fine and/or 24 hours of community service, along with suspension of their drivers' license for one year.

If an underage driver is stopped for a DUI, there are a multitude of possible charges that come with the DUI. Given the consequences of each charge, it would be prudent to get a qualified California DUi attorney to sort through the myriad of charges, and possible outcomes.

Refusing a DUI Chemical test in California

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)3390 — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 08:00:00 EST

When a person is arrested for DUI in California, they are asked to submit to chemical testing, whether it is a breath test or blood test. Refusal to submit will cause a person to automatically lose their license for a year.

Any subsequent refusal to submit to chemical testing within ten years will result in harsher punishments. A second refusal will result in a loss of one's driver's license for two years. A third and subsequent refusal will result in a driver's license revocation for at least 3 years.

If you are on probation for a DUI already when you are stopped, if you refuse to submit to chemical testing, this could be a violation of your probation. It will result in not only losing one's license for a period of time, but also jail time if probation is revoked.

It is up to each driver in California to determine whether or not they wish to submit to chemical testing. A California DUI attorney can explain the consequences of the decision they make.

Effect of DUI in California on insurance rates

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)3377 — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 08:00:00 EST

A DUI conviction in California will result in automobile insurance problems. From the requirement of obtaining SR22 insurance, to renewing insurance policies, it is inevitable that automobile insurance rates will go up dramatically upon renewal. In the alternative, the insurance company can elect to not renew the policy at all.

It is lesser known that a DUI conviction in California can effect other insurance policies as well. You may be surprised to find out that your life insurance premiums may go up based on a DUI. Since life insurance premiums are based on health conditions and life expectancies, a company may decide that a DUI impacts those factors. The theory is that alcohol abuse reduces life expectancy by years and creates potential health problems.

In addition, disability insurance qualification or premiums can be affected by a DUI conviction. Private disability insurance replaces income in the event of an illness or injury which prevents you from working. Premiums, like life insurance, are based on your health condition. A DUI can cause an increase in premiums, cancellation of a policy, or a denial of a policy.

It is important when you are facing a DUI charge to consult with a qualified California DUI attorney who can guide you about your various insurance concerns.

Taking a Preliminary Alcohol Screening test in California

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)3299 — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 08:00:00 EST

In California, after a driver is stopped for suspected DUI, he or she may be asked to take a Preliminary Alcohol Screening (PAS) test by the law enforcement officer. The PAS is done by blowing into a hand held breach machine.

Taking a PAS test is optional. An officer is suppose to tell the driver that he or she is not required to take a PAS. California Vehicle Code section 23612(h) requires an officer to advise a person that they have a right to refuse the PAS.

The problem is that many DUI defense attorneys ignore this requirement, and the PAS is given more weight in both the DMV hearing and possibly in a motion to suppress. Hiring a qualified California DUI attorney will help in determining whether a driver was advised of the right to refuse a PAS test, or simply told to blow into the machine, thinking they have no alternative.

DUI Plea Alternative: Dry Reckless in California

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)3231 — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:00:00 EST

In looking at reducing or modifying a DUI charge for a possible plea short of trial, one option in California is what is known as a "Dry Reckless."

A dry reckless is essentially reckless driving not involving alcohol. A plea to this reduced charge will usually result in a fine and court probation, with a possibility of an alcohol education program. However, there are significant differences with this charge and a true DUI. It can't be used against you as a prior DUI in future charges to enchance penalties. In addition, your license can not be suspended, and no SR22 insurance is required. However, if you had a DMV hearing, and lost, then SR22 insurance would be required, and you would face an administrative suspension of your license.

A qualified San Francisco DUI attorney can discuss this option with you, among other alternatives to a straight DUI plea.

Wet Reckless in California

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)3214 — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 08:00:00 EST

In evaluating a possible resolution of a DUI charge, a qualified San Francisco DUI attorney will see whether a reduction of the DUI charge to a wet reckess is possible. A wet reckless is an inside term for an alcohol related reckless driving charge. It is no different from a DUI charge in that it can be used in future DUI charges to increase the penalities for ten years. Insurance companies will treat a wet reckless as a DUI for rate considerations.

The benefits of a wet reckless are considerable. There is no mandatory license suspension. There may be no Offender's Program, or a shorter program (if available). Also, there are benefits to certain offenders who have licenses in the state that could be impacted by a DUI conviction. Jail time may be reduced or nonexistent. Finally, the fines and fees imposed are generally half of what could be incurred with a DUI conviction.

Obviously, you should have a qualified San Francisco DUI attorney examine your case to determine if you qualify for this option. If you are looking at a DUI charge alleging priors, this option becomes even more important.

BEWARE of DUI Lawyer Websites Whose Lawyers Are Qualified to Do One Thing Only -- Plead You Guilty

Bob@BobBattleLaw.com (Blog Author)3203 — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:00:00 EST

There is a reason that Virginia DUI Lawyer Bob Battle saw a need to team with talented, ethical colleagues to create www.DUIanswer.com. Read this sad but true post titled "How NOT to Choose a DUI Lawyer" to read about an ad sent to lawyers nationwide for a "DUI Lawyer" Website that states "Do You Know How to Plead a Client Guilty? If Yes, You Are a Qualified DUI Lawyer."

Click the link at the end of this sentence to view the ad and Virginia DUI Lawyer Bob Battle's comments.

Unlike the website that is willing to hold out lawyers to the public as "fully qualified" without telling the public that they define "QUALIFIED" as the ability to plead you guilty, all the lawyers on www.DUIanswer.com must apply to be on this website and there is only 1 lawyer accepted for each jurisdiction.

Have you forgotten something? DMV hearing requests in California

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)3170 — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 08:00:00 EST

You've just been released from jail after a harrowing night. You've been stopped, subjected to field sobriety tests, humiliation, breath tests, and handcuffs. What do you do next?

The first thing you need to do is read that pink paper that the officer gave tp you. This is your temporary driver's license. On the back of this paper, in small print, are instructions on how to challenge your license suspension. You only have ten days to contest the suspension from the time of your arrest. If you don't do anything, your license will automatically be suspended!

In California, the DMV suspension hearing is different from the court date you were also given when you were released. That date, which is your arraignment, will allow you to get a copy of the charges against you, and the police report.

A wise thing to do is hire an experienced San Francisco DUI attorney immediately. Let that attorney handle all the deadlines. An experienced San Francisco DUI attorney knows the labryinth of time requirements and forms that need to be done. But don't delay. You only have ten days.

DUI Sentencing alternatives in San Francisco

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)3116 — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 08:00:00 EST

You've been found guilty of, or plead guilty to, a DUI. The judge has sentenced you to do at least two days in jail. However, "jail" can mean many things, if the judge allows it, in San Francisco.

The most common sentencing alternative is the Sheriff's Work Program. You can schedule it at your convenience. It involves somewht physical work, such as cleaning up streets and sidewalks in San Francisco, or on the highway. You check in in the morning, and go home at night.

Another possibility is community service. If you have physical limitations or injuries, you can do work in an approved community service program. This involves little or no physical labor, and could also be used to pay some of the DUI fines.

Electronic monitoring is used for sentences that are significantly longer than two days. They allow some flexibility, and freedom. You can go to work, do your counseling program, and basic living chores, with some limits.

Work furlough is also available for longer sentences, and allows you to go to work each day, and then go to jail to sleep. The main advantage to this program is that you get to keep your job and earn money. However, you pay for the work furlough program.

Overall, there are alternatives to basic jail time. Contact a San Francisco DUI attorney to get the program that suits you best.

It's Summer! Boating DUIs in California

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)3096 — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:00:00 EST

Summertime is here, and more and more people are heading to the waters of California. Take your friends out on your boat, and bring along alcohol. Before you do this, you should be aware that in California, Boating DUIs carry penalties similar to those for automobile DUI, including possible jail time, fines, a boating safety program, and driver's license suspension.

In addition, a boating DUI is counted as prior DUI in the future. In other words, if you have a prior DUI, it can be used to enhance punishment in a second DUI.

To assist a police patrol boat in stopping your vessel, such actions as turning your craft too fast, or turning it aggressively, losing control of your vessel, having violations in your vehicle equipment, speeding, not using safety equipment, and other law violations, will ensure a stop.

The same DUI defenses that a San Francisco DUI attorney would use in an automobile DUI can be employed: the field sobriety tests, the chemical test results, and who was actually driving the vessel, among other things.

While drinking in a boat is legal, driving impaired is not. If you are stopped for a boating DUI, treat it just like a regular automobile DUI, and find a San Francisco DUI attorney to assist you. Enjoy the summer, and be safe.

Impoundment of Vehicles in California after DUI Arrest

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)3016 — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:00:00 EST

Once a California law enforcement officer determines that you are under the influence, and arrests you for DUI, disposition of your vehicle becomes an issue. The officer has the option of impounding your vehicle. On a first DUI, impoundment is not likely. The officer will usually immobilize the vehicle or tow the vehicle temporarily depending on where the stop is.

A second or subsequent DUI puts the vehicle at risk of impoundment. A court can ordered impoundment, but can also make exceptions. Obviously, if you don't own the vehicle, the Court cannot order impoundment. In some situations, you can be allowed to drive an impounded vehicle if the court orders it, your driving privileges are not suspended, and an ignition interlock device is installed.

To save your vehicle, and to avoid loss of the vehicle, it is wise to consult with a DUI attorney.

California mulls new law on Ignition Interlock Devices

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2996 — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:00:00 EST

The California State Assembly is considering a new bill, AB2784, which would force California judges to impose a sentencing requirement given hard-core offenders: ignition interlocks.

Ignition interlocks are breathalyzers placed in the vehicle that measure a driver's blood alcohol concentration. If a breath sample registers above a pre-set level, the engine will not start. These devices were originally developed for chronic drunk drivers with high alcohol levels.

Proponents of the bill claim the measure will fight the drunk-driving problem by keeping dangerous drivers off the road. However, mandating interlocks for first offenders doesn't focus on those dangerous criminals.

Other states are lobbying for mandatory interlocks in every car in the state. Indeed, some car manufacturers are developing new interlock technology that could be manufactured as standard equipment. The federal government has approved a $10 million grant to promote development of this technology.

As the popularity of punishing DUI offenders grows, the California Assembly is simply following the rest of the country. In doing so, the rights of every driver are at risk.

Temporary restricted license in California

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2986 — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 08:00:00 EST

You've been arrested by the California law enforcement for DUI. They've taken your California driver's license, and handed you a piece of paper. You have 30 days to drive before your privileges are suspended. What do you do then?

A temporary restricted license authorizes drivers to drive a car for limited reasons. These reasons usually involve driving to and from the work place. They can also be other places, if allowed by the DMV, such as school, substance abuse treatment programs, or doctor appointments for a dependent person or self.

To be eligible for a temporary restricted license, you must not have any other nonDUI related suspension of your license. Your "hard suspension" of 30 days must have elapsed. You must have auto insurance (including SR22 reporting).

It's a hassle to obtain a temporary restricted license, but necessary if one needs their vehicle. The consequences of driving while your license is suspended for DUI are far worse.

When are you "driving" in California for a DUI?

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2967 — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 08:00:00 EST

In order to obtain a conviction for DUI in California, you must have sufficient control over your vehicle, i.e., driving. You do not have to be driving a vehicle at the time you are confronted by law enforcement.

One possibility for "sufficient control" is being seated in the driver's side with the engine running. You could also be charged if the engine is running, and you are seated in the passenger side. If you are in a vehicle on the side of the road, and unconscious, you coud be charged with DUI.

An informant could have contacted the law enforcement and notified them of a possible DUI. You could have just parked in your driveway, and exited your vehicle when you are stopped by law enforcement.

The possibilities are endless, however there must still be evidence showing that you were driving. Sometimes this is simply a normal stop on the road. Other times, a prosecutor needs to be more inventive. A good DUI attorney will make sure that the prosecutor meet their burden with corroborating evidence.

Avoiding a DUI in California. Some nighttime driving tips.

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2946 — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 08:00:00 EST

California law enforcement, looking for potential drunk drivers, can have their job made easier by how the driver uses his or her driving skills. Detecting a potentia drunk driver at night is evidenced by some of the following driver mistakes:

Accelerating or deaccelerating quickly
Inappropriate or constant use of brakes
Barely miss hitting an object or another vehicle or pedestrian
Being too close to the center line or lane marker
Drifting in one's lane
Inappropriate signalling, or no signalling at all
Tailing another car too closely
Stopping at the wrong place
Driving too slowly, at least 10 miles per hour under the speed limit
Not having headlights on
Weaving on the road
Making a turn too wide
Making sudden inappropriate turns
Drive into opposing or cross traffic

The above mistakes don't mean a driver is intoxicated, but they do ensure a road side stop by law enforcement.

California DUI boaters can keep their drivers licenses

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2934 — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 08:00:00 EST

The Second District Court of Appeals in California has ruled that boaters who are arrested for DUI in their boats, can not lose their driver license to operate a motor vehicle. California law treats DUI boating the same way as motor vehicle DUI, including the same alcohol limit of .08. Boaters can be sentenced up to six months on a first offense, and required to take a boater safety course.

However, you don't need a license to drive a boat. The Department of Motor Vehicles was suspending a person's driver's license for boating under the influence. No longer, says the Court, because no law in the Vehicle Code allows it.

Look for this to trigger activity in the California Assembly. A previous attempt in the assembly in 2004 failed.

DUI Informants in California

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2912 — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 08:00:00 EST

You're driving home, and out of the blue an officer stops you. You've done nothing wrong. What happened? In this age of cell phones, you probably were "ratted out" by an informant. It has become more common in California for another motorist to notify police of a possible DUI. You know, that motorist you accidently cut off, or the one who was behind you when you swerved slightly.

While informants are important, an officer still needs a reason to stop you. However, since the officer is now observing you closely, any Vehicle Code violation will suffice to initiate a stop. In some cases, where the informant is reliable or known to the police, that may suffice for a stop by the officer.

Factors Influencing Field Sobriety Tests

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2887 — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 08:00:00 EST

In California, a DUI stop results in field sobriety tests. I've discussed certain factors which affect the results, including the pure subjective aspect of them. There are also other factos affect a performance.

Imbalance during the tests can be caused by various factors. Weather conditions such as wind, extreme temperatures, a slippery surface, and rain. Shoes, whether they be the height and shape, or the material of the show. Illnesses, such as a cold, arthritis, physical injuries, age, or othe defects. Emotional considerations, whether it be anger, embarassment, nervousness, and other feelings.

Another factor can be caffeine, which has an adverse effect on the tests in combination with alcohol, making one's muscular coordination and timing suspect. In addition, there is the "circadian rhythim" or in layman terms, the biological clock. Doing the tests late at night or early in the morning effect performance, as does jet lag.

A DUI attorney will look into whether any of the above factors apply, and further place into question the validity of the field sobriety tests.

Field Sobriety Tests in California. I can't fail!

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2749 — Wed, 21 May 2008 08:00:00 EST

They look so simple. Easy tasks to perform. You're sober anyway. You can't fail the Field Sobriety tests. Wrong. How can you fail one of the tests? Let's look at some possibilities.

Nystagmus test: The officer wil check your eyes. You fail if your eyes are trembling or jerking as you follow the officer's finger or a pencil.

Standing on one leg test: Easy, right? The officer will look for failure such as beginning the test too early, losing count, losing your balance, falling over, or displaying poor coordination.

Walk and turn test: Again, you fail if you start too early, step off the imaginary line, lose count, or put any space between your heel and toe.

Finger to nose test: Close your eyes, extend your arms, and touch your nose with your finger. You fail, obviously, if you miss your nose. Also, you fail if you start too early, have trouble keeping balance, or have any muscle tremors.

Short of falling down, the officer will look for any failure, however insignificant. A California DUI attorney can go through these tests at a trial to show a jury just how impossible they are.

Fighting DUIs in California: How Much Does it Really Cost?

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2705 — Fri, 16 May 2008 08:00:00 EST

You have just been released from jail after your arrest for DUI. You will now be charged by the District Attorney, and you will go to court. Besides the emotional costs that you are now suffering, there are other costs to prepare for.

The obvious initial costs will be hiring a DUI attorney. Even if you choose to fight the DUI on your own, there are other costs to expect: Fines, penalties and surcharges. The costs of a DUI alcohol treatment program. The costs involved in losing your license, and in getting your license back. You may have to install an ignition interlock device. Your automobile insurance will go up.

What can you do to avoid these costs? The best way to attempt to avert these costs is to not go it alone. Hire a qualified California DUI attorney immediately, and try to keep your costs limited to the legal fee. Hopefully, if you are successful, the other costs will go away.

Implied Consent in California

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2689 — Wed, 14 May 2008 08:00:00 EST

Once you have been taken to the police station in California, you will be asked to take a test to measure your blood alcohol content. Can you refuse to take the test?

In California, as well as other states, there is an "Implied Consent" law. The law states that by driving a motor vehicle in California, you have already given your consent to take a test. Going back on your word by refusing to take a test will result in your driver's license being suspended for a longer period of time.

The officer will read you an advisory about the test, and in this advisory is the warning about the consequences of not taking a test. Pay attention to the advisory, and look to whether the officer correctly communicated your rights, misleads you, exagerates the penalties, or makes any threats or inducements. If he or she does, then a judge may throw out the results of any test you decide to take.

The decision is ultimately yours. If you believe you are not intoxicated, take the test. If you are unsure, or are quite intoxicated, and are not concerned about the loss of your license, then you need to weigh the test versus the consequences of not taking the test.

Enhancements in California. It's not just about the DUI

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2674 — Tue, 13 May 2008 08:00:00 EST

You've been charged with DUI. You think your worst case scenario is the minimum standard punishment: two days in jail, fines and probation. Can it be worst?

Yes. In California, there are options called "enhancements" which could increase your sentence based on a variety of factors. Speeding is one factor, especially if you are clocked at 20 or 30 miles per hour over the speed limit.

Another factor is whether there has been an accident, even an accident where no one else was involved. A judge may also look at whether you had minor children in the car, which could also include a child endangerment charge.

There are other factors as well, and a judge can increase jail time or fines, or even the type of alcohol program, based on the factors. These factors could also be used as a wedge to get you to plead to a DUI with the basic sentence in lieu of a trial.

A DUI attorney can help you go through the factors, and determine how to deal with each one effectively.

California DUI Police Reports

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2626 — Thu, 08 May 2008 08:00:00 EST

Okay, you've been arrested and released. You are now charged with DUI. You have written down everything that you can remember that happened during your stop by the California police officer. You hire your attorney. Your attorney gives you a copy of the police report.

As you are reading through the report, done on a computer template, you notice that much of what is there is not true. Why? Because police officers are using pre-written arrest reports in DUI cases. They are writing out a batch of similar reports detailing intoxication symptoms like red eyes, slurred speech, odor of alcohol. Also, the "details" of failed field sobriety tests, checking off procedures properly done, and the inevitable failure on the tests. Really all the officer is doing is simply filling in the names, dates, etc., when they actually make an arrest.

With computer templates and word processing forms which have all of the "facts" already entered, with blanks to fill in for name, date, place, a busy officer has no choice. The question is what you can do about it.

This is the reason why you need to write everything down as soon as possible after your arrest. A good DUI attorney will know to intensely question the officer, who, several months later, will have to rely exclusively on his canned report, and won't be able to go beyond the report. Don't let the officer get away with his laziness. Your right to an accurate report is crucial to defending yourself.

Standing on the California pavement: Did I pass the Field Sobriety Tests?

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2612 — Wed, 07 May 2008 08:00:00 EST

Whether you passed or failed the Field Sobriety tests is based totally on the officer's personal observations and impressions. There are a number of factors that influence how you do on the tests, having nothing to do with whether you have consumed alcohol.

How even is the pavement? Is the pavement gravel or concrete, or something even less, like dirt? Is there traffic passing by as you're doing the tests, stopping or slowing to watch you? How's the lighting? Is it a street light, or the officer's flashlight? How's the weather? Are you shivering or shaking because you can't coordinate yourself, or because you are freezing? What are you like - are you obese, elderly, or have physical impairments of your limbs, back, eyes or ears? What kind of shoes are you wearing?

This is where writing everything you remember during the stop down as soon as possible helps. An experienced DUI attorney can use this information to diffuse any negative impact of the tests.

Taking the Field Sobriety tests in California: A Choice

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2598 — Tue, 06 May 2008 08:00:00 EST

Field Sobriety tests are subjective tests designed to determine if you are impaired to drive a vehicle. They are subjective because the officer is the one who decides if you pass or not.

The purpose of the tests is to evaluate your motor skills and coordination, as well as your mental attention and ability to process information and instructions. If the officer asks you to do these tests, can you say "No?"

You have the legal right to refuse to take a field sobriety test, even if the officer does not ask your consent. At any time, you can simply tell the lawyer that you wish to speak to an attorney first. You can not be forced to do the tests.

The conventional wisdom of DUI attorneys is that, even if you take the tests, you will fail. The tests can be failed even when one is completely sober. They are completely subjective. In all likelihood, the officer has already decided you are impaired. Refusing to take the tests may result in your arrest, but the failed tests won't be a part of the record.

Get out of the car - the ontinuing San Francisco DUI stop

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2531 — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:00:00 EST

"I've been asked to get out of the car - do I have to?" Yes, or you will likely be arrested. If the officer pats you down, do not physically resist. At this point, the officer has most likely determined you are under the influence.

The officer may then ask to search your vehicle. You have the legal right to refuse the search if you choose. The officer can not arrest you simply for refusing to consent to a search of your vehicle. If the officer has probable cause to believe you have committed a crime, your car can be searched without your permission or a warrant. However, if the officer improperly searches your vehicle, and finds evidence in the car, it can be excluded at trial.

Now that you are out of the car, the next phase in all likelihood are the field sobriety tests. What happens next? Stay tuned.

I've been pulled over, what can I do?

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2504 — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 08:00:00 EST

Once you've been stopped by the San Francisco police or California Highway Patrol, what do you do now?

The first thing the officer will do is ask you to show your drivers livence, registration and proof of insurance. You can refuse to give that information, but it is legal for the officer to search your vehicle in any location within the passenger compartment where he or she believes that a drivers license or vehicle registration may be located.

The officer during this time is observing you for "traditional" indicators of intoxication, such as an odor of alcohol, bloodshot or watery eyes, slurred speech, flushed face, or you fumbling to find your vehicle information. Keeping your information easily accessible will help avoid the latter observation.

You then will be asked if you have consumed alcohol. You can refuse to answer, however, your refusal to answer is not sufficient evidence to arrest you. No matter how you answer, the officer at this point suspects you were driving under the influence.

He then asks you to exit your vehicle. What do you do next. Stay tuned . . .

Why did the San Francisco police stop me?

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2481 — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:00:00 EST

A question that runs through your mind as the siren and lights are in your rear view mirror. Why is a San Francisco police officer stopping me? An officer needs probable cause to pull you over, or in layman's terms, a reason to believe you have committed a crime.

The most common reasons are as follows:

Driving on or over the lane divider
Drifting into the other lane
Making a wide turn
Making an illegal turn
Weaving
Braking frequently
Nearly missing an object in the road, or another vehicle
Driving very slowly, below the speed limit
Swerving
Driving at night with your headlights off
Not making a turn signal, or having your turn signal on inappropriately
Stopping in the middle of the road
Accelerating or deaccelerating too fast
Following another vehicle too closely
Speeding

And the list is endless. Which is why is is important to be careful driving, especially at night, if you have been drinking, and to not drive at all if you really have had too much to drink. A reason for a San Francisco police officer to stop you can be a small infraction, but the consequences can be expensive.

San Francisco sobriety, Milwaukee not so much

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2468 — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:00:00 EST

A National Survey on Drug Use and Health did a report on drunk driving in the U.S., and found that the highest number of offenders lived in the Upper Midwest. The report s based on a scientific random sample of 127,283 adults in 2004, 2005 and 2006.

Nationally, fifteen percent of adults admit driving under the influence of alcohol in the previous year. In Wisconsin, the percentage is 26.4 percent, and Minnesota, Nebraska, North and South Dakota follow close behind. The South and Utah have the lowest percentage, 11 percent and under.

Possible reasons for the disparity include religion, as well as a heavy emphasis on drinking in social activities. The report indicated that states need to review their approach to alcohol and driving, even Utah, where 10 perent of the adults in the survey admit to driving under the influence.

A side note: California was below the average, but not by much, in a range of between 13 and 15 percent. The National Report indicated that their report supports other previous studies showing a heavier than average drunk driving rate in the Upper Midwest.

Avoiding a stop in San Francisco

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2460 — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:00:00 EST

You've been drinking. You're ready to go home. How does one avoid getting stopped by law enforcement in the first place? A San Francisco primer.

Three things to remember. First of all, know your car. If you are uncomfortable or unfamiliar with the car you are driving, your chances of driving erratically or making mistakes increase. Take a moment before you go out, and make sure you know where all the devices are in the car, get your seat and positioning set, and get an overall feel for the car. Taking a few seconds to do this will save money in the long run if you are stopped later on.

Know where you are going. Many of my DUI clients get stopped because they got lost, and made a wrong turn. At 3 a.m. in the morning. Before you start driving, know where you are going, and how to get back home. Getting lost will lead to errors in your driving, and getting stopped by law enforcement.

Finally, avoid sobriety checkpoints. While law enforcement is legally required to notify the public of where and when checkpoints will be, you may not have gotten the memo. Check the newspaper or website before you go out.

San Francisco is a beautiful city, and its nightlife is varied. Taking these precautions will make your night excursion safe, and hassle free.

Supreme Court: DUI not a "violent felony"

vdk@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2431 — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 08:00:00 EST

On April 16th, in the case of Begay v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that a DUI does not qualify as a "violent felony" under the Armed Career Criminal Act.

Understanding Supreme Court decisions is never easy. What often sound like sweeping rulings are inevitably based on legal technicalities—usually boiling down to a question about the intended definition of a certain word or phrase.

Although the case of Begay v. United States is no exception, the question before the Court could not be more fundamental: is drunk driving a violent crime? In the words of the court, does it "involve purposeful, violent, and aggressive conduct toward another person"?

Many anti-drunk driving groups, most notably MADD, would have us think so. In fact, MADD's mission statement calls DUI a "violent crime."

Does the Supreme Court agree?

They do not.

Here's some background on the decision:

The Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) is a federal law that imposes a mandatory 15-year prison sentence for firearm possession when the individual has three or more prior convictions for certain drug-related offenses or "violent felonies."

In September 2004, Larry Begay, a New Mexico resident, plead guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm. Begay had been convicted of DUI six times, and New Mexico law makes a fourth DUI a felony, giving him three prior felony convictions. The judge concluded that Begay's prior DUI convictions constituted "violent felonies" and sentenced him to the mandatory minimum prison sentence of 15 years.

Begay and his lawyers appealed the decision, arguing that DUI does not qualify as a "violent felony" under the federal Act. Several years later, Begay's case reached the Supreme Court.

The ACCA defines a violent felony as "burglary, arson, or extortion, involves use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another."

The Court interpreted the law as defining a violent felony as more than simply something that "presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another." In light of the law's specific list of criminal acts—burglary, arson, extortion, the use of explosives—the Court concluded that the definition of "violent felonies" was meant to include only crimes that involve "purposeful, violent, and aggressive conduct toward another person." According to the Court, DUI doesn't qualify.

Predictably, MADD was unhappy with the decision.

Every since MADD changed its name from "Mothers Against Drunk Drivers" to "Mothers Against Drunk Driving," the organization has been careful to maintain the appearance that they hate the sin but not the sinner.

However, MADD's criticism of the Supreme Court betrays this façade. In the organization's collective mind, those convicted of drunk driving are in the same category as burglars and arsonists.

Like the majority of the Supreme Court—including some of its most liberal and conservative members—I must disagree.

Winning Alcosensor Issues in Virginia DUI Trials

pmcglone@erols.com (Blog Author)2425 — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 08:00:00 EST

This article is about an issue that I have wanted to take to the Virginia Court of Appeals for review. I thought I had a perfect case, but now a Circuit Court Judge has dismissed my case so there is nothing to appeal!

Several years ago, I noticed that many of my Fairfax, Virginia, DUI cases were being won or lost depending on how the Judge and/or the Police handled the use of Preliminary Breath Tests. Just last week, I had another case, in Fairfax County Circuit Court, where the Judge dismissed the case based on how the Cop handled the PBT.

This test, called "the PBT", or, as I call it, "the Portable Breath Test", is used at the scene of an arrest to help the officer justify his decision for "probable cause" for the arrest. The device commonly used in Fairfax is called an Alcosensor IV made by Intoximeters, Inc. This is not the same as the final breath test, which is usually given down at the jail on a machine called "Intoxilyzer 5000".

Virginia law has a lengthy section that outlines the use of the PBT and whether it can be used at trial. First, the law passed by the Virginia State Legislature says that the results of the PBT cannot be used against us in a prosecution under the DUI laws. Then, there is caselaw that says that the results of the PBT can be used as evidence against us under certain circumstances, particularly when the Defense raises the issue of probable cause.

So, now, we have some Judges who will admit the PBT results and come who don't. If they admit the PBT results, they are almost certainly going to make a finding of probable cause any time there is a PBT result of .08 or more. In other words, if there is a PBT, we probably lose the probable cause motion every time. Without a PBT result, probable cause has to be judged based on the officer's testimony as to the appearance of the defendant, including his statements, driving, and performance on various roadside tests-- the so-called "field sobriety tests".

In my case last week, we were fortunate enough to have a video which showed my client doing pretty well on the sobriety tests up to the point where the officer offered him the PBT. In offering the PBT, we then heard the officer, on tape, saying "this is not admissible in court". The officer didn't make any distinction, as in the caselaw, between "a prosecution" and a "probable cause hearing", and the Circuit Court Judge refused to allow the PBT result in evidence.

We cut off the Video at that point, and the Judge had to make his ruling on Probable cause based on the remaining evidence. Without the PBT result, the Judge ruled in our favor on the probable cause issue, and dismissed the case. The case never proceeded to the point where the final breath test of .11 could be offered into evidence, and the case was dismissed in spite of the fact that my client blew a .11 on his final breath test.

Click on the highlighted link to read more about Fairfax County DUI Lawyer Paul McGlone.

Driving in California, arrest for DUI on federal land

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2421 — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 08:00:00 EST

You're driving down the road, you get lost, and then you get stopped. Not by a local police officer or California Highway patrol. Instead, it's a federal law enforcement official. You have entered federal land. What's the difference between a California DUI and a federal DUI?

The answer is, not much. If you are stopped in land controlled by the National Park Service, you can be charged with a DUI if you are under the influence of alcohol or drugs which render you incapable of safe operation, or have an alcohol content of 0.10 (or less if state law is more restrictive). It is a Class B Misdemeanor and is punishable by six months in jail, fines up to $5,000, and probation up to five years.

On any other federal owned land, the laws of the individual state apply, and one is subject to state and federal punishment.

If you are stopped on federal land, you need to consult with a DUI attorney familiar with the federal laws and procedures to help you through the process.

Why You're Being Charged with Two Offenses in California

vdk@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2412 — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 08:00:00 EST

In California, as in every state, there are actually two separate drunk driving offenses. The first simply makes it illegal to drive "under the influence." The second specifically makes it illegal to drive with a blood alcohol level above the legal limit of 0.08%.

Here's the text of the California Vehicle Code, which lays out these two separate offenses.

Section 23152. (a) It is unlawful for any person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle. (b) It is unlawful for any person who has 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle.

What's more, if you're arrested for DUI, you'll most likely be charged with both crimes.

You're probably thinking to yourself, "Hold on. I thought driving with 0.08% BAC was driving under the influence. Why am I being charged for the same thing twice?"

If you're confused, you're not alone. In fact, a client of mine who was recently arrested for DUI in San Francisco asked me this very question. I represent people from around the Bay area—San Francisco, Daly City, Oakland, San Jose—and this is just one of those confusing aspects of DUI law that I try to help all of my clients understand.

So, what is difference between the two offenses?

Well, for simplicity's sake, think about it this way: The second offenses—the so-called "per se" offense—is based on blood alcohol (BAC). The first offense, on the other hand, is based on impairment: the degree to which alcohol has diminished your coordination and cognition, that is, your ability to drive safely. Field sobriety tests, for example, are meant to be test of impairment.

One could argue that there should be two different laws because BAC and impairment are two different things. Two people with the same blood alcohol content may not be impaired to the same degree. We all know that some people's tolerance to alcohol is far greater than other's.

Here's where, I'm sorry to say, things get even more confusing.

Even though BAC and impairment are, in principle, two different things that require two different kinds of proof, the results of a chemical test at the police station are potentially enough to convict you of both crimes. Even though the first offense is based on impairment, the state doesn't need any evidence of actual impairment—such as slurred speech, the results of a field sobriety test, etc.—to convict you of driving "under the influence."

However, the good news is that, if you're convicted of both offenses, you will still only be sentenced for one.

For an extended discussion of the two drunk driving offenses in every state, read the article "Why You're Being Charged With Two Offenses."

California and the Interstate Driver's License Compact

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2410 — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 08:00:00 EST

If you have a California driver's license, and get a DUI in California, your license will be suspended by the Department of Motor Vehicles. What if you get a DUI outside of California? Then, the Interstate Driver's License Compact applies.

The IDLC is an agreement between 45 states to communicate about driving-related crimes, including DUI convictions. The states agree to notify each other of a DUI conviction. Some states take action on your license only after being notified of a DUI court conviction. Some states will only take action if the burden of obtaining a criminal conviction in the other state is equal to that of the home state. Some states may add penalities and other states may impose lesser penalities.

If you receive a DUI in Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Tennessee, or Wisconsin, no report will be forwarded, as those states are not part of the Compact.

It takes a good DUI defense attorney to advise you about the consequences of a DUI outside of California.

Fighting Field Sobriety tests in California

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2399 — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:00:00 EST

You've been stopped by law enforcement. You're asked to exit your vehicle. Then, the field sobriety tests begin. You're going to fail these tests because the officer is the judge of success.

What exactly are these tests, and what do they purport to show? One test is the Walk and Turn Test. During this test, the officer asks you to take nine heel-to-toe steps, stop, turn, and take nine more heel-to-toe steps. While performing the test, the office looks to see if you can folow instructions, maintain balance, and stay on a designated line.

Another test is the "One Leg Stand test. During this test, you will be asked to stand with your heels together, and your arms at your side. The officer will then ask you to raise one leg six inches off of the ground and count out loud until told to stop. The office looks to see if you lose balance, sway, or put your foot down.

A third test is the Nystagmus Test. During this test, which is also called the horiontal or vertical gaze test, the officer will hold an object, like a pencil, about 12 to 15 inches from your face. The officer will then move the object from side to side while watching your eyes. The officer is looking to see if your eyes involuntarily jerk or tremble.

Sounds easy? Even if you swear you did the tests correctly, and passed them, the officer will disagree. It will take a good DUI lawyer to sort through the tests, the officer's procedures, and the results, in order to dispute the officer's final grade on your tests.

"Driving" in California

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2388 — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 08:00:00 EST

An issue that comes up in California DUI cases is whether a person was "driving" under the influence. One can be arrested for DUI even if the car is off, and no one saw the car moving. How? That the car was moving is one issue. Another issue is "control" of the vehicle. If you have the keys to the vehicle, you are in control of the vehicle. Even if you are sleeping in the car.

It's not a sure fire conviction, but it raises issues that require a good DUI attorney to combat. Don't assume you are safe if the car is off, and you're not driving it on the road.

California considers change to DUI law on Ignition Interlock Devices

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2374 — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 08:00:00 EST

A California Senate committee is considering a new bill which would lower the intoxication BAC for an ignition interlock device. Presently, the BAC level of 0.20 and higher is the threshhold for installation of the device. The California Senate committee is considering lowering the threshhold to 0.16. And depending on the particular circumstances of the DUI, the device would be required for one to three years.

As if the California DUI laws aren't strict enough, this proposal would serve only to increase the costs to the individual DUI defendant, costs which are already astronomical.

States Contemplate Lowering the Drinking Age

vdk@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2363 — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 08:00:00 EST

We've all heard the arguments for lowering the drinking age:

It would lessen binge drinking, because it would allow parents to teach their young adult children moderation.

At 18, you can go to war and die for your country (not to mention pay taxes, do business, get married and bear arms), but society doesn't trust you to make mature decisions regarding alcohol.

Seven states—taking another look at these and other familiar arguments— are currently considering legislation that would lower the drinking age in various ways.

Politicians in Minnesota, Vermont, South Dakota, and Missouri are considering bills and initiatives that would reduce the drinking age across the board, whereas those Kentucky, Wisconsin and South Carolina are contemplating lowering it only for members of the military.

The various proposals differ in their details. A ballot initiative in Missouri, for example, would allow those between 18 and 21 to drink in bars and restaurants, but not buy alcohol at a liquor store.

If these states move forward with lowering the drinking age, they stand to lose up to ten percent of their federal funding for roads. In 1984, Congress passed the Uniform Drinking Age Act, which set the drinking age at 21 and threatened to take away federal funding if states did not comply. The original purpose of the bill was to reduce the number of alcohol related car accidents (DUI, DWI, etc) involving young people.

Groups like Mother's Against Drunk Driving (MADD) continue to support the current drinking age of 21, citing research that shows a substantially reduced number of alcohol related traffic deaths among those between 16 and 20, following the passage of the federal Act.

Some resent the Act, feeling that it is a unreasonable intrusion into a decision that each state should make according to it's own values, rather than under threat from the federal government.

Update: Mandatory Ignition Interlock Devices in California?

vdk@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2349 — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 08:00:00 EST

As I mentioned in a previous blog (Mandatory Ignition Interlock Devices in California?), the California State Assembly is currently considing a bill (AB 2784) that would require ignition interlock devices for all DUI convictions.

For those who have never heard of this technology, Ignition Interlock devices (IDDs) are machines that can be installed in a car, which will prevent the car from starting unless the driver passes the machines' built-in breathalyzer test. IDDs are typically reserved for repeat offenders in California. If the bill passes, California would join the four other states that currently make these devices mandatory for every conviction. There are also twelve other states that are considering similar bills during this legislative term.

A news conference was recently held in which California Highway Patrol Commissioner Joe Farrow and MADD National CEO Chuck Hurley endorsed the bill, alongside Assembly member Mike Feuer, the bill's sponsor.

Supporters of the bill argue that IDDs are a highly effective means of preventing drunk driving, citing the prevalence of repeat offenses.

On April 9th, the Assembly Public Safety Committee approved the bill with a vote of 6 to 1. Next week, it will go before the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

For more information on ignition interlock devices, see the following Frequently Asked Questions:

What is an ignition interlock device?
Will I be required to install an ignition interlock device?
How much does an ignition interlock device cost?
Can I fool an ignition interlcok device?

California's Talking While Driving Law

vdk@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2343 — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 08:00:00 EST

In September 2006, California became the fourth state to restrict cell phone use while driving.

The new law, which goes into effect July 1, 2008, bans hand-held cell phone use while driving. Drivers may still use a cell phone, as long as it's with a hands-free device or head-set.

A first offense will result in a $20 fine, and every offense thereafter will carry a $50 fine.

This law is presumably in response to recent research and statistics about the danger of cell phone use in the car.

But does the law make sense in light of what research has actually shown?

Not in the slightest. Research has demonstrated that cell phone use—regardless of whether it's with a headset—impairs one's driving ability to the same degree as driving with a BAC slightly above the legal limit. It may even be more dangerous.

A drunk driver might face jail time, steep fines, a revoked license, alcohol counseling, a mandatory and expensive ignition interlock device, probation and a criminal record that could last a lifetime.

In California, drivers who talk on their cell phones—which studies show is no less dangerous than drunk drive—face...

a $20 fine.

Just goes to show that public policy isn't always based on the relevant science. So often, the relative harshness of laws is based on what pushes people's moral outrage buttons.

And at the moment, at least, drunk drivers are viewed with far more scorn than chatting drivers.

For more information, read the article "Drunk Driving Versus Cell Phones."

A Disturbing But Revealing Story

vdk@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2340 — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 08:00:00 EST

It would be a mistake to dismiss the story of Shannon Wilcutt's DUI ordeal as simply an extreme, bizzare case—one that in now way relates to larger issues in DUI law and DUI law enforcement.

To find out what happened, read the eye-opening article "It took less than one drink to get Shannon Wilcutt busted for DUI."

The truth is that Ms. Wilcutt's story illustrates certain important truths about how DUI law enforcement works—or, quite often, doesn't work.

For one, her story demonstrates that the idea that we are "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't really apply to DUI. It is often up to us to prove ourselves innocent.

It illustrates the highly subjective nature of the police report, in which an officer may write whatever is necessary to ensure a conviction.

It illustrates the overly-harsh punishments that are leveled against those who are convicted of drunk driving.

And, as crazy as it sounds, her story exemplifies a common occurrence: a person who is still charged with DUI, even after blood or breath tests fail to provide any evidence of intoxication!

New Way to Get Home Safely in California

vdk@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2339 — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 08:00:00 EST

Have you ever been out at the bar, drank a little too much to drive home safely, but didn't want to call a cab because that would mean leaving your car there overnight?

If you live in one of the major cities in California—Los Angeles, San Diego, the San Francisco Bay area (soon: San Jose and Orange County)—there's now a way for you to safely drive home in your own car, drunk, and without any risk of getting a DUI

This innovative service is called SRS: Safe Ride Solutions. The way it works is simple: once you become a member, you can call their number at anytime of day, any day of the week, and an off-duty or retired police officer shows up and drives you home in your own car.

SRS drivers can also pick you up at your house and drive you around in your own car for an entire evening.

According to their website, "Safe Ride Solutions is a collaborative DUI prevention program developed by police officers, professional athletes, and business professionals to address the real world problem of DUI."

And here's what they have to say about their drivers. They are:

—Hand picked, customer service oriented, off duty law enforcement professionals with at least 3 years experience who work in the city.
—Professional drivers with advance driving skills.
—CPR and first aid certified.
—Experienced in dealing with emergency situations.
—Extremely knowledgeable of the city and are able to provide members with recommendations of safe and reputable establishments.
—Knowledgeable of dangerous areas in their cities and can make appropriate recommendations on what to avoid.
—Experienced and patient in dealing with people under the influence of alcohol.
—Legally bound to a confidentiality agreement to ensure members' privacy.

Sound good?

In fact, California DUI attorneys—including those in San Francisco—are recommending that their clients who have recently been charged with drunk driving sign up for the service because it could help their defense.

For more information about this innovative new way to cut down on DUIs in California, see the SRS website: http://www.saferidesolutions.net/

DUI Suspect Shot in California

vdk@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2334 — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 08:00:00 EST

In Sacramento California, a seemingly routine DUI stop ended fatally.

The California police officer approached the car and gave the driver several commands, which the driver ignored. The police officer then reached inside the suspect's car in an attempt to gain control of both the driver and the vehicle. The suspect began struggling, and attempted to drive away. The officer, whose arm was still inside the vehicle, fearing that the car's movement put his life at risk, drew his gun and fired several shots at the driver. The suspect's car continued moving and came to a stop after striking four other vehicles, and injuring one of the cars' occupants. The suspect was pronounced dead at a local hospital soon after the incident.

The feeling we are left with after hearing this story is that was unnecessary—that it could have, and should have, been prevented.

We can't help but wonder, was it partly the fault of the arresting officer? It's impossible to judge.

Certainly, the driver could have saved his own life by cooperating with the officer, as one should always do. But being pulled over is always a stressful experience, and if one fears the consequences of a conviction, the result may be a "fight or flight" response that is against one's better judgment, especially if one's judgment is already impaired.

If you have ever wondered what to do if you get pulled over—what your rights are, what you should say to the officer—read the article "What To Do If You're Pulled Over And Arrested For DUI."

Treatment for alcoholism in California

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2316 — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 08:00:00 EST

In California, Proposition 36 allows a defendant to obtain treatment for drug addiction in certain drug related offenses. However, the courts have determined that Proposition 36 does not apply to those charged with DUI. This is true even if the underlying intoxicant in the DUI charge is drugs.

Does this make sense? The purpose of Proposition 36 is to not assist people with addictions, but also reduce the court caseloads in California. However, California courts have held that the purpose of the DUI laws is to impose criminal consequences for driving a motor vehicle while impaired.

Thus, in California, the only "treatment" one gets after a DUI is the alcohol offender program. Hardly the kind of treatment that some people may need. And with no "reward" or incentive, such as dismissal of the DUI charge, to encourage successful completion and long lasting results.

Police Bust A Root Beer Kegger

vdk@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2292 — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 08:00:00 EST

Local police in Wasau, Wisconsin may have gotten a bit carried away.

But in their defense, it's no fun to be played for a fool, especially by a bunch of teenagers.

When police received a call complaining of cars blocking the road, a few offers were dispatched to the scene. What they found when they got there was unmistakable, or so they thought. A car lined street, loud music, a house full of high school students drinking from red cups, loud music, drinking games, a keg—who wouldn't jump to the conclusion that the house was full of drunk minors?

Much to their surprise, the police found that the keg was full, not of beer, but of root beer—1919 Classic American Draft Root Beer, to be precise.

It's hard to blame the police officers for feeling like they had been set up. Clearly, the party was a prank, and they were the intended victims.

But the way they proceeded to handle the situation suggested an inability to take a joke.

The poor sports lined up some 90 teenagers and breathalyzed every single one.

Their rational seems to have been that, if they could find at least one partygoer who was drunk—and it seems likely that at least one would have brought some liquor to the otherwise sober party—then they would save face. That or they were simply pissed off and wanted to arrest someone.

The result: teenagers 1, police 0.

To their supreme disappointment, no doubt, the cops kept coming up with 0.00%.

Teenagers, in general, are not the most organized creatures on the planet. So who was the mastermind behind the root beer kegger?

His name is Dustin Zebro, an eighteen-year-old student at the local high school. He got the idea for the party after a few of his friends were suspended from sports when the school found pictures of them drinking from red cups.

His point? Don't judge a beverage by its container.

Point made.

Blood testing in California DUIs

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2263 — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 08:00:00 EST

The old cliche is that a blood test is more accurate than a breath test. Not so fast. The blood sample that is taken by the police officer can be compromised. Blood samples can foment, clot, and grow bacteria, among other things. The result is an alcohol level much higher than the true alcohol content level.

Another problem is the testing itself. When a blood sample is taken, a white powder is placed in the base of a testtube. This powder prevents coagulantion and preserves the specimen. The accuracy and reliability of the powder is critical to determining the validity of the test result.

The attorney should always order a sample of the blood for independent testing to have a forensics laboratory determine if any of the above problems occurred with the blood sample, the blood testing, or even if the blood sample is the client's!

Mandatory Ignition Interlock Devices in California?

vdk@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2260 — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 08:00:00 EST

California may soon become yet another State that requires ignition interlock devices for all drunk driving offenders.

An Ignition interlock device (IDD) is a machine that can be installed in your car, which will prevent your car from starting unless you pass the machine's built-in breathalyzer test.

In most States, IDDs are reserved for repeat offenders, or for those whose blood alcohol level was substantially higher than the legal limit.

The California state assembly is currently considering a bill that would make these devices mandatory for all DUI convictions.

Lawmakers who support the bill argue that IDDs are the most effective way to prevent convicted drunk drivers from continuing to break the law, and that the bill would save a great deal of money and great many lives.

Assemblyman Todd Spitzer provided this forceful, albeit somewhat frightening analogy: "We have the ability to put a police officer in the front seat of every single car in California."

Opponents of the bill, chief among with is the American Beverage Institute, argue that the bill is unfair, mandating the same punishment for offenses of different severity.

"You wouldn't punish someone driving five miles over the speed limit the same way would someone driving 25 miles over the speed limit and that's what we think this bill does," said Sarah Longwell from the American Beverage Institute.

There are currently four other States that require ignition interlock devices for all drunk driving offenders: Arizona, New Mexico, Illinois, Louisiana.

Write it down.

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2258 — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 08:00:00 EST

In California, an effective DUI defense requires a skilled DUI attorney. But a client has an ability to help his counsel out. After you have been arrested, booked, and hopefully released, write down everything that happened as soon as possible. While it is fresh in your mind, facts, seemingly trivial, can be immensely helpful to your DUI defense attorney.

I recently had a client come in to discuss his new DUI. He wrote down everything he could remember, and brought it to me. The details were helpful to evaluate the police officer's actions and statements, how the FSTs were conducted, the surrounding environs of the arrest area, and the client's statements that were made.

So, if you are faced with a DUI, remember to write down all that you can remember, while you still remember it. It'll be valuable down the road.

New DUI Limit Lowered to .05%?

vdk@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2251 — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:00:00 EST

Vermont may soon be the first state to lower it's drunk driving blood alcohol level below .08%, which is currently the legal threshold in every state.

If Representative Bill Lippert, Chairmen of the House Judiciary Committee in Vermont, gets his way, the new limit would drop to .05%.

The motivation behind Rep. Lipper's proposal is to "send a very serious message that impaired driving is not tolerated on Vermont roads."

If the proposal becomes law, Vermont would be in a category by itself within the United States. However, Vermont would have plenty of international company.

The illegal limit is .05% in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Turkey. Some countries have even lower limits: .03% in Poland and .02% in Norway, Russia and Sweden.

For an interesting contrast, consider that, in some U.S. States, the zero tolerance limit is as high as .02%. This means that minors can legally operate a vehicle with a BAC lower than .02% in these states.

So, what would this mean for Vermont drivers? Essentially, it would mean that drivers would no longer be safe in telling a police officer that they had "one or two drinks." Most DUI lawyers encourage drivers to say this, if true, because one or two drinks will not yield a BAC over the legal limit.

With a legal threshold of .05%, anything more than one drink could possibly result in a DUI (depending on the usual factors: gender, weight, amount of time between drinks).

The legal limit has been lowered several times in the last few decades—from .15% to .10% to .08%. And there's nothing to prevent it from being lowered further.

If Rep. Bill Lippert's idea is enacted into law, Vermont may well be the harbinger of a new nationwide drunk driving limit.

But I wasn't drinking! Driving Under the Influence of Drugs in California

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2247 — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:00:00 EST

You don't have to drink alcohol to be charged with a DUI in California. Any drug, legally prescribed or over the counter, as wel as illegal, can impair one's driving abilities. The difference with a driving under the influence of drugs is how to prove it in court.

The easiest evidence a district attorney has is a blood test. Lacking that, the state is forced to show a person is under the influence by looking at the person's driving, Erratic driving patterns. Tell tale signs of being under the influence of a drug. Field Sobriety tests.

A typical police officer will not be able to testify as to whether a driver is under the influence. Typically an officer with training will be called in. These officers are called Drug Recognition Evaluators, and must follow specific procedures to evaluate the driver.

In California, you will need a qualified defense attorney to make sure procedures were followed, and be prepared to question the final results of the officer.

DUI Spectacle in California

vdk@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2167 — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 08:00:00 EST

On Tuesday, March 11^th, the city of La Mesa, California, held a ceremony honoring its Mothers Against Drunk Driving DUI Officer of the Year.

This otherwise unremarkable event became a bit of a spectacle—with flavors of both irony and hypocrisy—not because of the officer being honored, but because of the person giving the honor: La Mesa mayor Art Madrid.

On February 20th, less than a month before the ceremony (and on a Wednesday for crying out loud), Mayor Madrid was discovered by police lying flat on the sidewalk—intoxicated to the extreme—several feet from his idling SUV. It is not clear that he had been driving, however, since a city employee was also found, in a similar state of impairment, sitting in the driver's side of the car. (It is not known what these two were doing prior to being found by police, but it would appear that they were enjoying themselves.)

Despite the obvious fact that someone was clearly guilty of DUI—and that both were drunk in public (an understatement, to be sure)—the police promptly drove them home, without so much as breathalyzer test or citation.

It's difficult to make sense of cases such as these, when police officers and public officials are the lucky recipients of blatant favoritism. And this happens surprisingly often: simply perform an internet search for DUI news, and you'll see what I mean.

Our common sense (and, possibly, our knowledge of Constitutional law) tells us that laws that are selectively enforced are inherently unfair.

I hope that things change. I hope that DUI I laws and DUI law enforcement will become more fair—rather than more politicized, more hysterical, and more inequitable.

Maybe then it won't be as essential to people to fight, tooth and nail, for the rights that they are guaranteed.

But until then, it is essential. It is essential for you to educate yourself about the law and your rights. And it is essential, above all, that you find an experienced DUI attorney who will go to bat for you.

Judges, politicians and police officers might not need to, but—until things change—you do.

Ignition Interlock Devices in California

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2115 — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:00:00 EST

In California, there are certain situations where ignition interlock devices are necessary in order for you to drive your vehicle after being arrested for a DUI. An ignition interlock device is a machine that prevents your vehicle from starting if alcohol is detected through a breath test.

If you are convicted of a DUI, the Court may order an ignition interlock device as a condition of probation. This could be from six months to three years. The Court will ususally impose a requirement of an ignition interlock device in a second or subsequent DUI. Also, if you are driving a vehicle while your license is suspended for a prior DUI, an ignition interlock device is mandatory. If you are convicted of a first DUI, the Court will usually not impose an ignition interlock device requirement unless there is a high blood alcohol content test result, or some other considerations the Court feels warrant such a requirement.

Sometimes, a person may choose to have an ignition interlock device on a voluntary basis to offset a one, two or three year license revocation. There may be other reasons to agree to an ignition interlock device, such as a condition of release from jail pending a DUI trial, for example.

A good DUI attorney in California will have this option available in his arsenal of weapons to protect you after an arrest for a DUI. It sounds corny, but the ignition interlock device could be your friend, not just an inconvenience.

Appealing the DMV Administrative Decision in California

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2106 — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:00:00 EST

The general belief is that the DMV process is a waste of time, and that no one can win their administrative hearing and get their license back. Sometimes that's true. If you lose your hearing, you can appeal the decision. In California, there are two ways to appeal.

The first way to appeal is to appeal directly for an administrative review of the decision of the hearing officer. The office that reviews the decision is the DMV itself in Sacramento, California, with a nonlawyer DMV employee. The request for a review must be made within 15 days of the decsion, and be accompanied by a fee of $125. The chances of success? Slim.

The second way to appeal is to file a Writ of Mandate in your local county Superior Court. The Attorney General's office represents the DMV, and a judge reviews the Writ. Your chances of success are much better, and if you can show a likelihood of success on the merits, and that you are not a danger to the community, you may get your license suspension stayed.

Perhaps this seems like a hassle to the first time DUI offender. But it may not be. And for those who are facing more serious suspensions, it is necessary.

Youth DUI in California

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2099 — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 08:00:00 EST

If you are under 21 and get a DUI in California, the consequences can be at times worse than an adult in the same situation.

If a person under 21 has a breath alcohol content over 0.01, a no tolerance policy in California kicks in, and the young person can be charged with a DUI. If that person has a BAC over 0.05 and under 0.08, he or she can also be charged under California Vehicle Code section 23140, which requires a ONE YEAR suspension of their California driver's license. One can get a limited license only after showing hardship, such as needing to support a family, having an ill family member, and there is no alternative transportation available. Suffice to say, getting such a license is rare.

In addition, a person under 21 must take the Preliminary Alcohol Screening test, while an adult driver can refuse such a test.

A young driver under 21, facing such obstacles, is wise to seek the advise of a California DUI lawyer as soon as possible to try and reduce the consequences of these laws.

Harsher DUI Laws in California—Part III

vdk@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2093 — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 08:00:00 EST

Here's yet another recent bill that creates harsher penalties for DUI convictions in California:

In late February, assemblyman Mike Feuer introduced a bill that requires an ignition interlock device (IDD) to be installed on any vehicle that is owned or operated by a person convicted of DUI. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and the California Highway Patrol are the sponsors of the bill.

Currently, IDDs are a common penalty for those with prior DUI convictions. This bill would require all offenders to pay for the installation, rental fees and maintenance of these devices, which can amount to a costly monthly expense.

Harsher DUI Laws in California—Part II

vdk@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2084 — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 08:00:00 EST

Assemblyman John J. Benoit (R-Bermuda Dunes) recently introduced a bill, which is likely to become law, that beefs up California DUI laws in a number of areas:

Under existing law, if an intoxicated driver causes great bodily injury to a victim, the driver can receive a maximum of 6 years in state prison. However, if an intoxicated driver causes a fatality, the maximum sentence is, strangely, only 4 years. The new bill would make the make the maximum sentence 6 years for both offenses.
The bill also makes repeat DUI offenders ineligible for probation (meaning that a second DUI would automatically result in a prison sentence). It also adds 3 years in prison to the sentence for a subsequent conviction.
Currently, if a person were convicted of BUI (boating under the influence), prior DUI convictions would result in harsher penalties. The converse, however, is not true: prior BUI convictions do not result in a harsher sentence for a DUI. The bill would change this, allowing prosecutors to enhance DUI charges if the defendant has prior BUI convictions. The bill also increases the statute of limitation on prior BUIs from 7 to 10 years, which is the current statue of limitation for DUIs.
According to present DUI law in California, a person arrested for DUI can choose between taking a urine, blood or breath test at the police station. However, the urine test cannot adequately determine the amount of drugs in a person's system. The bill would remove the urine test as an option in an effort to facilitate the prosecution of drugged drivers.

Almost without exception, DUI laws nationwide only move in one direction: toward harsher penalties. And California—as we have seen in this, and previous, blogs—is no exception. As laws get harsher and more complicated, two things happen: the potential consequences of a DUI arrest become more devastating and, consequently, the need to find an experienced DUI attorney becomes more dire.

Harsher DUI Laws in California

vdk@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2081 — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 08:00:00 EST

It's a relatively unknown fact that many states have two different levels of DUI—"standard" and "excessive"—determined the driver's blood alcohol level. Those convicted of excessive DUI are typically penalized more harshly.

The .08 percent that most people are familiar with is for a standard DUI. In California, an excessive DUI currently requires a BAC of .2 percent, more than double the standard level.

Recently, California State Senator Jenny Oropeza (D-Long Beach) introduced a bill that would lower the threshold for excessive DUIs from .2 to .15 percent.

This change was recommended by the National Highway Safety Administration, and would make California's DUI laws essentially identical to many other states in this regard. Lowering the threshold is also supported by research indicating that 58 percent of DUI deaths involve drivers with a BAC of .15 or higher.

California's current law prompts judges to consider imposing harsher sanctions on those with an excessive BAC, including ignition interlock devices. IIDs are often reserved for those with multiple DUIs, but first time offenders can be required to install them in their vehicles if there BAC was above the level for excessive drunk driving.

Taking the "Hearing" out of a California DMV Hearing

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2062 — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 08:00:00 EST

If you are fighting your first DUI charge in California, and lose your Department of Motor Vehicles hearing, you can have your license suspended for four months, or if you refused a test, one year. This can cause incredible hassles and inconvenience to anyone who relies on their vehicle for employment or family.

The DMV hearing is thus crucial. However, the "hearing" that you have has some obstacles which you must overcome. FIrst of all, the prosecutor at the DMV hearing is . . . the hearing judge. Really. In addition, the hearing judge is not a lawyer or even a real judge, but rather an employee of the DMV. The hearing judge is evaluating your case while at the same time introducing all of the evidence against you. In addition, evidence presented at the DMV hearing is for the most part reports of the officers, without the officers present.

Do you bother to fight at the hearing? Of course. DMV hearings can be won. A lawyer can subpoena officers to appear at the hearing. A lawyer can object to all the reports as hearsay, and these objections can be granted, making the DMV judge reverse any suspension. If all else fails, the hearing gives you ample information for the criminal case to follow, and the weaknesses of the case for both sides.

The moral of the story? Have the DMV hearing, irregardless of what your feelings are about the success of such an action. The best thing that can happen is you win. The worse thing that can happen is you garner information to fight the DUI criminal charge. In other words, it's a win win.

California alternatives to jail time

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2051 — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 08:00:00 EST

Assuming that you are found guilty of a DUI. You're going to jail? Not necessarily so in California, especially in the San Francisco and Bay Area, where space in the jails is limited. There are sentencing alternatives available to satisfy the jail requirement. Your DUI lawyer should negotiate an alternative sentencing option that meets your needs.

Work release: If you have a significant amount of time to do, you can go to work by day, and sleep in jail by night. This allows you to keep your job during this difficult period of time.

Electronic home monitoring: This program keeps you at home and work, and living a relatively normal like, except for that ankle bracelet you're wearing.

Rehabilitation programs. If you have a serious alcohol or drug problem, a rehab program can be credited toward jail time, and at the same time, you obtain benefits from a quality program.

Sheriff work program or community service: This option gets you outside to help clean up the community or work in a community program. It can be used not only for jail time, but also as an alternative to some of the fines. Some of this may be laborious, but in the end, you go home after you're done.

Ask your DUI lawyer whether he can get you into any of these programs before you go in for sentencing.

California DUI Fun Facts, Part Three

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2045 — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 08:00:00 EST

The final installment of facts you need to know about DUIs in California and the Bay Area.

1. Every glass of beer, shot of liquor, or glass of wine can increased your breath alcohol concentration by about 0.02 percent.

2. Not only are there problems with the breath tests, but your blood tests results can ferment, increasing the reading artificially.

3. Even if you have a driver's license from another state, you still have to request a Department of Motor Vehicle hearing within ten days, or your license will be suspended by your home state.

4. For every drink that you have, it takes at least one hour to eliminate that drink and it's alcohol from your system.

5, Many things can effect the results of a breath test, including a tongue piercing, which holds alcohol in the mouth.

As I noted before, the above facts point out the need to hire a qualified DUI lawyer to help you here in California and San Francisco. Don't try to go it alone.

California DUI Fun Facts Part 2

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)2016 — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:00:00 EST

Here are some more DUI facts that you should know when fighting a DUI in California and the San Francisco/Bay Area.

1. Which DUI offender program you are ordered to go to by the Court depends on the BAC result, whether it's a first, second, or subsequent DUI, or a wet reckless (driving reckless with alcohol involved). You can be ordered to a 3 month, 6 month or 18 month program.

2. When the Court orders you to jail, there are alternate sentencing options available to straight jail time, such as electronic monitoring, a sheriff's work program, or community service. These options usually involve extra fees that must be paid.

3. Refusing to take a breath or blood test at the time you are arrested will automatically suspend your driver's license for one year.

4. In California, there are no scores available for a field sobriety test. Rather, your success on the tests is the subjective opinion of the arresting officer.

5. To ensure a "successful" breath test at the police station, an officer must observe you for 15 minutes before administering the test. This is to make sure you don't burp, vomit, or otherwise do something that will skew the result.

More DUI fun facts next week.

California DUI Fun Facts

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)1989 — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:00:00 EST

Here are some fun facts that all people should know about DUI in California.

1. If you are stopped by a police officer in San Francisco, for example, you can refuse to take the field sobriety tests. They're optional.

2. In the Bay Area, most car rental companies will not rent a car to you if you have a pending DUI.

3. If you are arrested in California for a DUI, and had a prior DUI in the last ten years, you will be charged with a second offense DUI.

4. If you are arrested for a DUI in California, you only have ten days to request a hearing before the Department of Motor Vehicles regarding your driver license. If you don't, then you will automatically lose your license.

5. In California, if you are arrested for DUI and your license is taken away, you will lose your license for ONE YEAR if you are under 21 years of age.

These fun facts show the importance of finding a DUI lawyer in the Bay Area who knows the laws inside and out.

More fun facts tomorrow.

How do I clear a prior DUI from my record in California?

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)1980 — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 08:00:00 EST

Once a person convicted of a DUI in California has finished their sentence, expungement or erasure of the conviction from one's record is the next step. In California, prior convictions can be expunged if the following conditions are met:

1. The probationary period of the conviction is completed.

2. All of the conditions of the probation have been met, i.e. fines paid, jail sentence done, treatment program completed successfully.

3. There are no other pending criminal cases, or criminal cases where probation is still active.

The advantages of expungement is to be able to say "no" to the question of whether you have ever been convicted of a misdemeanor when applying for a job. However, expungement does not prevent the State from charging a new DUI as a second offense if within the 10 year period after the first DUI. It also does not preclude admission of a conviction in immigration cases or some licensing applications.

If you live in the San Francisco or Bay Area, you should contact a qualified DUI attorney who can explain the process and benefits of expungement.

Manassas, Virginia DUI Lawyer Gets Blood Test Suppressed - Fairfax County DUI Case Dismissed

Bob@BobBattleLaw.com (Blog Author)1974 — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:00:00 EST

Manassas, Virginia DUI / DWI lawyer, T. Kevin Wilson, has successfully represented another client accused of DUI / DWI. In this case, Mr. Wilson was successful in getting the blood test suppressed resulting in the client's Fairfax County DUI / DWI case being dismissed.

T. Kevin Wilson's client was arrested by a Fairfax County Police Officer and accused of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol and/or Drugs in violation of 18.2-266 of the Code of Virginia. Her blood was drawn and an analysis performed at the Department of Forensic Science suggested three distinct drugs were present.

Virgiinia DUI / DWI law permits a Circuit Court to enter an order allowing certain persons to withdraw blood in a DUI / DWI case. However, the law in question requires the Circuit Court entering the order to act on the recommendation of a licensed physician. In this particular case, the order which was presented to the Fairfax County General District Court as authorization for this particular blood draw had been entered by the Fairfax County Circuit Court in 2005, but was not on the recommendation of a licensed physician, as required by Virginia law. As a result, the blood test was suppressed and the DUI / DWI case was dismissed, adding this particular client to the list of satisfied clients for T. Kevin Wilson.

Since the court order authorizing many people to withdraw blood which was used in this case was entered by the Fairfax County Circuit Court back in 2005 and was still being used, it is reasonable to assume that other lawyers must had cases involving this particular order and failed to recognize the defect in the order. If that assumption is true, the failure of those lawyers to recognize the defect in the order may very well have resulted in their clients being unjustly convicted.

Applying Miranda in California

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)1969 — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:00:00 EST

When you are stopped by an officer, and he or she begins to question you about the amount of alcohol you have been drinking, does the officer need to read you your rights? It is an often misunderstood aspect of Miranda that the officer needs to read your Miranda rights the moment the officer starts to question you.

Miranda rights, which inform a person of the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and notificaiton that anything that you say can be used against you in trial, are only required once a person is in custody, and not free to leave. The failure of an officer to read a suspect those rights can result in all statements made during custody to be suppressed at a trial.

However, a person stopped on the road and initially questioned by an officer, is not in custody. While one could make an argument that you are not free to leave, and technically in custody, the courts in California and elsewhere have determined that in mosts cases, the statements you make prior to arrest are admissible.

So what do you do? You have a right to say nothing when you are stopped. However, the problem with this is that if you are not intoxicated, you will be arrested anyway. It is a conundrum that besets everyone when the officer turns his siren on. If you ARE intoxicated, and know it, silence would be golden. Many cases in California and the Bay area that I have seen involve statements made which clearly indicate intoxication. And these statements are admissible. Take the arrest, and let your attorney work on fighting the breath or blood test and the field sobriety tests, versus the statements you wish you had never made.

Another way to get deported: Being found guilty of misdemeanor Driving Under the Influence of Drugs or with a minor in the car

Bob@BobBattleLaw.com (Blog Author)1952 — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 08:00:00 EST

Michelle Smith, The Assistant Chief Counsel for ICE confirmed recently at a CLE that a legal alien who pleads guilty or is convicted of either DUID (Driving Under the Influence of Drugs) or DUI and child abuse (e.g., a child passenger) is subject to deportation. The only "child abuse" in these cases is the presence of a child in the car of the intoxicated driver.

This can be a hidden consequence for a non-citizen client who pleads guilty to DUI with the aggravating factor of transporting a minor 17 years or under. Many attorneys are not aware of the extreme consequence to the non-citizen of just pleading him or her guility to DUID or DUI with a passenger 17 years of age or younger in the vehicle.

Have you or someone you know been arrested for DUI or DWI?

vdk@dekirby.net (Blog Author)1947 — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 08:00:00 EST

Have you or someone you know been arrested for DUI or DWI?

No matter where you live—whether in San Francisco or Austin, Denver or Baltimore—if you've recently been charged with driving under the influence, the first thing that's taken away from you is not your driver's license.

It's your peace of mind.

The feeling of insecurity that comes with not knowing what to do or what's going to happen is one of the most painful aspects of a DUI charge.

Does this feeling sound familiar?

There are two things that you can do to regain your peace of mind.

First, and most importantly, find a experienced DUI attorney who's an expert in DUI a law—someone who knows the process, knows the system, knows the laws, and knows how to fight for your rights. There's nothing like the feeling of having someone like this on your side. (For more information on how to pick a qualified DUI lawyer, please read this article: "How to Pick a DUI Attorney—Know What Questions to Ask.")

Second, educate yourself. When it comes to facing a DUI charge, knowledge is not only power. Knowledge means less confusion and more understanding. It means less anxiety and more peace of mind. (For an easy-to-read overview of DUI law (including the criminal charge and the DMV hearing) get yourself a copy of "DUI/DWI Arrest Survival Guide—The Guilt Myth."—a free e-book written by experts.)

If you or someone you know was recently arrested for DUI, now is critical time.

Don't wait another second to put your mind at ease.

California still using breath tests: the problems with breath tests.

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)1943 — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 08:00:00 EST

Previously, I pointed out that the State of Washington had thrown out breath test results because they were unreliable. My hope is that this trend continues to make its way down to California and more particularly, San Francisco and the surrounding Bay Area.

There are numerous problems with the breath tests beyond the human error of conducting them. Here's a short list of problems seen here in San Francisco which a DUI lawyer should explore in every DUI case:

A police officer who is not properly trained to administer the test.
Erroneous calibration of the machine, causing skewed results.
Pre testing requirements not observed. For example, the testee is burping, vomiting, or a significant amount of time has passed beyond the 15 minutes.
Medical conditions of the testee which effect the result, such as gastro esophageal reflux disorder.
Elevated body temperature of the testee, or something as simple as alcohol still in the mouth at the time of testing.
Results skewed by such factors as absorption phase, other effectors on in the breath which resemble alcohol, and so on.

The list goes on. Overall, it shows a faulty testing system that can be successfully challenged in California, and the results not used as a presumption of guilt of the client.

Time will only tell if the California courts follow Washington's lead.

Illinois Supreme Court Rules Against Validity of HGN Testing for DUI

Bob@BobBattleLaw.com (Blog Author)1939 — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 08:00:00 EST

Overruling decisions from a trial and appellate court, the State Supreme Court of Illinois determined the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) Test lacked the general acceptance in the relevant scientific community to be admissible absent proof to the contrary from the prosecution in a ruling from September 2007.

The State of Illinois Supreme Court overturned the rulings of a trial court and appellate court with regard to entering HGN results as evidence in determining the alcohol impairment of defendant Joanne McKown when she was arrested by police in June, 2002. McKown had veered into oncoming traffic, causing three motorcyclists to be thrown from their vehicles in Peoria County. Two of the three riders suffered serious injury.

High Court Orders Evidentiary Hearing

The state's high court remanded the case to the Circuit Court of Peoria County, ordering an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Frye vs. United States (1923). Neither of the lower courts held such a hearing at McKown's trial, accepting the reliability of the HGN test in determining alcohol impairment based on previous state court opinions. In both trials, the court admitted testimony of the arresting police officer who tested McKown for HGN.

At the first trial, McKown was found guilty of two counts of aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol, two counts of aggravated reckless driving, one count of reckless driving and one count of driving under the influence of alcohol. Damaging evidence consisted of three eyewitnesses and the opinion of the police officer who administered the HGN test at the scene.

Keep Your Eye on the Light...

The HGN test measures involuntary, erratic eyeball movement to the left and right while a miniature flashlight is shone into the person's pupil. With a normal eye, there will be some "jerking" of the eyeball but in the eyeball of one who is intoxicated, there is more "jerking" to the left or to the right when the eyeball is closer to center position. Such movement also can be the result of other illnesses or causes. The test was devised by the National Highway Safety Traffic Association. Instructions are standard in the NHSTA's DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Test Instructor Manual.

Witnesses at the accident scene said McKown was speeding. The approaching officer noticed an open can of beer inside the vehicle. That officer testified at trial the defendant had bloodshot eyes, slurred speech and breath smelling of beer. McKown admitted to having consumed three cans of beer before opening a fourth can after the accident.

DUI Special Allegations Problems in California

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)1933 — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 08:00:00 EST

Representing a client with a DUI in San Francisco and the Bay Area, and in California in general, can be daunting when "special allegations" are involved. A goal of the DUI attorney would be to eliminate these special allegations, as they will invariably increase any sentence the client could receive.

Some examples of special allegations are:

Driving over the speed limit
Causing injury to another person, whether it is another vehicle, or the client's own passenger
Having children in the car under a certain age. The younger the child, the worse the sentencing options.
Having a blood alcohol content limit above a certain level. A BAC of 0.20, for example, is treated differently than a 0.10.
Refusing to take a chemical test when asked

Obviously some of these could also result in a DUI charge that is a felony, versus a misdemeanor.

A good DUI lawyer will try to eliminate these special allegations if possible, and certainly will try to negotiate the allegations if it gets to that point. Failure to do so could dramatically increase penalties for your client.

What to do if you get pulled over

vdk@dekirby.net (Blog Author)1901 — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 08:00:00 EST

This, by far, is the most common question I'm asked as a DUI attorney:

If I get pulled over or arrested, what should I do?

I was recently asked this by a friend who knew someone who had been arrested for DUI in California.

The first thing I told him is to remember that everything the officer does—on the roadside and at the police station—is meant to ensure a conviction.

I told him the there's a big imbalance of power between the officer and the person who's being arrested, and that cops know how to use this coercive power to get people to do things that actually get them convicted.

To answer his question more fully, I wrote an article, stripped of all legal jargon, which provides a no-nonsense guide to protecting your rights and reducing the likelihood of a conviction.

Think you know what do if you were pulled over and arrested?

Find out.

What To Do If You're Pulled Over and Arrested For DUI

NFL Wide Receiver Caught for DUI

Bob@BobBattleLaw.com (Blog Author)1889 — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 08:00:00 EST

When a professional athlete is stopped in his expensive car in Miami Beach at 4:30 in the morning during the off-season, it can spell trouble. And it did for Buffalo Bills wide receiver Roscoe Parrish, who was caught by Miami-Dade police and charged with DUI last weekend.

A Miami-Dade County jail spokeswoman said Parrish was released on a $1,000 bond. The 25-year-old is a Miami native and attended both high school and college in Dade County. He was a second-round pick of the Bills in 2005.

Parrish led the NFL last year in punt returns, averaging 16.3 yards on 27 attempts. That average was also a Bills record. From scrimmage, he caught 35 passes for 352 yards and one touchdown for the Bills, who went 7-9. Parrish, who has played three years for Buffalo, became the second Bill ever to score a touchdown rushing, receiving and on a punt return when he accomplished that trifecta last year.

Though alcohol is not banned by the National Football League, the league's substance abuse policy states, "The commissioner will review and could impose a fine, suspension or other appropriate discipline if a player is convicted of or admits to a violation of the law— relating to the use of alcohol."

Washington State Rejects DUI License Plates

vdk@dekirby.net (Blog Author)1884 — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 08:00:00 EST

The Washington State Legislature wisely decided to reject a bill that would require people convicted of DUI to put special, florescent yellow license plates on their cars for one year.

Unfortunately, Senate Bill 6402, which thankfully died in Washington, is similar to bills that have already passed in several other states.

This relatively new idea of special license plates for DUI offenders is a supremely terrible one.

Please read the article "DUI License Plates—A Shameful Trend" for a discussion of the pitfalls and inherent unfairness of this absurd development in DUI law.

Rather than the expression of a sincere desire to limit drunk driving, DUI plates tend to be merely a tool of politicians who want to appear uncompromising and tough on crime.

Let's hope that California politicians, should they ever contemplate DUI plates, would follow in the footsteps of there fellow lawmakers in Washington State.

NFL Quarterback Stunned with Taser by Police

Bob@BobBattleLaw.com (Blog Author)1883 — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 08:00:00 EST

Not even the most crunching quarterback sack can compare to what NFL signal caller Josh Booty was hit with last week in California. After allegedly becoming combative with Orange County (Calif.) Sheriff's Deputies, the former Louisiana State University and NFL signal caller was stunned with a Taser gun after being arrested on suspicion of misdemeanor driving under the influence, according to the Orange County Register.

Booty was arrested by the California Highway Patrol after being pulled over for a traffic violation on a California freeway. Booty is the older brother of University of Southern California quarterback John David Booty. The older Booty is a sportscaster for the FOX Television Network in Los Angeles.

Taser is an electroshock weapon that emits a temporary, high-voltage, low-current electrical discharge to disarm an individual. The recipient feels pain and can be momentarily paralyzed, according to Wikipedia.

Orange County Sheriff Department Lt. Hal Brotheim said the 6-2, 221-pound Booty became irritated and started fighting with deputies while he was being moved from one cell to another.

"He became belligerent and uncooperative," said Jim Amormino of the sheriff's department. During the altercation, Booty fell and hit his head on a table. Booty apologized and was taken to a hospital for treatment.

Booty played professional baseball for five years in the Florida Marlins' organization before enrolling at LSU to play football for two years. He then opted for the NFL, where he played three seasons with Cleveland before signing with Oakland.

Booty was released with a citation to appear in court.

Are Sobriety Checkpoints Legal?

vdk@dekirby.net (Blog Author)1881 — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 08:00:00 EST

It all started in 1984 when the California Attorney General's office gave guidelines on what was then called "dunk driving roadblocks" to the CHP and local police departments. This was the birth of the sobriety checkpoints that we have today. Not only are they legal, but—from the police's perspective—they also are successful in taking drunk drivers off the road and increasing the number DUI arrests throughout California. However, many feel that sobriety checkpoints are a violation of the driver's constitutional rights.

In1987, the California Supreme Court issued a decision that narrowly approved sobriety checkpoints. The case of Ingersoll v Palmer required the Court to balance the civil liberties of individuals on the one hand, and the risk posed by drunk drivers on the other. In this 4-3 decision, the court stated, "We conclude that within certain limitations a sobriety checkpoint may be operated in a manner consistent with the federal and state Constitutions." The United States Supreme Court gave their stamp of approval in 1990 in the case of Michigan State Police Dept. v Sitz.

The Supreme Court based their reasoning on the argument that the purpose of the sobriety checkpoint was to stop drunk driving, rather than to arrest drivers for DUI. They used this argument to "balance" 4^th Amendment rights against the apparent deterrent affect of sobriety checkpoints.

That is some background of sobriety checkpoints. You may not like them, but you may as well learn to live with them because sobriety checkpoints in California are legal and here to stay.

For more information, read our article "How Sobriety Checkpoints Work."

Why You Should Refuse a Field Sobriety Test

vdk@dekirby.net (Blog Author)1880 — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 08:00:00 EST

Let's face it: police officers can be intimidating, especially when you're already nervous. We tend to think that we have to do whatever the officer tells us to do.

Wrong.

Once the officer has pulled you over, suspecting that you're driving drunk, his primary goal is to collect evidence against you. He's not looking to see if you're drunk; he's looking for proof that you are drunk. And all the evidence he collects will go in the police report—a document that can have a significant impact on the outcome of both your criminal trial and your DMV hearing. One of the best ways of collecting evidence of your guilt is a field sobriety test (FST).

So, doing what the police officer asks you to do—when it's not required by law—is often not in your best interest. And this includes a field sobriety test.

Let me be clear: you are under no legal obligation to submit to an FST.

The thing to remember about field sobriety tests is that they are practically designed to make a person appear drunk. And it's been shown that police officers hugely overestimate subjects' levels of intoxication based on watching them do these kinds of tests. Another thing to remember is that it's not how you actually do on the test that counts, but how the police officer thinks you do, because that's what goes into the report.

(For more information about the history and science behind FST, read the article "Are Field Sobriety Tests Accurate?")

If you choose to refuse to submit to a FST—which is often the wisest course of action—you can simply say to the officer: "I'm sorry, officer, but I'd like to speak to an attorney first."

All too often, by simply doing whatever the officer says, people unknowingly help collect evidence against themselves—proof for a conclusion that the officer has already made: this person is guilty of DUI.

The best way to combat the DUI Guilt Myth—according to which everyone suspected of DUI is guilty—is to know your rights. Police officers usually count on the fact that most people don't know their rights, which makes it that much easier to get people to waive them.

You don't need to make the police officer's job easier.

Your greatest responsibility is to make sure that you don't wind up being another victim of the DUI Guilt Myth.

Virginia House Passes Mandatory Minimum Fine of $2,250 for DUI Offense

Bob@BobBattleLaw.com (Blog Author)1871 — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:00:00 EST

A new proposed Virginia DUI Law mandates that if you are convicted of DUI in Virginia, you soon could be paying a mandatory minimum fine of $2,250.

The Virginia House of Delegates recently passed HB161 and now it's up to the Virginia Senate to decide if the measure becomes Virginia law. In addition, the measure proposes fines of $ 2,500 to $3,000 for vehicle-related felonies.

The measure would repeal the controversial Civil Remedial Fees and replace it with fees paid by all abusive drivers in Virginia, not just Commonwealth residents. The bill enumerates offenses for which fees shall be paid. The bill also requires payment of liquidated damage fees on the basis of the accumulation of driver demerit points. The bill allows a court to suspend fee payment when a person is convicted of driving on a suspended license and the suspension was a result of failure to pay a fine, DMV fee or liquidated damage fee.

Substance Abuse Expert for your case?

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)1866 — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:00:00 EST

An option for DUI lawyers, especially at sententing, is the licensed substance abuse expert. An expert can help at any DUI level, whether it's the misdemeanor first time DUI or the felony DUI with injury. The purpose of the expert is to present a neutral source for the judge to bolster the argument that the defendant is in need of treatment, not imprisonment.

Obviously, finding an expert who has the experience and credibility is crucial. In the San Francisco Bay Area, there are many sources to find a qualified expert that will help sway the judge. So, when first meeting with your client, think about whether a substance abuse expert could be helpful.

DUI Car Insurance in the San Francisco Bay Area

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)1857 — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:00:00 EST

When your client is arrested for a DUI, there is a hidden threat of an insurance premium increase by the client's insurance company. This will happen when there is an adverse result from the DUI criminal case, or the DMV hearing. The result will require SR22 notifying the DMV that you have insurance. Failure to have SR22 will result in a license suspension.

One solution, if your client needs SR22 insurance, is to obtain the SR22 insurance from somewhere other than the current insurance company. There are insurance companies who cater to those with adverse DUI consequences, and the rates will be reasonable. A good DUI attorney will discuss the insurance company policy options with their client to help save the client from even more grief. This is important especially in locations such as San Francisco and the surrounding Bay Area, where rates are already extremely high.

10 days to save your driver's license

vdk@dekirby.net (Blog Author)1821 — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 08:00:00 EST

For most of us, losing our driver's license would be more than an inconvenience. It would interfere with our ability to earn a living and care for our families.

Unfortunately, the majority of people arrested for DUI in California assume that the fate of their driver's license depends on the outcome of their criminal trial. Not so. In California, there is a separate hearing: the DMV hearing.

What's worse, nearly everyone also assumes that the DMV hearing will be set up by the DMV, just as the date of their trial will be set by the judge. Again, not so. Here's the truth:

IF YOU DON'T REQUEST A DMV HEARING WITHIN THE FIRST 10 DAYS AFTER YOUR ARRAIGNMENT, YOUR DRIVER'S LICENSE WILL BE AUTOMATICALLY SUSPENDED AFTER 30 DAYS.

The reason more people don't know this crucial fact about DUI law in California is that it's buried in the fine print of the temporary license that people receive at their arraignment (their first court appearance). From the government's perspective, it's a sneaky but effective way of simplifying the job of the DMV and suspending more licenses, regardless of guilt or extenuating circumstances. It's unfortunate that the DUI Guilt Myth—according to which everyone suspected of DUI is guilty—is subtly built into DUI law itself.

For more information on the DMV hearing and the DUI Guilt Myth, we urge you to read the ebook available on this site: DUI/DWI Arrest Survival Guide—The Guilt Myth.

Above all, we urge you to find a qualified DUI attorney who will fight for your rights.

The problem of a DUI record in an "information age"

vdk@dekirby.net (Blog Author)1795 — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 08:00:00 EST

That we now live in an "information age" is something we've all heard. Aside from the obvious fact that technology is getting more advanced and more widespread, it's not always clear what this oft-repeated phrase actually means. It's not always clear what kind of "information" we're talking about.

What can sound like an airy abstraction, in reality, refers to a very real state of affairs. Think, for example, of the growing importance of a person's credit score. A credit score is a bit of information that can have a tremendous impact on a person's opportunities and quality of life. Companies are making a great deal of money helping clients improve their credit scores, and people are happy to pay.

Living in an "information age" means that our standing in society—our freedom, opportunities, and quality of life—is to a great extent determined by certain pieces of information about each of us. Our medical records can determine whether we get insurance; our credit score can decide whether we receive a much-needed loan. Reducing a person's life—or, to put it another way, reducing a person's character and reliability—to a few numbers or bits of information is a marvelous way to increase efficiency in making the kinds of decisions that employers, insurance providers, and banks have to make. The costs, however, are high, especially to those whose records are unfairly blemished.

And there is no mark more damaging, more limiting, than a criminal record. A criminal record—even if it's just an arrest record for a DUI, without a conviction—can mean that a person is permanently treated like a criminal. And criminals, it should go without saying, have a hard time finding jobs and getting loans.

Living in an information age has tremendous advantages. But it is important that people have the resources to ensure that their records do not mean a life sentence. But this isn't something that most people can do alone, nor should they have to. If you've been arrested and charged with a DUI, whether you've been convicted or not, it's important that you talk to an expert about getting your record expunged. As minor as it may eventually seem once time has passed, it is impossible to anticipate when your record will eventually reemerge and the effect it will have. Expunging your record is not only a guarantee that your past doesn't determine your future, but is one of the best ways of giving yourself some closure. It is the best way, in every sense, of putting your DUI behind you.

An Important Lesson from an Unfortunate Story

vdk@dekirby.net (Blog Author)1793 — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 08:00:00 EST

The story of San Francisco resident Adrian Gonzales is an extreme illustration of an important point about DUI law in California and elsewhere. While it's unlikely that a given person will suffer the kind of legal trials and tribulations that Mr. Gonzales underwent, it throws into relief the kind of bureaucratic rigmarole that those accused of a DUI—many of whom are entirely innocent—will have to endure. Even more importantly, it demonstrates the supreme important ensuring that our records don't diminish our freedom or quality of life.

Mr. Gonzales, after being pulled over for a routine traffic violation, was told by police that he was wanted for DUI in Pomona County, outside Los Angeles. Mr. Gonzales, who had never been to Pomona, was understandably surprised. The officers then confiscated his driver's license and impounded his motorcycle. The next day Mr. Gonzales returned to the police station in the hopes of clearing up this obvious misunderstanding. Unfortunately, his efforts to exonerate himself just got him arrested.

Thankfully, the police promptly took his fingerprints and compared them to those of "Adrian Gonzales"—his southern California drunk driving doppelganger—which convinced the officers that they were dealing with a case of mistaken identity. Expecting a swift resolution, Mr. Gonzales instead learned that the police couldn't return his driver's license until the DMV agreed to wipe his driving record clean. Despite having a letter from the police department testifying to his innocence, the DMV took months to expunge the DUI from Mr. Gonzales' record. In fact, his record was only expunged once a local news reporter contacted the DMV and inquired about his case.

When Mr. Gonzales went to reclaim his motorcycle, convinced that this would be the end of an unpleasant ordeal, he was informed that it had been sold. It took about a year and a half—and yet another intervention by the local news on his behalf—before he received fair compensation from the city of San Francisco.

To your average person, this story exemplifies the kind bureaucratic black hole that one can fall into. While few of us have had to deal with a scenario this extreme, each of us have had a run-in with the maddeningly slow and apparently irrational nature of bureaucracy in all its forms. But to a DUI attorney, the meaning of this story is more specific. First, it demonstrates a little known reality: the relationship between the legal system and the DMV, when it comes to DUIs, is complicated and confusing. (For more information, read our article entitled "The DMV hearing and drivers license suspension.")

Second, Mr. Gonzales' ordeal illustrates the supreme importance of our records, whether they are our criminal records, our DMV records, or whatever else. Our records are what determine the amount of freedom, privileges and opportunities we are given by our government, our employers, our banks and our society. For us to be in control of our lives, we must take control of our records. That's why we recommend that, if you have been arrested of DUI—even if the charges were dropped—you seek legal help in expunging your records. No less than Mr. Gonzales, you deserve a clean slate.

San Francisco DUI Curse Forever!

vdk@dekirby.net (Blog Author)1792 — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 08:00:00 EST

In today's information age, a DUI arrest in the San Francisco Bay Area can haunt you for years. I spoke to a man—we will call him "Bill"—who told me a story of how he got his DUI in San Francisco. The San Francisco Police Department did not arrest him for his DUI; his arrest was at the hands of the CHP (California Highway Patrol). He got his DUI on Highway 101, but it could have been anywhere: Highway 80, Highway 580, or even Highway 280.

Bill's problem was that the DUI that he got in San Francisco some years back now gave him a Criminal Record. That's right, a DUI is a charge that gives you a Criminal Record that any prospective employer can find and use to deny you a job that you are completely qualified for. Because DUIs are so politically charged in the San Francisco Bay Area, an arrest can haunt you forever! But it doesn't have to be that way. If you take action and have your DUI expunged, you can put an emotionally and financially difficult time behind you—permanently.

I told Bill that under California law his misdemeanor DUI conviction can be expunged, as long as Bill successfully completes the terms of his probation, which were imposed by the San Francisco Superior Court when he went to court for his DUI. If Bill had not been placed on probation for his DUI conviction, his record could be expunged one year after the date that he plead guilty or "no contest" to his DUI. Although successfully completing probation is always a requirement, San Francisco Superior Court does have broad discretion when it comes to expungement.

The moral of the story is that if, like Bill, you have a DUI conviction in the San Francisco Bay Area, your DUI means that you have a permanent criminal record. That is, unless you take action. If you don't seek expungement, any employer can treat you as a criminal. A charge or conviction of DUI in California, and especially in the San Francisco Bay Area, is a serious threat to the quality of your life and must be treated seriously.

Tomorrow I will tell you what could be a happy ending to Bill's DUI arrest in San Francisco.

New breath test results ruling. A trend to hit San Francisco and the Bay Area?

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)1791 — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 08:00:00 EST

Here's an interesting bit of news on DUI breath test results. A court in Washington State ruled that alcohol breath tests should not be admitted at trial. "Simply stated, without the reliable evidence that a correctly functioning breath test instrument can provide, the discovery of the truth in DUI cases suffers," the judges wrote. "The innocent may be wrongly convicted, and the guilty may go free."

The ruling cited problems with the patrol's toxicology lab, including the false certification of solutions used to verify breath tests, the improper rejection of data, mistakenly switched data and reliance on software that miscalculated data.

If this becomes a trend on the West Coast, look to California, San Francisco, and the Bay Area to follow suit, making it more difficult for prosecutors to prove their cases.

San Francisco police shortage

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)1719 — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:00:00 EST

San Francisco and the Bay Area in California is experiencing a shortage of police recruits as the number of officers retiring has increased significantly in the last few years. This has created a need for the police force to curtail certain activities, including DUI sobriety checkpoints, as well as enforcement problems when DUI cases get to court.

Nothing has been proposed in the short term to deal with this problem. Any one else seeing this trend?

Harrisonburg Virginia DUI Lawyer Creates Legal Rights Card

tom@fosterwebmarketing.com (Blog Author)1653 — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 08:00:00 EST

Harrisonburg Virginia DUI Lawyer Robert Keefer has designed a business card that informs people of their Constitutional rights. Keefer, who has garnered national publicity for his aggressive attacks on DUI breathalyzer machines, designed his card out of concern for a lack of understanding of one's basic constitutional rights on the part of his many college age clients, most of whom were students at James Madison University. In his 24 years in practice, Keefer found himself regularly defending individuals in Harrisonburg and Rockingham County courts who would incriminate themselves in DUI, underage possession of alcohol, or possession of drugs cases. He designed and began handing out his "Keefer card" around Harrisonburg, especially at Madison. The Keefer card reads: I Want My Lawyer! If I'm not under arrest, let me go. Do not question me. I assert my 5th Amendment privilege. I DO NOT consent to any searches or entry into any property. I DO NOT consent to any tests except under DUI Implied Consent.

New Jersey DWI Checkpoints

Wed, 09 Jan 2008 08:00:00 EST

Police need to have a reason to pull you over in the first place...or do they? Checkpoints have become more and more prevelant throughout this country over the last decade or so. In general for a motor vehicle stop to be legal a police officer must have seen you violate the law in some way. Checkpoints are the exception to that rule. You have probably seen or been a part of them yourself...you drive up and see a line of cones and officers stopping what appears to be everyone. Well checkpoints require more than just some cones and a uniformed officer or two. State vs. Kirk was the case out of New Jersey establishing that under state law a checkpoint is unconstitutional unless procedures are in place. Checkpoints need to be planned well in advance to establish these procedures which include, information that shows that the choice of location for the checkpoint is supported by data, proper police supervision, proper warnings to drivers, and proper procedures for how many cars will be stopped and in what pattern. Checkpoint issues involve a detailed analysis of both state and federal constitutional law. Read more about New Jersey DWI checkpoints.

New Jersey Judge Get DWI

Wed, 09 Jan 2008 08:00:00 EST

A New Jersey Municipal Court judge is accused of trying use his influence to avoid DWI charges. He allegedly told the policeman that pulled him over that he would rule against him whenever he appeared in his court. The police officer was not swayed however and the judge eventually gave a breath test result of .22. Read more about the New Jersey Municipal Court Judge.

DUI in the San Francisco Bay area

anders@dekirby.net (Blog Author)1623 — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 08:00:00 EST

Let's hear your DUI experiences or those of your friends or family, from the San Francisco California Bay Area! We can learn and grow from individual stories, and make the best defense even better.

LEYRITZ: What if the former Yankee was back in New York?

Tue, 08 Jan 2008 08:00:00 EST

As everybody knows by now Jim Leyritz has been charged with DWI and DWI that Causes a Death in Forida. The question posed today is what would happen if the same incident had occurred here in New York. Generally, in most DWI cases that result in a death the defendant is eligible to receive little or no jail time and probation. But New York has been cracking down recently. For example, many will remember the Heidgen case in which the defendant was charged and convicted of murder because the prosecutor believed that his actions constituted a "depraved indifference to human life". There is also a new law enacted in New York charging the crime of Aggravated Vehicular Homicide. To be convicted the State must prove a BAC over .18 or more than one death or that the driver was suspended for another DWI related charge. It appears Leyritz would not have to face this charge under the facts but for Sophia Santos, the first person charged under this new law, she must face up to 25 years in prison.

New Years Eve DWI Arrests in New York

Tue, 08 Jan 2008 08:00:00 EST

Newsday is reporting at that 27 drivers were arrested in Nassau County for DWI between noon on New Year's Eve and 9:00 a.m. on New Year's day. This is actually down from last years reported 42 arrests in Nassau during the same time period.

Have a DUI Gripe? Tell Us About it...

tom@fosterwebmarketing.com (Blog Author)1097 — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 08:00:00 EST

Here is your forum for complaints about unfair arrests, what should have happened, your bozo attorney...whatever you want!

DUI Laws broken down in an easy to read form

tom@fosterwebmarketing.com (Blog Author)543 — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:00:00 EST

Check out our DUI Laws on the left sidebar

Bob Keefer named to Virginia Super Lawyers in the field of DWI/ DUI Defense for 2009

Sat, 27 Jun 2009 08:00:00 EST

About Super Lawyers

Super Lawyers is a listing of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement.

Super Lawyers is published as a special supplement in leading newspapers and city and regional magazines across the country. Super Lawyers magazine, featuring articles about attorneys named to the Super Lawyers list, is distributed to all attorneys in the state or region, the lead corporate counsel of Russell 3000 companies and the ABA-approved law school libraries.

Polling, research and selection are performed by Law & Politics, a publication of Key Professional Media, Inc. Law & Politics has been publishing legal magazines since 1990 and Super Lawyers since 1991.

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 08:00:00 EST

I am honored to be chosen by this group as a Super Lawyer in Virginia in the field of DUI/ DWI. I will continue to do my best to represent my clients charged with this very serious offense.

Officer riding Segway makes drunk driving arrest

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:00:00 EST

Judge comments lead to new DUI trial

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:00:00 EST

Actor Shia Labeouf Dinged in DUI Crash

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:00:00 EST

Paperwork snafu lets DUI-charged judge off hook

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:00:00 EST

DUI in a buggy?

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 08:00:00 EST

Greek Star "Sorry" for DUI, Back on Set

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 08:00:00 EST

Drunken driver drinks Wite-Out while in police custody

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 08:00:00 EST

South Carolina DUI Law Passes After Long Debate

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 08:00:00 EST

High court's DUI ruling has bearing on local case

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 08:00:00 EST

Cop with most DUI arrests charged with misconduct, other felonies

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 08:00:00 EST

156 DUI cases linked to cop dropped

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 08:00:00 EST

ACTRESS MISCHA BARTON PLEADS NO CONTEST TO DUI

Sat, 12 Apr 2008 08:00:00 EST

Arizona budget crunch detours anti-DUI projects

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 08:00:00 EST

Judge in Drag Charged With DWI Reconsiders Resignation

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 08:00:00 EST

KC lawmaker pushes legislation to enable DWI courts in Missouri

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 08:00:00 EST

Deputy Shoots Suspected DUI Driver

Mon, 07 Apr 2008 08:00:00 EST

Sober man arrested for DUI sues

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 08:00:00 EST

Wrong-way driver gets more prison time on DNA charge

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:00:00 EST

Mayor at MADD event 'spectacle beyond words'

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:00:00 EST

Richie Sambora's DUI arrest

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:00:00 EST

Clinton adviser to plead guilty to DWI charge

Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:00:00 EST

Legislators Aim At a New Misdeed On the Road: DWT

Mon, 24 Mar 2008 08:00:00 EST

Texas man gets 60 years for 10th DWI

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:00:00 EST

Firefighter charged with DUI after crashing fire truck

Thu, 20 Mar 2008 08:00:00 EST

China Cracks Down on Drunk Bureaucrats

Mon, 10 Mar 2008 08:00:00 EST

Tennessee punter loses scholarship after DUI arrest

Mon, 10 Mar 2008 08:00:00 EST

Tube inserted into man who refused to give urine sample

Mon, 10 Mar 2008 08:00:00 EST

Singer Pleads Guilty to DUI in California

Fri, 07 Mar 2008 08:00:00 EST

DUI Paradox in Rhode Island

Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:00:00 EST

Paris Hilton's Brother Arrested for DUI

Sun, 17 Feb 2008 08:00:00 EST

Gibson Completes DUI Deal

Sun, 17 Feb 2008 08:00:00 EST

Special License Plates for DUI Offenders

Sat, 16 Feb 2008 08:00:00 EST

Bill proposes yellow license plates for DUI drivers

Sat, 16 Feb 2008 08:00:00 EST

If DUI offenders drink, devices know

Fri, 01 Feb 2008 08:00:00 EST

Alameda sheriff named in DUI strip-search suit

Fri, 01 Feb 2008 08:00:00 EST

Mistaken DUI arrest haunts local man

Fri, 01 Feb 2008 08:00:00 EST

San Francisco Bay Area DUI Arrests Down

Wed, 09 Jan 2008 08:00:00 EST

Yelling at cops leads to DWI arrest

Sun, 06 Jan 2008 08:00:00 EST

Man's rights weren't violated, judge rules

Sun, 06 Jan 2008 08:00:00 EST

New Mexico State's Pope arrested on DUI charge

Sat, 05 Jan 2008 08:00:00 EST

More Cities Switching to Blood Test

Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:00:00 EST

8-Year-Old Boy Gets Mom Arrested for Drunk Driving

Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:00:00 EST

Kiefer Sutherland pleads no contest to DUI charge

Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:00:00 EST

Victim's father pleads for lighter sentence in DUI case

Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:00:00 EST

Lionel Richie Talks Nicole's DUI

Tue, 10 Jul 2007 08:00:00 EST

11-year-old charged with DUI

Tue, 10 Jul 2007 08:00:00 EST

Arizona House votes to repeal breath-test law

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:00:00 EST

BWI can be as deadly as DWI

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:00:00 EST

Ohio—Sanford Proposes Harsher Penalties for DUI Charges

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:00:00 EST

Governor calls for tougher DUI laws in South Carolina

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:00:00 EST

Man passes breathalyzer, cited anyway

Sat, 12 May 2007 08:00:00 EST

Dover man charged with taping his DWI arrest

Sat, 12 May 2007 08:00:00 EST

Study: Penalties no deterrent for drunken drivers

Sat, 12 May 2007 08:00:00 EST

Smoking 'reduces alcohol effect'

Wed, 11 Apr 2007 08:00:00 EST

Blood-alcohol formula often used in DWI trials

Tue, 10 Apr 2007 08:00:00 EST

DUI Offenders Stay Sober With SCRAM

Tue, 10 Apr 2007 08:00:00 EST

Woman says Ambien is to blame for her DWI crash

Tue, 20 Mar 2007 08:00:00 EST

Bills aim to tighten DWI laws

Tue, 20 Mar 2007 08:00:00 EST

NJ Attorney General has less objectionable plan for drunken-driving test

Wed, 14 Mar 2007 08:00:00 EST

Old DUI? Stay away from Canada

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 08:00:00 EST

Alcohol-related crashes hit state's finances to tune of $310M

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 08:00:00 EST

Texas Lawmaker, District Attorney Back Tough DWI Bill

Fri, 02 Mar 2007 08:00:00 EST

South Dakota counties cracking down on DWI offenders

Fri, 02 Mar 2007 08:00:00 EST

Political Candidate Arrested for DWI Twice in One Night

Thu, 01 Mar 2007 08:00:00 EST

'Booze Bracelet' Monitors DUI Defendants, Convicts

Thu, 01 Mar 2007 08:00:00 EST

Colorado Supreme Court suppresses DUI test result, shows how to revise law

Thu, 01 Mar 2007 08:00:00 EST

Colorado Supreme Court suppresses DUI test result, shows how to revise law

Thu, 01 Mar 2007 08:00:00 EST

Digital Analysis of Speech Could Lead to New Test for Intoxicated Drivers

Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:00:00 EST

Safety Stops Draw Doubts

Fri, 23 Feb 2007 08:00:00 EST

Governor calls for tougher DUI laws in South Carolina

Fri, 23 Feb 2007 08:00:00 EST

Driving While on Cell Phone Worse Than Driving While Drunk

Fri, 23 Feb 2007 08:00:00 EST

Scalia's daughter charged with drunk driving

Fri, 23 Feb 2007 08:00:00 EST

Report Questions Breathalyzer's Reliability

Tue, 20 Feb 2007 08:00:00 EST

Lawyers: Breathalyzer blows it

Tue, 20 Feb 2007 08:00:00 EST

Proposed DUI Reform in Tennessee

Mon, 19 Feb 2007 08:00:00 EST

Judges navigate through DUI laws

Mon, 19 Feb 2007 08:00:00 EST

Proposal would toughen Ohio DUI law

Mon, 19 Feb 2007 08:00:00 EST