January 30, 2012

Attention Parents: California Police May Interrogate Your Child In Your Absence Following a DUI Arrest

Home > Juvenile Interrogation > Attention Parents: California Police May Interrogate Your Child In Your Absence Following a DUI Arrest Posted On: June 27, 2011 by Shouse Law Group

With the end of school, the fourth of July and summer parties comes underage drinking and driving. Being arrested is a scary experience for anyone. And if it’s scary for an adult, imagine how much more so it must be for a child. Obviously, no one wants to receive a call that his/her child has been arrested for DUI. But just in case this nightmare turns into a reality, you may want to talk to your children about California laws regarding juvenile interrogation.

If your child is stopped on suspicion of drunk driving, California police are permitted to ask him/her questions in order to determine whether or not he/she has been drinking and driving. If they believe he/she has been…and place him/her under arrest…they may try to trick him/her into confessing to the offense or into making other incriminating statements. Make sure you prepare him/her for this experience in the unfortunate event that he/she finds him/herself in this situation.

Because California laws permit officers to conduct juvenile interrogations outside the presence of the child’s parents, parents should instruct their children to

Other than providing his/her identifying information, your child is under no obligation to provide any additional information/answers. The biggest mistake that any arrestee makes is believing that he/she can talk his/her way out of the situation…this may especially be the case for a child who has been drinking. Prepare him/her for the worst and hope he/she will never have to utilize this information.


View the original article here

Continue Reading...

January 29, 2012

DUI Arrest Leads to Discovery of Dead Body

By guest-writer

In a shocking turn of events for unsuspecting traffic police, a recent DUI arrest led to the discovery of a dead body in South Carolina.

According to WMBF News in South Carolina, 28-year-old Christopher Heck was pulled over by police on the night before Thanksgiving when the officers suspected that Heck was driving under the influence of alcohol.

When they pulled Heck over, the arresting officers suspected he was hiding something, so they searched his car. The search yielded surprising results, as the police discovered several stolen items and an ID card that belonged to 47-year-old Charlotte Altman.

In response to this discovery, local investigators went to Altman’s home to ask about the stolen items and missing ID. When they arrived at the home, they found signs of a break-in, so they searched the house.

To their shock, investigators found Altman’s dead body on the kitchen floor. Initial findings suggested that Altman had been fatally stabbed in the neck.

Sources indicate that Altman did not live in the home permanently, but that she sometimes visited on the weekends to do cleaning and regular maintenance, and that she may have been planning to eventually move into the home.

In recent weeks, Heck had been staying with his grandmother in her house in Manning, South Carolina. His grandmother’s house was located next door to Altman’s home.

Investigators believe that Altman and Heck did not know each other, but that they were aware of each other’s presence next door. Police believe that Heck probably knew that she was only in the home during weekends.

Officers theorized that Heck broke into the home believing that Altman was out of town and, when he discovered her during the break-in, panicked and stabbed her in the neck.

In addition to his potential conviction on charges of a felony DUI and murder, Heck is also being investigated for the commission of two other burglaries in the area. Police are conducting a thorough investigation, though, before they bring formal charges.

According to Clarendon County Sheriff’s Captain Kipp Coker, the police are “crossing our T’s and dotting our I’s and making sure we’re following up on things we are getting through the investigation.”

While the situation may seem extremely rare, it is surprising what criminals will do after committing a heinous crime. In many cases, such criminals are in an extremely agitated state of mind, and are simply not thinking clearly.

So, in this case, if Heck really did commit the murder, it’s little surprise that he was inebriated and not thinking clearly at the time of his DUI arrest.

If, indeed, Heck is found to be guilty, South Carolina police will consider themselves fortunate to have discovered the suspect so quickly after the crime. Without the discovery of stolen items during the DUI arrest, Heck may have eluded police for a much longer time.


View the original article here

Continue Reading...

January 28, 2012

Cobb County and Kennesaw cracking down on underage drinking

February 11th, 2011 Richard Blevins Posted in Current Events |

The City of Kennesaw, Georgia and other local law enforcement agencies located in Cobb County are cracking down on underage drinking.   In 2010, 4,197 citations or arrests in Cobb County were reported for DUI and minor in possession of alcohol. As reported in the Marietta Daily Journal.  Our office has experienced this increase through the representation of numerous individuals charged with DUI or minor in possession of alcohol.  In Georgia minor in possession of alcohol carries a maximum sentence of 6 months in jail and/or a $300.00 fine.  You can be eligible for a diversion program or a conditional discharge.  Our law firm has the experience to assist you with these charges to avoid a conviction and work to get your arrest record expunged.  Written by Richard N. Blevins, Jr., a former Cobb County prosecutor and former police officer, visit my website.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

January 26, 2012

Man in Incriminating Shirt Arrested for DUI

By guest-writer

When most people are pulled over for a DUI, they do not have any text on their clothing announcing the fact that they are drunk. Usually, police must use context clues and modern technology to determine if a driver is inebriated.

A recent driver on Long Island in New York, though, made the arresting officer’s job much easier by wearing a t-shirt saying “I’m a drunk” during his DUI arrest.

In a story that is sure to induce eye-rolling and head-slapping from knowing readers, Kevin Daly was faced with an awkward situation when he was arrested under suspicion of a DUI while wearing a t-shirt proclaiming his guilt.

According to a report from the New Jersey Star-Ledger, the t-shirt’s primary slogan was printed in bold letters and was surrounded by the equally incriminating claim that “I’m not an alcoholic … alcoholics go to meetings.”

Depending on the result of his DUI sentencing, Daly may soon have an opportunity to prove his t-shirt false, as mandatory alcohol counseling for former drunk drivers is a common DUI law in many U.S. states.

Sources indicate that Daly’s arrest was embarrassing for reasons other than the poor clothing selection, as well. The police report claims that Daly slammed his 2000 Saturn into a parked police cruiser around 1:45 a.m. on a Thursday morning.

The police cruiser was parked on the side of the highway to catch drunk drivers. In this situation, the arresting officer was spared the expense of having to chase the suspect, although the police department was probably displeased with having to repair the beat-up cruiser.

Fortunately, though, the police officer who was in the car was not seriously injured, but he was taken to the hospital for treatment for minor wounds.

In his initial hearing, Daly was charged with driving while intoxicated and, perhaps not surprisingly, was served with several summonses for unresolved traffic incidents.

It is fair to assume that, at his trial, Daly will be encouraged by his DUI lawyer to wear something a bit more practical, like a suit and tie, or anything without the words “I’m a drunk” printed clearly on the front.

The possible consequences Daly will face at trial depend on whether this is his first DUI offense, as well as other circumstances of the case. In many DUI decisions, offenders must relinquish their license, serve some jail time, or pay a hefty fine.

Cases in which DUI drivers injure other people, or cause serious property damage, usually see harsher sentences. In addition, repeat DUI offenders typically face more severe punishments than people who have committed their first DUI offense.

And, it should be noted that each state has a unique set of DUI laws, and some states are much stricter than others. Despite these variations, though, there has been a national trend in recent years to create stronger DUI laws.


View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Injured in a DUI? Understand the Difference between the California Victim Compensation Program and Victim Restitution

Victims who are injured in a DUI are entitled to compensation for their losses, such as hospital bills, car damage, loss of wages, etc. But the money to repay these losses comes from two different sources –the offender or the California Victim Compensation Program.

The California Victim Compensation Program is a state fund program that is designed to provide compensation to victims of violent crimes, including driving under the influence, for unreimbursed physical injuries associated with the crime. This compensation is available for victims and their immediate family members who suffer injury, threat of injury or death from drunk driving. If the victim suffers emotional damage…and requires therapy as a result…those expenses may also be approved. The California Victim Compensation Program does not apply to economic damage – those expenses are reimbursed from the DUI offender.

If you are involved in an accident with a driver who is convicted for DUI…and your car is damaged…the court will order the defendant to reimburse you for your damage. If he/she has car insurance, the insurance will cover the expenses. And if not, the judge will order the defendant to make payments directly to the victim. If the defendant is unable to pay, California has a separate fund to reimburse victims for these types of economic damages as well.


View the original article here

Continue Reading...

January 24, 2012

San Fernando Valley DUI Checkpoint Arrests Are Prosecuted at the Van Nuys Courthouse

The Los Angeles Police Department is notorious for conducting DUI checkpoints throughout the San Fernando Valley. Many people incorrectly believe that if they are arrested at a checkpoint, there is no point to fighting the case. And do you know what? Many people couldn’t be more wrong! The fact of the matter is that checkpoint arrests are very defensible. The key to fighting the case lies in finding the right attorney. And, when the arrest takes place in the “Valley”, the right attorney is someone who routinely defends DUI cases at the Van Nuys Courthouse.

A local San Fernando Valley drunk driving defense attorney not only knows how LAPD sets up their checkpoints…and therefore also knows which protocols and procedures he/she can successfully challenge…but also knows the most persuasive arguments to convince the Van Nuys prosecutors and judges that his/her client’s DUI charges should be reduced or even dismissed.

Checkpoint cases require a DUI defense attorney who has mastered the California laws that regulate these very controversial roadblocks. And San Fernando Valley checkpoint cases require a local attorney who understands how the prosecutors and judges process DUI cases at the Van Nuys Courthouse. An attorney who fits both bills will surely prove unstoppable!


View the original article here

Continue Reading...

January 23, 2012

Cop Admits: Half of DUI Arrests Are Not Intoxicated

Piercing the veil of reliability in DUI investigations…..


Evidence Suppressed in Lawmaker’s DUI

Philadelphia, PA.  Nov. 2 – A state prosecutor is criticizing a Philadelphia judge’s decision to suppress evidence in the arrest of a Philadelphia lawmaker on suspicion of drunken driving.

The Philadelphia Daily News reports that the DUI charge against Rep. Cherelle Parker will be dropped if Judge Charles Hayden’s decision Tuesday isn’t appealed.

The state attorney general’s office handled the case at the request of Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams.  Deputy Attorney General Marc Costanzo says he’s surprised a judge found two police officers less credible than someone who failed a breath-alcohol test. He said his office will decide whether to appeal within 30 days.

Hayden says he’s troubled that one officer changed her testimony, while another testified that only about half the people he’s arrested for DUI were found to be intoxicated.


The only thing I find surprising about this is that the cop admitted it. 

This entry was posted on Friday, November 4th, 2011 at 10:04 am and is filed under Duiblog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.


View the original article here

Continue Reading...

January 22, 2012

Orange County DUI Checkpoint locations: San Juan Capistrano

Orange County Sheriff's Department (California) Image via Wikipedia

Our Orange County DUI Lawyers have learned that the Orange County SheriffAcۉ„cs Department will be conducting a DUI/DriverAcۉ„cs License Checkpoint in the City of San Juan Capistrano on Friday, September 23, 2011, from 6:30 p.m. until 2:30 a.m. The checkpoints are part of a grant the SheriffAcۉ„cs Department received from the State of California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and are set up to target drivers who are driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs and / or driving a vehicle without a driverAcۉ„cs license.

DUI Checkpoints are not especially helpful in apprehending persons driving under the influence, but can be an especially lucrative operation for law enforcement agencies, which catch and impound unlicensed drivers (impound fees for 30-60 days can run into thousands), and receive money in funds from the Federal and State governments, and MADD, which typically pay for officer overtime.

If you need a DUI Specialist Orange County, call our firm at (877) 568-2977, anytime.A‚  And be careful out there.

Tags
barry simons dui lawyer, California, Driving under the influence, dui specialist orange county, long beach dui lawyers, los angeles dui, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, newport beach dui lawyers, orange county, orange county dui, orange county dui arrests, orange county dui checkpoint locations, orange county dui courts, orange county dui lawyer, orange county dui lawyers, orange county dui schools, orange county dui statistics, Orange County Sheriff's Department (California), Random checkpoint, San Juan Capistrano California

This entry was posted on Thursday, September 22nd, 2011 at 2:39 pm and is filed under Dui Checkpoints, DUI politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.


View the original article here

Continue Reading...

January 20, 2012

Why Do Police Always Destroy Breathalyzer Evidence?

As we all know from watching TV, the police are always very careful to preserve the evidence in criminal investigations. Except in DUI investigations.

What is the single most important piece of evidence in most drunk driving cases? The breathalyzer test. In fact, it’s the only evidence of the crime of driving with over .08% blood alcohol. And it’s pretty important for the “driving under the influence” charge, too: the law presumes the defendant is under the influence if the test result is .08% or higher. Evidence just doesn’t get more important than that.

So, of course, the police are careful to preserve the breath sample, right? I mean, there may be some question later of whether the machine was working correctly; it would be a simple matter to save the sample so it could be tested again on another machine. And, hard to believe, but the defense may not want to just take the officer’s word that he administered the test correctly and that the test results were from the defendant.

Unfortunately, the breath sample is routinely destroyed moments after it is tested.

But how can this be? That’s a question that was asked a few years ago by a defendant in California appealing his DUI conviction. The Court of Appeals of that state agreed and reversed the conviction:


Due process simply demands that where evidence is collected by the state, as it is with the Intoxilyzer, or any other breath testing device, law enforcement agencies must establish and follow rigorous and sytematic procedures to preserve the captured evidence or its equivalent for the use of the defendant. People v. Trombetta, 142 CalApp.3d 138 (1983).


How hard is it to save the defendant’s breath sample for later retesting? The Court noted that a “field crimper-indium encapsulation kit” was readily available, cheap and approved by the California Department of Health Services. So why isn’t the evidence saved in DUI cases today?

The Trombetta case was appealed by the state to the United States Supreme Court….where it was reversed:


Whatever duty the Constitution imposes on the States to preserve evidence, that duty must be limited to evidence that might be expected to play a significant role in the suspect’s defense. To meet this standard of constitutional materiality, evidence must both possess an exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed, and also be of such a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonable means. Neither of these conditions is met on the facts of this case. California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984).


What? Neither of these two conditions is met in a DUI case? Let’s take another look at the Supreme Court’s test…


1. The possible value of the defendant’s breath sample in helping prove innocence was not apparent before it was destroyed…..What? The machine never makes mistakes? It was not apparent to the police that a re-analysis of the all-important breath sample might be of any value to the suspect?

2. The defendant was able to “obtain comparable evidence by other means”…..How? He has no access to another breath test. At best, he might be able to get a blood test at a hospital, if the police let him — but it would probably be so much later that it would not be relevant or even admissible in court.


Another example of “The DUI Exception to the Constitution”.

It’s interesting that the New Hampshire Supreme Court later rejected the Supreme Court’s reasoning, and relied upon its own state constitution in requiring breath samples to be saved:


A suspect would face numerous practical difficulties in obtaining a second sample on his or her own. While in police custody, the suspect would have to locate an available, licensed technician capable of promptly performing a second test, no matter what time of day or night. Even if a defendant successfully obtained an independent second test, the results would not have the same evidentiary force as would a second test performed on the same machine at approximately the same time. Opinion of the Justices, 557 A.2d 1355 (1989).


The Trombetta decision was, as intended, a huge green flag to police agencies across the country: Go ahead and destroy the main evidence — but only in DUI cases. And law enforcement agencies have happily complied.

This entry was posted on Monday, December 19th, 2011 at 10:00 am and is filed under Duiblog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.


View the original article here

Continue Reading...

January 19, 2012

The 3rd Annual PADUIBlog.com Charity Giveaway

PADUIBlog.com has become a well respected resource about DUI laws in PA.  We are very proud of this blog and are thankful to you the readers who take the time out to read our posts and provide insightful feedback.  We are also proud members of this community.  We want to give back too.  That is why we would like to again ask for your help in choosing a charity for us to donate to. The polls are open now with all voting to end on December 31 at midnight. The winning charity will get a donation of $500. The second place charity will receive $250. The third place charity will receive $100.

Here are the candidates:

(1) PAWS of Central PA-

Mission:

PAWS saves lives and prevents suffering by implementing the no-kill philosophy through aggressive spay/neuter programs for owned and unowned animals; by rescuing, fostering, and seeking permanent homes for endangered dogs and cats; and by raising awareness of the plight of homeless animals.

Vision:
PAWS seeks a time when there are no homeless companion animals in south central Pennsylvania.

(2)  Boys & Girls Club of Central Pennsylvania

In every community, boys and girls are left to find their own recreation and companionship in the streets. An increasing number of children are at home with no adult care or supervision. Young people need to know that someone cares about them.

Boys & Girls Clubs offer that and more. Club programs and services promote and enhance the development of boys and girls by instilling a sense of competence, usefulness, belonging and influence.

Boys & Girls Clubs are a safe place to learn and grow – all while having fun. It is the place where great futures are started each and every day.

(3) Bethesda Mission

Bethesda Mission has been providing hope and healing to hungry & homeless people in the Greater Harrisburg area since 1914.

The McShane Firm will donate $500 to the charity receiving the most votes. Voting is open until December 31, 2011. Vote today and help your favorite charity!

Loading ... Loading ...

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

January 17, 2012

Miami Cop Arrested for DUI While Driving Patrol Car

By guest-writer

When police officers are arrested for a DUI, they usually face more scrutiny than the average citizen who is caught driving drunk, and a recent incident in Miami, Florida serves as no exception.

According to the Miami Herald, 32-year-old Fernando Villa, a veteran officer in the Miami-Dade County police force, was discovered by his colleagues while off duty passed out in his patrol car in the middle of an intersection.

While this story is shocking enough, local officials are also disappointed by the actions of the arresting officers, who did not place Villa in jail after the incident. Their actions have spawned an internal investigation into the matter.

Sources indicate that another Miami police officer discovered Villa’s patrol car idling in the middle of an intersection around 8:20 p.m. on a Tuesday evening. The officer discovered Villa drunk and passed out in the driver’s seat of the idling car.

Upon discovering his inebriated colleague, the officer on the scene contacted his superiors for orders on how to handle the situation. According to the man he called, Police Director Jim Loftus, the officer was instructed to treat Villa “like everyone else.”

Typically, of course, someone accused of drunk driving is taken to jail and booked for the offense. Rarely are drunk drivers simply given warnings by police and allowed to casually drive home. In fact, under Florida law, drivers are released with a promise to appear in court only for low-level, or misdemeanor, DUI offenses.

Contrary to usual police policy, though, the officer who initially arrested Villa did not book the drunk driver, nor did he take him to jail. Instead, Villa signed a form promising that he would appear in court and he was allowed to go home, despite the fact that his offense was probably not a low-level DUI.

This action has drawn a considerable amount of scrutiny from local press, and in response to a public outcry, the Miami-Dade police department’s bureau of internal affairs has launched an investigation into the matter.

Again, the police director Jim Loftus maintains that he instructed the arresting officer to arrest and book Villa, without giving him any special treatment. Somewhere along the line, however, an office disobeyed this order and gave Villa special treatment.

According to Loftus, the police department plans to discover the identity of the “person or persons” who refused to follow their superior’s official advice, and “hold them accountable.”

Thus, it looks like a simple act by one police officer to offer special treatment to his colleague may prove to be very costly for the officer’s career.

Of course, Villa’s career is almost certainly in deeper trouble. Sources indicate that the officer has been relieved of his duties without pay while the police department completes its investigation into the matter


View the original article here

Continue Reading...

January 16, 2012

Orange County DUI Checkpoint Locations: Newport Beach

Newport Beach California on a crisp spring mor... Image via Wikipedia

Our Newport Beach DUI Lawyers have learned taht Newport Beach Police Department traffic officers will conduct a sobriety checkpoint from 6 p.m. tonight until 1 a.m. Thursday.

The checkpoint will be northbound Newport Boulevard at Finley Avenue, a location selected Ac€A“based upon its proximity to bars and restaurants,Ac€Â? according to a police statement. Ac€A“Site determination was also based upon roadway configuration, sight distances, traffic volume, lighting, and motorist safety,Ac€Â? the statement said.

The checkpoint will be clearly marked, police said, and vehicles will be selected to move through the check lanes on a pre-set basis to ensure objectivity and timeliness. Ac€A“Motorists will be greeted and given an informational brochure on Ac€ËoDriving Under The Influence,Acۉ„c prepared by the Newport Beach Police Department Traffic Division,Ac€Â? the statement said.

Funding for this program was provided by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS), through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.A‚  Call us at (877) 568-2977 for any questions.

Tags
California, California State Route 55, Driving, Driving under the influence, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Newport Beach California, newport beach dui lawyers, police, Random checkpoint

This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 14th, 2011 at 6:07 pm and is filed under Dui Checkpoints. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.


View the original article here

Continue Reading...

January 14, 2012

Police Officers Really Do Lie About DUI

In my many years as a Pennsylvania DUI Attorney defending the rights of those accused, I have seen many, many cases of police officers “fudging” or “shading” the truth and even outright lying. This is one of the main reasons why anyone who is accused of a DUI should have an experienced PA DUI lawyer fully examine the facts of their case.

Apparently police officers have no problems with lying in DUI cases. Apparently police officers have no problems with lying in DUI cases.

Take for example a recent scandal in Georgia where a police officer falsified DUI readings:

The forced resignation of a deputy assigned to the DUI task force could affect the prosecution of hundreds of cases, according to those in the legal community.

Erik Norman faced mandatory resignation from the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office on Oct. 19 after a prosecutor reported that Norman told her he had falsified readings from a hand-held alcohol-testing device.

Unfortunately, police corruption happens all over the country and Pennsylvania is no less a victim than any other state.  The same problems of lack of transparency and oversight as well as the absence of criminal prosecution for these offenders creates an environment where “a little lie here and there” becomes the rule rather than the exception or that “the ends justify the means.”

If you or a loved one is arrested for a Pennsylvania DUI violation, you should have an expert PA DUI attorney examine the evidence against you to determine whether it is real or a fabrication by the police.  For a free consultation please call 1-866-MCSHANE.


View the original article here

Continue Reading...

January 13, 2012

Braves Star Arrested for DUI

April 30th, 2011 Allen Trapp Posted in Top 50 DUI Arrests of All-Time, Current Events, DUI Arrests That Made the News, Uncategorized |

      Braves pitcher Derek Lowe was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol within days after pitching coach Roger McDowell was accused of making anti-homosexual comments before a game in San Francisco last weekend.  Gordy Wright, a spokesman for the Georgia State Patrol, said a trooper stopped Lowe’s vehicle about 10 p.m. on Thursday, April 28th, on an Atlanta street. The trooper detected an odor of an alcoholic beverage and administered a “field sobriety test,” which resulted in Lowe’s arrest.  Initial reports failed to identify the nature of this test, but additional information should be forthcoming. 

     The 37-year-old right-hander was charged with DUI, reckless driving and improper lane change, according to the Georgia State Patrol.  Lowe declined to take a breath test before he was released, and the officer did not attempt to obtain a search warrant for a blood best, although he could have done so under state law.  The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has reported that Lowe was allegedly racing another vehicle when he was pulled over.

Written by Allen Trapp who is board certified by the National College for DUI Defense and the author of Georgia DUI Survival Guide Visit Website

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

January 11, 2012

Pennsylvania Police Officer Admits to Lying in DUI Cases

We all want to trust the police and see them as upright protectors of justice. While many police officers are very professional and take their responsibility very seriously, there are others who are corrupt and use unscrupulous tactics that harm the common citizen.

Bad cops exist everywhere and there is no shortage of them in Pennsylvania. Some of them will even go as far as to lie under oath:

Pennsylvania Police Officer Admits to Lying Under Oath in DUI Case Pennsylvania Police Officer Admits to Lying Under Oath in DUI Case

HERMITAGE — As a citizen, Raymond Bogaty wants to believe the police.

“We all want to believe the police,” he said.

But, as Mercer County Public Defender, Bogaty has occasionally suspected that a story told by a policeman has not been the whole truth.

“I’ve been doing this for 37 years,” he said. “You always have concerns about truthfulness. You, at times, suspect the truth is not being told.”

Still, it’s rare to catch a policeman in a lie, or to get an admission that someone has lied, he said.

That unusual event occurred Tuesday when Mercer County District Attorney Robert G. Kochems and Hermitage Police Chief Patrick B. McElhinny released statements saying that Hermitage patrolman Dennis Best had admitted lying under oath in a 2008 case.

Criminal justice is intrinsically a human endeavor and due to the lack of transparency and oversight when it comes to the police, the situation is ripe for honest mistakes, purposeful and conscious misleading actions (lies) and even corruption.  This can lead to false conviction if we do not successfully expose the lies and mistakes in the police officer’s account.  This is why it is important to have an attorney who had trial experience in DUI cases and who has the guts to cross-examine the police.

If you feel the police have violated your rights call The McShane Firm to protect your freedom and liberty. Call 1-866-MCSHANE.


View the original article here

Continue Reading...

January 10, 2012

Judge Overrules DUI Conviction for Deaf Man

By guest-writer

In a victory for deaf rights advocates, a judge In Washington state recently overturned a DUI charge leveled against a deaf man who had not had the aid of a sign language interpreter during his initial court appearance.

The ruling brings an end to five years of legal wrangling for 33-year-old William Kral, who had spent years appealing his past conviction on DUI charges despite the fact that he did not have a trained interpreter assisting him during his DUI arraignment.

According to a report from The News Tribune in Tacoma, Washington, the nightmare began for Kral in December 2005, when he was arrested in Benton County, Washington on suspicion of drunk driving and driving with a suspended license.

However, when the deaf man was arraigned after his arrest, the courtroom did not provide a properly trained interpreter. According to Kral, the interpreter told him a document was simply a continuance of the man’s case.

The document, however, waived Kral’s right to a speedy trial. Due to the miscommunication, Kral signed a piece of paper that severely limited his rights. As a result, Kral allegedly signed a paper waiving his constitutional right to a speedy trial without adequately understanding the nature of the document.

At the time, the court overlooked this disadvantage, and eventually found Kral guilty of driving drunk. Kral had to serve a nine-month prison sentence, which included three months in an alcohol treatment program, and had to pay more than $4,600 in fines.

Over the course of the next five years, Kral struggled through several appeals, in which he was aided by several different court-appointed attorneys.

Finally, in August, an appellate court ruled that Kral had been denied his constitutional rights when he was not provided with a properly trained translator. The judge sent the case back to the trial court for a reversal of the decision.

This final reversal occurred last week, when the trial court admitted its wrongdoing by throwing out Kral’s conviction and ordering that the state repay the $4,600 he had paid in fines.

Such an action, however, offers little solace for Kral, who cannot recover the nine months he spent behind bars. To make matters worse, Kral’s prison sentence forced him to lose his construction job and his girlfriend at the time.

In addition, despite Kral’s painful ordeal, the district court seems to have failed to learn its lesson. In the recent hearing, Kral had to provide his own professionally-trained interpreter because the court still did not offer one to deaf defendants.

Thus, while Kral won his individual battle, it came at a great personal cost, and it appears that the court has yet to change its discriminatory practices.

Nevertheless, Kral and his attorney hope that the decision will eventually help improve the experience of other deaf defendants in Washington courts.


View the original article here

Continue Reading...

January 9, 2012

Canada Moves Toward .05% DUI…U.S. to Follow?

As I’ve mentioned in past posts, the blood-alcohol level that largely determines what constitutes "drunk driving" has steadily dropped over the years due to political pressure of groups like MADD.  

Mothers Against Drunk Driving is a well-organized (over 600 chapters), well-funded (IRS Form 990 shows revenue for 2002 of $48,051,441) and dangerous group of well-intentioned zealots — the very same folks who gave us Prohibition decades ago. For many years now, MADD’s agenda has been clear: apply political pressure to get ever-harsher drunk driving laws, law enforcement and punishment.

But what is the final goal? When will we have reached a state when MADD is satisfied that the drunk driving laws are sufficient?

The answer is simple: zero tolerance. No drinking and driving. And, eventually, no drinking. Exaggeration? Paranoia? Let’s look at a little DUI history…..

The original drunk driving laws were simple and fair: Don’t drive under the influence of alcohol (DUI). Then, years ago, law enforcement came up with crude devices to measure alcohol on the breath of drunk driving suspects. But what did, say, a .13% blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) mean?  They turned to the American Medical Association which, in 1938, created a "Committee to Study Problems of Motor Vehicle Accidents"; at the same time, the National Safety Council set up a "Committee on Tests for Intoxication".

After some study, these two groups came up with their findings: a driver with .15% BAC or higher could be presumed to be "under the influence"; those under .15% could not. That’s right, .15%.  And that recommendation lasted for 22 years. But certain groups were not happy with the low DUI arrest and conviction rates.

Under increasing political pressure, the committees "revisited" the question in 1960 and agreed to lower the presumed level of intoxication to .10%. Had the human body changed in 22 years? Had the AMA been negligent in their earlier studies? Or were politics and law trumping scientific truth?

Well, the arrest and conviction rates shot up, but there were still too many people escaping the DUI net. Then MADD was formed by Candy Lightner (later to quit the organization and become an outspoken critic of MADD’s Prohibitionist agenda). Soon after, legislation began appearing in many states that created a second crime: driving with a BAC of .10% or higher.

This new crime did not require the driver to be affected by alcohol: even if sober, he would be guilty if his blood-alcohol was .10%. In effect, it completely ignored the questions of intoxication, driving impairment and individual tolerance to alcohol. And, despite questions of double jeopardy, the individual could be charged and even convicted of both the traditional DUI and the new .10% crimes! This gave police and prosecutors a powerful new weapon, and drunk driving arrests/convictions jumped once again.

This was not good enough. Under increasing pressure from an ever more powerful MADD, in 1990 four states lowered the blood-alcohol level in DUI cases to .08%.  Others soon followed and, ten years later, federal politicians (with one eye on MADD’s influence in elections) passed an appropriations bill in effect coercing all states into adopting the new .08% BAC standard. Since then, Mothers Against Drunk Driving has pressured state legislatures to drop the blood-alcohol level to .05%. In the meantime, they had been successful in getting nearly universal adoption of a .01% BAC standard (termed "ero tolerance") for drivers under 21.

The future is clear — and can be seen in our neighbor to the north, where .05% laws have recently been enacted…


Does New Law Miss Target on Drunk Driving?

Edmonton, British Columbia,  Nov. 19 – Alberta’s new drinking-and-driving legislation will follow the tire tracks of B.C. into a decidedly grey area. In so doing, it may create opposition to an initiative that will achieve its public-safety goal, but still invite criticism for targeting drivers who are not legally impaired according to the Criminal Code of Canada.

Drinking and driving is a crime that kills too many people, both bystanders and the drunks themselves, and there ought to be universal rejection of the practice. Our premier and her government should be dedicated to the eradication of this scourge. And they were in fact wise to consult with their B.C. counterparts, whose iron-fisted and open-handed legislation is being credited with a significant reduction in deaths caused by drunk driving since its enactment in September 2010. But the Redford government has to see the B.C. legislation for its unduly harsh nature – and its cash-cow element as well.

In B.C., a driver whose blood-alcohol content is measured between .05 and .08 – which is legal under the Criminal Code – can be hit with an immediate three-day licence suspension and have to pay a fine of $200, as well as a $250 fee for licence reinstatement and might also have to pay for towing and storage if his or her vehicle is seized. Being caught in this grey area a second or third time in a five-year period results in heftier financial penalties, lengthier suspensions and longer vehicle seizures.

Government house leader Dave Hancock said Alberta’s legislation will impose a three-day suspension and vehicle seizure on a first-time offender in the .05-to-.08 category, while a second offence could cost the driver loss of licence and vehicle for 15 days. The legislation will be introduced next week and Solicitor General Jonathan Denis says he opposes a "money grab," so fines levied here may not mirror those imposed in B.C.

But a 125-pound woman needs to drink only two fiveounce glasses of wine over a one-hour period to register .06, according to a Canadian Automobile Association calculator. When Redford said she wanted new legislation to change the culture around impaired driving, surely she meant to target those who drink themselves past .08, rather than the husband and wife who share a bottle of wine on an evening out for dinner.

Simply put, there should be no need to debate a law against drinking and driving. A government should have the good sense to fashion legislation that is consistent with the Criminal Code, preserves public safety, provides a deterrent by punishing the guilty through licence suspension and stands the test of constitutionality. Albertans can only hope the Redford government is up to that challenge.


You can expect to see MADD continuing to push for new .05% laws across this country, as well.  And then?

In 1999, MADD’s National Board of Directors unanimously voted to change the organization’s mission statement from just preventing drunk driving to include the prevention of underage drinking. Not underage drinking and driving — just drinking. Let me say that again: MADD formally shifted its focus away from "drunk driving" and towards the broader "problem" of drinking.

Can a new era of prohibition be far behind?

This entry was posted on Saturday, December 3rd, 2011 at 8:08 am and is filed under Duiblog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.


View the original article here

Continue Reading...

January 8, 2012

Man Arrested for DUI Kicks Officer on Drive to Police Station

By guest-writer

When people face the indignity of a DUI arrest, they are best advised to refrain from attacking their arresting officers. This advice, unfortunately, has not reached all drivers, as proven by the recent antics of a man in Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania.

The man, 46-year-old Eric J. Gross, allegedly kicked a state trooper in a police cruiser while they were traveling to the police station after Gross had been arrested under suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol, according to a report from The Morning Call.

After Gross kicked the trooper, Joseph Wasylyk, the injured officer was able to pull his car over, force Gross outside of the car, and physically restrain the arrestee to prevent future kicking.

The trooper drove Gross to the station, and then retreated to the Lehigh Valley Hospital, where he was treated and released.

Sources indicate that the bizarre incident started at roughly 6:00 p.m. when Wasylyk responded to a report of someone driving recklessly in Washington Township, Pennsylvania. Shortly thereafter, Gross abandoned his vehicle and started walking down a local highway.

When he responded to the scene, the trooper eventually spotted Gross and arrested him for suspicion of drunk driving. It should be noted here that, even though Gross wasn’t driving at the time, his driving earlier that night still made him eligible for a DUI offense.

After the initial arrest, the trooper placed handcuffs on Gross behind his back, and secured Gross in the back seat of his cruiser with a seat belt. His job seemingly done, Wasylyk started to drive towards the DUI Center in Allentown, where Gross would be charged and booked.

While they were driving to the DUI Center, however, Gross started cursing and moving around in the back of the cruiser. To get a better look at the anxious offender, the trooper turned on his interior lights.

Soon, Gross began kicking the armrest and computer printer located inside the cruiser, though when the trooper asked Gross to kindly refrain from harming the equipment, Gross quickly obliged.

This stern warning, however, did not prevent Gross from taking much more aggressive action later in the drive. Sources indicate that Gross lifted his legs and started kicking Gross repeatedly on the right side of his body.

In a feat of physical coordination, the trooper was somehow able to pin the man’s legs against the seat, pull the car over, and restrain Gross before driving him to the DUI Center in one piece.

For his acts of violence, Gross now faces charges of aggravated assault, simple assault, reckless endangerment, criminal mischief, and harassment.

He was held on $20,000 bail and immediately sent to Lehigh County Prison, where the guards will be best advised to watch out for his flailing legs.


View the original article here

Continue Reading...

January 6, 2012

How to Save Yourself from a False DUI Conviction

Save yourself from a False Pennsylvania DUI Save yourself from a False Pennsylvania DUI

Over the holidays, many Pennsylvania drivers will be stopped by police for DUI.  Law enforcement is a human endeavor and police officers are prone to mistakes which can lead to false arrest.  As citizens fit is up to you to arm yourself with knowledge of the law so you can protect yourself against a false DUI.

This is why The McShane Firm has put together a guide to help educate you on your rights and how you should use them.  Please read: What to Do if You’re pulled over for DUI in PA.

If you need professional advice on a DUI or criminal matter, please contact the Pennsylvania DUI attorneys at The McShane Firm at 1-866-MCSHANE.


View the original article here

Continue Reading...

January 4, 2012

DUI Task Force Cop Admits Falsifying Breath Test Readings

The latest news fresh from the front lines of MADD’s "War on Drunk Driving":


DUI Cases in Jeopardy After Richmond County Deputy Admits Falsifying Readings

Richmond County, GA. Nov. 19 – The forced resignation of a deputy assigned to the DUI task force could affect the prosecution of hundreds of cases, according to those in the legal community.

Erik Norman faced mandatory resignation from the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office on Oct. 19 after a prosecutor reported that Norman told her he had falsified readings from a hand-held alcohol-testing device.

Norman told the department’s internal affairs division that he had done it only “once or twice” but couldn’t recall exactly which cases were involved. Norman’s credibility is gone now, no matter how many times he falsified readings, said Augusta attorney Robert “Bo” Hunter, who prosecuted drunken driving cases as the Richmond County State Court solicitor from 1988 to 1996… Even worse, Hunter said, is that there probably were people charged with driving under the influence who shouldn’t have been.

Norman, hired as a jailer in July 2002, was transferred to the DUI task force in March 2009. An accurate count of his DUI convictions cannot be made through court records, but during his time on the task force, he arrested an estimated 250 to 400 people.

State Court Solicitor Charles Evans said his office has 62 pending DUI cases in which Norman was the arresting officer. Each will have to be judged on its merits to determine whether to continue prosecuting them as DUIs. If necessary, the office will bring in Norman as a trial witness, Evans said.

The Georgia Peace Officer Standards and Training Coun­cil is investigating to determine whether Norman can keep his certification, said Ryan Powell, its director of operations. Unless he is arrested on felony charges or his certification is suspended, Norman is free to work as an officer, Powell said.

Falsifying evidence is a felony – making false statements – but prosecuting Norman for it would be difficult, District Attorney Ashley Wright said. A prosecutor would have to prove in which case Norman falsified the results, and there is no way to uncover those cases without Norman’s admission. He claimed he didn’t know which cases were falsified…


Do you really think this Georgia deputy is the only cop out there falsifying breathalyzer readings to justify his DUI arrest? And by the way, notice Deputy Norman’s sterling qualifications to investigate and arrest citizens for drunk driving:  He was hired in 2002 to be a jailor — and after seven years of guarding jail cells, he was transferred directly to the DUI task force.  Do you still think DUI cops are highly trained and qualified?

This entry was posted on Sunday, November 20th, 2011 at 9:37 am and is filed under Duiblog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.


View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Aiding and Abetting a DUI?

In California, you can be convicted of aiding and abetting anytime you encourage, facilitate or aid another person in the commission of a crime regardless of how insignificant your role. But aiding and abetting is not a crime unto itself. When the prosecutor believes that you are guilty of aiding and abetting a crime, he/she charges you with the underlying crime and proceeds on the theory that you aided and abetted the perpetrator. If you are convicted, you face the same penalties for the underlying offense as the primary perpetrator…it’s as if you had committed the crime yourself.

So how do these laws apply to DUIs?

Couldn’t it be said that a bartender who pours and serves the drinks is facilitating the crime if he/she knows that the patron will be driving? What if you are too impaired to drive so you give the keys to someone else who you know has been drinking…does this encourage the crime? It certainly aids in its commission…

There are several states that have held that you can be convicted of aiding and abetting a DUI but as of now, California does not appear to be one of them.

It would probably be a fairly difficult case for the prosecution to prove. Bartenders or other servers would have to know that the patron planned on driving. You would have to know that the driver of your car is over the legal limit (which would likely be difficult if you, yourself, were too impaired to drive).

And then there’s the issue of duty. Mere presence at the scene or knowledge that the crime is being committed isn’t enough to sustain an aiding and abetting charge. To violate the law, you would have to have a legal duty to prevent the crime. To date, this legal duty doesn’t exist in California.


View the original article here

Continue Reading...

January 2, 2012

Attorney Dorward Brilliantly Defends PA DUI Case

At The McShane Firm, we pride ourselves on having the the hardest working, most dedicated DUI Attorneys in Pennsylvania.  Recently, Attorney Shawn Dorward secured a total not guilty verdict in a DUI case for a client he had been defending for almost two years.  Most importantly, Attorney Dorward was able to secure a “not guilty” verdict by highlight the truth of the matter.

Attorney Dorward Brilliantly Defends PA DUI Case Based on the Truth Attorney Dorward Brilliantly Defends PA DUI Case Based on the Truth

Mr. H was charged with a fourth offense Pennsylvania DUI: Refusal within the last ten years. He was observed by the arresting officer to have violated numerous traffic offenses including almost striking another vehicle. A vehicle stop was made and when requested, Mr. H performed several field sobriety tests. The officer noted that Mr. H performed unsatisfactorily on all tests and was non-compliant. Back-up was called to the scene. The officer also testified that Mr. H was hard to understand and seemed confused throughout his investigation. Mr. H was placed under arrest and taken to the hospital for a blood draw.  The O’Connell Warnings and Implied Consent form was read to Mr. H and given to him to review. Due to Mr. H’s continued non-compliance with the officer he noted him as a refusal.

At trial Mr. H was called to the stand and informed the Court that he was in special education classes and had a hard time reading and writing. He was then given the O’Connell Warnings and Implied Consent form to read to the jury, which he could not. A friend of Mr. H’s also testified to Mr. H’s level of education and the need for Mr. H to have assistance in several areas of his everyday life  Therefore, there was no way Mr. H could understand the charges against him and should not be charged with a DUI refusal.

After three and a half hours the jury came back with a not guilty verdict.

This case highlights the need for an experienced DUI attorney who can defend you based on the truth.  Juries today are very knowledgeable about the issues and cannot be tricked by “smoke and mirrors” games.  The truth wins cases.

If you are looking for an aggressive PA DUI attorney to defend your case, call 1-866-MCSHANE.


View the original article here

Continue Reading...

January 1, 2012

Pennsylvania DUI Checkpoints: Are They Really Worth It?

While most of us will be enjoying the next few weeks as part of the holiday season, police all across Pennsylvania are gearing up for the DUI Checkpoint season.  As a part of their DUI enforcement efforts, PENNDOT, Pennsylvania State Police and local police from all across the Commonwealth will be setting up more and more DUI checkpoints along Pennsylvania’s busy roadways.

But as taxpayers, aren’t we entitled to ask, “Are DUI Checkpoints worth the money?”

Police in Pennsylvania are gearing up for more DUI checkpoints over the holidays. Police in Pennsylvania are gearing up for more DUI checkpoints over the holidays.

According to a recent article, ” Statistics don’t justify sobriety checkpoints“:

Consider that over 1 million vehicles went through 1,469 California sobriety checkpoints in 2008. Police arrested just one-third of 1 percent of those motorists for drunken driving. A similar analysis found that in 2007, less than 1 percent of the more than 181,000 drivers stopped at Pennsylvania checkpoints were arrested.

This is pretty consistent with the police reports in the local papers. The DUI arrests normally represent only 1% or less of the vehicles stopped. That’s 99 drivers being stopped, searched and being treated like a criminal for one POSSIBLE drunk person.

Not only are DUI checkpoints a bad idea statistically, but the economic costs are much higher than the alternatives. Once again the author of this article asks:

These exercises in futility are extremely expensive. Checkpoints can cost more than $10,000 each time they’re set up compared to $300 for each roving patrol. Considering how tight state and local budgets are in this dismal economy, is it really a wise investment?

The sad fact is, politicians don’t make laws based on statistics or the economic impact. They make DUI laws based on what lobbyists tell them to do.  MADD and other powerful DUI lobbies are hard at work pushing their agendas and politicians fall in tow and dare not question the simulated reality.

This is why we need to wake up to these facts and continue to ask for a better way.


View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Links

Developed in partnership with SanFran Coders.

Blogroll

The acronyms DUI, DWI, OMVI and OVI all refer to the same thing: operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The most commonly used terms are DUI, an acronym for Driving Under the Influence, and DWI, an acronym for Driving While Impaired.
© Copyright 2010 - 2015 MY OVI | Developed by San Fran Coders