DUI Myth Busters: I’ll Get Off Easy

You could end up in jail even for a first DUI in PA.

In my time defending DUI cases in Pennsylvania, one of the most common misconceptions I come across is when people believe just because they have a perfect criminal record they will get off easy on a first time DUI. They think that ARD is a viable option to them until it is explained to them.

Unfortunately, this isn’t the case.

A first time DUI offense in PA can carry the following penalties and consequences:

6 months in jail12 month license suspension$5,000 in finesIncreased insurance ratesWill show up on you criminal record forever

As you can see these are not minor penalties.  These are penalties that can change the rest of your life.

This is why it is highly recommended that even those facing a first time DUI offense contact a professional DUI attorney immediately.  For Pennsylvania DUI cases please call 1-866-MCSHANE.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Summertime DUI: Federal DUI in PA

There is a lot to enjoy at the National Parks in PA. Just be careful of getting a federal DUI.

One of the great summer pastimes in Pennsylvania is visiting National Parks and Forests in the state such as Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, the Gettysburg National Battlefield, and Allegheny National Forest.   As these area are administered by the Federal Government, a DUI in these areas will result in a federal DUI offense.  Law enforcement in these area are active in DUI arrests and have been known to set up DUI checkpoints.

A federal DUI much more complex than a state DUI.  Also only an attorney who is admitted to federal court can defend a case there.  This is why it is highly advised that you contact a DUI attorney immediately if you are arrested for a federal DUI.  If you care in Pennsylvania please call 1-866-MCSHANE.

Learn more about Federal DUI  in our post: When a PA DUI Becomes a Federal Case

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

When the Innocent Plead Guilty

I’ve often been told, "Well, if he pled guilty he must have done it!"  This is wrong on so many levels that I don’t know where to begin…  

Certainly, in DUI cases, the reasoning is wrong as drunk driving is somewhat unique among criminal offenses.  There are two offenses (in most states carrying identical penalties), and most individuals arrested will be charged with both: (1) driving under the influence of alcohol, and (2) and driving with a blood-alcohol level of .08% or higher.

Problem #1:  Since individual tolerance varies, it is difficult to presume impairment from a blood-alcohol level.  Further, at what point does the driver know he is impaired?

Problem #2:  How does the driver know what his blood-alcohol level is when he’s driving?  Can he tell the difference, for example, between .07% and .08%?  (Well, you say, he shouldn’t have been driving if he was even close.  So do we convict citizens who are "close" to driving over the speed limit?)

But there are larger issues involving those who plead guilty to DUI — issues involving the increasingly coercive nature of the judicial system, as a respected retired federal judge has noted today:

Why Do Innocent People Plead Guilty?

Huffington Post, June 6 – Prison is Hell for the guilty; it is difficult to envision what it must be like for the innocent. Brian Banks is yet another story of a person not only wrongfully imprisoned, but imprisoned based upon his own "voluntary" act. He was exonerated after serving five years for a rape he did not commit. How and why do innocent people confess or plead guilty to crimes that they did not commit? Roughly 20 percent of those that have been exonerated confessed to the crimes with which they were charged and convicted. Most of those involved persons who had actually gone to trial, but we have no way of knowing how many there are who merely entered guilty pleas through bargains and never appealed as a result. Although we hear and read about criminal trials, the reality is that only about 5 percent actually go to trial and the balance are resolved by plea agreements…

What apparently happened here (based upon his version) is all too typical of what happens in the criminal justice system. I call it the "Ins of Court" — intimidation by the prosecution and incompetence by the defense. The defendant, frightened, most often poor, uneducated, a minority member is advised that a trial is likely to end with a conviction and a long sentence, whereas a plea will guarantee a much shorter sentence. Despite his protestations of innocence, the defendant seeks guidance frequently from an over-worked, underpaid defense lawyer who would much prefer a quick deal rather than a long drawn out trial. Of course, not all defense counsel fit that description. Many do not, but even the best and most devoted are required to put this draconian choice to their clients — a guaranteed short sentence versus a potentially long one — possibly life in prison.

The problem is further complicated by the fact that it is more difficult to set aside a guilty plea than a conviction after trial. Once a person has admitted guilt and spelled out the details of the crime sufficient for the court to accept the plea, the chances of reversing such convictions are very slight if not nil. Most do not try. Mr. Banks had the fortitude to continue his fight even after he had been paroled and was fortunate in eliciting a recantation from the complaining witness. Such instances are very rare. Thanks to the tenacity of the California Innocence Project it happened here.

The reality is that without plea bargains the entire criminal justice system would come to a halt. Charges would be tried ten years after they were made. The only solution is vigilance by all those involved. The prosecutor, defense counsel and the court must be satisfied of the defendant’s guilt before urging or accepting a plea. I recognize that there is no avenue to absolute certainty because the knowledge of guilt or innocence lies with the defendant, but all involved must strive not to imprison the innocent — even those who profess to be guilty.

It is common in drunk driving cases for the prosecution to offer the defendant a plea bargain, for example, of a guilty plea to the .08% charge with a dismissal of the DUI charge, and a promise of only two days in jail — with the understanding that if he goes to trial and loses, the judge will sentence him to 60 days in jail.  (Note: Most judges dislike trials, as they back up their busy caseloads, so are anxious to dispose of cases by plea — and inclined to punish those who "waste the court’s time".  Accordingly, it is often commonly understood in any given courtroom that the sentence will be far worse if you refuse the plea bargain offer and insist on your constitutional right to jury trial.)

So….The defendant thinks he is probably innocent and his attorney tells him that you has a good case:  in his opinion, he has a 50% chance of being acquitted on both counts.

What would you do?

This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 6th, 2012 at 8:45 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...

Adult Film Star Jenna Jameson Arrested Under Suspicion of DUI

Former Adult film Star Jenna Jameson was arrested early Friday morning under suspicion of California driving under the influence (DUI). Police were called to the scene in Westminster, California after Jameson reportedly crashed her Range Rover SUV into a light post. Jameson suffered minor injuries, but refused medical treatment.

Police officers reportedly administered DUI field sobriety tests (FST's), where she allegedly shown signs of intoxication. Jameson was subsequently taken into custody. Jameson, who is primarily known for her work in adult films, was cited and released Friday morning. No breath or blood test results have been released.

It is not clear what FST’s Jameson performed, but FST’s are administered by police to help build their case against the person under investigation of DUI. FST’s are commonly very flawed and unreliable indicators of actual intoxication. A variety of factors including (but not limited to):
poor lighting;
inclement weather;
unstable footwear;
distraction of traffic, lights, or spectators; and/or
uneven surface conditions

can cause an otherwise sober person to perform poorly on FST’s. While all the circumstances surrounding Jameson’s DUI arrest are not clear, an arrest following the administration of FST’s is far from an indication of guilt. Thus it is important to consult with an experienced DUI attorney if you are arrested for DUI based on failing FST’s.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

South Carolina Driver Charged With DUI After Crashing Into Pub

By guest-writer

Drunk drivers typically meander their way beyond the bars they leave, but some drivers aren’t able to resist returning to their watering hole, as evidenced by the recent actions of a woman in South Carolina.

73-year-old Ellon Williams was arrested for drunk driving after she drove her car through a restaurant into a pub in South Carolina last week, according to a recent report from WECT News.

Sources say that Williams was trying to leave the One More Grill and Pub shortly after 10:00 p.m. on Thursday night when she unceremoniously slammed her car into her favorite dining sport.

According to the police report, Williams told investigators from the South Carolina Highway Patrol that she thought she had put her car in reverse when she stepped on the gas, but it appears that she actually had her vehicle in drive.

Miraculously, no one involved in the accident was killed, despite the fact that the pub had a relatively full house that Thursday night.

The owner of the restaurant, Rebecca Stallings, says there were more than 30 people singing karaoke in the building when Williams drove her 1989 Mercedes-Benz through two plate glass windows in the front of the building.

After slamming her car into the pub, Williams was able to bring her car to stop in the front portion of the building, which may have spared a few lives.

Sources say that three people who were in the building were taken to the hospital, but all three injured parties have been treated and released.

One of the injured people, Lin Shelton, a regular at the One More Grill and Pub, reportedly lost a tooth and injured her leg in the incident, and she provided reporters with a harrowing story about the crash.

In her words, “[i]t sounded like an explosion. My back was turned so my instinct was just jump in the air because I felt stuff coming toward me, and it clipped me in the leg, threw me up in the air.”

After she was struck by Williams’ car, Shelton crawled through a back door, but she quickly ran back into the building to help free one of her friends who had been pinned between a pool table and a wall.

Fortunately, the wild DUI accident did not kill anyone, nor will it close the business. The owner of the restaurant, which has been at its current location for 13 years, plans to re-open the business soon.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

How Bad Can a Bad Lawyer Really Be?

No matter how many times it’s said,  some people still don’t understand how bad a bad lawyer can really be.  The Innocence Project list bad lawyering as one of the leading causes to false convictions.  Here is an excerpt from on of the profiles highlighting this issue:

The exoneration and release of Jimmy Ray Bromgard from Montana prison provides a sobering view of the effects of inadequate or incompetent counsel. Bromgard, arrested when he was 18, spent 15 years in prison for the brutal rape of an eight-year-old girl, a crime post-conviction DNA testing proved he did not commit. Bromgard’s trial attorney performed no investigation, filed no pre-trial motions, gave no opening statement, did not prepare for closing arguments, failed to file an appeal, and provided no expert to refute the fraudulent testimony of the state’s hair microscopy expert. Other than the forensic testimony and the tentative identification, there was no evidence against Bromgard.

There is certainly quite a difference between Homer Simpson's Lawyer and O.J. Simpson's.

Just as in any profession there is a big difference between the true professionals and ones who are downright bad.  Take mechanics for instance.  A good mechanic will identify the problem and fix it right the first time.  A bad mechanic may miss the diagnosis and fix something else.  After a a few trips back and forth, your problem isn’t fixed and you’ve spent more time and money than had you opted for the better mechanic in the first place.

Add up the costs of a DUI conviction.  You have:

FinesPay lost while you serve jail timeCosts of getting to and from work while you serve a license suspensionIncreased insurance costs

All of those costs added up are far more than the cost of a professional DUI lawyer.

The moral of the story is when choosing a mechanic or DUI lawyer -do it right the first time. Good lawyers aren’t cheap. Cheap lawyers aren’t good.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Crossing the Thin Blue Line

I’ve posted repeatedly in the past about the double standard in DUI law enforcement, and more particularly on the "pass" cops get when they drive drunk.  See for example, Guarding the Guardians, The Blue Cover-Up, The Thin Blue Line and The Unwritten Code.

It would appear that this "unwritten code" is not limited to the U.S….

Rookie Cop ‘Harassed and Berated’ After Arresting Off-Duty Officer
 

Toronto, Canada.  May 29 – It’s an impaired driving case like thousands of others except it involves a rookie Toronto police officer who crossed the thin blue line and paid the price.

Const. Andrew Vanderburgh was “harassed and berated” by fellow officers because on Nov. 28, 2009, he arrested and charged an off-duty police constable with impaired driving and having a blood-alcohol level over 80 milligrams, according to an internal police disciplinary ruling.

Some officers also allegedly called Vanderburgh a “rat,” Justice Paul Reinhardt wrote in a pre-trial ruling.

On Tuesday, Vanderburgh was in Old City Hall court to testify at Breton Berthiaume’s long-delayed impaired driving trial. He declined to comment except to say that while he does not regret charging a fellow officer, the fallout has been difficult.

Also in court was Const. Suhail Khawaja, who accompanied Vanderburgh in his squad car the evening of the arrest.

That night, Vanderburgh and Khawaja went to Berthiaume’s home in High Park after a 911 caller reported seeing someone driving erratically on the Don Valley Parkway, and had recorded the licence plate number.

Some officers there “took exception to a police officer being charged or investigated,” Crown Attorney Mary-Anne Mackett told court Tuesday, providing an overview of the convoluted 21-year-old case.

Reinhardt, who is no longer the judge in the Berthiaume case, said in his pre-trial ruling that disclosure he reviewed alleged Khawaja “refused to assist Constable Vanderburgh in the arrest and preparation of paperwork at 22 Division.”

“Constable Khawaja is purported to have stated on more than one occasion that evening to different informants that he wanted nothing to do with the arrest of a fellow police officer,” Reinhardt wrote.

Vanderburgh, meanwhile, continued to pay a price.

After Berthiaume was released, Vanderburgh drove a marked police vehicle back to his division and was followed by a 22 Division cruiser driven by Const. James Little.

Little pulled him over and gave him a ticket for allegedly disobeying a red light, which was later dismissed. Last year, Little pleaded guilty to one count of discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act.

Little chose “to disregard his professional obligations and embark on a course of retaliatory action against a colleague performing his sworn, lawful duty,” Supt. Robin Breen wrote in his ruling.

“He abused his position to express his personal displeasure about his colleague’s arrest of an off-duty police officer.” Little was docked 20 days’ pay.

Two other officers, including a staff sergeant who failed to intervene, were disciplined in the incident. One was also docked 20 days’ pay, the other 15.

Apparently, the only difference we have with our northern neighbors is that the Canadian cops are punished for their conduct.

This entry was posted on Sunday, June 3rd, 2012 at 9:39 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...

What Do You Have the Right to Remain Silent About?

One of the most common questions DUI clients ask me is, “What if they didn’t read me my rights?” This question is generally posed in a way that clearly suggests that the client believes he or she has their smoking gun to get out of the problem they have recently got themselves into.

There is no question that at the time the question is posed there is a misunderstanding on the part of the client about what “reading their rights” means. In fact in every occasion where I have questioned the client as to what the rights were, they parroted these rights exactly as they heard them on their favorite television police or detective show always starting off with: “you have the right to remain silent . . . . .”

Interestingly enough, it’s the right to remain silent people don’t understand and fail to invoke.

It seems to me that people, knowing they have a right to remain silent, will lie rather than remain silent. Lying and remaining silent are 2 completely different things with 2 completely different effects on a case.

A lie takes away from the client’s credibility as well as proposes to a jury that the fact the client lied could suggest the client had some knowledge of his or her guilt. In fact if it is established through trial that a defendant may have lied then the jury is given a jury instruction that they could consider that to be because the defendant had knowledge of his guilt.

Whereas, remaining silent is just that. In fact a jury can’t ever be informed by any means that a defendant chose to remain silent or invoked his rights under the 5th amendment to the constitution to remain silent. It is required to be a void in the line of information allowed to be given to a jury.

So it is important to not only be able to say the Miranda Rights like they do in the television shows, but, more importantly, to understand those rights, especially the right to remain silent.

First don’t be afraid to invoke the right. Cooperating with the police when you are the target of an investigation does not mean you have to speak to them. Call your attorney first or let the police know you “won’t answer any statements without an attorney present.”

Second, recognize WHEN you need to invoke these rights. For instance, if you are stopped by police and the officer tells you he stopped you for speeding, a question regarding alcohol is a sign to remain silent.

If you are asked to perform ANY type of physical field sobriety test after you are stopped for speeding, then you respectfully refuse to do that. That includes following an officer’s finger!

If you are asked to blow into a hand-held breathalyzer test prior to being place under arrest, then you respectfully refuse that to. It may be a good idea at that time to request to take a blood or breath test IF YOU ARE BEING PLACED UNDER ARREST FOR DUI.

Lastly, be respectful while still staying strong. There is no reason to be rude to a police officer. In fact, it can prove to be a very bad idea. But don’t give in. Remain silent. Refuse those things you are legally allowed to refuse. Invoke your rights. There are more than just parroted words.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

The Difference Between a DUI Profesional and a Wannabe

Robert Frost once said:

A jury consists of twelve persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer.

Do you seriously want him defending your DUI?

Choosing the right lawyer is a decision that can have a profound effect on the outcome of your case.  A good lawyer will do everything they can to protect your rights while a bad lawyer can lead to you getting falsely convicted.  The Innocence Project lists bad lawyering as one of the leading causes of false convictions.  The difference between truly professional lawyers and bad lawyers is even more pronounced in DUI cases where the bulk of the evidence is scientific and complex.

So how can the average client tell the difference between a good lawyer and a bad one?

Here are some tell-tale signs for you to keep in mind:

Professional DUI LawyerWannabe (DrumpTruck) DUI LawyerGoal: To Thoroughly and aggressively defend the rights of their clientsGoal: To process their cases as quickly as possibleLimits their caseload to ensure every case is given the proper amount of time and attentionTakes on as many clients as possibleTakes cases to trial and fights in the courtroomPushes for a lot of guilty pleas and quick dealsShows their commitment to DUI defense by spending their time and money to attend advanced DUI seminarsRelies only on what they learned in law school (which is nothing about DUI)Is willing to provide references from the top lawyers in the countryThe top lawyers in the country don’t know themUses expert witnesses at trialsDoesn’t go to trials in the first placeSpeaks in specific confident terms and keeps you informedSpeaks in general non-specific terms and doesn’t focus on the details of the caseAfter all is said and done has done everything they can to get the best result possibleLeaves you asking yourself “What if I had chosen a Professional?”

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Woman Gets 7 Year DUI Sentence After Running Car Over Boyfriend

By guest-writer

A woman who ran over her boyfriend and killed him with her SUV without even realizing what she had done was sentenced to seven years in prison this week, according to a report from the Orlando Sentinel.

26-year-old Allison Ryan Chambliss had already pleaded no contest in March to a charge of DUI manslaughter after her actions resulted in the death of her 20-year-old boyfriend, Jeremy Honarvar Adams.

The horrific accident occurred last June, when Adams and Chambliss were driving home in separate vehicles from an Orlando bar at around 3:00 a.m. after drinking for several hours, according to a police report.

Adams was driving his motorcycle in front of his girlfriend’s SUV when she apparently ran him over. Somehow, Chambliss did not realize she had struck and killed her boyfriend until she noticed that Adams was no longer in front of her.

After arriving at the scene, police administered a breathalyzer test to Chambliss, who registered a staggering .243, which is more than three times the legal limit of .08.

For her actions, Chambliss was sentenced to seven years in prison, eight years of probation, and she must perform a significant amount of community service, which will include giving talks to children about the potential dangers of driving under the influence of alcohol.

In addition to these severe punishments, the judge in her case also revoked her driving privileges on a permanent basis. So, if Chambliss attempts to drive after she is released from prison, she could be incarcerated again.

Sources indicate that both Chambliss and Adams struggled with alcoholism, and that their parents had repeatedly urged them to seek counseling. Adams had previously sought counseling before, but his parents wished they would have secured similar treatment for his girlfriend.

According to Linda Adams, the mother of the deceased young man, her son was working as a waiter and hoping to take classes at Valencia College so he could fulfill his goal of becoming an English teacher.

In her words, her son’s death “should have never happened.” She also said that her family “will always be heartbroken at his loss,” and she generously observed that the event was “a tragedy for our family and for Allison’s family.”

Observers might question how it is possible that Chambliss struck a motorcycle without recognizing it, but the size and power of an SUV combined with the diminished capacities of a drunk driver can be an incredibly lethal combination.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Orange County DUI Checkpoint Locations: Santa Ana

T

Flag of Santa Ana - did you even know Santa Ana had a flag?

he Santa Ana Police Department will be conducting a DUI/Drivers License checkpoint on Saturday, May 26th, 2012. It will begin at 7:30PM and is scheduled to conclude at 1:30AM. It will be conducted in the area of 800 W. First Street, Santa Ana, CA.

If you have questions for our Orange County DUI Lawyers, call us toll free at (877) 568-2977

Tags
California, Driving under the influence, Orange County California, orange county dui lawyer, police, Random checkpoint, Santa Ana, Santa Ana Police Department

This entry was posted on Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 6:34 pm and is filed under Dui Checkpoints, DUI News. 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...

Costa Mesa Memorial Day weekend DUI Checkpoint results in One (1) DUI arrest

Another weekend, another sobriety checkpoint, another ten thousand in officer overtime.

Costa Mesa Police Department Traffic Unit conducted a DUI/Drivers License checkpoint on May 26, 2012, at W. 19th Street and Pomona Ave., between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m.

DUI Checkpoints statistically are not even nearly as effective as DUI Saturation Patrols in apprehending and arresting persons actually driving under the influence.  However, since all the federal, state, and MADD funding is done to support DUI checkpoints, law enforcement prefers them for monetary reasons.  The statistics for this DUI checkpoint, with a 0.00187% arrest rate, bear this out yet again.  Ah, politics.

The checkpoint resulted in the following:
532 Vehicles through the checkpoint
532 Vehicles Screened
1 DUI-Alcohol suspect arrested
0 DUI-Drug impaired suspect arrested

Tags
California, Costa Mesa California, Driving under the influence, dui lawyer, dui lawyer newport beach, dui lawyers long beach, dui lawyers los angeles, dui lawyers newport beach, dui lawyers orange county, DUI Saturation Patrols, dui specialist orange county, lawyer, long beach dui lawyers, los angeles dui, newport beach dui lawyers, orange county, Orange County California, 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, police, Random checkpoint

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 29th, 2012 at 3:52 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.

Continue Reading...

UFC Heavyweight Champion Jon Jones Arrested for Drunk Driving

By guest-writer

Jon Jones, one of the most successful mixed martial arts fighters in the UFC, was reportedly arrested last week for a DUI after slamming his 2012 Bentley Continental GT into a telephone pole in Binghamton, New York, according to a report from Yahoo! Sports.

Sources say that Jones was arrested at 5:02 a.m. on a Saturday morning after slamming his car into a telephone pole at a Binghamton intersection. There is no word on whether Jones, who is a resident of Ithaca, New York, suffered an injury in the accident.

After his arrest, Jones was charged with a DUI, and he was released to his family after paying an appearance bond.

Until his trial, observers can only speculate about the potential consequences of Jones’ DUI arrest, but sources say that he has had a “squeaky clean image” until this incident, so a judge may have some mercy if he is a first-time offender.

In the meantime, the UFC will sweat over the potential loss of one of its brightest, and most marketable, stars. In a sport that is desperate for good publicity, Jones has been a bright spot, appearing in Bud Lite commercials and flirting with a potential sponsorship with Nike.

Sources say that, in addition to his development into a dominant heavyweight fighter, Jones has also become a huge star at the box office, helping lure fans to UFC events and television viewers to tune into pay-per-view events.

During his last fight, Jones reportedly sold more than 700,000 different units, which represents a big success for UFC’s television numbers. In addition, the fight drew more than 15,000 fans, which helped the UFC net more than $2 million in ticket proceeds.

Before Jones’ ascent to the top of the UFC, previous fighters sullied the league’s reputation with their actions outside the ring.

Quinton “Rampage” Jackson, for example, was a former UFC champion whose reputation took a hit after he was charged with a hit-and-run felony and reckless driving in California in 2008.

Still, it appears that the UFC will give Jones every opportunity to rehabilitate his public image after he is sentenced for his DUI, which may include a fine, a temporary suspension of his license, or a brief jail sentence.

Sources say that, after the retirement of former stars like Brock Lesnar, Chuck Liddell, and Randy Couture, the UFC is concerned about preserving its biggest current star, which is good news for Jones, especially if his judge is a fan of mixed martial arts.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

New Jersey Driver Arrested for an Incredible Fifth DUI in Four Weeks

By guest-writer

A New Jersey man who had already been caught drunk driving four times in the last month was recently arrested for his fifth DUI in the past four weeks, according to a report from NBC 10 Philadelphia.

The DUI arrests all took place in and around Vineland, New Jersey, where 45-year-old Anderson Sotomayor apparently roams the streets in varying states of inebriation.

Sources indicate that Sotomayor was arrested for driving drunk three times in a span of only 16 days. These arrests took place on April 9, 11, and 25.

The latest incident took place this Saturday after police observed Sotomayor driving the wrong way down a one-way street. During his ill-advised journey, Sotomayor eventually struck a curb and careened off the road.

Unfortunately, the trip down a one-way street was not the most foolish drunk driving incident Sotomayor has created in the past few weeks.

On April 25, police in Vineland pulled Sotomayor over after they saw him swerving in and out of traffic while holding an open 40-ounce bottle of beer. This, of course, is a recipe for a legal and personal disaster.

And, on April 2, Sotomayor allegedly swerved around a school bus while it was unloading children, ran a red light, and slammed into another car. To make matters worse, the man fled from the scene of the accident, leaving a 31-year-old woman who later had to be treated at a hospital.

Police were able to locate Sotomayor after finding his handicap tag at the scene of the crime, and later tracking that tag to Sotomayor’s address, according to a report from the Daily Journal.

Readers might be curious how, exactly, Sotomayor was able to continue driving despite his frequent arrests. Sources suggest that Vineland police weren’t able to hold the man beyond a certain period of time, though no further details are available.

After each of his DUI arrests, it can fairly be assumed that Sotomayor was released on bail, so the judge in his latest case might try to set bail at an extraordinarily high level to prevent Sotomayor from getting back on the road before his trial.

The man is scheduled to make a court appearance for his first three DUIs on May 30. Until then, the court will likely try to detain Sotomayor as long as possible, but if he is released, drivers on Vineland roads should be wary of the serial drunk driver.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Breathalyzers Report Higher Blood-Alcohol Results for Females

If you are arrested for DUI and a breath test shows a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08% or higher, you are guilty. It does not matter, of course, whether you are a man or a women: the laws do not discriminate.

Maybe they should…

Researchers at the University School of Medicine in Trieste, Italy, found that the stomach lining contains an enzyme called gastric alcohol dehydrogenase that breaks down alcohol — and that women have less than men. To determine the relative effects of the enzyme, they gave alcohol both orally and intravenously to groups of alcoholic and non-alcoholic men and women. They found that women reached the same levels of blood alcohol as men after drinking only half as much; with weight differences taken into account, they found that women reached BAC levels illegal in a DUI case after drinking 20 to 30 percent less alcohol than men.

The scientists’ conclusion: legislatures may need to consider sex differences in drunk driving laws when defining safe levels of drinking for driving motor vehicles. Frezza and Lieber, "High Blood Alcohol Levels in Women: The Role of Decreased Gastric Alcohol Dehydrogenase Activity and First-Pass Metabolism", 322(2) New England Journal of Medicine 95 (1990).

Yet another study has found that women have lower "partition ratios" of blood to breath. What kind of ratios? Well, all breath machines in DUI cases measure the amount of alcohol in a person’s breath. But the what we really want to know is the amount of alcohol in the person’s blood. So how do we get that? Simple: a small computer in the breathalyzer multiplies the amount of alcohol it detects in the breath sample by 2100 times.

This is based upon the theory that, on average, there are 2100 units of alcohol in the blood for every unit of alcohol in the breath. (Note: that’s an average — but it varies from person to person.) According to the study, women have a significantly lower partition ratio. Jones, "Determination of Liquid/Air Partition Coefficients for Dilute Solutions of Ethanol in Water, Whole Blood and Plasma", Analytical Toxicology 193 (July/August 1983). And the lower the ratio, the higher the reading — even though the true BAC does not vary. Example: a woman with a true BAC of .06% and a ratio of 1500:1 (rather than the presumed 2100:1) will get a reading on the machine of .09% — above the legal limit. Put another way, the breath machine will show an average man accused of drunk driving to be innocent — but a woman with the same blood alcohol level to be guilty.

And then there’s the problem of birth control….

Scientists in Canada have found that "women taking oral contraceptive steroids (O.C.S.) appeared to eliminate ethanol significantly faster than women not taking O.C.S." Papple, "The Effects of Oral Contraceptive Steroids on the Rate of Post-Absorptive Phase Decline of Blood Alcohol Concentration in the Adult Woman, 15(1) Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal 17 (1982). That means that women will reach peak BAC faster, and return to lower levels more quickly. This, of course, can create serious problems in a DUI case when attempting to estimate BAC at the time of driving based upon a breath test administered one hour later. Making the problem worse, researchers have also discovered that women who were taking birth control pills or who were pregnant had higher levels of acetaldehyde on their breath, due to the decreased ability to metabolize the enzyme as the level of sex steroids increases.

So what?

Well, most breath machines use infrared analysis in measuring the breath sample of a DUI suspect. But these machines don’t really measure alcohol, rather they measure any compound which contains the "methyl group" in its molecular structure. And acetaldehyde is one of these compounds. Result: a higher "blood alcohol" reading on the breathalyzer. Jeavons and Zeiner, "Effects of Elevated Female Sex Steroids on Ethanol and Acetaldehyde Metabolism in Humans", 8(4) Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 352 (1984).

It’s always a problem when the law, in its infinite wisdom, assumes that all of us are exactly the same.

This entry was posted on Saturday, May 26th, 2012 at 8:19 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...

Erratic Driving?….or “Black and White Fever”?

Undoubtedly the most common observation of impaired driving that officers make — and the one most commonly used to justify stopping the driver — is that the suspect was "weaving within the traffic lane", sometimes combined with "erratic driving".  At the same time, experienced traffic patrol officers are familiar with a phenomenon which is sometimes referred to as "black-and-white fever".

That phenomenon is simply the normal reaction of most drivers to being followed by a marked police car (painted black and white in many jurisdictions). As soon as the motorist becomes aware that a police car is following him, he becomes understandably apprehensive and focuses his attention increasingly on the rear view mirror. As the officer continues to follow, the driver becomes tense, worried, and his concentration on driving is broken: He keeps his eyes more on the mirror and less on the road ahead. Each time the driver brings his eyes back to the road, he finds that he has drifted and must correct the course of the car back to the center of the lane.

The result: weaving and, possibly, erratic movements such as sudden increases or decreases in speed (tension can cause the foot to depress the accelerator).  And, of course, these are the most commonly encountered symptoms of a drunk driver on the highway.

In other words, it is the very presence of the officer which tends to create the probable cause for suspecting a DUI. And after the officer pulls the driver over, he gets out and approaches the car with the very human preconception that the driver is probably intoxicated. And, as we know from psychological studies, we all tend to see what we expect to see: normally veined eyes appear "bloodshot"?, normal but nervous speech sounds "slurred"?, normal pink complexion appears "flushed"?, etc.

These observations are quickly followed by the notoriously subjective and inaccurate field sobriety tests, difficult to perform under the best of conditions (see my earlier post, “Field Sobriety Tests: Designed for Failure?”)….followed predictably by an arrest for drunk driving.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 29th, 2012 at 8:09 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...

Memorial Day DUI Chekpoints in PA

For many of the Memorial Day long weekend marks the official start of the summer.  For police it marks the official start of DUI hunting season.

Watch out for DUI checkpoints in PA this weekend

While many of us will be out enjoying all that Pennsylvania has to offer with family and friends, police are hard at work planning DUI checkpoints on major roadways.

At The McShane Firm, we encourage all drivers to make safe and responsible decisions.  We also believe that the entire population of Pennsylvania should not be subject to unwarranted searches at DUI checkpoints.  We want to avoid this infringement on our rights as a citizen to be simply left alone from warrantless intrusion by the Government. The fact of the matter is, the motivations behind DUI checkpoints are financial and political.   They are not an effective law enforcement tool.

Once again this holiday weekend Pennsylvania DUI Blog will be posting timely updates on the location of DUI checkpoints this Memorial Day Weekend.  We encourage you to share this post with your friends.  You can follow our Pennsylvania DUI Checkpoint Feed for the latest updates.

If you would like to share information about a checkpoint, please use the comment section below.

If you are pulled over for a DUI or stopped at a checkpoint please make sure to read: Our Guide on how to save yourself from a false DUI arrest.

The patrols will be in place between the hours of 11 p.m. and 4 a.m. throughout the South Hills and West End sections of the City.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Pittsburgh DUI Checkpoint Memorial Day Weekend

Pittsburgh police will conduct sobriety checkpoints/roadblocks this Memorial Day weekend.

The patrols will be in place between the hours of 11 p.m. and 4 a.m. throughout the South Hills and West End sections of the City.

If anyone has more information please share it.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

OC Sheriff’s Announce DUI Checkpoints and Roving Patrols this Memorial Day Weekend

Sobriety Checkpoints are announced for Friday, May 25: in the City of Dana Point (Orange County Sheriff’s Dept.) – starting at 6:00 P.M., and City of Fullerton – starting at 8:00 P.M.  Santa Ana Times reports a Santa Ana DUI checkpoint with no further details.
The following police departments have DUI Saturation Patrols scheduled in their respective cities during the Memorial Day Weekend period (Friday – Monday): Anaheim, Brea, Irvine, Laguna Beach, La Habra, Newport Beach, Orange, Placentia, Westminster and the UCI Police Department Sheriff’s deputies will staff extra DUI units in their contract cities supplementing the normal patrol units.

California Highway Patrol Maximum Enforcement Period: CHP will deploy all available officers to the region’s freeways and unincorporated roads beginning 6:00 P.M. Friday through midnight Monday.

Be safe.  But if you need an Orange County DUI Lawyer, call me at (877) 568-2977.

Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?

Tags
California, Dana Point California, Driving under the influence, dui lawyer, dui lawyer newport beach, dui lawyers long beach, dui lawyers los angeles, dui lawyers newport beach, dui lawyers orange county, dui specialist orange county, long beach dui lawyers, los angeles dui, Newport Beach California, newport beach dui lawyers, orange, orange county, Orange County California, 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, police, Random checkpoint

This entry was posted on Thursday, May 24th, 2012 at 1:42 pm and is filed under Dui Checkpoints, DUI News. 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...

Orange County DUI Arrests go up

For over 20 years, DUI arrests, and especially DUI deaths, have dropped by half, most of that drop being since 2008.  (See http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-533451.html).  Now the Orange County Sheriff’s Department has indicated that, reversing that trend, DUI arrests have actually gone up for this weekend compared to last:

From 12:01a.m. Friday, May 25, 2012 through midnight Monday, May 28, 2012 officers representing 38 county
law enforcement agencies have arrested 219 individuals for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. In
2011, 201 DUI arrests occurred during the same holiday weekend. There were no DUI deaths reported during
this holiday weekend compared to one during the same time period last year.

(**NOTE: These numbers are only provisional with some agencies yet to report**)

If you have questions for a DUI Specialist Orange County

Don't end up here from a DUI(The Santa Ana Police Department and Jail complex)

, call our office at (877) 568-2977.

Tags
Arrest, California, Driving under the influence, dui lawyer, dui lawyer newport beach, dui lawyers long beach, dui lawyers los angeles, dui lawyers newport beach, dui lawyers orange county, dui specialist orange county, Law, long beach dui lawyers, los angeles dui, newport beach dui lawyers, orange county, Orange County California, 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, Orange County Sheriff's Department (California), Random checkpoint

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 29th, 2012 at 4:09 pm and is filed under Dui Checkpoints, DUI News. 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...

Orange County DUI Arrests up, down everywhere else

Flag of County of Orange

In Orange County, CHP officers made more suspected drunken driving arrests this year than last. Officers arrested 44 drivers who were allegedly under the influence this year compared with 35 during the same time period in 2011.

Statewide, CHP officers made 845 suspected drunken driving arrests so far over the Memorial Day weekend, according to CHP Officer Jesse Udovich.

Tags
Arrest, California, Driving under the influence, Memorial Day, orange county, Orange County California, police, Random checkpoint

This entry was posted on Monday, May 28th, 2012 at 5:55 pm and is filed under Dui Checkpoints, DUI News, 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...

Virginia Court Dismisses DWI Charges Against Ousted FAA Leader

By guest-writer

Randy Babbitt, the former head of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), has cleared his name after a Virginia judge dismissed a DWI charge that led to Babbitt’s departure from the agency.

The 65-year-old Babbitt resigned from his post this December after he was arrested for allegedly driving on the wrong side of the road while intoxicated, according to a recent report from Reuters.

Sources say that police administered an alcohol breath test for Babbitt at the scene, but they initially refused to publicly release the results of the breath test. It appears police had a good reason for keeping the results quiet.

Apparently, Babbitt’s initial breath test revealed a blood alcohol level of .07, which is just below the legal limit. After the first test, the police then administered a second test, which showed a reading of .08.

However, according to Babbitt’s attorney, in Virginia police are not allowed to engage in such tactics. In addition to the flubbed breath test, the police reportedly made other errors.

Sources indicate that the arresting officer’s report of the incident said that Babbitt was driving on the wrong side of the road. But video footage of the incident reportedly shows Babbitt making a legal left turn into a parking lot.

On this evidence alone, the judge for Babbitt’s case decided to dismiss the DWI charge after determining that the arresting officer did not have a legitimate reason to pull the man over. The judge criticized the officer for simply acting on a “hunch” that Babbitt was driving while intoxicated.

The case was dismissed so quickly that the state’s prosecutors were not even given a chance to present their case, according to sources.

Randy Babbitt, to his credit, handled the dismissal of his claim and the actions of the police officer with plenty of class. After the dismissal, Babbitt told reporters that the police officer was “acting in good faith,” which suggests that he does not harbor a grudge against the man who caused him to lose his job.

The dismissal of Babbitt’s DWI provides a strong example of the potential merits of challenging an alcohol breath test after a DWI arrest. In addition, it also reveals the value of obtaining police footage of DWI arrests.

After an arrest for drunk driving, many people are concerned that they won’t be able to fight the charges. This, however, couldn’t be further from the truth.

A number of different errors can be made during the DUI process, and a DUI attorney may help alleged drunk drivers challenge several aspects of their arrests.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

DUI Myth Busters: Field Sobriety Tests are Meaningful

A widely held misconception, amongst both law enforcement and the general public, is that the standardized field sobriety tests are a valid method for determining impairment.  This just simply is not true.

Here are some simple questions that will show you why these field sobriety tests are meaningless:

Have you ever stumbled while walking?
Does that stumbling mean you were drunk?
If you can stumble while walking normally, what about when asked to perform the difficult and awkward task of walking heel-to-toe -the way nobody walks?

What about standing on one leg?
Is this something you practice often?
If you stumbled does that automatically mean you are drunk?

The fact of the matter is that doing poorly on these very difficult field sobriety tests can be attributed to a number of reasons like being:

ElderlyOverweightHaving a history of leg or back injuriesSuffering from an illness or weaknessWearing high heelsDownright clumsyExtremely nervous or scared

Despite these facts, there is too much emphasis put on these field sobriety tests during a DUI trial and because of this, many innocent people have been found guilty of DUI and especially of DUI-drugs (no testing is required at all, only the opinion of the officer is needed).

This is why you should always choose a DUI lawyer who is an expert in Field Sobriety Testing and can defend these issues in court.  This is an important part of properly representing your case and protecting your rights.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...