Man With 5 DUI Arrests Defies Odds by Avoiding Prison Sentence

By guest-writer

In a frustrating end to a long saga for Sioux Falls prosecutors, a man who has been convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol five different times in the past five years has been released from jail without having to serve any time in prison.

The man, 57-year-old Randall Gene Hoogendoorn, received a sentence this week that only requires him to spend two years under “intense supervision,” according to a report from The Argus Leader, a South Dakota newspaper.

Sources indicate that prosecutors asked for a lengthy sentence due to Hoogendoorn’s criminal history, but Judge Robin Houwman felt that a lesser sentence offered the man “the best opportunity for rehabilitation.”

But despite the seemingly lenient sentence, Judge Houwman established strict guidelines that Hoogdendoorn must obey.

For example, the man will have to call his probation officers up to 50 times a day in order to meet the terms of his probation. If he fails to regularly report to his probation officer, Hoogdendoorn could face a term in prison of up to 10 years.

The judge apparently believed that heavily supervised probation would best serve the public interest, which is a decision many judges often make, as it keeps another person out of prison and saves taxpayer dollars.

Nevertheless, prosecutors were very surprised that the man left court with such a light sentence. Sources say that his latest arrest occurred when his blood alcohol content was 0.24 percent, which is three times the legal limit.

The latest arrest, though, was the first felony DUI conviction for Hoogendoorn. His previous DUI arrests were all misdemeanors, according to sources.

A recent change to DUI laws in South Dakota established that a person’s third DUI offense is automatically a felony, but this provision was enacted too late to play a role in Hoogendoorn’s previous trials.

So, instead of sending Hoogendoorn to prison for 10 years, state prosecutors had to settle for a 180-day stint in jail and a two-year probationary sentence.

Sources say that Hoogendoorn will also be placed under house arrest during the initial portion of his probation and that he will be required to call his probation officer when he wakes up, when he eats, and even when he leaves his room.

As Judge Houwman put it, the man is not “just being released out into the community.” On the contrary, it seems that Hoogendoorn will be a prisoner in his own home.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Orange County DUI Checkpoints in Costa Mesa, Garden Grove this weekend

The Garden Grove Police Department is holding a DUI/Drivers License checkpoint from 9 tonight through 2 a.m. Saturday.

The police department in Costa Mesa will be holding their own checkpoing from 8 p.m. Saturday through 2 a.m. Sunday.

Neither force is disclosing where it’s operation will be held. Stay tuned for details from our Orange County DUI Lawyers.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Court Finds Cop “Immune” for DUI Arrest Without Evidence

The following facts are fairly typical of what happens in a disturbing number of DUI cases:  

Ohio: Federal Court Overturns Bogus DUI Arrest

Chillicothe, OH.  June 19 — A sober woman is fighting back after she was falsely arrested and imprisoned for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). The Sixth Circuit US Court of Appeals ruled last Wednesday that Catrena Green could proceed in her lawsuit against Ohio State Highway Patrol Trooper Adam B. Throckmorton after lab tests proved she had a blood alcohol content (BAC) level of 0.0 and no drugs in her system.

The three-judge panel overturned the decision of a US district court granting Throckmorton immunity for his actions in Chillicothe, Ohio in August 2008. He had seen Green’s SUV driving in the opposite direction with her high beams activated. Throckmorton made a U-Turn and pulled her over in stop recorded by a dashboard camera. Green explained she had her high beams on because it was difficult to see in the wet conditions and she was trying to be careful. She asked whether she had done anything else wrong.

"No, not really," Throckmorton said during the stop. "You just brighted me and blinded me."

Throckmorton then claimed that Green’s pupils were "constricted" and that she had difficulty getting out of her seatbelt. Though Green did not smell of alcohol or drugs, Throckmorton decided to perform field sobriety tests on her. He noted that she was unable to follow the swift motion of his pen in a horizontal-gaze nystagmus test that he spent twenty seconds administering. He noted that "she talked slowly" while repeating the letters of the alphabet beginning with "L" and ending in "S." She struggled to stand on one leg in the balance test. Green, who was 42 and overweight at the time, swayed slightly while performing the walk-and-turn test.

On the basis of those tests, Throckmorton arrested Green for DUI. She spent two days in jail while trying to meet bail with only a credit card. Green argues she was detained and tested without probable cause, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. She insisted that the lab tests proved the trooper was lying.

"We find her argument persuasive," Judge Ronald Lee Gilman wrote for the court. "What matters here, rather, is what mattered in Miller: that a subsequent test for drugs and alcohol showed that the driver was in fact sober. That evidence alone is sufficient to cast doubt on the truthfulness of Throckmorton’s testimony regarding Green’s pupils."

The court decided that a jury should decide whether there were specific and articulable facts, not just a hunch, justifying Green’s detention for the sobriety tests.

"We understand, of course, the difficulty inherent in making on-the-fly determinations regarding possible driving impairments, just as we recognize the severity of drunk driving and the potential consequences of an incorrect call had Green ultimately proven to be impaired," Judge Gilman wrote. "But this difficulty and these consequences always exist when an officer stops someone for a traffic violation. Yet officers do not have free rein to administer field sobriety tests to whomever they please and then to arrest that person for making the slightest misstep while performing the tests. Whether that is what happened in this case is a question for the jury."

So….no erratic driving….no slurred speech….no alcohol on the breath….no swaying or poor balance….no bloodshot eyes…no difficulty understanding directions.  But she used her bright lights, had trouble standing on one leg (42, overweight and nervous) and "failed" a nystagmus test which was clearly incorrectly given. Oh….and she had no alcohol or drugs in her body.

The only question here is:  Why did the lower court give this idiot a free pass?  Since when do cops have "immunity"?  
 

This entry was posted on Friday, June 29th, 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.

Continue Reading...

Exceptions to IID Installation Requirement

If you are convicted of any DUI-related offense in California a judge can order you to install an Interlock Ignition Device (IID) onto your vehicle. IID’s are essentially mini-breathalyzer instruments installed onto your vehicle that prevent your vehicle from operating unless they are given an alcohol-free¬ breath sample.

As of July 2010, every individual convicted of a DUI offense in Los Angeles County is required to install an IID device to their vehicle for a minimum of five months to a maximum of three years.

However, there are certain exceptions to the blanket IID requirement for a DUI conviction in Los Angeles County.

The California State Legislature considers the following valid grounds for granting an exception to the IID requirement:
Defendant is an out of state resident and installing an IID would cause undue hardship on the defendant or his or her family;
At the time of sentencing, the defendant lives 50 miles or more from the nearest interlock service facility and installing an IID would create an undue hardship on defendant or his or her family;
Defendant is sole proprietor of a business that requires two or more vehicles be registered in defendant’s name, in which case an IID need only be installed on one of the vehicles;
Defendant provides proof that the vehicle registered in defendant’s name is inoperable and defendant is unable to transfer title of the vehicle;
Defendant is required to operate an employer-owned vehicle in the course and scope of his or her employment and thus may operate the vehicle without the installation of an IID. (For example: A UPS delivery truck driver would not be required to install an IID device on the UPS owned delivery truck); and/or
The Court determines that the hardship imposed by the installation of the device will far outweigh the likelihood that the defendant will drink and drive again while on court-ordered probation.

While these exceptions do exist, judges are extremely hesitant in relieving those convicted of DUI related offense from the IID requirement. Thus, it is important to consult with an experienced DUI attorney to help you determine whether you qualify under one of the specified exceptions.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Pennsylvania Man Pleads Guilty After Killing Two Friends in DUI Crash

By guest-writer

A resident of Horsham, Pennsylvania was sentenced to eight years in prison this week after pleading felony DUI charges stemming from an accident in which he killed two of his childhood friends, according to a sobering report from the Philadelphia Daily News.

30-year-old Connor McNicholas had previously reached a plea deal with the prosecution that included his admission to committing several crimes, including homicide by vehicle, driving under the influence, and recklessly endangering another person.

The accident offered in August 2011, when McNicholas was reportedly driving his Honda Civic more than 100 miles per hour when it veered off the highway and crashed.

At the time, there were four passengers in the vehicle. Of those four passengers, two, Robert Walker Nagel and Edward Taylor Coombs, both only 19, were killed. McNicholas and other two passengers in the car were treated at a nearby hospital, but only sustained minor injuries.

When he was arrested, McNicholas blew a .117, which is well above the legal blood alcohol limit of .08. While his BAC reading is not as high as the level of many other DUI arrestees, it is still at a level where drivers are severely impaired.

Sources say that McNicholas was sentenced to a maximum of eight years in prison, but the judge left open the possibility that he could be released after four years, although only time will tell whether he is able to serve the shorter sentence.

As might be predicted, the sentencing hearing was very emotional, especially given the fact that the victims’ families were present.

And the victims’ families did not mince words when discussing the accident. Eric Coombs, the father of one of the teenage boys who died in the accident, told McNicholas that he held him “personally responsible for the death of my son” and said the drunk driver “took the heartbeat out of my life.”

In an equally emotional response, McNicholas told the court at the end of the hearing that “[i]t breaks my heart to know that they don’t have sons anymore and I’m responsible for that.”

The sentencing hearing closes one chapter in a nightmare story for McNicholas, who had just finished his sophomore year at Temple University before the accident occurred.

During his sophomore year, McNicholas had won all-conference accolades for his play on the school’s golf team, and he was named the Most Outstanding Rookie Performer during the Atlantic Ten Conference Championship tournament. Sadly, it will be a long time before he is able to golf again.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Your Newport Beach valet could be an undercover DUI cop?

I had an interesting tip sent to me from an anonymous source about Newport Beach DUI arrests

Newport Beach DUI cops undercover?

…

“Entrapment in Newport Beach???? We’ve all enjoyed many nights out in Newport patronizing great establishments…and when you read what I learned below, it may surprise you…

I was in a Super Shuttle van going home from LAX to Newport, and making conversation with a gal from Newport next to me…we were talking about the nightlife in the city…

She said one night she saw some strange activity in a lot somewhere behind Irvine Avenue in Newport. When she got a closer look, she saw Newport police gathered for a sting, and some officers dressed in undercover garments as valet parkers!!!

The police are planting officers as valet parkers at some of the popular drinking establishments around town…most likely the establishments are compelled to comply. When the undercover policeman (valet parker) suspects a person of having consumed alcoholic beverages as they leave an establishment, they radio ahead for police to follow the vehicle and, look for probable cause.

Since the gathering of police was in a lot off Irvine Avenue, they are more than likely targeting places on PCH, like Billy’s at the Beach, Three-Thirty-Three, and Landmark…these places have valet parkers, and more than likely the Peninsula where establishments have valet service.

I support law enforcement, and their efforts to crack down on DUIs, but this encroaches on businesses and may be considered as entrapment….please be super careful and responsible. Take cabs if you are going to enjoy alcoholic beverages around town. Being careless may cost you thousands of dollars, a huge hassle, and special hospitality by Sheriff Sandra Hutchen’s at the Orange County Jail!

I learned that with the $200k DUI grant, Newport police hope to nab at least 150 more DUIs in a year. Each 1st time offender nets the city about $1300 after costs. They make money on fine payers and lose\break even on those who do community service. A few years ago they started targeting young females because they pay the fine more frequently than men. That’s why we saw an upsurge in female DUI and fall in mens.

More recently they focused on morning after arrests…those from 6:30am to 8:00am. The person is pulled over after sleeping like they are told to do, but the BAL continues to rise for 4 hrs after the last drink. Problem here is there are almost no DUI deaths during this period nor any evidence to suggest driving impairment. It all boils down to money.

Even worse, the officers pre-write their stop reports with canned answers to fit a profile. So what actually happened on the roadside is irrelevant because they already wrote it up. The only defense is the camera.”

If you have any information confirming this, please contact our Newport Beach DUI Lawyers at (877) 568-2977. Thanks.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

The National College for DUI Defense

Until a few years ago, attorneys attempting to defend a client against drunk driving charges were general practitioners who had little, if any, understanding of the nature of the offense. They were unfamiliar with such DUI investigatory methods as field sobriety tests, and there was an almost complete lack of seminars on how to defend these clients.
Most importantly, defense lawyers were completely ignorant about the complexities of blood alcohol analysis — whether of blood, breath or urine samples. How does this "breathalyzer" work? What is "infrared analysis"? "Gas chromatography"? How is alcohol metabolized in the human body? What is "Widmark’s formula"? "Hematocrit"? What is "retrograde extrapolation" and how does that work? What physiological variables occur between individuals? What medical conditions can effect a breath reading and how? What happens if blood samples ferment or coagulate?
Chemical analysis of blood, breath or urine involved knowledge of such highly technical fields as physiology, organic chemistry, physics, biophysics, electrical engineering — subjects far beyond the experience and training of lawyers.
Then about 17 years ago, ten of the most prominent DUI defense attorneys in the country met in a hotel conference room near Chicago’s O’Hare Airport.  Over the following three days they hammered out plans for a new professional organization: "The National College for DUI Defense". They created this as a non-profit organization dedicated to improving the quality of the DUI bar, primarily through providing educational seminars, and donated their own money for initial funding.  An important secondary purpose of the organization was to address the problem of insularity in the profession — the isolation of lawyers; the College would be a tool with which attorneys across the country could share information, ideas and experiences.
I am proud to say that I was one of those ten founders, and have since served as Dean and on its Board of Regents. For each of us, the College was a true labor of love.
The first national seminar was held at Harvard Law School. It was an intense 3-day series of lectures, demonstrations and workshops, featuring a faculty of the top lawyers, scientists and forensic toxicologists in the field.
The experiment was a huge success, and has been repeated every July at Harvard for the past 16 years. In fact, the College’s governing Board of Regents soon expanded this educational effort by creating a second 3-day annual seminar in the winter. This proved another resounding success: in the recent session held in Las Vegas, there were over 500 lawyers attending from all over the country.  Other annual seminars, one focusing on blood-alcohol science exclusively, soon followed.
The National College for DUI Defense also created an internet website, along with an email discussion group where attorneys could share information and ideas. There are currently hundreds of members across the country using this forum — and discovering, for example. that what one lawyer in Texas has found effective in dealing with the effects of diabetes on breath tests can be helpful to another in Oregon.
Having provided the means to develop greater skills in this demanding field, the College next addressed the need to recognize those lawyers who had achieved the highest levels of competence. Within recent years, they began certifying attorneys as specialists in DUI defense. In order to be Board-certified, an applicant must satisfy demanding requirements of practice and trial experience, as well as pass intensive written and oral examinations.
Most recently, the College has been successful in applying to the American Bar Association for recognition of a new legal specialty: DUI defense. After considerable study, the ABA went further and recognized the National College for DUI Defense as the sole organization authorized to certify attorneys as specialists in this new field.
Today, with headquarters in Montgomery, Alabama, the College has a membership of over 1200 attorneys across the country.  It continues to sponsor or c0-sponsor numerous national seminars annually, including the original seminar at Harvard Law School; maintain an extensive online library of legal and scientific literature related to drunk driving litigation; contribute funds and support to Supreme Court appeals involving important DUI-related legal and constitutional issues; supervise demanding ABA-approved oral and written exams of attorneys applying for certification as DUI specialists; and provide a busy online discussion forum for its 1200+ members and selected blood-alcohol scientists to share ideas, problems and solutions.
The result: if you are some day accused of this demonized offense, you are more likely to have an attorney who understands the very complex legal and scientific issues involved — in other words, you are more likely to realize your constitutional right to competent counsel and due process.

Continue Reading...

Proposed DUI Bill Threatens to Crack Down on Marijuana Users

A new DUI bill being, introduced by Assembly woman Norma Torres, D-Chino, could bring harsh consequences to marijuana users in California. The bill would criminalize driving with any amount of marijuana in one’s blood or urine.

The controversy around this bill centers around the fact that marijuana compounds can remain detectable in one’s body for up to 30 days from the last use of the substance. This is unlike alcohol, which leaves one’s system at a relatively quick rate.

Supporters of the bill claim it will deter those from driving under the influence of any drug or alcohol.

The use of medicinal marijuana is legal in California. Opponents of the bill state that the bill is discriminatory against marijuana users. A person could theoretically be charged with driving under the influence for the use of marijuana 30 days prior to being stopped for driving under the influence.

Opponents of the bill also claim it would unfairly lower the burden of proof needed to obtain a DUI conviction. The bill would place more emphasis on the blood and urine test results and less emphasis on the demonstrable impairment of the driver.

One thing is for certain; if this bill passes a dramatic increase in DUI arrests in California should be expected.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Drunk Driver Suspected of Causing Three Accidents in One Night

By guest-writer

A California drunk driver was arrested last week on suspicion of causing at least three different hit-and-run accidents in one night, according to a remarkable report from the San Jose Mercury News.

31-year-old Justin Mendoza was taken into custody by Napa police last weekend after his night of illegal activity finally ended when officers discovered him hiding in a creek bed, according to sources.

The night of driving peril started around 11:00 p.m. last Friday when Mendoza was cruising around Napa, California at an alarming speed, and with very little regard for the customary rules of the road.

The first two collisions occurred around 11:00 p.m., and both occurred on Silverado Trail Road. At least one of these hit-and-run accidents involved an injury, as well.

Then a third collision happened on the same road, and this accident led to one car completely flipping over. When police arrived on the scene, they saw a man sprinting away from the overturned vehicle that was involved in the crash.

Predictably, the man who was fleeing turned out to have been the culprit who allegedly caused all three accidents on the same stretch of road, but police had to do a bit of legwork before they caught Mendoza.

Sources say that the police who originally responded to the scene called for additional help, and the officers eventually set up a large perimeter around the area where Mendoza had fled.

After setting up a broad perimeter, the officers enlisted the aid of a police dog, which eventually discovered Mendoza hiding in a creek bed near a small river.

They soon learned that Mendoza was the registered owner of the overturned car, and promptly escorted him to jail after seeing that he displayed obvious signs of intoxication.

But before he was taken to jail, Mendoza, who is a resident of Yountville, California, was sent to a hospital for treatment for what sources call “minor injuries.”

After his DUI arrest, Mendoza was charged with drunk driving and also causing three different hit-and-run crashes.

The extent of Mendoza’s criminal penalties will depend on a number of factors, including his prior history, his level of inebriation at the time of the arrest, and the nature of the injuries and property damage he caused through his irresponsible driving.

In California, even minor, first-time DUI offenses can lead to heavy fines, a suspended license, or even jail time, so Mendoza likely faces a significant amount of punishment, if the tale of his epic driving adventures proves true.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Will a California DUI Arrest Trigger Jail Time?

When people get arrested for drunk driving, usually their most immediate and pressing question is whether they will have to do jail time for a California DUI. That is, additional jail time beyond the night they spend in jail upon getting arrested.

The answer is usually no. California law imposes no mandatory jail time for a simple first-time DUI. By this we mean a situation where there are no injuries, no refusal to take a blood or breath test, no young children in the car, and no prior DUI convictions.

That said, although California law doesn’t impose jail time for a simple first DUI, some county district attorney officers seek jail time nonetheless. Ventura County courts, for example, routinely impose 2 days jail or 5 days work release on every first time DUI. Riverside County courts impose 6 to 10 days jail.

Most counties don’t doll out jail on first time DUI cases, however. Los Angeles county generally doesn’t impose jail time unless, again, there are aggravating circumstances such as those listed above.

The consequences of a DUI conviction are no picnic, to be sure. But luckily most people get a pass on jail time. But just one pass. If they pick up another DUI, some jail time becomes almost certain.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Montgomery County DUI Checkpoint

Pennsylvania State Police has issued a release stating that they will be conducting a DUI checkpoint somewhere in western Montgomery County between July 6 and July 9. Though the exact location was not released, the report did indicate that the location is “considered a high-risk area.”

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

New Concept from Canada: Licenses Suspended “Indefinitely” in DUI Cases

I’ve written in the past about the guilty-until-proven-innocent approach to DUI license suspensions and the almost complete lack of due process.  See, for example, "Due Process" for DUI License Suspensions, Secret Memo: DMV License Suspension Hearings Rigged and Judge: DUI License Suspension Hearings "Unacceptable".      

In California, for example, when a citizen is suspected of drunk driving and is arrested, the cop confiscates the license and gives the suspect a "Notice of Suspension".  The citizen has 10 days in which to call the DMV to demand a hearing, or the right to contest the cop’s automatic suspension is lost.  If a hearing is granted, it will be at the DMV’s offices; the prosecutor will be a DMV employee with a high school degree.  Oh yes, and the judge will be….the same person.  Right: judge, jury and executioner — without any legal training and answerable only to his/her employer — the DMV.

As bad as this is, apparently our northern neighbors in the province of Alberta have gone a step further:  unlike DUI suspensions in the U.S., which are for a specific period of time, those in Alberta are for an indefinite period — until the criminal charges are "resolved" in court.  In other words, the accused — guilty or innocent — is coerced into pleading guilty if he wants his license back.

Lawyers Call Alberta’s Drunk Driving Penalties Unconstitutional

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.  June 19 – Civil Liberties Association lawyer Joseph Arvay has been retained by Alberta firm Roadlawyers, which specializes in drunk driving cases, one of several that are decrying the Alberta government’s decision to indefinitely suspend licences of drivers who blow over the Criminal Code limit of .08 blood-alcohol content.

Drivers police deem are over the .08 limit will immediately have their licences suspended without even seeing a judge, a penalty that will remain in place until the charge is resolved in court.

“I think it’s clearly contrary to the Constitution and clearly contrary to the Charter (of Rights and Freedoms),” said Roadlaywer attorney Tim Foster.

“We intend to challenge the legislation as soon as we get retained on a file dealing with one of these — we’re going to bring a Constitutional challenge to try to strike the law down.”…

In what’s being called a first for Canada, Transportation Minister Ric McIver came out Monday saying drivers who blow over .08 will be hit hard with an indefinite suspension starting July 1, one of several get-tough measures rolled out in the Traffic Safety Amendment Act passed last year.

McIver said drivers simply weren’t refraining enough from tipping their glasses before hitting the roads and harsher penalties were needed to ensure “all of us feel more secure when we go out on Alberta roadways.”

Many lawyers, however, say the new penalties are nothing more than a tactic that will strong-arm drivers into issuing guilty pleas rather than challenge their cases in court.

“There’s some good and bad about that from a public policy perspective,” said Alan Pearse, who specializes in DUI cases in Calgary.

“The good news is you will almost certainly force guilty people to plead guilty. The bad news is you’re likely going to force some innocent people to plead guilty as well.”

Lawyer Bob Sawers called it the government’s way to “extort” guilty pleas from Albertans who can’t afford to lose their licences for several months and said he would demanding trial dates be set within two months.

Apparently, Transportation Minister McIver’s idea that "harsher penalties were needed to ensure all of us feel more secure" is to simply force anyone suspected of drunk driving to plead guilty.

I can imagine prosecutors, cops and Mothers Against Drunk Driving drooling over the idea of adopting this approach in the States….

This entry was posted on Saturday, June 23rd, 2012 at 3:05 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...

Routine Drunk Driving Arrest Leads to Discovery of Dead Body

By guest-writer

A Phoenix man has been taken into custody by police after a DUI stop led officers to discover the dead body of the man’s mother inside her home, according to a report from Phoenix’s ABC 15 News.

The man, whose name had not yet been released by sources, was arrested by police late Sunday night for driving under the influence of alcohol.

During the course of the arrest, the suspect apparently made bizarre comments about the owner of the vehicle that caused the officers to become “concerned.”

The arresting officers contacted police near the home of the vehicle’s owner, which turned out to be the man’s mother, and the responding authorities discovered the dead body of 46-year-old Danette M. Baxter.

Before they reached the body, police saw blood on the front door and evidence that someone had made a forced entry into the home. In addition, police say that Baxter’s body had obvious signs of trauma, and they are treating her death as a homicide.

The man who was charged with a DUI is being held as a person of interest in the death of his mother, although he has not yet been charged with a crime in relation to the apparent homicide.

Interestingly, neighbors who were interviewed by local sources said they believed that Baxter’s son had physically abused her in the past, but they also expressed their disbelief that he was capable of committing a murder.

But the neighbors also expressed shock at nature of the crime. According to Sydney Swart, one of Baxter’s neighbors, “[j]ust the thought process of a child doing that to their mother is horrifying. It really is,” although she again did not implicate Baxter’s son in the killing.

Sources suggest that Baxter had been living in Long Beach, California before arriving in Phoenix a few months ago. Police are in Long Beach conducting further investigations into the life of the arrested man.

And other neighbors shed some light on the man’s past. One nearby resident claims to have heard he “got into some trouble in California” and that “there was something bothering him,” but he couldn’t tell exactly what is was.

Other neighbors told local reporters that the man was an “interesting character” who mostly “kept his head down.”

It’s not uncommon for routine DUI arrests to unveil evidence of other crimes, although it is rare that a DUI stop leads police to a homicide scene.
Typically, searches incident to a DUI arrest will reveal illegal drugs or unlicensed weapons, but the discovery of a dead body is truly unique.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

DUI Checkpoint I-79, I-70

Pennsylvania State Police have announced DUI checkpoints for June 29, 30 on I-79 and I-70.

For more timely alerts you can follow our Pennsylvania DUI Checkpoint Feed.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Libertarians to “Nullify” DUI Checkpoints Tonight

Police are planning a DUI checkpoint along Route 611 in tonight.  Protesters are planning to “nullify” it.

A photo at the June 15 DUI checkpoint protest by the Valley Forge Revolutionaries. Credit Photo courtesy of Valley Forge Revolutionaries

The Valley Forge Revolutionaries will protest the scheduled July 6 police sobriety checkpoints near Abington Memorial Hospital.

Motorists heading along Route 611 tonight may encounter two things:

Protestors holding up signs to go the other way.

These protestors are part of a grass-roots organization, calling themselves the Valley Forge Revolutionaries.

“What we do is activism,” Darren Wolfe, spokesperson for the Valley Forge Revolutionaries, said. “No one has the right to initiate force on anyone else, and we believe on consistently applying that.”

The group, founded in 2007, describes its police checkpoint protests as “checkpoint nullification” events. (read more)

While police, MADD and many people will argue that DUI checkpoints are necessary to curb drunk driving, the reality is that these checkpoints have very little to do with DUI enforcement.  Police have other less costly, more effective techniques like roving patrols.  DUI checkpoints are setup to appease DUI lobbies, collect federal grants and create added revenue by issuing non-DUI tickets (mostly non-moving violations).

Hopefully these types of protests will prompt us all to take a closer look at the role of DUI checkpoints and examine the unnecessary intrusion they cause in our lives.

I say cheers to them. Protest against your government when they interfere unreasonably and without cause to your individual freedom.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Willow Grove PA DUI Checkpoint

Police will be conducting a DUI checkpoint on the night of July 6th from 9:30 p.m. – 2 a.m  in Willow Grove along Route 611 (Old York Road) near Abington Hospital.

As always we encourage all drivers to make responsible decisions.

If you would like to stay up-to-date on DUI Checkpoints in PA, subscribe to our our Pennsylvania DUI Checkpoint Feed.

We also encourage you to read:

If you have any questions and need to talk to an attorney, please call 1-866-MCSHANE.  Our lines are open 24/7.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Monroe and Carbon County DUI Checkpoints

Monroe County Courthouse (Image credit Doug Kerr, on Flickr)

Fern Ridge State Police will be conducting DUI checkpoints in 6 townships this weekend.  The special sobriety checkpoints will be in Tunkhannock, Tobyhanna, Chestnuthill and Jackson townships in Monroe County and in Penn Forest Township in Carbon County.

If you would like to stay up-to-date on DUI Checkpoints in PA, subscribe to our our Pennsylvania DUI Checkpoint Feed.

We also encourage you to read:

If you have any questions and need to talk to an attorney, please call 1-866-MCSHANE.  Our lines are open 24/7.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...