Fighting a Minor In Possession Charge

Prom and graduation season is fast approaching, and these events typically involve alcohol consumption. Way back in the dark ages when I graduated high school, the drinking age was 18, "legally drunk" was 0.15% (it's now 0.02% for those under 21 and 0.08% for those over 21), and getting caught drinking meant the police stood next to you while you told your parents what you'd been doing. Times have certainly changed, and there are now serious consequences to underage drinking. As long as no driving is involved, a teen caught drinking faces a Minor in Possession of Alcohol charge (MIP). If driving is involved, that under-21 year old likely faces a DUI, too. While the best practice for minors is to avoid people and places where alcohol is served to anyone, life happens.

Our local courts see many MIP cases, and many are tough on MIPs, requiring those facing a first MIP charge to admit guilt and impose conditions such as probation, alcohol awareness classes, community service volunteer hours, and fines. The costs add up quickly. As a DUI defense lawyer, I'd rather help my clients avoid pleading guilty in the first place. Why? You want to avoid having any conviction on your record, ever.

Don't go to court and plead guilty thinking you'll just get the MIP charge "removed" from your record at a later date. Future employers doing background checks, as well as law enforcement and military recruiters, will see this "indiscretion."

When a teen is charged with MIP, it costs time and money to deal with the situation and minimize the impact of the arrest. I've helped many minors over the years and, having raised two, I know that kids make mistakes. My methods for teaching important life lessons are amply effective and much less damaging than letting the courts "help" someone ruin their future with a guilty plea.

Continue Reading...

MOTORCYCLIST WITH NO ALCOHOL IN HIS BLOOD WAITS FIVE MONTHS BEFORE DUI CHARGE IS DISMISSED

In September of 2014, CW was driving his motorcycle in northwestern New York and collided with another motorcycle. A police officer responded to the accident scene and reportedly noticed the odor of alcohol on CW. The officer asked CW to take a breath test, and CW refused. The officer ultimately obtained a blood sample from CW and charged him with DWI (known as OVI in Ohio). The officer then sent the blood sample to be tested. The test revealed a blood alcohol content of 0.00. Last week, five months after CW was charged with DWI, the case was finally dismissed, as reported by the Genesee Sun.

If this case occurred in Ohio, it would have likely gone through the same process. When an officer in Ohio suspects a driver is under the influence, the officer requests a breath test, blood test, or urine test. In cases where a blood test or urine test is used, the results of the test are not immediately known to the officer. Despite not having the test results, officers routinely charge people with OVI immediately after the blood or urine sample is obtained. The blood or urine sample is then sent to a laboratory for analysis, and the analysis typically is not completed until weeks or months after the person is charged.

In cases involving blood/urine tests, there are two types of OVI charges which may be filed. First, the suspect is charged with OVI ‘impaired’. The ‘impaired’ charge accuses the suspect of operating a vehicle with driving ability impaired by alcohol and/or drugs. The ‘impaired’ charge is not dependent on the results of a blood/urine/breath test. Second, if the test results show an alcohol or drug level at or above the prohibited concentration (the ‘legal limit’), the suspect is charged with OVI ‘per se’. The ‘per se’ charge accuses the suspect of operating a vehicle with a prohibited alcohol or drug level. The ‘per se’ charge does not depend on whether suspect’s ability to drive was impaired.

In the case of CW, the officer likely charged CW with DWI ‘impaired’ on the day of the accident. If the blood test revealed an alcohol level above .080, CW would have also been charged with DWI ‘per se’. As the blood test revealed there was no alcohol in CW’s blood, CW was never charged with DWI ‘per se’.

It was appropriate for the prosecutor to dismiss the ‘impaired’ charge. I suppose the prosecutor could have maintained the charge and tried to prove CW’s ability to drive was impaired by alcohol. Doing so could end badly for the prosecutor, as rules of professionalism require a prosecutor to seek the truth and only pursue a charge when the charge is supported by probable cause.

Probable cause is also the standard for an officer to file charges. The blood test result makes me wonder what evidence the officer observed before charging CW with DWI. The report by the Genesee Sun references the odor of alcohol but does not mention any evidence indicating CW was under the influence. It does mention his refusal of the breath test, but that is not necessarily evidence he was under the influence: it may be evidence he was justifiably indignant about the officer’s request.

Charging people with OVI without test results can have unfortunate consequences, as it did for CW. Hopefully he will have the case sealed so there is no public record he was even charged with DWI. Having the public records sealed, however, does not undo the embarrassment he experienced when he was arrested or the anxiety he experienced for five months while the case was pending.

Continue Reading...

Trotwood OVI Charge? Charles Rowland Can Help

Trotwood OVI Attorney Charles M. Rowland II is ready to help defend you.

If you have been accused of drunk driving in Trotwood, Ohio, your misdemeanor OVI (operating a vehicle impaired) case will be heard in the Montgomery County Municipal Court, Western Division.  The jurisdiction of the Montgomery County Municipal Court, Western Divison covers most of north-west Montgomery County, Ohio and includes the cities of Trotwood, Brookville, Phillipsburg, the Village of New Lebanon and parts of Verona.  Many people refer to this Court as the Trotwood Municipal Court, but the jurisdiction of the court is much broader.  Your case will be heard by either the Honorable Adele Riley or the Honorable Thomas Manning.  According to the 2012 Annual Report, 155 new OVI cases were filed in the court.

In addition to the City of Trotwood, the court also handles cases arising in Jefferson Township, Clay Township, Perry Township and Jackson Township.  The Court is located at 195 S. Clayton Rd., New Lebanon, OH 45345-9601 or by phone at Traffic/Criminal Division (937) 687-9099 and Civil Division (937) 687-9092.  Visit the court’s web site by clicking HERE.  Follow the links below for more information:

Trotwood OVI attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in Trotwood and throughout Ohio.  He has the credentials and the experience to win your case and has made himself Trotwood’s choice for drunk driving defense. Contact Charles Rowland by phone at (937) 318-1384 or toll-free at 1-888-ROWLAND (888-769-5263). If you need assistance after hours, call the 24/7 Hotline at (937) 776-2671.  You can have an attorney at your fingertips by downloading the DaytonDUI Android App or have us sent directly to your mobile device by texting DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500.  Follow DaytonDUI on Facebook, @DaytonDUI on Twitter, YouTube, Tumblr, Pheed and Pintrest or get RSS of the Ohio DUI blog.  You can email CharlesRowland@DaytonDUI.com or visit his office at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324. 

“Trotwood OVI defense.”

Continue Reading...

Can You Be Fired For a DUI Charge in California?

California is an “at-will” employment state. Lacking an agreement to the contrary, employers can terminate employees for any reason at any time. Unless the termination is retaliatory or discriminatory, you have no legal defense. Therefore, if your employer finds out that you have received a DWI, you can be fired as a result.

How Do Employers View DUIs?

Many employers equate DWIs with poor judgment and irresponsibility. A DUI charge can be a red flag for a high-risk employee who can potentially harm the company.

What Are the Implications of a DWI for an Employer?

A physician, nurse, teacher, police officer or anyone entrusted with public responsibility is more likely to be fired for a DUI because the employer may be liable for the employee’s errors in judgment.

An employee who drives a company vehicle may be fired for a DWI. If you lose your license because of a DUI, you will be unable to maintain your position. When you get your license back, your employer may be unable to insure you because of the DWI. If you get into an accident in a company vehicle and injure others, your employer could be sued as a result.

If the employee has been a positive addition to the company in the past and has no prior DWIs, the employer may offer an opportunity to get treatment or suspend the employee instead of firing them.

Must I Tell My Employer About a DWI?

In most cases, your employer will have no way of knowing that you received a DUI charge. There is no reason to share this information unless you are required to do so by company policy. Before taking action, it’s a good idea to consult a DUI attorney to protect your rights. Sometimes the consequences for not reporting a DWI are worse than reporting it.

If you have received a California DWI and are worried about losing your job, contact an experienced DUI attorney.A qualified DWI defense lawyer can advise you of your rights and counsel you on how to proceed.

Continue Reading...

DUI Charge Against Texas Judge Nora Longoria Dropped

Los Angeles DUI attorneys and pundits have been following the story of Nora Longoria, a judge for the 13th Court of Appeals in Texas, who was charged with a DUI in July 2014. Recently, prosecutors dropped her charges. McAllen police say that Longoria “begged for special treatment” when faced with sobriety tests, but Justice Rolando Cantu threw out the case based on “lack of evidence,” marking “other” as his reasoning on formal paperwork.

Longoria was originally pulled over for driving 69 MPH in a 55 MPH zone, but the arresting officer claimed she “smelled of booze and had slurred speech.” Longoria allegedly admitted she’d had five beers that evening but that she consumed her last one three hours before driving. She allegedly told the officer, “I live a couple miles away… You are going to ruin my life.” Longoria also refused to take a breath test. Social media exploded after Longoria’s DUI charge. People made comments such as, “Resign, you drunk” and “You are a disgrace to the court system, to the legal profession, and the citizens of Texas.”

Despite the angry comments and the evidence presented in court, Longoria eventually beat her DUI charge. Several people, including regular Kraut Law Group blog readers, may be wondering how and why. Our attorneys hypothesize a few possible reasons:

•    Lack of a conclusive test. A breath test and other sobriety tests are not generally as conclusive as a blood or urine draw, neither of which Longoria underwent. In fact, some experts believe traditional sobriety tests are “designed to make [people] fail.”

•    Unclear video evidence. The prosecution was able to obtain a video allegedly showing the circumstances of Longoria’s DUI arrest. However, the tape’s footage did not clearly show whether her speech had been slurred. Thus, the evidence that she “smelled of booze” essentially consisted of the arresting officer’s opinion.

•    Lack of other evidence. Besides the unclear video, the prosecution brought no conclusive evidence against Longoria.

Do you need assistance constructing an appropriate response to a DUI charge? Look to the Kraut Law Group’s Michael Kraut for insight and peace of mind. Mr. Kraut is an experience Los Angeles DUI attorney with many relevant connections in the local legal community.

If police arrested you for Los Angeles DUI, you may feel scared and confused. Contact Harvard Law School educated, ex-prosecutor Michael Kraut for assistance at (323) 464-6453 or online. We’re located at 6255 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1480, Los Angeles, California 90028.

Continue Reading...

After a DWI charge, don't let your license go without a fight

Let's say that you were just arrested for drunk driving, and as the days and weeks pass, you are put in front of a judge multiple times. During one of these courtroom visits, you are informed that your driver's license is being revoked, and hearing this breaks your heart. Your job, your life, your responsibilities to your family and friends -- all of these things are being ruined because of this determination.

Losing your driver's license can be, and usually is, a crippling consequence of a DWI charge. Your job could be at risk, as well as your freedom and ability to get from place to place. This is a massive punishment that people who are accused and convicted of driving while intoxicated need to fight as soon as they possibly can.

Here in Minnesota, you have to inform the Minnesota Commissioner of Public Safety that you intend to challenge the decision to revoke your license within 30 days of receiving notification that your license is being revoked.

It's also important to note that here in Minnesota, there are two separate cases going on with your DWI charge. Even if you win the DWI case, you could lose your license in the other case.

Given the high-risk nature of this DWI setup in Minnesota, you need to defend yourself by consulting with a criminal defense attorney that has extensive experience with DWI cases. If you're in the state of Minnesota, consider us at Strandemo Sheridan & Dulas. We can help you with both of the court cases you have to deal with after a DWI. Don't give up your license without a fight.

Tags: Drunk Driving Charges

Continue Reading...

New Jersey driver faces DWI charge

A two-vehicle accident in Wall Township occurred on Nov. 22, and one driver faces charges for driving while intoxicated and assault by auto. A 47-year-old woman, who is from Atlantic Highlands, reportedly struck another vehicle with her car on Route 34 at about 8:34 p.m.

The authorities said that the woman traveled from Interstate 195 to Route 34 and collided with another car that was already on Route 34. She was released from police custody after being charged, and the driver of the other vehicle reportedly suffered minor injuries and received treatment at Jersey Shore University Medical Center in Neptune.

The northbound lanes of Route 34 were closed for around 30 minutes while authorities investigated the accident. Wall First Aid and the Glendola Fire Department also responded to the wreck, and both vehicles needed to be towed from the crash site.

When someone is charged with DWI, the authorities must collect evidence that supports their suspicions of impairment. While the reasons this woman faces a DWI charge is unknown, police might conduct tests when suspecting someone of drunk driving. While field sobriety tests are not considered scientifically valid evidence, they can still be used in court. However, drivers who refuse chemical testing face potential license suspension.

Even those who have never been charged with a DWI before face harsh consequences if convicted. In addition to a criminal record that may make future employment difficult, a DWI conviction may result in fines, jail time or the required installation of an ignition interlock device at one's own expense. Contacting an attorney might be necessary to avoid DWI charges.

Source: Asbury Park Press, "Atlantic Highlands woman charged with DWI in Wall crash", Jean Mikle, Nov. 22, 2014

Source: NJ.com, "Atlantic Highlands woman charged with DWI in Wall Township crash", MaryAnn Spoto, November 22, 2014

Continue Reading...

Bobby Brown Pleads no Contest to Misdemeanor Drunk Driving Charge

By guest-writer

After pleading no contest last week to a misdemeanor DUI charge, singer Bobby Brown was sentenced to three years of probation by a Los Angeles County judge, according to a recent report from the Los Angeles Times.

Brown will not have to spend any time in jail after his arrest last month for drunk driving, and will have to pay a fine of $390. In addition, Brown will have to attend a 90-day alcohol education program according to prosecutors from the city attorney’s office.

The famous singer had been arrested March 26 in Los Angeles after a California Highway Patrol officer saw him talking on his cell phone while driving, which is not allowed in the City of Angels.

After police pulled him over, they suspected that Brown was intoxicated, and asked him to perform a field sobriety test. Much to his chagrin, Brown apparently failed the test, and was promptly taken into police custody.

Sources say that Tiffany Feder offered her services as a DUI attorney to Brown, who arrest came only four days after the Los Angeles County coroner’s office released their findings about the cause of Whitney Houston’s death.

Houston and Brown were married for 14 years before the celebrity power couple divorced in 2007. The pair had a tumultuous end to their marriage, and their marital difficulties were reportedly compounded by Brown’s numerous troubles with the law.

Most notably, Brown had another drunk driving incident in Florida in 1996. In addition, sources have long speculated that Brown, like his former wife, had a long struggle with drug and alcohol abuse.

The couple’s dirty laundry was aired often during their 2005 reality show, which was simply titled “Being Bobby Brown.”

Brown’s relatively light sentence has stirred some criticism by observers who are suspicious of what they perceive as favorable judicial treatment for celebrities who are arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol.

Brown faced a maximum sentence of a year in county jail if he had been convicted, and critics will likely complain that his probation sentence is too weak.

However, the vast majority of criminal cases, including DUI cases, end in a plea bargain. And, in a plea bargain, defendants typically admit to their guilt in exchange for a lighter sentence.

Thus, it’s very common for a DUI defendant to receive a relatively light sentence after pleading guilty, and there is little evidence that Brown was the recipient of any favorable treatment.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Why You Should Fight Your California “Driving Under the Influence of Drugs” Charge

As is most often the case with a holiday weekend, California law enforcement officers stepped up their patrols this past weekend. Not only were they operating a number of DUI / driver’s license checkpoints but they were also engaging in roving DUI saturation patrols. If you were unfortunate enough to be arrested for driving under the influence of drugs, here are a few reasons why you should definitely fight the charge.

First, because of the fact that it was a holiday weekend, officers were expecting drivers to be under the influence. This inherent bias can easily lead to incomplete or shoddy investigations…investigations that lead to an illegal or hasty arrest. We will highlight the officer’s bias to prove that…in the officer’s eyes…you were guilty from the word go.

Second, unlike a DUI involving alcohol…where the jury typically sees a blood alcohol reading…allegations of driving under the influence of drugs “DUID” are often more difficult to prove. Even if there was a blood test that revealed drugs in your system, that doesn’t mean that you were under their influence at the time of driving. We know the most persuasive arguments to convince prosecutors, jurors and judges that innocent explanations such as fatigue, anxiety or illness could have been responsible for your alleged impairment.

Third, even if it appears that you were guilty of the offense, if we can present proof that the collection, storage or analysis of your blood test was improper, the prosecutor will likely reduce or even dismiss your charges.

These are just a brief sample of why it is important to fight a California “driving under the influence of drugs” charge. The fact is that there are countless other defenses that…depending on the specific facts of your case…may also be applicable. Don’t assume that just because you were arrested for DUI means that you must be convicted of DUI because it just isn’t the case.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...