Fort Lauderdale DUI Attorney on Ignition Interlocks

Ignition interlocks are devices that are attached to a motor vehicle to prevent the driver from starting the engine if he or she is under the influence of alcohol. They are essentially like mini-breathalyzer machines, set to prevent the ignition from turning on of the person has been consuming alcohol prior to getting in the vehicle. They can be set, depending on the particular needs, such as at 0.00 or 0.02 percent breath alcohol content. In Broward County and throughout the state of Florida, the installation of ignition interlock devices is routinely ordered by judges for defendants who are convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) as a requirement after the period of driver’s license suspension has passed, according to Fort Lauderdale DUI attorney William Moore.

Opponents of the devices have noted that there are several issues with the devices. First, they are unlikely to be perfectly accurate. Since a higher reading could have other consequences -- for example, a violation of DUI probation -- the accuracy of these devices is paramount. Like regular breath test machines used by law enforcement agencies, their perfection is far from assured, notes Broward DUI lawyer Moore. Another possible concern is simply the fact that the results can be easy to falsify: the driver could simply have another person blow into the machine.

There is some evidence to suggest, however, that those who are convicted of DUI who are required to use an ignition interlock device are measurably less likely to reoffend. However, the likelihood of reoffending may be tied more to long term substance abuse than any other factor. Still, most people who are arrested for driving under the influence are not alcoholics.

The state of Florida imposes a number of restrictions on individuals who are arrested for driving under the influence, regardless of whether or not they are ultimately convicted of the offense. Even drivers whose charges are dropped or who are found not guilty at trial may suffer unfortunate effects beyond simply being arrested and thrown in jail for the night. Most lose their driver’s licenses for at least six months, although it is possible to challenge the mandatory suspension within 10 days of the arrest at an administrative hearing before the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. Generally, the arresting law enforcement officer testifies to demonstrate probable cause for the arrest. If probable cause is not demonstrated by the evidence, including the testimony, the driver’s license may be reinstated.

Article contributed by Mallory Lynn, Esq.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Fort Lauderdale DUI Lawyer on DUI by the Numbers

Driving under the influence and criminal defense issues associated with it often involve a lot of numbers, notes Fort Lauderdale DUI lawyer William Moore. 0.08 is the blood alcohol content at which a person is presumed to be impaired. Controlled substances, either prescription or completely illegal, are not quantified in urinalysis, making those tests less effective for prosecutors trying to prove a DUI case. On the other hand, those substances can be and generally are quantified in blood samples, according to Fort Lauderdale DUI attorney Moore. Therefore, the state’s toxicologist may testify as an expert witness regarding matters such as whether the substances are present at a therapeutic level.

Another numbers issue often addressed by anti-drunk driving organizations is the role alcohol plays in accidents and traffic problems more generally. Studies consistently show that in accidents where a driver is injured, the hurt person more often than not caused the accident. The studies also show that the rates for responsibility of the accidents fatal to the drivers are even higher for those drivers who are under the influence at the time of the accident, by a difference of 68% for non-impaired drivers to 94% for impaired drivers. The figures include accidents that did not involve any other cars.

About one of every seven drivers on the road suffers from diabetes, which is staggering when taken in consideration with the fact that a diabetic suffering from a serious hypoglycemic (low blood sugar) episode often exhibits the same signs law enforcement officers look for in DUI -- slurring speech, unsteadiness, confusion or disorientation, to name a few. The breath test machine, or breathalyzer, will not exonerate these individuals. During a hypoglycemic episode, the driver will produce significant acetone, which the breathalyzer registers as though it were alcohol.

Field sobriety tests produce some interesting numbers, as well, says Broward DUI lawyer Moore. A Clemson University study tested officers’ ability to distinguish test-takers who had been drinking from those who had not. None of those taking the field sobriety tests had consumed any alcohol. The officers were not told this fact, and after seeing their performance on the roadside tests, found that 46% of the individuals were too impaired to operate a motor vehicle. If law enforcement officers can only spot a sober person half of the time, these tests are not very useful.

Although the ratio has and continues to shift dramatically, women are still arrested for DUI at much lower rates than men are. Fewer than 20% of DUI defendants are women, and more than 90% of those who have a second or subsequent DUI arrest are men. Women are also more difficult to test with a breathalyzer machine, as they may not have the lung capacity that a man would have, and there are certain inherent BAC testing biases that skew against women.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Evidence in DUI Trials -- Fort Lauderdale DUI Lawyer

When a person is pulled over and the law enforcement officer conducts a DUI investigation, he or she is looking for one main thing: evidence that your normal faculties are impaired by a substance (alcohol or drugs). However, the police officer a couple of disadvantage in terms of accuracy in this investigation. The first is that law enforcement is unaware of what your particular normal faculties are. This means that if you have had a knee injury, for instance, doing a heel-to-toe walking pattern on the side of a highway may be difficult for you. Similarly, standing on one foot for a long period of time may cause you to sway for any number of medical reasons that do not reflect on your degree of intoxication or impairment, notes Fort Lauderdale DUI lawyer William Moore.

There are three ways the police try to collect proof against a driver suspected of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. The first is by inquiring about alcohol usage, or interrogation about the matter. An officer could ask, for instance, if you have been drinking and if so, how much. The second matter the officer will look at is your performance on roadside field sobriety tests, in which you are asked to complete several physical activities (and follow instructions) to see how well you are able to complete the task. As mentioned before, standing on one leg, possibly while counting, or walking heel-to-toe for a certain number of steps are common tasks. The officer will evaluate your performance on these tasks, although his or her perception is highly subjective, and may be colored by the fact that the officer already suspects the driver is intoxicated. Perhaps the most important test the law enforcement officer will ask you to submit to is a breath test to check for alcohol in your system, more commonly known as a breathalyzer. Although there is evidence suggesting these machines are not nearly as accurate as police or the machines’ manufacturers claim they are, the results are still admissible in a court of law. You may also be asked to submit to a blood or urine test, depending on the circumstances.

The less proof of intoxication exists, or what law enforcement believes is evidence, the less likely a driver is to be convicted at trial. “Triple refusals” can therefore be useful to your DUI defense lawyer, although refusal can have other consequences, including a longer period of driver’s license revocation. Always consult an experienced Broward DUI attorney before making these decisions.

In addition to these tests, the law enforcement official is also checking other signs of intoxication. Bloodshot eyes are an indicator they use, but one which is mimicked by other issues. Foremost among these is dry contacts, but even just being tired after a long day or allergies could cause red eyes.

This article should not be construed as legal advice in any way. Additionally, please note that because the operation of a motor vehicle constitutes implied consent to testing. Further, refusing a second or subsequent time can result in separate criminal charges.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Fort Lauderdale DUI Attorney on Alcohol Testing Accuracy

The accuracy of breathalyzer machines has been hotly disputed since states began to use them in the 1930s, according to Fort Lauderdale DUI lawyer William Moore. Numerous factors can cause false positives or otherwise affect results, such as:

* diabetes
* acid reflux disease
* cigarette smoking
* eating bread
* mouth alcohol
* breathing pattern or hyperventilation
* other reasons

Breath testing is not the most reliable method of evaluating the amount of alcohol in someone’s body at a given time. It also does not measure for any other factor or substance that could cause impairment, such as Xanax or other prescriptions, or illegal drugs, says Broward DUI lawyer Moore. States have coped with the issue of reliability in different ways. In some states, law enforcement officers routinely carry handheld breath alcohol screening devices, which may give the police probable cause to arrest a DUI suspect if the driver has a positive test result. In most cases, these results are not admissible in court because they are not sufficiently reliable. Florida is not one of the states that uses handheld breathalyzers.

Urine testing is often used by law enforcement when they believe that the suspect may be driving under the influence of substances other than alcohol. Urinalysis can screen for common prescription and illegal drugs. For instance, a the police might determine that a person appears to have been drinking, but after he blows a 0.03, they conclude that his apparent level of intoxication is higher than would be expected from such a relatively low breath test. They may therefore request urinalsysis, which shows that he also has prescription pain medication in his system. Since urinalysis does not quantify the amount of a substance in a person’s system, its usefulness is limited: the state may not be able to prove that the person’s prescription medication was at a high enough level to cause impairment.

South Dakota uses blood testing only due to its higher level of accuracy and reliability. Blood testing often results in delays, as the police must transport the subject to a location where blood can be drawn. Nonetheless, it provides a more accurate picture of the amount of alcohol in the person’s systems, as well as other substances, because a blood test will quantify other drugs. Therefore, a blood test will show whether prescription drugs were taken at a therapeutic level or a higher dosage.

Drivers in the state of Florida do not have their choice of which test to submit to. Although the first refusal to submit to a test is not a crime, it can result in administrative penalties. Operating a motor vehicle in the state of Florida means that a person has consented (via implied consent) to submission to testing.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

DUI Manslaughter Issues by Fort Lauderdale DUI Lawyer

DUI can be enhanced in several ways, according to Fort Lauderdale DUI attorney William Moore. If the defendant’s blood alcohol content is measured over 0.15, the state can pursue enhancement. If convicted, the defendant will pay higher fines, be required to install an ignition interlock, and face tougher penalties that he would otherwise, including more time in jail. Where a minor is in the car, the penalties are also enhanced in the same way. Involvement in an accident, even if there were no other vehicles involved, also leads to enhancing factors. Leaving the scene after a DUI accident will usually be charged as a separate offense.

DUI causing serious bodily injury and DUI manslaughter are separate from regular DUI and are more serious. Nonetheless, a jury still has the option of convicting a person tried for DUI manslaughter or DUI causing serious bodily injury of simple DUI only, depending on the facts and particular circumstances surrounding the case before them.

What, then, constitutes DUI manslaughter? The driver must first be committing a DUI: driving while his normal faculties are too impaired to do so. This can be demonstrated through a breath or blood alcohol test at or above a 0.08. The state can also, or alternatively, use other evidence such as performance on roadside field sobriety tests, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, damaging statements, or the driver’s demeanor or state of mind.

In addition to simple DUI, however, a conviction for DUI manslaughter also requires the driver to cause or contribute to the death of another person. Usually, this occurs during a traffic accident. However, some prosecutors have been interpreting it more broadly. A Tampa man, for instance, was recently tried for DUI manslaughter after he caused an accident. His BAC was over the legal limit. A good Samaritan stopped to render aid following the accident, but was struck and killed by a third party -- who was also intoxicated. The first driver, who apparently caused the accident, was charged with DUI manslaughter on the theory that he had caused or contributed to the conditions resulting in the good Samaritan’s death. The connection is fairly tenuous and the man was not convicted of DUI manslaughter after trial. The other driver, who struck the good Samaritan, took a plea agreement.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Jim Leyritz DUI Manslaughter Trial Discussed by Fort Lauderdale

Jim Leyritz, the former professional baseball player, has been awaiting trial on a DUI manslaughter charge for several years. He was involved in a car wreck in the early morning hours of December 28, 2007, that left a woman in another vehicle dead. The trial was completed yesterday, says Broward DUI lawyer Moore, who has followed the case in the news. The Leyritz case was complicated: the toxicology tests performed on the driver of the other vehicle demonstrated that her blood alcohol content was well over the legal limit at which intoxication is presumed, 0.08 percent. Likewise, a blood test taken several hours after the accident showed Leyritz’s BAC over the limit as well. This has resulted in public controversy as Leyritz has maintained his innocence. According to media reports, the prosecution never offered any sort of plea deal.

Leyritz was charged with DUI manslaughter. The jury found him guilty of simple DUI, determining that he was in fact driving under the influence of alcohol but there was insufficient evidence to find that he had actually caused or contributed to the car accident. On the contrary, there was evidence presented by an expert witness showing that due to the timing of Leyritz’s consumption of the alcohol -- some of it shortly prior to getting in his car to leave his birthday celebration -- rendered his BAC higher hours later than it was when he was driving. Nonetheless, because the jury convicted Leyritz of driving under the influence, the jurors were apparently not persuaded by this argument, notes Fort Lauderdale DUI attorney Moore.

The passenger in Leyritz’s car testified that Leyritz had driven through the intersection where the accident occurred as the light changed from yellow to red. Based on that timing, the other vehicle would have likely had a completely red light, rather than a green light. In the absence of hard evidence showing otherwise, the jury apparently accepted this explanation, concluding that they could not find beyond a reasonable doubt that Leyritz had caused the unfortunate accident.

This matter has received widespread media attention due to both Leyritz’s fame and the unusual facts of the case. It is uncommon for a DUI-related accident to involve two drivers whose blood tested over the legal limit. The criminal standard “beyond a reasonable doubt” does not mean beyond all possible doubt, or beyond the shadow of any doubt, but simply beyond any doubts which would be plausible or realistic. In this case, the jurors returned for a rare Saturday session to finish up the case.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...