Showing posts with label Mandatory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mandatory. Show all posts
April 10, 2015
March 31, 2015
South Carolina Senate Subcommittee Considering Mandatory Body Cameras for South Carolina Officers
South Carolina Senate Subcommittee Considering Mandatory Body Cameras for South Carolina Officerscategories: DUI
Continue Reading...
A South Carolina State Senate Subcommittee recently heard arguments from both sides regarding a pending bill that would require all South Carolina police officers to wear body cameras. Briefly – the bill would require all law enforcement officers in South Carolina to wear body cameras that would record all of their contact with the public.
The voices against mandatory body cameras (primarily from law enforcement) point to the cost of outfitting all officers along with the cost of storing doubt. The data storage cost could be substantial when one thinks about the volumes of footage that would have to be retained and stored for years under current Freedom of Information Act requirements. Several estimates put the anticipated storage expenses into millions of dollars a year for some cities. Other concerns raised would include privacy; for example, when an officer comes into a home on a criminal domestic violence call; or, officers working undercover. Certainly all of the issues raised have merit.Read More
Supporters of body cameras argue that they help courts close cases faster, reduce the number of items that officers use force, and make allegations of misconduct against officers easy to investigate for both parties.
An interesting question for South Carolina drivers accused of DUI/drunk driving, is how would mandatory body cameras fit within the current statutory scheme of SC Code 56-5-2953? An argument could be made that the video recording requirements present in DUI investigations would be extended to cover all officers present with body cameras if they recorded any field sobriety tests administered to the driver; and/or show the person being arrested; and/or showed the driver being advised of their Miranda rights. Critically – these are all mandatory requirements of South Carolina’s current DUI law as it relates to “dash cams.” If South Carolina makes “body cams” mandatory then I believe a strong argument could be made under SC Code Section 56-5-2953 that all body cam footage be provided to the defense prior to a DUI/drunk driving trial. An interesting question would be if an officer has a body cam and does not follow the requirements of 56-5-2953, what is the remedy? The current judicial remedy for failure of the police to meet the requirements 56-5-2953 is dismissal of the DUI/drunk driving charge.
Greenville, South Carolina DUI Attorney Steve Sumner primarily handles misdemeanor and felony DUI/drunk driving cases. Steve is a former DUI prosecutor and has been in private practice since 1994. Steve has been recognized as a South Carolina Super Lawyer® in the field of DUI defense since 2013. He is a member of the National Trial Lawyers: Top 100 Trial Lawyers™ for criminal defense. He is a member of the National College for DUI Defense and has held a judicially endorsed AV-Preeminent rating from Martindale-Hubbell® and a “Superb” (10.0 out 10.0) ranking with Avvo since 2011.
http://www.thestate.com/2015/03/04/4024004_officers-concerned-about-bill.html?rh=1
http://www.wsj.com/articles/los-angeles-police-kill-man-in-struggle-captured-on-video-1425302531
http://www.wsj.com/articles/task-force-report-calls-for-more-body-cameras-1425257551
SC Code Section 56-5-2953
March 5, 2015
Oklahoma Mandatory Jail Sentences and Costs
Incarceration in Oklahoma can leave released prisoners with an ongoing “debt to society”
The combination of Oklahoma laws requiring mandatory minimum prison sentences and a state policy of making prisoners pay for the costs of their incarceration has led to a situation in Oklahoma that constitutes what some might call a “worst-of-both-worlds” result: overcrowded prisons, coupled with newly-released prisoners finding themselves confronted with substantial government-imposed debts that they find difficult if not impossible to pay.
Oklahoma currently has more than 100 categories of crimes that carry mandatory minimum sentences. Mandatory minimums can perhaps satisfy a public demand to “get tough” on crime, but can also lead to unanticipated and undesirable consequences. Oklahoma has one of the highest incarceration rates in the nation: as of 2010, for example, the state’s incarceration rate per 100,000 state residents was 654, significantly higher than the national average of 497. Oklahoma’s incarceration rate for women ranks first in the US, with the rate for men being not far behind.
One of the immediate consequences of keeping so many people in custody is the financial cost of maintaining prisons at overload capacity, or 116% of capacity in Oklahoma’s case. One way that the state has attempted to relieve taxpayers of the cost burden has been to shift at least some of it to the inmates themselves. Fees for anything from fingerprinting costs to courthouse security can be tacked onto a per diem rate of up to $50 payable while inmates are incarcerated.
The result can be that when an inmate has completed his or her sentence and is released, freedom comes with a bill that can easily reach five figures. It is a twist on the antiquated concept of “debtors’ prison”: instead of being thrown in jail for being in debt, the prisoner accumulates it there.
Compounding the matter is that in a soft economy with jobs hard to come by, a recently released prisoner can also have a past criminal record to contend with, making employment even harder to achieve. And without having a paycheck, reimbursing the government for its incarceration-related fees becomes more problematic.
Efforts are ongoing to alleviate the compound problem of prison overcrowding and frequently unpayable prison debts. One approach is a proposal in the state legislature referred to as the “Justice Safety Valve Act” to allow judges more discretion when sentencing individuals, as long as the crime for which they are convicted does not constitute a violent crime, or a sex crime that would require sex offender registration, repeat crimes or crimes in which the person was the leader of an organized criminal activity.
No time frame is available on when the Justice Safety Valve Act may become Oklahoma law. In the meantime, the best way to avoid running afoul of the negative consequences of being subjected to a harsh mandatory minimum sentence and running up a large debt in prison is to avoid being charged with a crime in the first place, or to secure the best possible legal defense against the charges being brought against you. Even if acquittal is not possible, experienced defense attorneys may still be able to negotiate an outcome less than the worst-case scenario described above.
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/state-prison-population-incarceration-rates.html
http://kgou.org/post/oklahomas-crime-funded-court-system-leaves-many-offenders-substantial-debt
http://swtimes.com/news/oklahoma-crime-bill-would-allow-judges-more-discretion-sentencing
February 10, 2015
Mandatory Washington DUI Probation Violation Penalties
Mandatory Washington DUI Probation Violation Penalties, 30 Days Jail | Washington DUI Washington DUI \ABS\Auto Blog Samurai\data\DUI blog by Peter Drill\Washington DUI\gplus-16.png)
HomeAbout Our FirmYour DUI DefenseDUI Facts and InfoBlogContact Recent Posts Mandatory Washington DUI Probation Violation PenaltiesProposed Bill Would Make Fourth Washington DUI a FelonyDUI With Child in Car? Preparing for CPS Referral in Washington DUI Cases Challenges, Stays and Early Reinstatements of HTO License RevocationsPhysical Control in Washington - Confusion, Elements and DefensesSeattle and Washington State Marijuana DUI LawFee Increase to Request Administrative DOL HearingNew Washington DUI Laws Address Reckless Driving, Home Detention And HuffingReductions From DUI to Reckless Driving No Longer To Result In Additional License SuspensionsDUI Victims Panel, Attend Early, Be ProactiveMore Mandatory Washington DUI Probation Violation Penalties Submitted by tcmilios on Thu, 01/29/2015 - 3:15pm Washington DUI sentencing courts in impose a number of standard, and sometimes even unique, conditions upon a DUI conviction. Some are affirmative conditions, i.e. pay fines, complete an alcohol evaluation, participate in alcohol treatment, and attend DUI victims panel. Others are prohibitive. Don't commit law violations, don't consume alcohol, don't drive without an ignition interlock. Violations of any conditions imposed by the court can mean additional sanctions being imposed. Certain violations, however, result in mandatory penalties, with very little discretion allowed. Pursuant to RCW 46.61.5055 (11)(A), there are three violations of a DUI probation that require the court to impose a mandatory penalty. The way the statute reads, upon a conviction for DUI the sentencing court must impose the following conditions: Not driving within Washington without a valid license to drive and proof of insuranceNot driving a motor vehicle in Washington with an alcohol concentration above .08 or a THC concentration above 5.00 nanograms within two hours of drivingNot refusing to a test of blood or breath upon lawful request by law enforcement. That same statute further requires that for EACH violation of the above conditions found to have been committed, the court is required to impose 30 days of confinement AND 30 days of license suspension. So, by way of example, if a person on a DUI probation were to be caught driving without proof of insurance, refused to take a breath test and then provided a blood sample with an alcohol concentration in excess of .08, that person would be looking at 90 days of confinement and 90 additional days of license suspension. One of the real problems with these severe and mandatory sanctions is that, as often as not, the person on probation rarely knows that these specific violations will result in mandatory penalties. Occasionally a judge will point this out or the individual's lawyer will specifically advise them of this fact. Usually, however, that person leaves court only knowing that such conduct is prohibited but not that the harsh mandatory penalty will result from such violations. The takeaway from all of this? If you are in this position, make sure your license and insurance are valid and intact and that the Washington DOL has your updated address of record. It's these two violations that we see significantly more than any other. An unpaid speeding ticket results in a license suspension and the individual hasn't updated his address with DOL and never receives notice of the suspension. Insurance accidentally lapses or proof isn't available at the time of the stop. It seems unnecessarily harsh that someone would have to spend 30-60 days in confinement for a simple oversight. Especially when the underlying conviction may have only resulted in one or two days in jail to begin with. With that being said, that is exactly what Washington DUI courts are required to impose in such circumstances. So be vigilant and cautious to avoid unwittingly falling into this situation. Archive October 2009 (2) November 2009 (2) December 2009 (2) February 2010 (1) April 2010 (1) May 2010 (2) June 2010 (3) July 2010 (4) August 2010 (1) November 2010 (2) August 2011 (3) October 2011 (1) February 2012 (4) April 2012 (2) October 2012 (1) November 2012 (1) May 2013 (1) October 2014 (2) January 2015 (2) Seattle DUI Attorneys and Lawyers Serving Washington State | P:206-745-2371| P: 206-621-9956 | 1325 Fourth Avenue | Suite 940 | Seattle, WA 98101King County | Snohomish County | Pierce County | Including the communities of Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland, Shoreline, Burien, Kent, Renton, Edmonds, Everett, Lynnwood, and TacomaUse of this legal website constitutes acceptance of the Milios Defense Terms of Service. The material on this site is for informational purposes only regarding DUI legal issues, and is not a substitute for legal advice provided by an attorney or lawyer and does not establish an attorney-client relationship. © 2014 Milios Defense, LLP. We want to be your Seattle DUI Attorney. All rights reserved. Seattle DUI Lawyer website Last Updated: October 27, 2014.
Continue Reading...
HomeAbout Our FirmYour DUI DefenseDUI Facts and InfoBlogContact Recent Posts Mandatory Washington DUI Probation Violation PenaltiesProposed Bill Would Make Fourth Washington DUI a FelonyDUI With Child in Car? Preparing for CPS Referral in Washington DUI Cases Challenges, Stays and Early Reinstatements of HTO License RevocationsPhysical Control in Washington - Confusion, Elements and DefensesSeattle and Washington State Marijuana DUI LawFee Increase to Request Administrative DOL HearingNew Washington DUI Laws Address Reckless Driving, Home Detention And HuffingReductions From DUI to Reckless Driving No Longer To Result In Additional License SuspensionsDUI Victims Panel, Attend Early, Be ProactiveMore Mandatory Washington DUI Probation Violation Penalties Submitted by tcmilios on Thu, 01/29/2015 - 3:15pm Washington DUI sentencing courts in impose a number of standard, and sometimes even unique, conditions upon a DUI conviction. Some are affirmative conditions, i.e. pay fines, complete an alcohol evaluation, participate in alcohol treatment, and attend DUI victims panel. Others are prohibitive. Don't commit law violations, don't consume alcohol, don't drive without an ignition interlock. Violations of any conditions imposed by the court can mean additional sanctions being imposed. Certain violations, however, result in mandatory penalties, with very little discretion allowed. Pursuant to RCW 46.61.5055 (11)(A), there are three violations of a DUI probation that require the court to impose a mandatory penalty. The way the statute reads, upon a conviction for DUI the sentencing court must impose the following conditions: Not driving within Washington without a valid license to drive and proof of insuranceNot driving a motor vehicle in Washington with an alcohol concentration above .08 or a THC concentration above 5.00 nanograms within two hours of drivingNot refusing to a test of blood or breath upon lawful request by law enforcement. That same statute further requires that for EACH violation of the above conditions found to have been committed, the court is required to impose 30 days of confinement AND 30 days of license suspension. So, by way of example, if a person on a DUI probation were to be caught driving without proof of insurance, refused to take a breath test and then provided a blood sample with an alcohol concentration in excess of .08, that person would be looking at 90 days of confinement and 90 additional days of license suspension. One of the real problems with these severe and mandatory sanctions is that, as often as not, the person on probation rarely knows that these specific violations will result in mandatory penalties. Occasionally a judge will point this out or the individual's lawyer will specifically advise them of this fact. Usually, however, that person leaves court only knowing that such conduct is prohibited but not that the harsh mandatory penalty will result from such violations. The takeaway from all of this? If you are in this position, make sure your license and insurance are valid and intact and that the Washington DOL has your updated address of record. It's these two violations that we see significantly more than any other. An unpaid speeding ticket results in a license suspension and the individual hasn't updated his address with DOL and never receives notice of the suspension. Insurance accidentally lapses or proof isn't available at the time of the stop. It seems unnecessarily harsh that someone would have to spend 30-60 days in confinement for a simple oversight. Especially when the underlying conviction may have only resulted in one or two days in jail to begin with. With that being said, that is exactly what Washington DUI courts are required to impose in such circumstances. So be vigilant and cautious to avoid unwittingly falling into this situation. Archive October 2009 (2) November 2009 (2) December 2009 (2) February 2010 (1) April 2010 (1) May 2010 (2) June 2010 (3) July 2010 (4) August 2010 (1) November 2010 (2) August 2011 (3) October 2011 (1) February 2012 (4) April 2012 (2) October 2012 (1) November 2012 (1) May 2013 (1) October 2014 (2) January 2015 (2) Seattle DUI Attorneys and Lawyers Serving Washington State | P:206-745-2371| P: 206-621-9956 | 1325 Fourth Avenue | Suite 940 | Seattle, WA 98101King County | Snohomish County | Pierce County | Including the communities of Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland, Shoreline, Burien, Kent, Renton, Edmonds, Everett, Lynnwood, and TacomaUse of this legal website constitutes acceptance of the Milios Defense Terms of Service. The material on this site is for informational purposes only regarding DUI legal issues, and is not a substitute for legal advice provided by an attorney or lawyer and does not establish an attorney-client relationship. © 2014 Milios Defense, LLP. We want to be your Seattle DUI Attorney. All rights reserved. Seattle DUI Lawyer website Last Updated: October 27, 2014.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)