Showing posts with label Alcohol. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alcohol. Show all posts

April 20, 2015

Can Raising Taxes on Alcohol Reduce Drunk Driving Accidents?

A new study published in the American Journal of Public Health suggests that raising the taxes on alcohol could reduce the number of drunk driving related collisions.

Researchers from the University of Florida studied the results of a 2009 tax increase on alcohol in the state of Illinois. In that year, the state increased its excise tax on beer by 4.6 cents a gallon, on wine by 66 cents a gallon and on distilled spirits by $4.05 a gallon, or by 1 cent more that consumers pay per glass of beer or wine and nearly 5 cents more for a serving of spirits.

According to the researchers, alcohol-related traffic deaths in Illinois fell 26 percent. The decrease was higher among young people, at 37 percent. Fatal crashes involving alcohol-impaired and extremely drunk drivers fell 22 percent and 25 percent, respectively.

"Similar alcohol tax increases implemented across the country could prevent thousands of deaths from car crashes each year," Alexander Wagenaar, a professor in the Department of Health Outcomes and Policy at the University of Florida, said in a university news release. "If policymakers are looking to address dangerous drivers on our roads and reduce the number of fatalities, they should reverse the trend of allowing inflation to erode alcohol taxes.”

Wagenaar’s comments reflect the study’s observation that alcohol has become less expensive in recent years as the result of a decrease in alcohol tax rates. The study notes that having 10 or more drinks a day would have costs the average person approximately half of their disposable income in 1950. Modernly, however, having 10 or more drinks a day would cost the average person about three percent of their disposable income.

"This goes against the conventional wisdom of many economists, who assert that heavy drinkers are less responsive to tax changes, and has powerful implications for how we can keep our communities safer," said Wagenaar.

As with many studies, you have to ask yourself, “Is this a true cause and effect situation?”

U.S. News reported that David Ozgo, vice president for economic and strategic analysis for the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, had the same question. According to Ozgo, fatal collisions involving alcohol were decreasing before the tax increase.

 “In fact, the largest annual decline over the last eight years occurred in 2008, the year before the tax rate changed,” he said. “Importantly, Illinois alcohol-related traffic fatalities declined faster than the national average before the tax increase and this has not been the case since the tax increase.”

Ozgo’s observation makes us wonder whether it really is the tax that is causing the decrease in DUI related fatalities in the state.

Think about the averages alcohol abuser. Is the rather trivial increase in alcohol taxes mentioned above really going to stop someone from purchasing the alcohol? Is it going to keep them from driving after drinking?

Share This entry was posted on Monday, April 13th, 2015 at 7:33 am and is filed under Duiblog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Continue Reading...

April 1, 2015

Ohio Sets Alcohol Record – Here Are The Top 10 Sellers

alcohol lawAccording to the Ohio Department of Commerce, Ohioans are buying more and better alcohol than ever before. Sales reached a record level in 2014 totaling $949 million. This represents an increase of 5.6 percent and exceeded last year’s total by $50 million, according to date released by the Ohio Department of Commerce.  Premium and Super-Premium products dominate the top of the charts and account for almost 60 percent of the total dollar sales.

Here, (from WHIO) is the top 10 list of Ohio alcohol choices:

1. Jack Daniels Tennessee Whiskey – 364,060 gallons
2. Crown Royal Canadian Whiskey – 292,772 gallons
3. Captain Morgan Spiced Rum – 278,535 gallons
4. Fireball Cinnamon Whiskey – 277,171 gallons
5. Absolut Vodka – 272,987 gallons
6. Bacardi Superior Light Rum – 271,429 gallons
7. Smirnoff Vodka – 262,461 gallons
8. Kamchatka Vodka – 261,149 gallons
9. Jagermeister – 235,016 gallons
10. Black Velvet Canadian Whiskey – 228,024 gallons

Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in the Miami Valley and throughout Ohio. He has the credentials and the experience to win your case and has made himself Dayton’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 DUI Hotline at (937) 776-2671. You can have DaytonDUI at your fingertips by downloading the DaytonDUI Android App or have DaytonDUI 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.

“All I do is DUI defense.”

Fairborn, Dayton, Springfield,Kettering,Vandalia,Xenia, Miamisburg,Huber Heights, Springboro, Oakwood,Beavercreek, Centerville

"All I Do is DUI Defense." Call 937-318-1384 or my 24x7 DUI Hotline 937-776-2671 for help. I can get your life back.
Continue Reading...

March 27, 2015

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.

Blood draw

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...

March 26, 2015

Top 10 Dumb Mistakes Made by People Under the Influence of Alcohol

A recent post on our Los Angeles DUI blog, we spoke about how alcohol affects the brain’s ability to care about mistakes. There’s never a shortage of news to justify that finding. Here are ten of the dumbest mistakes people have made while intoxicated:top-10-los-angeles-dui

1.    A drunk man in Florida caused a scene and repeatedly called 911 after being told he was not allowed to bring his kitten into a strip club. He was arrested for misuse of 911 and public intoxication.

2.    An intoxicated Louisiana man rode his horse into a bar and lassoed a patron, attempting to drag him into the parking lot.

3.    Police arrested an inebriated man in Pennsylvania after catching him trying to resuscitate a dead opossum on the side of the highway.

4.    Police arrested a man in Cincinnati after he drank too much alcohol, streaked nude though his yard, and somehow ended up in his neighbor’s dryer.

5.    Police confronted a visibly intoxicated Floridian man for firing off guns on a public beach dock. During the conversation with the deputy, the man pooped his pants. He was arrested for use of a firearm while intoxicated.

6.    A North Carolina man was arrested for drunkenly riding a bicycle while wielding a chainsaw.

7.    A drunk Toronto man had to be rescued from his neighbor’s chimney. He climbed in, trying to enter the home, but got stuck and spent 5 hours in the freezing cold.

8.    A man was arrested for public intoxication in Minnesota when he tried to make a phone call with a $20 bill, convinced it was his phone.

9.    An intoxicated Canadian man was arrested at a Christmas parade for screaming to little kids that Santa isn’t real.

10.    An intoxicated man in Minneapolis was arrested for breaking into a home and destroying a toilet, causing almost $2,000 in damage. He was charged with burglary.

Respond strategically to your arrest and charges by calling a former Senior Deputy D.A. and highly successful Los Angeles DUI defense attorney with the Kraut Law Group today for a complimentary consultation.

Have you been stopped for DUI in Los Angeles, contact attorney Michael Kraut at (323) 464-6453 or online. Our team is located at 6255 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1480, Los Angeles, California 90028.

Continue Reading...

March 1, 2015

DWI convictions not as cut and dry as .08 blood alcohol content

Posted by: DUI News Staff Writer February 13, 2015 in DUI News Digest Leave a comment

The blood alcohol content of .08 is the legal limit for North Carolina, but the process from breath tests to booking and beyond for a DWI can be quite complicated and lengthy.

Read more: http://www.witn.com/home/headlines/DWI-convictions-not-as-cut-and-dry-as-08-blood-alcohol-content-291788911.html 2015-02-13
Continue Reading...

February 4, 2015

Proposed Laws Would Bar Drunk Drivers From Buying Alcohol

buying vodk

For the second time in two years, New Mexico State Representative Brian Egolf has proposed a bill to prohibit convicted drunk drivers from purchasing alcohol. The bill—which was defeated in the state’s senate in 2013—would require DUI offenders who are under orders to use an ignition interlock to carry a special driver’s license or identity card noting they are not allowed to buy booze.

According to the most recent statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), alcohol-related crashes account for 30% of all traffic deaths in New Mexico. Currently all convicted DUI offenders in the state must install an ignition interlock in their car. However, the law has roughly a 50% compliance rate. Because so many evade their interlock requirement, Egolf feels prohibiting alcohol sales to people convicted of intoxicated driving would make the roads safer. Egolf recognizes his bill isn’t perfect but he is giving it a second try in hopes of arming the state with another tool to prevent drunk driving.

To the east, the Oklahoma legislature is considering a bill that would not only prohibit convicted drunk drivers from drinking, but would also make it a felony to “knowingly” sell or give alcohol to a person court-ordered to abstain from drinking. Like the proposed New Mexico measure, Oklahoma would issue special IDs marked “alcohol restricted” to alert clerks and servers that the person is not allowed to drink. The felony penalty for those who sell or provide alcohol would make the law one of the toughest drunk driving measures in the county.

Supporters of these bills claim banning alcohol consumption and purchases are appropriate sanctions for drunk drivers. Many courts already prohibit DUI offenders from consuming alcohol for a period of time and these bills would make that practice more widespread. Furthermore, the bills would get more of the community involved in preventing drunk driving by making businesses that sell alcohol part of the solution.

However, opponents question how effective the laws would really be. DUI offenders could enlist a friend or family member to purchase alcohol for them, and many retailers and restaurants do not card patrons who appear to be over 21. In addition, there are concerns about the anticipated costs to design a new license type and to enforce the laws. Washington State considered a similar bill in 2013, but after reviewing the financial projections decided that it wasn’t workable.

Do you think these bills will help reduce DUIs and alcohol-involved crashes or should states focus their efforts elsewhere?

Continue Reading...

February 3, 2015

Proposed Law would Ban DUI Offenders from Buying Alcohol

Ban the instrumentality used during the commission of a crime and that will stop the crime, at least that’s the thought.

Sen. Patrick Anderson (R) of Oklahoma has introduced a new bill which would allow a court to ban people convicted of driving under the influence from purchasing alcohol for a probationary period of time. Those convicted of driving under the influence would be required to carry a license that indicates they are “alcohol restricted.”

Similarly, those who purchase alcohol for someone who is “alcohol restricted” is would be subject to felony charges. Individuals who “knowingly sell, deliver or furnish alcoholic beverages to a person who has been order to abstain” could face a fine of up to $1,000 or one year in prison.  

Oh, where to begin listing the problems with this proposed law?

First, does a state with one of the highest incarceration rates really want to send someone to jail or prison for something as trivial as buying and selling alcohol? What’s more, Oklahoma is currently undergoing a budget deficit for local law enforcement agencies. I think most people would agree that maybe Oklahoma should allocate its resources to fighting bigger battles than this.

Whether you agree or not, alcohol addiction is a disease. Those suffering from alcohol addiction will find a way to obtain alcohol. Banning alcohol will not reduce drunk driving deaths. Remember, it’s not the alcohol that causes alcohol-related collisions. It’s the decision to drive while drunk.

However, the biggest concern this proposed law raises is enforcement. How in the world does Oklahoma intend on enforcing this law?

This law would force every party host to ask every guest if they have been convicted of drunk driving before offering them a beer or a glass of wine. It would force priests to ask every parishioner if they have been convicted of drunk driving before they offer communion. A wife could not purchase wine “for the family” at the grocery store if her husband is “alcohol restricted.”

Anderson’s bill comes months after Oklahoma passed another law aimed at curbing its relatively high drunk driving death rate. Oklahoma legislature recently passed a law making it easier for prosecutors to confiscate the vehicle of a person charged with driving under the influence once the case is in court.

According to the nonprofit investigative journalism group “Oklahoma Watch,” drunk driving deaths in the state increased 10 percent between 1994 and 1012. However, during the same period, the figure dropped 20 percent nationwide.

The Oklahoma State Senate will begin discussing Anderson’s proposed legislation in February. Let’s just hope they realize the ramifications of such an ill-advised law. If it doesn’t, however, maybe the Oklahoma State Senate should also consider banning the purchase of cell phones for anyone caught texting and driving.

Share This entry was posted on Monday, January 26th, 2015 at 12:14 pm and is filed under Duiblog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Continue Reading...

February 1, 2015

Diet Drinks and Alcohol, a Combo for a DUI?

It’s not my first choice, but there are plenty of people out there who prefer mixing their alcohol with diet soda. Mixing alcohol with an artificially sweetened soda rather than regular soda, however, could lead to a higher blood alcohol content.

The reason for the elevated blood alcohol content lies with how our bodies process diet sodas. Diet soda passes through our stomach quicker than regular soda. When this happens, the alcohol is absorbed into the bloodstream quicker. Regular soda takes longer to break down, which slows the release of alcohol into the blood stream.

Research has shown this phenomenon to be true.

Researchers at Griffith University, in Australia, found that people who mixed alcohol with diet soda showed a blood alcohol content of 0.02 higher than those who mixed alcohol with the conventional sugary carbohydrate-laden drinks. In his study of 16 people, those who mixed their drinks with artificially sweetened showed an average blood alcohol content of 0.065 percent whereas those who mixed their drinks with regular soda showed an average blood alcohol content of 0.045 percent.

“There are implications for people that might go and have one or two drinks and if they’re choosing drinks that have diet mixers, it might put them over the limit,” said Chris Irwin, PhD candidate at Griffith University. “It may make a big difference in their blood alcohol limit and put them at risk of driving under the influence, while if they have a carbohydrate based drink with alcohol they could be under the limit.”

Another study at Northern Kentucky University found that subjects who were given diet soda mixed with an amount of alcohol that would put a person at approximately a 0.08 percent blood alcohol content were slightly over the 0.08 threshold. On the other hand, subjects who were given the same amount of alcohol mixed with regular soda were found to be slightly under the 0.08 limit.

“What you choose to mix your alcohol with could possibly be the difference between breaking or not breaking the law,” says study author Cecile Marczinski, assistant professor in the Department of Psychological Science at Northern Kentucky University in Highland Heights, Kentucky.

So if you’re trying to shed the pounds using diet soda as a mixer for your alcohol, remember that you’re probably getting drunker quicker than if you were drinking regular soda. As Marczinski put it, it may be the difference between making it home and getting arrested for a DUI.

Continue Reading...

January 4, 2015

Authority and Alcohol: People in High Positions Can Get Los Angeles DUIs, Too

Although stories about celebrities facing Los Angeles DUI charges are reported every day, average citizens often act surprised when people in authority face similar charges. The attorneys at the Kraut Law Group have seen plenty of people in positions of authority deal with DUI charges and want to set the record straight on the prevalence of this problem.Bryce-Marlatt-dui

Oklahoma Senator Charged

Republican senator Bryce Marlatt was recently charged with a subcategory of DUI known as actual physical control, or APC. APC indicates the vehicle was actually moving when the suspect was pulled over for the DUI. Woodward, OK, police found Marlatt asleep in his moving car. When asked how many beers he had, Marlatt replied, “None – I had what you call a bourbon and Coke.” He also said he had consumed “no more than anybody else” when asked further about his alcohol consumption.

Senator Marlatt’s attorney claims that Marlatt had been having sleep problems and that he took a prescription sleep aid before getting behind the wheel last Monday night. He had imbibed a mixed drink and had been concerned about the effects of the mixture, so allegedly pulled over to sleep off the aid and the alcohol. However, the charges of APC indicate Marlatt’s vehicle may have been moving without his knowledge.

Auto President Faces DUI

Another authority figure recently charged with a DUI is Robert Butler, president of the Butler Automotive Group in Indianapolis. Allegedly, Butler had been driving DUI on Interstate 465 and hit a vehicle parked on the emergency shoulder. The accident caused “serious leg injuries” to 25-year-old Latin McKinney, according to The Indy Channel. McKinney and his sister had apparently been trying to jump-start McKinney’s stalled car on the emergency shoulder.

Butler admitted he had four glasses of wine while watching a ball game in downtown Indianapolis before getting on the interstate. Police measured his blood alcohol level at twice the legal limit. However, Butler pleaded not guilty to DUI charges even after admitting he’d been drinking.

Designing and executing an effective defense against DUI charges (even simple ones) is not intuitive. Fortunately, you can trust the seasoned, highly successful Michael Kraut. Call a DUI lawyer in Los Angeles with nearly two decades of experience.

Call attorney Michael Kraut at (323) 464-6453 for help if you’ve been stopped for DUI in Los Angeles. Or Contact our team online. We’re located at 6255 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1480, Los Angeles, California 90028.

Continue Reading...

December 14, 2014

The Basics of Blood Alcohol Testing by Gas Chromatography - Part I

September 19th, 2014 Allen Trapp Posted in Blood Test, Chemical Test |

The first stage of sample testing is the injection of the sample into the injector port. The sample is introduced into the injector port with a syringe or an exterior sampling device known as a pipette. The injector port is a hollow, glass-lined cylinder that is heated to 150-250°C which causes the sample to vaporize.

Most blood alcohol analyses are performed via headspace gas analysis as opposed to direct injection. A small amount (approximately 0.10 milliliters) of blood is diluted with water to about 1.0 milliliter in volume. The sample is placed in a sample vial and the cap is crimped and placed in an auto sampler with an incubating chamber set at a constant temperature. When the sample has reached equilibrium (when the rate of ethanol evaporation equals the rate of condensation in the sample vial), a sample of the gas above the liquid is withdrawn and injected into the gas chromatograph.

At this stage of the analysis Henry’s Law is in effect. Henry’s Law is a chemical principle that describes therelationship of volatile compounds in dilute aqueous solution at equilibrium.  Next, the vapors of the sample are carried into the column by a carrier gas.  The transportation of the vapors by the carrier gas, usually hydrogen, helium, or nitrogen is frequently referred to as the mobile phase. The carrier gas flows into the injector port, through the column, which is maintained by a temperature controlled oven, and then into the detector. The solutes travel through the column at a rate primarily determined by their physical properties, and the temperature and composition of the column. The column is packed or coated. This is commonly referred to as the stationary phase.

Written by Allen Trapp who is board certified by the National College for DUI Defense and the author of Georgia DUI Survival Guide Visit Website

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.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Continue Reading...

December 10, 2014

The Basics of Blood Alcohol Testing by Gas Chromatography - Part II

September 19th, 2014 Allen Trapp Posted in Blood Test, Chemical Test |

The various solutes travel through the column at different rates. The fastest moving solute exits (elutes) the column first then is followed by the remaining solutes in corresponding order. After the compounds have been eluted from the end of the column, they must be detected, one at a time. As each solute elutes from the column, it enters the heated detector. An electronic signal is generated upon interaction of the solute with the detector. The size of the signal is recorded by a data system and is plotted against elapsed time to produce a chromatogram.

The plot created by this process is called a chromatogram. The size of the signal is proportional to the amount of a compound in the sample. In conjunction with the data recorder, an integrator is frequently used to provide measurements of the height of the compound’s signal and the time that it took for the compound to elute through the column and reach the detector.  While many types of detectors exist, the most common detector used for the blood alcohol analysis is the flame ionization detector. The flame ionization detector simply burns each organic compound as it elutes from the column. As the compound burns, it produces an electrical signal. The electrical signal is displayed as a “peak” with a known retention time. The period of time between injection and reaching the detector is referred to as the retention time.

The retention time of a compound alone is insufficient to identity of compound. The retention time of a known compound must be compared to the retention time of the unknown compound to determine if the known compound also exists in the testing sample. By comparing the retention time of the compound to a known standard, the compound can be identified. Identifying the compound is the qualitative portion of the analysis.

The concentration of alcohol in a sample is measured by comparing the size of the peak produced by the testing sample to the size of the peak produced by different known concentrations of alcohol.   Measurement of the amount of the compound in the sample is the quantitative portion of the analysis.  Each compound has a different retention time with a particular mobile phase, stationary phase, and temperature. If testing conditions change, identifying the compound is not possible. Therefore, the instrument must be periodically tested with a known specimen to ensure the testing conditions have not changed and the calibration of instrument remains intact.

Written by Allen Trapp who is board certified by the National College for DUI Defense and the author of Georgia DUI Survival Guide Visit Website

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.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Continue Reading...

September 8, 2012

Prosecution’s Alcohol & Drug Expert a Fraud

The prosecution’s evidence in many drunk driving cases relies heavily upon the testimony of a forensic toxicologist — an expert in blood and breath alcohol analysis.  In most cases, these "experts" are not independent witnesses, but either work for the police crime lab or have lucrative contracts with law enforcement.  

Increasingly over recent years, the role of these witnesses — who are presented to juries as objective and impartial scientists — has shifted from objectivity to one of being "team players" who will testify in support of the government’s case, regardless of the facts.  And, unfortunately, the defendant is rarely able to afford a truly independent expert to present a more objective view of the blood or breath alcohol analysis.

Just as the objectivity of the prosecution’s "expert" has shifted, so has the incidence of these professional witness’ fraudulent qualifications… 


Court’s Drug Expert Called a Fraud

Dallas, TX.  July 2 – A presumed expert in alcohol, DNA and drug testing, who has testified in hundreds of family and criminal cases, is an unqualified imposter with no college degree, according to a class action in Dallas County Court.

Lead plaintiff B.W.D. sued James W. Turnage, his company Forensic DNA & Drug Testing Services, and Medtox Scientific, in Dallas County Court.

B.W.D. claims that as a result of Turnage’s flawed testimony, thousands of parents have lost access to their children and countless citizens are behind bars…

B.W.D. says Turnage holds himself out as an expert in drug testing and evaluating drug test results, and that Turnage has been appointed to do drug tests in custody disputes and criminal matters in Dallas, Tarrant, Collin and Denton counties for years.

"Turnage, however, lacks even the minimal educational requirements to work in any technical job in a licensed drug and alcohol testing laboratory," the complaint states. "Turner has no college degree and is not a toxicologist; he is an imposter. He has masqueraded for years as a technical or scientific expert in the field of toxicology or drug and alcohol testing and has presented himself to the public and the courts as an expert witness by disseminating non-peer review papers to the legal community that contain false scientific information and data cut and pasted without cited references."

The plaintiff claims that Turnage is qualified only to be a specimen collector, and has failed to distinguish between that job and that of a forensic toxicologist, who is a qualified expert with years of scientific training.

"The impact of Turnage’s unsupervised, unchecked, unregulated mishandling of specimens and his unregulated and unqualified interpretations of test results or deliberate manipulation of the process has a far reaching effect on the citizens of Dallas, Collin, Denton and Tarrant Counties," the complaint states.

"Literally thousands of mothers and fathers have been denied possession of their children and countless number of citizens are behind bars based on Turnage’s handling of the specimens and his interpretation of the test results."

B.W.D. says he submitted urine specimens to Turnage for drug tests, for a child custody matter in March 2010.

Five months later, B.W.D. claims, Turnage testified that a urine specimen he submitted that was analyzed by Medtox was invalid due to dilution.

B.W.D. claims Medtox’s results did not indicate dilution and that because of Turnage’s misrepresentation, he was forced to agree to weekly random urinalysis for alcohol and drugs, installation of a breathalyzer in his car for a year and other onerous terms, to maintain joint custody of his daughter…

B.W.D. claims he has taken about 60 tests with other labs contemporaneously with Turnage’s tests and passed all of them, yet several of Turnage’s test results have come back with false positives, have been resubmitted for retesting, have been tainted or invalidated or were sent to Medtox well beyond 24 hours after collection…


This was a civil child custody case, but as indicated in the story, the same "expert" testifies for the prosecution in criminal cases as well — presumably, to help convict citizens accused of drunk driving.


(Thanks to attorney Michael Kessler of Florida.)

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 5th, 2012 at 11:26 pm 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...

February 12, 2011

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...

January 23, 2011

What is a Standard Alcohol Drink

Always go for having a standard alcohol drink. Never consume unfamiliar drinks which has unknown or undetectable alcohol content. Always have a drink when you actually want, otherwise you are certain to mess up with yourself. Know your limits always remember that.


View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Links

Developed in partnership with SanFran Coders.

Blogroll

The acronyms DUI, DWI, OMVI and OVI all refer to the same thing: operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The most commonly used terms are DUI, an acronym for Driving Under the Influence, and DWI, an acronym for Driving While Impaired.
© Copyright 2010 - 2015 MY OVI | Developed by San Fran Coders