Showing posts with label Always. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Always. Show all posts

April 11, 2015

The House Always Wins

15094870196_a11a26fd1d

A New Jersey Court ordered gamblers to return the $1.5 million dollars they on from the Golden Nugget Casino in Atlantic City. The 14 gamblers won this money by playing a game of mini-baccarat after realizing that the cards the casino was using were not shuffled. Once the players made this realization they were able to clean house.

Confession: I had to actually look up baccarat to figure out how it’s played. It’s the game James Bond was playing in Dr. No. 

The casino brought  the suit against the gamblers even though they had (at least in theory) won the money fair and square due to the casino’s error in not making sure the cards were shuffled. The judge ruled that because the cards weren’t shuffled the state’s gambling regulations make the games illegal, and so the gamblers had to return their winnings.

So what led to this mistake? The casino apparently bought what it thought to be pre-shuffled cards from a company in Kansas City. Here’s the catch – the casino didn’t stop at suing the gamblers, it sued the Kansas City card company also. That case was settled confidentially out of court, which means we won’t ever know how much money the casino got from the card company.

One possibility is that the casino recovered the full value of its losses – $1.5 million – from the Kansas City card company before going after the gamblers in court. Quite the payday. But unless there was some screw-up by the lawyers for either the gamblers or the card company, the amount of the court award should be reduced by the amount of the confidential settlement. Also, most states have laws against this type of “double recovery.” Also this case seems headed for appeal so I wouldn’t cash in just yet.

The lesson to be learned from this is an old one: the house always wins. Even when it makes mistakes.

photo credit: The Perfect Shuffle via photopin (license)

Continue Reading...

February 17, 2015

The House Always Wins

gambling

A New Jersey Court ordered gamblers to return the $1.5 million dollars they on from the Golden Nugget Casino in Atlantic City. The 14 gamblers won this money by playing a game of mini-baccarat after realizing that the cards the casino was using were not shuffled. Once the players made this realization they were able to clean house.

Confession: I had to actually look up baccarat to figure out how it’s played. It’s the game James Bond was playing in Dr. No. 

The casino brought  the suit against the gamblers even though they had (at least in theory) won the money fair and square due to the casino’s error in not making sure the cards were shuffled. The judge ruled that because the cards weren’t shuffled the state’s gambling regulations make the games illegal, and so the gamblers had to return their winnings.

So what led to this mistake? The casino apparently bought what it thought to be pre-shuffled cards from a company in Kansas City. Here’s the catch – the casino didn’t stop at suing the gamblers, it sued the Kansas City card company also. That case was settled confidentially out of court, which means we won’t ever know how much money the casino got from the card company.

One possibility is that the casino recovered the full value of its losses – $1.5 million – from the Kansas City card company before going after the gamblers in court. Quite the payday. But unless there was some screw-up by the lawyers for either the gamblers or the card company, the amount of the court award should be reduced by the amount of the confidential settlement. Also, most states have laws against this type of “double recovery.” Also this case seems headed for appeal so I wouldn’t cash in just yet.

The lesson to be learned from this is an old one: the house always wins. Even when it makes mistakes.

photo credit: The Perfect Shuffle via photopin (license)

Sam proudly represents those accused of crimes and injured through no fault of their own throughout the greater Tampa Bay area.

Read all posts by Sam Harden
Continue Reading...

January 16, 2015

When is an Accident DWI Not Always an "Accident?"

tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-669108141607785885.comments2013-12-01T23:30:43.447-08:00Lawrence Newmanhttps://plus.google.com/115266711474188538797noreply@blogger.comBlogger0125
Continue Reading...

December 26, 2014

Why you should always refuse the Breathalyzer and the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests

PictureDon't do it! As a defense attorney and DUI practitioner, I get asked a lot of questions by my clients, friends, and fellow attorneys. But no question is more common than, "should I refuse the breathalyzer and/or the field sobriety tests (FSTs)?"

Like most legal questions, this one is not easy to answer, either. Any attorney worth his salt will tell you to refuse both. But, States have a mechanism in place to "encourage" you to agree to blow into the machine, which we will discuss.

This blog post is devoted to explaining why it is beneficial for you and your case to politely refuse the police officer's request to blow into the machine (both portable and the one at the station) as well as to refuse the standardized FSTs.

In an ideal world, you would refuse both the breathalyzer and FSTs, and the government would have no case against you (except for the officer's testimony). However, last time I checked, we do not live in a Utopia. Therefore, we must deal with the facts.

If you have consumed alcohol, the officer will be alerted to your red, watery, and bloodshot eyes, smell of alcohol, and slurred speech. This gives him reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed which opens the door to further investigation, but not probable cause to arrest...
This is where the police officer will request that you complete FSTs, and/or administer his Portable Breathalyzer Test (PBT). He has authority to give you the breath test per KRS 189A.103(3). You are to refuse both! I cannot emphasize this enough.But, what if you don't know this important piece of advice, and submit to them (like many people do on a day-to-day basis)? 

Let's see what happens.

Well, first, if you have indeed recently been drinking, and are possibly close to or over that magic 0.08 figure, and you blow into the PBT, you've just given the police officer the probable cause he needs to arrest you! He doesn't need anything else -- even if you refuse the FSTs, he now has the lawful right to arrest you right on the spot.

Furthermore, the FSTs, even though the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) claims that they are tests of "divided attention" (just like when you're driving you have to be able to steer, and change gears if its a manual, while paying attention to your surroundings), ask yourself the following question: how many years have you been driving? Now compare that experience to how many times you've done FSTs. Chances are you've never done them. Ever. How is that fair? Well, according to our government, it is. And if you refuse to complete them, the police officer cannot use it against you in court (but he will do everything in his power to find cause to arrest you -- because, if you were sober, why would you refuse such "simple" tests?)

The tests are designed to fail you. That is the reality of it. Don't let anyone fool you otherwise.

Now you're at the station. Let's say you've submitted to the PBT, and blew over a 0.08, but refused the FSTs. You are now confronted with the Intoxilyzer machine. Kentucky, like most jurisdictions, has an implied consent statute in place. That means that by virtue of the Commonwealth issuing you an operator's license and permitting you to drive your vehicle of choice on Kentucky's roads you have "impliedly consented" to a test of your blood, breath, or urine (KRS 189A.103(1)). Note: this statute applies even if you are dead or unconscious (KRS 189A.103(2)).

Now, you have two options: One, submit to the test and risk the result, or two, refuse to blow. If you submit to the Intoxilyzer, and blow over a 0.08 you've just given the Commonwealth two avenues of prosecution against you:


1) KRS 189A.010(1)(a) - the per se DUI (Intoxilyzer result over 0.08); and
2) KRS 189A.010(1)(b) - the opinion DUI (police officer's testimony).

Had you refused the machine altogether, the Commonwealth can only pursue you for the opinion DUI.

But there's a small catch. 

Did I say small catch?

Some would say it's a pretty big one.

Per KRS 189A.105(2)(a)(1), if you refuse to submit to the blood, breath, or urine tests, the effects are as follows:


1) the refusal may be used against you in court as evidence of violating KRS 189A.010 (the DUI statute); 
2) your driver's license will be suspended until the resolution of your case; 
3) if you refuse the tests and are subsequently convicted of DUI, you will be subjected to a mandatory minimum jail sentence which is twice as long as the mandatory minimum jail sentence imposed if you submit to the tests (which is 4 days instead of 2 for a first offense); and 
4) you will be unable to obtain a hardship license after the 30 day mandatory suspension period elapses (for first offense DUI).

Pretty harsh, huh?

As you can see, the Commonwealth has done everything in its power to scare you into taking a blood, breath, or urine tests. Nevertheless, despite these seemingly harsh consequences of refusal, it is still beneficial for you to refuse! It is harder to disprove a negative when the prosecution has the number that works against you, because people like to believe technology works properly. It is much easier to discredit a police officer on cross examination than to prove the a machine was faulty.

But aren't you forgetting something? What about the PBT, Mr. DUI Guy?

I'm glad you asked.

The PBT is inadmissible in Court. Per KRS 189A.104, no other breathalyzer machine except the one that is "installed, tested, and maintained by the Commonwealth ... at a police station or detention facility" is admissible in a court proceeding. So the PBT result must be excluded. A 2008 Kentucky Court of Appeals case explicitly stated that, "the pass/fail result of a PBT is admissible for the limited purpose of establishing probable cause for an arrest at a hearing on a motion to suppress." Greene v. Commonwealth, 244 S.W.3d 128 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008) (emphasis added). The prosecution cannot introduce the PBT result to the jury, and it is reversible error to do so.

If you refuse to do the FSTs and PBT roadside, your chances of getting arrested may not change. Even if you do get arrested, and continue to refuse to cooperate with any of the officer's requests to complete a breath, blood, or urine test as well as the FSTs, your Kentucky operator's license will be suspended while your case is pending (KRS 189A.107(1)). However! You've just significantly increased your chances of beating your DUI because the Commonwealth cannot pursue your case under the "per se" part of the DUI statute, namely the 0.08, and must rely on the opinion DUI -- which is based 100% on the police officer's testimony as to his observations and impressions of you, which is easier for an experienced DUI practitioner to attack and discredit on cross examination.

Thanks for reading, old friend.

Hope to see you again soon.

If you require assistance with a DUI, expungement, traffic ticket, or other criminal charges, please contact me or call me at (270) 945-2778.

The DUI Guy

Continue Reading...

January 20, 2012

Why Do Police Always Destroy Breathalyzer Evidence?

As we all know from watching TV, the police are always very careful to preserve the evidence in criminal investigations. Except in DUI investigations.

What is the single most important piece of evidence in most drunk driving cases? The breathalyzer test. In fact, it’s the only evidence of the crime of driving with over .08% blood alcohol. And it’s pretty important for the “driving under the influence” charge, too: the law presumes the defendant is under the influence if the test result is .08% or higher. Evidence just doesn’t get more important than that.

So, of course, the police are careful to preserve the breath sample, right? I mean, there may be some question later of whether the machine was working correctly; it would be a simple matter to save the sample so it could be tested again on another machine. And, hard to believe, but the defense may not want to just take the officer’s word that he administered the test correctly and that the test results were from the defendant.

Unfortunately, the breath sample is routinely destroyed moments after it is tested.

But how can this be? That’s a question that was asked a few years ago by a defendant in California appealing his DUI conviction. The Court of Appeals of that state agreed and reversed the conviction:


Due process simply demands that where evidence is collected by the state, as it is with the Intoxilyzer, or any other breath testing device, law enforcement agencies must establish and follow rigorous and sytematic procedures to preserve the captured evidence or its equivalent for the use of the defendant. People v. Trombetta, 142 CalApp.3d 138 (1983).


How hard is it to save the defendant’s breath sample for later retesting? The Court noted that a “field crimper-indium encapsulation kit” was readily available, cheap and approved by the California Department of Health Services. So why isn’t the evidence saved in DUI cases today?

The Trombetta case was appealed by the state to the United States Supreme Court….where it was reversed:


Whatever duty the Constitution imposes on the States to preserve evidence, that duty must be limited to evidence that might be expected to play a significant role in the suspect’s defense. To meet this standard of constitutional materiality, evidence must both possess an exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed, and also be of such a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonable means. Neither of these conditions is met on the facts of this case. California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984).


What? Neither of these two conditions is met in a DUI case? Let’s take another look at the Supreme Court’s test…


1. The possible value of the defendant’s breath sample in helping prove innocence was not apparent before it was destroyed…..What? The machine never makes mistakes? It was not apparent to the police that a re-analysis of the all-important breath sample might be of any value to the suspect?

2. The defendant was able to “obtain comparable evidence by other means”…..How? He has no access to another breath test. At best, he might be able to get a blood test at a hospital, if the police let him — but it would probably be so much later that it would not be relevant or even admissible in court.


Another example of “The DUI Exception to the Constitution”.

It’s interesting that the New Hampshire Supreme Court later rejected the Supreme Court’s reasoning, and relied upon its own state constitution in requiring breath samples to be saved:


A suspect would face numerous practical difficulties in obtaining a second sample on his or her own. While in police custody, the suspect would have to locate an available, licensed technician capable of promptly performing a second test, no matter what time of day or night. Even if a defendant successfully obtained an independent second test, the results would not have the same evidentiary force as would a second test performed on the same machine at approximately the same time. Opinion of the Justices, 557 A.2d 1355 (1989).


The Trombetta decision was, as intended, a huge green flag to police agencies across the country: Go ahead and destroy the main evidence — but only in DUI cases. And law enforcement agencies have happily complied.

This entry was posted on Monday, December 19th, 2011 at 10:00 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...

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