Multiple Offenses Lead to 5th Arrest for 55-Year-Old Savannah Woman

Today, our Los Angeles DUI blog will take a close look at a curious case out of Georgia’s historic Savannah. A local woman, Sheila Faye Conley, just netted her 5th DUI-related arrest, her 4th DUI case, and her 3rd DUI conviction in a period of five years. Police arrested the 55-year-old on Christmas Eve, 2014, and a jury indicted her on February 5th.

Conley caused two previous DUI accidents that led to the injury and death of others involved. In 2000, she struck a couple at a traffic light while fleeing from an officer. In 2001, she fatally struck a couple on the same road as her previous accident. The state sentenced Conley to prison for felony vehicular homicide. Conley won her release in 2010 after serving 10 years and successfully completing almost 2 years on parole; her probationary period began in 2012.

Probation guidelines prohibited Conley from violating any criminal laws or engaging in “injurious and vicious habits” relating to drugs and alcohol, according to Savannah Now. When police pulled her over on Dec. 24, Conley allegedly denied consuming alcohol and refused blood and breathalyzer tests, which led to the most recent DUI charge. A grand jury indicted her for driving under the influence and presenting false statements at the time of her arrest.

Cases featuring multiple offenses in a short timeframe, especially those including injury or death, usually receive harsh prosecution. In California, depending on the timeframe of previous DUI convictions, a person similar to Conley may face years in prison, driver’s license suspension without an allowance for work, and an interlock device.

Do you need help defending against a drug or DUI charge? Michael Kraut of Los Angeles’s Kraut Law Group is a trustworthy, highly qualified former prosecutor. Call a Los Angeles DUI attorney today to strategize for your defense seriously.

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...

Texas Man Allegedly Had Blood Forcibly Drawn without Consent After DUI Arrest

Los Angeles DUI laws are very particular about what can and cannot be used as evidence during a DUI case. The following Texas case depicts what can happen if police officers don’t follow appropriate protocol.

According to news reports, in early January, an allegedly DUI driver, Joel Garcia, slammed into another car after speeding through a red light. The crash killed three people. Garcia’s own injuries were severe enough to warrant pain medication. Police had been afraid that the medications would lead to a false positive for DUI on his blood test, so they withdrew blood without his consent.

Garcia’s lawyer later protested that forcible removal of blood violated his rights. Texas, alongside many other states, allows police officers to engage in certain probing investigative activities without needing warrants following grievous injury or death. Due to Garcia’s alleged actions, three people were dead. The police believed that the seriousness of the situation allowed them to exercise their right to remove his blood for testing.

The U.S. Supreme Court has previously ruled that pressing or exigent circumstances do not provide officers with a reason to forego consent, except under some circumstances. In every case, this “exigency” must be carefully reviewed and validated by the court.

The DUI was not Garcia’s first offense. Police arrested him for another DUI earlier in the year. On the night of the fatal crash, he allegedly had several beers and three shots of spirits before getting in his car.

This case is important for two reasons.

1. Every state law is different. Had Garcia been driving in a different state, he might have had grounds to sue the police department for obtaining his blood without his consent.

2. The attention of an experienced Los Angeles DUI lawyer can be critical.

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...

What Happens to an Arrest Photo?

You’ve been arrested. Once the police took you to the Orient Road Jail for booking, they took your mug shot. They then put your mugshot online for anyone to see, as long as they know your name.

Why? Arrest records and mugshots are public records. That means they are accessible by anyone with an internet connection. Some companies have tried to capitalize on this by re-publishing these mugshots on their own websites and then demanding a fee for taking them down. They do this even if the mugshot is taken off the Sheriff’s website due to a sealing or expungement.

One Tampa woman decided to file suit against one of the online mugshot sites. Why? She was apparently dubbed the “hot convict” following the posting of her mugshot online. Her case was removed to federal court where it was voluntarily dismissed a short while later, which may signal a settlement was reached. Curiously, it seems that her quest to get her photo off the internet and stop being named the “hot convict” has only resulted in more coverage and notoriety. Remember — the internet is forever.

Lawsuits against these sites are most likely hit-or-miss. Many of the companies are located off shore, meaning enforcement of a court order (even if you do win) is problematic at best.

One Florida lawmaker has filed a bill to change the way these online mugshot companies operate. If the bill becomes law, it would prevent websites from taking a payoff in exchange for removing the mugshot. In theory this would choke off the main source of revenue for most of these sites — payments from people who want their photos removed. If the site did offer to take the mugshot down in exchange for a payoff, the arrested person in the mugshot can then sue them to have it taken down. If the site doesn’t take it down following a court order, the site would be fined $1,000.00 per day that the mugshot stays online.

While this proposed new law is a step forward, there are some concerns with it:

The new law would penalize sites only if they ask for money in exchange for taking down a mugshots. While this may cut off the revenue for many sites, it’s probably likely that one or two make enough money to stay in business from simply selling ad space.The bill doesn’t address jurisdiction. This means that suits against these websites would probably end up in federal court, which is generally more expensive and complicated than state court.Only the person in the mugshot can bring an action against the website. The way the bill is written right now, a person’s estate (if they’re deceased) or their power-of-attorney (if they’re legally incapacitated) cannot bring the action.

The big issue is Florida’s broad public records laws, which allow people to get and use public records (like mugshots) for basically any reason whatsoever.

So what’s the solution? Any law must walk the balance between the public’s right to access public records, and the arrested person’s right to privacy and a clean slate. We’re a long way off from that yet.

photo credit: pain_amp1013 via photopin cc

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...

CHP Releases New Year’s DUI Arrest Stats

The California Highway Patrol is reporting that drunk driving arrests in Los Angeles County as well as throughout California have more than doubled during this past New Year’s holiday as compared with last year’s.

The numbers, however, are a little misleading since last year’s New Year’s crackdown included two less days than this year.

This past New Year’s crackdown lasted from 6:01 pm on December 31st to 6:00 am on Sunday, January 4th. During that time, CHP officers in Los Angeles County made 219 arrests. Last year, Los Angeles County saw less than half of this year’s numbers with a total of 104 DUI arrests.

Throughout California, CHP made 1,072 arrests over the New Year’s holiday period. This number also more than double from last year’s 457 arrests during the same period.

Bear in mind that the numbers from this year are actually fairly comparable to last year’s.

Unfortunately, California saw 14 deaths during the 84 hour period. Even though last year’s period was two days shorter, it saw the same number of deaths as this year. Los Angeles County suffered two of the 14 deaths this year. Last year it only saw one.

These numbers only reflect those arrests made by the CHP, not other law enforcement agencies

Continue Reading...

The California Law and Enforcement of Driving Under the Influence of Marijuana Compared to Alcohol and the Future of Marijuana DUI Laws, Part 2b- Arrest and Prosecuting Under Existing Marijuana DUI Laws

Continue Reading...

Parallels Between Your Los Angeles DUI Arrest and the Comet Landing of the European Space Agency’s Philae Lander

You’ve heard our Los Angeles DUI blog pound on the theme of “get help as soon as you can after a DUI” numerous times. Any credible attorney or authority who knows anything about California DUI law will tell you that you need to act rapidly to preserve your freedom and protect your options.

Nevertheless: many, many people recently arrested for the crime exhibit a lackadaisical attitude about the timeframe.

For instance, you only have 10 days after the arrest to contest the license suspension, after which time you may be forced to live without your driver’s license for months or longer. It’s understandable that you might be stunned by the rapid turn of events and overwhelmed by the potential legal ramifications. But when time is of the essence, you absolutely need to act.

It’s hard to get people to understand this theme, however, no matter how many different ways we (and others) bring it up and highlight the need for urgency.

Fortunately, recent news events have given us a golden metaphor to re-explain the problem.

Last week, the European State Agency (ESA) landed a small ship on a comet – the first time humanity has ever landed a probe on a comet. The 2.5 mile wide Churyumov-Gerasimenko comet is about 317 million miles from Earth, and it’s traveling at breakneck speeds of 84,000 miles per hour. Unfortunately, the probe encountered a few technical problems on its way down from its mother ship, Rosetta, and it was not able to clamp down to the surface of the comet.

Unsurprisingly, the gravity on the comet is much, much, much weaker than it is here on Earth. So when the probe landed, it bounced and then landed again in a shadow of a cliff on the comet. While the search for the final landing site is still ongoing, the lander is racing against the clock to meet as many of its core science goals as possible before the primary battery is exhausted.

Scientists had hoped that the probe would land in a sunlit place and be able to access solar power to continue its mission for longer. But now they have to act quickly or lose out on science that researchers have spent billions of dollars trying to procure. The point is that these researchers understand the dangers of failing to act in a timely fashion. When there is billions of dollars at stake and millions of eyes on you, you tend to take your job pretty seriously.

But the consequences of not acting in situations where action is required may not be so clear if you are the only person affected by delay. To that end, please contact the team here at the Kraut Law Group to schedule a free and confidential consultation regarding your rights. An experienced Los Angeles DUI defense lawyer can help you understand your next steps and act rapidly and with clarity.

If police stopped you for Los Angeles DUI, you may be worried and anxious. Contact Harvard Law School educated, ex-prosecutor Michael Kraut for assistance at (323) 464-6453 or online. Our team is located at 6255 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1480, Los Angeles, California 90028.

Continue Reading...

Common Mistakes Made Following a DUI Arrest

Continue Reading...

Reassessing Your Driving Behaviors After Your Los Angeles DUI Arrest

In the wake of a recent Los Angeles DUI accident or arrest, you have been reflecting a lot on how to be a better driver and just become more generally conscientious and mindful in your life.

You recognize (wisely) that poor driving habits can affect you not just in acute terms but also over the long term. There is a reason why insurance adjusters and officials at places like the National Highway Traffic & Safety Administration (NHTSA) measure the risks of DUI driving in terms of hundreds of millions of miles.

For instance, if you drive averagely, you can expect to die one time for every 100 million miles you travel – roughly the distance from the Earth to the sun. Fortunately, most drivers do not drive anywhere close to that amount of miles, so the risk of dying from a car crash is obviously less than 100%. But the point is that if you can engage in better driving habits, you can reduce your lifetime risk for accidents and injuries. Here are some ideas about how to slash your odds of future arrests, crashes and mayhem:

•    Keep the radio at a very moderate to low volume. High volume radio can cause distractions and prevent you from hearing critical signals from the road;

•    Never ever talk or text or even chat on a mobile device when you are behind the wheel. Even using a hands free headset can be a major distraction, because it mentally forces you to be “someplace else” and not behind the wheel. Consider swearing off using a cellphone in any capacity behind the wheel.

•    Avoid driving while fatigued, angry or in an emotional “state.” Research from Australia shows that fatigue can be just as dangerous as driving under the influence if you are tired enough. Likewise, driving while angry or depressed or otherwise in a bad emotional way can increase the likelihood that you will get into a crash, because your head is not fully “in the game.”

•    Talk to a Los Angeles DUI defense lawyer not only about how to construct an appropriate response to your current problem but also about how to develop the tools and habits you need to be safer going forward.

Michael Kraut of the Kraut Law Group has seen all sorts of cases over the past nearly 20 years, as both a prosecutor and a defense lawyer. He would be happy to talk with you in-depth and in confidence about your case. Call now to schedule a consultation to get his strategic insight to move forward.

Have you been arrested for a DUI in Los Angeles? If so, please contact DUI defense attorney Michael Kraut at (323) 464-6453 or online. Our building is located at 6255 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1480, Los Angeles, California 90028.

Continue Reading...

Sleeping in a Parked Car in Pennsylvania Can Still Lead to a DUI Arrest

The news occasionally reports on people getting arrested for suspected DUI after police find them asleep in their parked vehicle. This raises the question of how one could be suspected of driving under the influence if the car is parked and you are not actually driving it. Pennsylvania’s DUI statute applies to more than just actual driving. A person may be found guilty of DUI if he or she is “in actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle” while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The definition of “actual physical control” is not very precise, though, and Pennsylvania courts have reached different conclusions under varying circumstances, often depending on the location of the vehicle.

One story reported in Pennsylvania about a year ago involved the arrest of a man found asleep in a parked car in Lowhill Township. He had reportedly been delivering newspapers early on a Sunday morning, when he stopped the car and fell asleep parked by the side of the road. Police claimed that the person had an open can of beer in the vehicle’s center console, as well as more unopened cans in the back seat. Chemical testing allegedly found that his blood alcohol content (BAC) exceeded the legal limit of 0.08 percent.

In the case described above, the arresting officer did not actually witness the person driving his vehicle. This is not a requirement under Pennsylvania law, though. The person was in the driver’s seat, and although he was asleep and the car was parked, he reportedly told the officer that he had been driving the car earlier to deliver newspapers. In cases in which Pennsylvania courts must determine whether people had “actual physical control,” they often look at whether or not the evidence suggests that they had been driving earlier.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court applied this standard in a 1981 case, Com. v. Matsinger, which involved a person found asleep in the driver’s seat of a van parked in a lane of oncoming traffic at about 3:30 a.m. The arresting officer testified that the defendant “reeked of alcohol,” and that the car’s engine was running, the transmission was in gear, and the headlights were on. Even without a direct eyewitness to the defendant driving the van, the court held that it was reasonable for a jury to find that the defendant had been driving the vehicle, and that the defendant’s operation of the vehicle resulted in it getting to the place where the officer found it.

The question of “actual physical control” is less clear in situations where there is no evidence that a defendant actually drove while under the influence. Several cases, such as 1994’s Com. v. Byers and 2009’s Solomon v. Com., have held that evidence of a person found asleep in a vehicle parked outside a bar is not sufficient to prove “actual physical control,” since the person may have been “sleeping it off” before driving. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court does not appear to have addressed the question directly, but it was critical of Byers’ holding in 1996 in Com. v. Wolen.

If you have been arrested or charged with DUI, you need the help of a knowledgeable and experienced DUI attorney to help you understand your rights and plan the best possible defense. At Levow & Associates, we have dedicated our law practice exclusively to DUI defense. We are available to help you 24/7. To schedule a free and confidential consultation to see how we can help you, please contact us online or at (877) 975-3399.

More Blog Posts:

Anatomy of a Pennsylvania DUI Offense: Is Proof of “Impairment” Required in Pennsylvania “Drugged Driving” Cases? Pennsylvania DUI Lawyers Blog, October 1, 2014

Anatomy of a Pennsylvania DUI Offense: What Constitutes “Drugged Driving,” or Driving Under the Influence of a Controlled Substance? Pennsylvania DUI Lawyers Blog, August 26, 2014

How Is this Constitutional? Pennsylvania Police Arrest 13 in One Weekend at Delaware County “Sobriety Checkpoint”, Pennsylvania DUI Lawyers Blog, August 12, 2014

Photo credit: Rembrandt [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.

Continue Reading...

Court Finds Cop “Immune” for DUI Arrest Without Evidence

The following facts are fairly typical of what happens in a disturbing number of DUI cases:  

Ohio: Federal Court Overturns Bogus DUI Arrest

Chillicothe, OH.  June 19 — A sober woman is fighting back after she was falsely arrested and imprisoned for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). The Sixth Circuit US Court of Appeals ruled last Wednesday that Catrena Green could proceed in her lawsuit against Ohio State Highway Patrol Trooper Adam B. Throckmorton after lab tests proved she had a blood alcohol content (BAC) level of 0.0 and no drugs in her system.

The three-judge panel overturned the decision of a US district court granting Throckmorton immunity for his actions in Chillicothe, Ohio in August 2008. He had seen Green’s SUV driving in the opposite direction with her high beams activated. Throckmorton made a U-Turn and pulled her over in stop recorded by a dashboard camera. Green explained she had her high beams on because it was difficult to see in the wet conditions and she was trying to be careful. She asked whether she had done anything else wrong.

"No, not really," Throckmorton said during the stop. "You just brighted me and blinded me."

Throckmorton then claimed that Green’s pupils were "constricted" and that she had difficulty getting out of her seatbelt. Though Green did not smell of alcohol or drugs, Throckmorton decided to perform field sobriety tests on her. He noted that she was unable to follow the swift motion of his pen in a horizontal-gaze nystagmus test that he spent twenty seconds administering. He noted that "she talked slowly" while repeating the letters of the alphabet beginning with "L" and ending in "S." She struggled to stand on one leg in the balance test. Green, who was 42 and overweight at the time, swayed slightly while performing the walk-and-turn test.

On the basis of those tests, Throckmorton arrested Green for DUI. She spent two days in jail while trying to meet bail with only a credit card. Green argues she was detained and tested without probable cause, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. She insisted that the lab tests proved the trooper was lying.

"We find her argument persuasive," Judge Ronald Lee Gilman wrote for the court. "What matters here, rather, is what mattered in Miller: that a subsequent test for drugs and alcohol showed that the driver was in fact sober. That evidence alone is sufficient to cast doubt on the truthfulness of Throckmorton’s testimony regarding Green’s pupils."

The court decided that a jury should decide whether there were specific and articulable facts, not just a hunch, justifying Green’s detention for the sobriety tests.

"We understand, of course, the difficulty inherent in making on-the-fly determinations regarding possible driving impairments, just as we recognize the severity of drunk driving and the potential consequences of an incorrect call had Green ultimately proven to be impaired," Judge Gilman wrote. "But this difficulty and these consequences always exist when an officer stops someone for a traffic violation. Yet officers do not have free rein to administer field sobriety tests to whomever they please and then to arrest that person for making the slightest misstep while performing the tests. Whether that is what happened in this case is a question for the jury."

So….no erratic driving….no slurred speech….no alcohol on the breath….no swaying or poor balance….no bloodshot eyes…no difficulty understanding directions.  But she used her bright lights, had trouble standing on one leg (42, overweight and nervous) and "failed" a nystagmus test which was clearly incorrectly given. Oh….and she had no alcohol or drugs in her body.

The only question here is:  Why did the lower court give this idiot a free pass?  Since when do cops have "immunity"?  
 

This entry was posted on Friday, June 29th, 2012 at 9:39 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.

Continue Reading...

Will a California DUI Arrest Trigger Jail Time?

When people get arrested for drunk driving, usually their most immediate and pressing question is whether they will have to do jail time for a California DUI. That is, additional jail time beyond the night they spend in jail upon getting arrested.

The answer is usually no. California law imposes no mandatory jail time for a simple first-time DUI. By this we mean a situation where there are no injuries, no refusal to take a blood or breath test, no young children in the car, and no prior DUI convictions.

That said, although California law doesn’t impose jail time for a simple first DUI, some county district attorney officers seek jail time nonetheless. Ventura County courts, for example, routinely impose 2 days jail or 5 days work release on every first time DUI. Riverside County courts impose 6 to 10 days jail.

Most counties don’t doll out jail on first time DUI cases, however. Los Angeles county generally doesn’t impose jail time unless, again, there are aggravating circumstances such as those listed above.

The consequences of a DUI conviction are no picnic, to be sure. But luckily most people get a pass on jail time. But just one pass. If they pick up another DUI, some jail time becomes almost certain.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Routine Drunk Driving Arrest Leads to Discovery of Dead Body

By guest-writer

A Phoenix man has been taken into custody by police after a DUI stop led officers to discover the dead body of the man’s mother inside her home, according to a report from Phoenix’s ABC 15 News.

The man, whose name had not yet been released by sources, was arrested by police late Sunday night for driving under the influence of alcohol.

During the course of the arrest, the suspect apparently made bizarre comments about the owner of the vehicle that caused the officers to become “concerned.”

The arresting officers contacted police near the home of the vehicle’s owner, which turned out to be the man’s mother, and the responding authorities discovered the dead body of 46-year-old Danette M. Baxter.

Before they reached the body, police saw blood on the front door and evidence that someone had made a forced entry into the home. In addition, police say that Baxter’s body had obvious signs of trauma, and they are treating her death as a homicide.

The man who was charged with a DUI is being held as a person of interest in the death of his mother, although he has not yet been charged with a crime in relation to the apparent homicide.

Interestingly, neighbors who were interviewed by local sources said they believed that Baxter’s son had physically abused her in the past, but they also expressed their disbelief that he was capable of committing a murder.

But the neighbors also expressed shock at nature of the crime. According to Sydney Swart, one of Baxter’s neighbors, “[j]ust the thought process of a child doing that to their mother is horrifying. It really is,” although she again did not implicate Baxter’s son in the killing.

Sources suggest that Baxter had been living in Long Beach, California before arriving in Phoenix a few months ago. Police are in Long Beach conducting further investigations into the life of the arrested man.

And other neighbors shed some light on the man’s past. One nearby resident claims to have heard he “got into some trouble in California” and that “there was something bothering him,” but he couldn’t tell exactly what is was.

Other neighbors told local reporters that the man was an “interesting character” who mostly “kept his head down.”

It’s not uncommon for routine DUI arrests to unveil evidence of other crimes, although it is rare that a DUI stop leads police to a homicide scene.
Typically, searches incident to a DUI arrest will reveal illegal drugs or unlicensed weapons, but the discovery of a dead body is truly unique.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

New York Giants Lineman David Diehl Apologizes to Fans for DUI Arrest

By guest-writer

New York Giants offensive lineman David Diehl made a savvy public relations move this week by issuing a sincere public apology just hours after being arrested for a DUI, according to a recent report in the New York Post.

Sources say that Diehl crashed his BMW into two other vehicles on Sunday night after he had spent several hours drinking at an Astoria bar in New York City.

At the time of his arrest, the police measured his blood alcohol level at .18 percent, which is well above the legal limit of .08 percent.
Diehl was released from jail shortly after his arrest, but he faces his next court date on July 26, which is when the Giants are supposed to report to training camp.

Diehl is one of the most popular Giants players, and sources say that he has mostly stayed out of trouble during his 10-year tenure with the football team.

In order to protect his public image, Diehl quickly went on the offensive Tuesday morning, as he issued a heartfelt apology while standing in front of his locker on the first day of the Giants’ summer mini-camp.

In his own words, Diehl said, “I’m going to make sure I learn from this, it’s a mistake I guarantee will never, ever happen again. I’m going to make sure I help people never make the same decision I made. I’m going to become a stronger person because of it.”

Diehl had the full support of his head coach, Tom Coughlin, who said that his player was “very remorseful” and offered his full support. Coughlin also described Diehl as “an exemplary citizen” and a “very good spokesperson” for the team.

Sources indicate that Diehl will face a fine from the NFL for his actions, but will likely not have to serve a suspension.

Diehl’s arrest is another in a long line of DUI troubles faced by NFL players in the past few years, and sources suggest that the league may soon begin leveling harsher penalties against players who are arrested for drunk driving.

One notable recent incident involved Justin Blackmon, a former collegiate star at Oklahoma State who was arrested for his second DUI last week after being drafted in the first round of the NFL Draft.

Blackmon registered an alarmingly high blood alcohol level at the time of his arrest, and his legal troubles led to cries from observers for more action by the NFL to protect the livelihood of its players.

For its part, the NFL is weighing whether to increase the potential penalties faced by players who are convicted for a DUI, but, as it currently stands, most teams simply prefer to let the court system handle the bulk of the punishment.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Bay Area Police Reconsider Controversial DUI Arrest Procedure

By guest-writer

A traffic court judge near San Francisco ruled last week that Pinellas County police officers cannot perform a key DUI test off camera, according to a recent report from Bay News 9.

During DUI stops, police officers in Pinellas County keep onboard cameras rolling during the entire arrest process, with one key exception.

Sources say that the officers do not film an important roadside test called the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus, which is also known as HGN and is considered the most important roadside test to determine a driver’s sobriety.

During this test, officers look at a driver’s eyes to determine whether he or she is drunk. If the drivers are inebriated, their eyes will jerk from side to side during the test. But this test is the only part of a DUI arrest that isn’t filmed.

Last week, a judge ruled that this practice was unlawful after hearing a complaint from Christopher Hastings, who was arrested for a DUI last year and challenged the legality of the arresting officer’s decision to make him perform the HGN test off camera.

At trial, the state prosecutor asked the arresting officer why he chose to perform the test off camera, and the officer claimed he was just abiding by the police department’s policy. This statement proved true, as the police department does ask officers to keep the HGN tests off video.

This practice, however, was attacked by the defendant’s DUI attorney, who claimed that the policy was intentionally implemented to exclude evidence from trial. The DUI attorney also claimed that the policy was “crazy and archaic.”

The judge sympathized with this perspective, and ruled that it is unfair for the police department to exclude proof of the HGN test from trial but still go to court and testify about the results of the test.

As a result, the prosecutor cannot use the results of the HGN test to convict Hastings. Of course, Hastings allegedly had a blood alcohol content of 0.16 at the time of his arrest, so he still faces a tough battle in court.

But Hastings and his attorney may have stumbled into a watershed moment for DUI laws in California, despite skepticism from some law enforcement officials.

Some observers claim that filming the HGN test will not show a person’s eyeballs moving back and forth, but supporters of the new rule claim that the video can show if police violate procedures during the test. This, perhaps, would be the most important benefit of filming the HGN process.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Costa Mesa Memorial Day weekend DUI Checkpoint results in One (1) DUI arrest

Another weekend, another sobriety checkpoint, another ten thousand in officer overtime.

Costa Mesa Police Department Traffic Unit conducted a DUI/Drivers License checkpoint on May 26, 2012, at W. 19th Street and Pomona Ave., between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m.

DUI Checkpoints statistically are not even nearly as effective as DUI Saturation Patrols in apprehending and arresting persons actually driving under the influence.  However, since all the federal, state, and MADD funding is done to support DUI checkpoints, law enforcement prefers them for monetary reasons.  The statistics for this DUI checkpoint, with a 0.00187% arrest rate, bear this out yet again.  Ah, politics.

The checkpoint resulted in the following:
532 Vehicles through the checkpoint
532 Vehicles Screened
1 DUI-Alcohol suspect arrested
0 DUI-Drug impaired suspect arrested

Tags
California, Costa Mesa California, Driving under the influence, dui lawyer, dui lawyer newport beach, dui lawyers long beach, dui lawyers los angeles, dui lawyers newport beach, dui lawyers orange county, DUI Saturation Patrols, dui specialist orange county, lawyer, long beach dui lawyers, los angeles dui, newport beach dui lawyers, orange county, Orange County California, orange county dui, orange county dui arrests, orange county dui checkpoint locations, orange county dui courts, orange county dui lawyer, orange county dui lawyers, orange county dui schools, orange county dui statistics, police, Random checkpoint

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 29th, 2012 at 3:52 pm and is filed under Dui Checkpoints. 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.

Continue Reading...

Police Issue Arrest for Tulsa Man who Left Wife at Scene of DUI Crash

By guest-writer

The Oklahoma Highway Patrol has issued a warrant for the arrest of a man who allegedly crashed his car while driving drunk and left his severely injured wife at the scene, according to a shocking report from Oklahoma’s News on 6.

Sources say that Jerry Arthurs is wanted by state police for leaving the scene of a DUI accident in which his wife was paralyzed from the neck down.

The crash occurred on New Year’s Eve in Tulsa, Oklahoma, when Arthurs was reportedly driving while intoxicated down a dark country road when he smashed his vehicle into a tree on the side of the road.

Neither Arthurs nor his wife was wearing a seatbelt at the time of the accident, but Arthurs’ wife, who is the mother to the couple’s 6-month-old son, clearly suffered the brunt of the force of the impact.

After the accident, Arthurs reportedly called some friends to come and retrieve him while he left his wife suffering in the passenger seat. Police later discovered his wife, who spent 33 days in the hospital recovering from her injuries.

At first, doctors feared that she would be a quadriplegic because she could only feel sensation above her neck. However, after four months of rest and rehabilitation, she can reportedly use her arms and hands, and is regaining some movement in her legs.

According to Chiane Arthurs, the victim of the crash, “I can walk with a walker, not by myself, I have to have assistance. But I can take steps and stuff.”

Of course, the injury and her husband’s incredible actions have left emotional scars. In her words, “you cannot imagine the struggle and emotional and physical pain and everything that comes with an injury like this. It completely turns your life upside down.”

Fortunately, though, the woman is recovering, and she says her son was her primary motivation to regain her strength. Not surprisingly, she has filed for divorce from her fugitive husband.

For his action, Arthurs has been charged with ten separate crimes, including leaving the scene of an injury accident, driving drunk and causing great bodily injury, failing to render assistance at the scene of an accident, and failing to report a personal injury accident.

When Arthurs is finally caught, he will likely face a sentence that is far more serious than what he would have faced if he hadn’t fled the scene of the accident.

According to a spokesman for the Oklahoma Highway Patrol, Arthurs is a “fugitive on the run, and we’ll spare no expense finding this person.”

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Attention Parents: California Police May Interrogate Your Child In Your Absence Following a DUI Arrest

Home > Juvenile Interrogation > Attention Parents: California Police May Interrogate Your Child In Your Absence Following a DUI Arrest Posted On: June 27, 2011 by Shouse Law Group

With the end of school, the fourth of July and summer parties comes underage drinking and driving. Being arrested is a scary experience for anyone. And if it’s scary for an adult, imagine how much more so it must be for a child. Obviously, no one wants to receive a call that his/her child has been arrested for DUI. But just in case this nightmare turns into a reality, you may want to talk to your children about California laws regarding juvenile interrogation.

If your child is stopped on suspicion of drunk driving, California police are permitted to ask him/her questions in order to determine whether or not he/she has been drinking and driving. If they believe he/she has been…and place him/her under arrest…they may try to trick him/her into confessing to the offense or into making other incriminating statements. Make sure you prepare him/her for this experience in the unfortunate event that he/she finds him/herself in this situation.

Because California laws permit officers to conduct juvenile interrogations outside the presence of the child’s parents, parents should instruct their children to

Other than providing his/her identifying information, your child is under no obligation to provide any additional information/answers. The biggest mistake that any arrestee makes is believing that he/she can talk his/her way out of the situation…this may especially be the case for a child who has been drinking. Prepare him/her for the worst and hope he/she will never have to utilize this information.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

DUI Arrest Leads to Discovery of Dead Body

By guest-writer

In a shocking turn of events for unsuspecting traffic police, a recent DUI arrest led to the discovery of a dead body in South Carolina.

According to WMBF News in South Carolina, 28-year-old Christopher Heck was pulled over by police on the night before Thanksgiving when the officers suspected that Heck was driving under the influence of alcohol.

When they pulled Heck over, the arresting officers suspected he was hiding something, so they searched his car. The search yielded surprising results, as the police discovered several stolen items and an ID card that belonged to 47-year-old Charlotte Altman.

In response to this discovery, local investigators went to Altman’s home to ask about the stolen items and missing ID. When they arrived at the home, they found signs of a break-in, so they searched the house.

To their shock, investigators found Altman’s dead body on the kitchen floor. Initial findings suggested that Altman had been fatally stabbed in the neck.

Sources indicate that Altman did not live in the home permanently, but that she sometimes visited on the weekends to do cleaning and regular maintenance, and that she may have been planning to eventually move into the home.

In recent weeks, Heck had been staying with his grandmother in her house in Manning, South Carolina. His grandmother’s house was located next door to Altman’s home.

Investigators believe that Altman and Heck did not know each other, but that they were aware of each other’s presence next door. Police believe that Heck probably knew that she was only in the home during weekends.

Officers theorized that Heck broke into the home believing that Altman was out of town and, when he discovered her during the break-in, panicked and stabbed her in the neck.

In addition to his potential conviction on charges of a felony DUI and murder, Heck is also being investigated for the commission of two other burglaries in the area. Police are conducting a thorough investigation, though, before they bring formal charges.

According to Clarendon County Sheriff’s Captain Kipp Coker, the police are “crossing our T’s and dotting our I’s and making sure we’re following up on things we are getting through the investigation.”

While the situation may seem extremely rare, it is surprising what criminals will do after committing a heinous crime. In many cases, such criminals are in an extremely agitated state of mind, and are simply not thinking clearly.

So, in this case, if Heck really did commit the murder, it’s little surprise that he was inebriated and not thinking clearly at the time of his DUI arrest.

If, indeed, Heck is found to be guilty, South Carolina police will consider themselves fortunate to have discovered the suspect so quickly after the crime. Without the discovery of stolen items during the DUI arrest, Heck may have eluded police for a much longer time.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Over the limit- Under Arrest ?

I have always maintained that DUI defense in Maryland is a strange animal. DUI law it seems, is the only criminal field where the accused faces significant jail time and other life altering problems yet the defendant's rights are severely limited. That is, limited Miranda rights, false advise by the police and limited access to counsel. I have previously written that the police can and do ask a lot of incriminating questions prior to making a formal arrest, without Miranda warnings, and can use the responses against you in court to advance your conviction.

However, we now have the State of Maryland promulgating false advise to the citizens of this State. How many readers have seen the digital signs on Baltimore's beltway 695 that say "Over the limit- Under Arrest?" That sign implies to the driver, under the limit, not under arrest; everyone knows the legal limit is .08. So as long as you stay under .08 you have no problem- just like the sign says, right? Ehhh, no.

Many clients come to the office wondering how they were charged with an alcohol related offense when they only blew a .07 or less (.06, .05, .04, etc.). The nasty little truth is that there is another charge called DWI or driving while impaired. The courts and or the prosecutor generally lean towards DWI when they see a number like .06 or .07. If you blow in that range you will be arrested by the police and charged accordingly. You will face many of the same problems as if you blew a .08 or better. In fact, I see many defendants with numbers less than .06. I recently had a client blow a .03 in Prince George's County; he was arrested and defended by my office; of course we got him off the charge but he still had to retain counsel and go through the motions.

Importantly...

Maryland driver's should at least be properly advised by the State of Maryland. If the government is going to take the time to place a public service safety announcement, I believe it should at least properly advise the drivers of the law. A true statement would be "If you have alcohol in your system [at any level], you are probably going to be arrested [officer's discretion]. If your level is .06 or more, you absolutely will be arrested."

That is the truth- and you heard it here first. Pass it on.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Boston Police Demonstrate Arrest Procedures In Wake Of Roxbury Juvenile Beating- Attorney Sam’s Take

The Boston Police Department (hereinafter, the “Department”) has taken a large, and very laudable, step forward . They are realizing that if they want to be a trusted, and effective, member of the community, they have to communicate with said community.

As you know, there have been various complaints regarding the use of undue force in various cases. In fact, a You Tube video emerged last fall that showed several officers forcefully subduing a 16-year-old boy,

The video, recorded on a student’s cellphone, showed at least six officers at Roxbury Community College surrounding and then “taking down” the teenager who they said was resisting arrest. The Department claims that the juvenile, who had been wanted on a warrant, had swung at the officers, police have said.

Many were outraged and made claims of excessive force. The Department, however, said that the procedure was consistent with what officers’ training in cases where a suspect refuses to be handcuffed.

The Suffolk district attorney’s office has been investigating the incident. In the meantime, the Department is reaching out to officials, media and the public to demonstrate that police officers receive proper training which includes strict guidelines regarding the use of force.

“I think it’s time we remove the mystery around police use of force,’’ Commissioner Edward F. Davis said Thursday night at the Boston Police Academy in Hyde Park, where officials invited several reporters, religious figures, and leaders of the Boston branch of the NAACP to meet with police instructors.

On Tuesday, for nearly four hours, officers lectured, showed footage of arrests, and traded blows in mock confrontations to show how they respond in violent arrests. This presentation was the second within a week and is said to have given unusual insight at an aspect of police training that officials said they hope to show to more people, including high school students and those in their late teens and 20s.

Reactions to the demonstration were mixed. Some were upset by what they saw. Some were relieved. Some simply did not “buy it”..

In the 1980”s, I was a prosecutor in Brooklyn, New York. Since then, I have had the experience of being a Boston criminal defense attorney for over 20 years. I have had a fair amount of experience with police officers.

What amounts to a “Blue Wall” of secrecy seems to have become the norm for police departments. To some degree, it is necessary. However, I believe it is over-done and often presents more problems for the police…not to mention the rest of us...than it is worth.

It does not take a criminal justice expert to tell you that police work is dangerous work. Every day, police officers risk their lives. They often deal with dangerous people in dangerous situations and when they arrive on a scene, they often do not know what to expect.

It is the stuff that paranoia…righteous paranoia….is made of.

It would make officers’ work much easier, not to mention safer, if there were increased trust bestowed them on the street. No, that will not work with everyone, but the more the better. However, when police deal with the general public in a secretive and arrogant manner, even when there is no criminal activity afoot, it maintains an “us vs. them” atmosphere.

“Sam, you are a criminal defense attorney. Isn't it “us vs. them” out there?”

Sometimes perhaps. But that does not seem to work that well, does it? True, it keeps business good for people like me, but we all have to exist, with some order, in this world. Let’s face it, love them or hate them, we rely on the police and when we do, they usually come a-running.

I will also tell you that the mutual distrust on the street carries a bad combination to the stand when it comes time to testify. Here is a sad truth – sometimes officers do not tell the truth while on that stand. Not because they are looking to “fry” an innocent defendant, but because they feel that the realities on the street are not felt in the courtroom where they are still trying to get the “bad guy”.

“So what? That’s their problem, right?”

Nope. Prosecutors, juries and judges give great deference to police testimony. So as long as they “testily” (a New York term), defendants, factually innocent and guilty, pay the price.

The more the “us vs. them” mentality is in force, the more we all lose. Steps like the demonstration given by the Department, to, in a way, open the door a bit to shine some light on what they encounter and what we should expect, is a big step forward.

at the very least, it may mean the difference between resisting arrest and disorderly conduct chages.

Don’t misunderstand me…some people will criticize what they see. But, at least the procedures are known. It is no shock…unless procedures are not followed by officers…which cases may become clearer.

Maybe it will even get us to a point where the public will realize that officers have to maintain control of a potential crime scene…and police officers will not have to be as aggressive as they often are about it.

What does this have to do with you?

I don’t know…do you ever encounter police?

If you do, and it has resulted in an investigation or an arrest, feel free to contact for a free initial consultation. I can be reached at t 617-492-3000.

To view the original story, and charming photograph about which parts of this blog were based, please go to : http://mobile.boston.com/art/30/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/01/23/reeling_from_video_boston_police_offer_insight_on_use_of_force/?single=1&p=2

View the original article here

Continue Reading...