People who have had a drink or two (or three) often don’t realize that they shouldn’t drive because they’re over the legal limit for blood alcohol content. That could change if Uber (the app that connects people needing rides to those willing to offer them) is successful in a new partnership with Breathometer, a startup company featured on the Shark Tank television show last year. The partnership might not eliminate everyone’s need for a Los Angeles DUI attorney, but it could reduce the number of DUI arrests in the city and in others.
Breathometer gives people the ability to check their blood alcohol content. It works through a combination of a smart phone app connected by Bluetooth technology to a device that people breathe into after they’ve been drinking. In less than a minute, people can get their BAC measurements to determine whether or not they’re legally safe to drive.
The partnership between Uber and Breathometer should make it easier for anyone who’s had a little too much to drink to get a ride, because they will be able to call Uber directly from the Breathometer smartphone app. The idea is that people will be less likely to get behind the wheel if they have this quick-call option. Uber has been claiming that its service is reducing the number of DUI drivers. A joint Uber/Mothers against Drunk Driving study suggests that the availability of Uber as a transportation alternative helped decrease the number of DUI crashes in a city by 60 percent for drivers under 30. But ProPublica, a public interest journalism website, said that while the drop in accidents may correlate with the presence of Uber in a certain city, there’s no proof that Uber is actually the cause of that drop.
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.
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.
A 66-year-old woman leaving a New Jersey liquor store was taken into custody for drunk driving on Feb. 19 around 5:30 p.m. after an anonymous phone call to police claimed she was swerving before turning into the store's parking lot. According to a police officer who responded to the tip, the woman left the liquor store and got into her car. She began swerving again as she drove up the road.
The police officer pulled her over and administered field sobriety tests that she failed to complete. She was given a breath test at the police station and allegedly tested at three times the legal limit for alcohol.
The woman is now facing charges for failure to keep right, reckless driving and DWI. She was released to a friend.
DWI charges like the ones in this case can have serious consequences. They may include license suspension, probation, community service or even jail time. Therefore, individuals facing such charges may want to work with an attorney.
An attorney may be able to look at a case like this one and recommend several courses of action for an individual. For example, a police officer may have violated the individual's rights. If the procedures for taking the individual into custody were not properly followed, it may be possible to have the charges dismissed.
An individual might also opt for a plea bargain in which they work with the prosecution to plead guilty in exchange for lesser charges. In a drunk driving case like this one, this might mean probation or community service in lieu of other penalties.
Source: NJ.com, "Driver leaving liquor store charged with DWI in Hoptacong," Feb. 23, 2015
There is an interesting case out of Livingston County where a man was arrested and charged with DUI and then the case later dismissed. According to the article, the man was involved in an accident and asked to take a breathalyzer test at the scene. This, after the officer at the scene said he smelled alcohol on the man’s breath. The man refused and was arrested, taken to the police station, booked and blood drawn. Apparently, in Livingston County, once someone is arrested and the case submitted to the District Attorney, they must go ahead and file formal charges. This is unfortunate for the individual in this situation because, even though it was later proved that he was not DUI, he now has an arrest on his record and a history of having a DUI filed in Court. It is the right of any individual to refuse to take a roadside breath test and to refuse to submit to a field sobriety test. However, when someone refuses, it usually results in being arrested and taken to the station where you are then required by law to submit to blood, breath or urine testing. So as is the case with this individual, his blood results did prove that he was not DUI, but he was then faced with having the arrest and charges on his record.
In California, and more specifically Orange County, the District Attorney will usually wait until the results of the blood test are available before deciding whether or not to file charges. This seems to make much more sense. For the DA to file charges just based on the police officer’s opinion that the individual was, or may have been under the influence, doesn’t seem to make much sense knowing that if they wait for the results, they will have scientific proof one way or the other.
For someone to refuse to take a roadside breath test or submit to a field sobriety test, may make the individual look guilty or give an officer a reason to doubt sobriety. So why would someone, who knows that they are not under the influence, refuse to submit to such roadside tests? There are some who feel that the roadside hand-held breathalyzers are unreliable and may produce false results. There are those who may refuse to submit to field sobriety tests merely due to the fact that they have balance issues and know that they will be unable to pass the test. So there are legitimate reasons that people refuse these roadside tests, and as mentioned above, it is their right to do so.
So, what can an individual do if they are faced with the situation we are talking about here? Can the record/arrest record be corrected. The answer is Yes. It is called a Petition for Factual Innocence. The process works this way: The Court is Petitioned to find the individual factually innocent based upon the circumstances presented. The Judge will review the Petition, and any supporting documentation such as the police report and test results, and then make a ruling either in favor of the Petitioner or will deny the Petition. In basic terms, the Judge must be able to determine that there was no reasonable cause for the arrest to have occurred. The scenario above could be problematic in that the police officer said he smelled alcohol which, if the Judge wanted to, could determine that there was good cause to arrest. But, given the circumstances and also, based on how the police report reads, it would seem that it is in the best interests of all to grant a Petition under these circumstances.
Anytime someone is arrested and charged with driving under the influence, all of the details beginning with the initial stop, all the way to the filing by the District Attorney must be reviewed. Law enforcement must follow strict guidelines in stopping, testing and arresting an individual for DUI. The process of administering field sobriety tests have guidelines, as well as administering a breathalyzer at the roadside. Having an experienced DUI defense lawyer is the only way to determine that law enforcement have followed the rules and guidelines they are required to follow and to determine that your rights have not been violated.
Posted by: DUI News Staff Writer February 22, 2015 in DUI News Digest Leave a comment
A Lake County Sheriff’s lieutenant who faces dismissal from the force for DUI and other charges related to a Super Bowl Sunday crash in which two people were hurt will have his next hearing before the department’s merit board on March 19.
The Los Angeles DUI community and others initially thought the recent horrendous Bruce Jenner crash might have involved alcohol. The investigation into the fatal accident continues to unfold, providing more details into the sequence of events.
The accident unfolded when Bruce Jenner, 69 year-old Olympic medalist and part of the Kardashian family, allegedly rear-ended two vehicles in his Cadillac Escalade. New evidence based on video captured from a bus camera recently emerged indicates that Jenner first rear ended a Lexus sedan driven by Kim Howe (69). The impact pushed the sedan into oncoming traffic, where it collided head first with a Hummer. Howe died at the scene. Jenner submitted to both field tests and DUI blood tests. The results yielded no proof of intoxication.
During the sequence of events, Jenner also rear ended the car immediately in front of the Lexus, a Toyota Prius driven by Jessica Steindorff (29). Both Howe and Steindorff had been driving with suspended licenses. According to the Los Angeles Times, investigators found proof that Jenner tried to avoid the accident with hard braking and veering to the right shoulder of the road.
Talking or texting on a handheld cellphone is illegal while driving in California. Evidence suggests that distracted driving may have played a role in the deadly sequence of events. Pagesix.com highlights photographs taken of Jenner talking on the phone while driving only days after the accident. Investigators look to phone records for proof of distracted driving when evaluating the circumstances surrounding an accident.
Chain reaction crashes like this one require intensive investigations. Evidence emerging in the continued investigation will likely clarify the cause of the accident and Jenner’s role. Publicly, Jenner holds that he did nothing wrong. Emerging evidence of negligence could lead to charges of vehicular manslaughter.
Do you or a family member need insight from a qualified Los Angeles DUI attorney? Contact Michael Kraut of the Kraut Law Group to set up your free consultation.
Did you get arrested for a DUI in Los Angeles? If so, contact Los Angeles criminal defense attorney Michael Kraut for assistance by phone at (323) 464-6453 or online. We’re located at 6255 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1480, Los Angeles, California 90028.
People who have been charged with drunk driving in the state of New Jersey have several options available for their defense. Although they will of course be considered innocent until they are proven guilty, an assertive attempt to defend themselves against the charges may result in a much more positive outcome.
The two main types of criminal defense are the affirmative and the negative. The affirmative defense does not challenge the information provided by the prosecution. Instead, it adds to it with further evidence that is intended to exonerate the accused of wrongdoing. Affirmative defenses such as duress, where the defendant asserts that there was no choice but to drive intoxicated in order to get away from a dangerous situation, or involuntary intoxication, where the defendant states that they had become chemically impaired without their volition and may not have been aware of their intoxicated state, are rare but can be asserted if the appropriate circumstances exist.
It is more common for a defendant against charges of DUI to adopt a negative defense. This means that the evidence presented is challenged by finding fault in the information itself or the way that it was gathered. For example, if it can be shown to the court that the police did not act legally in making a traffic stop that led to a DUI charge, then the charge may be dismissed.
Penalties such as license suspension or revocation may commonly accompany convictions for DUI. The New Jersey court system may impose conditions such as the required installation of an ignition locking device on the defendant's primary vehicle. There is also the possibility of jail time and hefty fines. A criminal defense attorney can be helpful to clients who wish to attempt to refute the charges or mitigate the penalties.
Source: FindLaw, "Defenses to Drunk Driving", accessed on Feb. 11, 2015
This blog spills plenty of virtual ink about celebrities arrested for Los Angeles DUI. But celebrities can be victims in DUI crashes as well.
Consider, for instance, the harrowing recent ordeal of Jennifer Lopez, who survived a collision with an allegedly DUI driver in Malibu in September… with her children in the vehicle.
Prosecutors just charged 53-year-old Robert John Reitz, a Las Vegas man, with slamming her Rolls Royce from behind with his pick-up truck at a stoplight. Prosecutors hit him with a variety of counts, including driving nearly two times the limit for DUI in California (0.08% BAC, as defined by California Vehicle Code Section 23152). A conviction could lead to a $1,000 fine as well as six months behind bars. Lopez was not driving the Rolls Royce at the time; Leah Remini, another actress, was behind the wheel.
Although the crash occurred back in September, it took over three months before Reitz’s arraignment.
Lopez’s situation highlights an important aspect of DUI cases that’s rarely discussed, and that’s that DUI cases can take a long time to play out in the courts. That waiting can feel interminable for defendants (and their families).
Especially if you stand accused of complex charges that involve significant property damage or accusations that you hurt another person, your legal “fireworks” could last for months if not longer. Fortunately, you don’t have to go through this alone. To prepare effectively and strategically, call a qualified Los Angeles DUI defense lawyer with the Kraut Law Group today to get insight into your potential options. In addition to having served as a prosecutor of DUI crimes for nearly a decade and a half, Mr. Kraut maintains excellent relationships with diverse stakeholders in the Los Angeles DUI discussion, including prosecutors, judges and police officers.
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.
The second-highest leader of the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland, Bishop Suffragan Heather Cook, will be charged with several crimes including vehicular manslaughter and drunk driving after a hit-and-run that killed a bicyclist on December 27th.
According to court records, charges against the Lambertville Mayor accusing him of driving under the influence were dismissed on Dec. 11 in Mansfield Municipal Court. In exchange for the dismissal, the mayor reportedly pleaded guilty to charges of reckless driving and failing to maintain a lane for the Nov. 9 incident.
The original incident occurred on Route 130 around 1 a.m. when he was stopped by Mansfield Police. Officers reported that the mayor failed roadside sobriety tests. He had reportedly been swerving on the roadway. Despite his apparent failure and his swerving, two breath tests performed after his arrest showed no trace of alcohol in his blood.
The mayor was reportedly polite and cooperative during his arrest. He apparently told officers he had been drinking earlier in the day but that his drinks had been spread apart by a number of hours. Upon entering his plea to the traffic infractions, the court assessed traffic fines totaling $206 as well as $32 in court costs. The mayor reportedly paid the fines in full prior to leaving the municipal court building.
The Lambertville Mayor's case demonstrates that just because someone is arrested and charged with DUI does not necessarily mean he or she is guilty of the offense. The facts of his case also show that failing roadside sobriety tests does not always mean the person who does so is drunk. Many things can cause a person to fail a roadside sobriety test in addition to and separately from intoxication. Like the mayor, further analysis may demonstrate that the person has no alcohol in his or her system. People who are accused of drunk driving may benefit by retaining a criminal defense attorney for help in fighting the charges. By doing so, he or she may be able to plead to a lesser offense or fight the charges through trial.
Source: NJ.com, "Lambertville Mayor David DelVecchio has DWI charge dismissed, admists reckless driving", Keith Brown, December 11, 2014
EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT CANNABIS CHARGES AND PENALTIES - Illinois DUI Lawyer Blog @import url(http://www.illinoisduilawyer-blog.com/css/styles.css); window.jQuery || document.write(' Illinois DUI Lawyer Blog Published by Illinois DUI Attorneys :: Gullberg, Box & Worby LLC HomeWebsiteAttorneysPractice Areas Contact Us « Previous | Home | Next » March 25, 2014 |Share EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT CANNABIS CHARGES AND PENALTIES by Gullberg, Box & Worby LLC
The penalties and fines for possession, distribution, growing, and driving under the influence (DUI) of cannabis span a range from probation to 30 years in prison. When you are charged with any crime relating to cannabis, you should consult an effective trial attorney. If you want to find out on your own what you are faced with, this material should help.
First-Time Offenders The punishments if you are a first-time offender tend to be more lenient than if you are a reoccurring offender. For purposes of leniency, you are a first time offender if you plead guilty or are found guilty of possessing, or possessing with the intent to deliver, 30 or less grams of cannabis. To qualify for leniency you must not have been previously convicted, placed on probation, or placed on court supervision for any offense under the Cannabis Control Act or other law concerning cannabis or other controlled substances.
•If you are a first time offender who is found to knowingly possess less than 30 grams of cannabis the penalty you generally face is "First Offender Probation" for 24 months. (720 ILCS 550/10)
Possession of Cannabis If you knowingly possess cannabis or other substances containing cannabis you may be charged with the possession of cannabis. The penalties for possession of cannabis will vary depending on the amount of cannabis you are charged with possessing. (770 ILCS 550/4)
•If you are found to knowingly possess less than 2.5 grams of cannabis you will generally be charged with a class C misdemeanor (720 ILCS 550/4). The penalty you generally face for a class C misdemeanor is up to 30 days in jail along with fines which are not to exceed $1,500 (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-65). •If you are found to knowingly possess more than 2.5 grams but less than 10 grams of cannabis you will generally be charged with a class B misdemeanor (720 ILCS 550/4). The penalty you generally face for a class B misdemeanor is up to six months in jail along with fines which are not to exceed $1,500 (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-60). •If you are found to knowingly possess more than 10 grams but less than 30 grams of cannabis you will generally be charged with a class A misdemeanor (720 ILCS 550/4). The penalty you generally face for a class A misdemeanor is less than one year in jail along with fines which are not to exceed $2,500 (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-55). If you have been previously convicted of a cannabis related offense, and are found to possess more than 10 grams but less than 30 grams of cannabis, you will generally be charged with a class 4 felony. The penalty you generally face for a class 4 felony is one to three years in prison and fines which are not to exceed $25,000 (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-50) (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-45). •If you are found to knowingly possess more than 30 grams, but less than 500 grams you will generally be charged with a class 4 felony (720 ILCS 550/4). The penalty you generally face for this offense is one to three years in prison and fines which are not to exceed $25,000 (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-50) (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-45). If you have been previously convicted of a cannabis related offense, and are found to possess more than 30 grams but less than 500 grams, you may be charged with a class 3 felony (720 ILCS 550/4). The penalty you generally face for a class 3 felony is two to five years in prison and fines which are not to exceed $25,000 (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-50) (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-40) •If you are found to knowingly possess more than 500 grams but less than 2,000 grams of cannabis you will generally be charged with a class 3 felony (720 ILCS 550/4). The penalty you generally face for this offense is two to five years in prison and fines which are not to exceed $25,000 (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-50) (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-40). •If you are found to knowingly possess more than 2,000 grams but less than 5,000 grams of cannabis you will generally be charged with a class 2 felony (720 ILCS 550/4). The penalty you generally face for a class 2 felony is three to seven years in prison and fines which are not to exceed $25,000 (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-50) (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-35). •If you are found to knowingly possess 5,000 grams or more of cannabis you will generally be charged with a class 1 felony (720 ILCS 550/4). The penalty you generally face for a class 1 felony is four to fifteen years in prison and fines which are not to exceed $25,000 (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-50) (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-30). * County jail is where people may be held for up to 364 days and prison is where people are held or confined for more than one year.
Manufacture or Delivery of Cannabis If you are found to manufacture or deliver cannabis, or possess cannabis with the intent to manufacture or deliver you may be charged with the manufacturing or delivery of cannabis. The penalties for this offense will vary depending on the amount of cannabis you are charged with manufacturing or delivering, or possessing with the intent to manufacture or deliver (720 ILCS 550/5).
•If you are found to manufacture or deliver, or possess with the intent to manufacture or deliver less than 2.5 grams of cannabis you may be charged with a class B misdemeanor (720 ILCS 550/5). The penalty you generally face for a class B misdemeanor is up to six months in jail and fines which are not to exceed $1,500 (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-60). •If you are found to manufacture or deliver, or possess with the intent to manufacture or deliver more than 2.5 grams but less than 10 grams of cannabis you may be charged with a class A misdemeanor (720ILCS 550/5). The penalty you generally face for a class A misdemeanor is up to one year in jail and fines which are not to exceed $2,500 (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-55). •If you are found to manufacture or deliver, or possess with the intent to manufacture or deliver more than 10 grams but less than 30 grams of cannabis you may be charged with a class 4 felony (720 ILCS 550/5). The penalty you generally face for a class 4 felony is one to three years in prison and fines which are not to exceed $25,000 (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-50) (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-45). •If you are found to manufacture or deliver, or possess with the intent to manufacture or deliver more than 30 grams but less than 500 grams of cannabis you may be charged with a class 3 felony (720 ILCS 550/5). The penalty you generally face for a class 3 felony is two to five years in prison along with fines which are not to exceed $50,000 (720 ILCS 550/5) (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-40). •If you are found to manufactures or deliver, or possess with the intent to manufacture or deliver more than 500 but less than 2,000 grams of cannabis you may be charged with a class 2 felony (720 ILCS 550/5). The penalty you generally face for a class 2 felony is three to seven years in prison along with fines which are not to exceed $100,000 (720 ILCS 550/5) (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-35). • If you are found to manufacture or deliver, or possess with the intent to manufacture or deliver more than 2,000 grams but less than 5,000 grams of cannabis you may be convicted of a class 1 felony (720 ILCS 550/5). The penalty you generally face for a class 1 felony is four to fifteen years in prison along with fines which are not to exceed $150,000 (720 ILCS 550/5) (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-30). •If you are found to manufacture or deliver, or posses with the intent to manufacture or deliver 5,000 grams or more of cannabis you may be charged with a class X felony (720 ILCS 550/5). The penalty you generally face when charged with a class X felony is six to thirty years in prison along with fines which are not to exceed $200,000 (720 ILCS 550/5) (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-25). * County jail is where people may be held for up to 364 days and prison is where people are held or confined for more than one year.
Possession or Production of Cannabis Sativa Plant If you possess or produce the cannabis sativa plant you may be charged with possession or production of cannabis sativa plant. The penalty you generally face for possession or production of the cannabis sativa plant may vary depending on the number of plants you are charged with possessing (720 ILCS 550/8).
•If you are found to possess or produce less than five cannabis sativa plants you may be charged with a class A misdemeanor (720 ILCS 550/8). The penalty you generally face when charged with a class A misdemeanor is up to one year in jail and fines which are not to exceed $2,500 (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-55). •If you are found to possess or produce more than five cannabis sativa plants but less than 20 plants you may be charged with a class 4 felony (720 ILCS 550/8). The penalty you generally face for a class 4 felony is one to three years in prison and fines which are not to exceed $25,000 (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-50) (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-45). •If you are found to possess or produce more than 20 but less than 50 cannabis sativa plants you may be charged with a class 3 felony (720 ILCS 550/8). The penalty you generally face when charged with a class 3 felony is two to five years in prison and fines which are not to exceed $25,000 (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-50) (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-40). •If you are found to possess or produce more than 50 but less than 200 cannabis sativa plants you may be charged with a class 2 felony (720 ILCS 550/8). The penalty you generally face when charged with a class 2 felony is three to seven years in prison along with fines which are not to exceed $100,000 (720 ILCS 550/8) (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-35). •If you are found to possess or produce more than 200 cannabis sativa plants you may be charged with a class 1 felony (720 ILCS 550/8). The penalty you generally face when charged with a class 1 felony is four to fifteen years on prison along with fines which are not to exceed $100,000 (720 ILCS 550/8) (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-30). * County jail is where people may be held for up to 364 days and prison is where people are held or confined for more than one year.
Driving While Under the Influence of Cannabis You may be charged with driving under the influence of intoxicating compounds, drugs, cannabis, or any combination thereof, if it has made you incapable of driving safely. Illinois' DUI statute provides that you shall not drive or be in actual physical control of any vehicle while you are: •under the influence of any intoxicating compound or combination of intoxicating compounds to a degree that makes you incapable of driving safely; •under the influence of any other drug or combination of drugs to a degree that makes you incapable of safely driving; or •under the combined influence of alcohol, other drug or drugs, or intoxicating compound or compounds to a degree that makes you incapable of safely driving. (625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(3), (a)(4), and (a)(5)).
Further, you can be charged with driving under the influence of cannabis if there is any evidence of cannabis in your breath, blood or urine. If that is the charge, impaired driving (unsafe driving) is not required to support the charge. The presence of cannabis in your blood or urine is sufficient even if the person was driving perfectly safely. This is the statute:
•a person shall not drive or be in actual physical control of any vehicle there is any amount of a drug, substance, or compound in the person's breath, blood, or urine resulting from the unlawful use or consumption of cannabis (625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(6)). •For the definition of unlawful use of cannabis, see Possession of Medical Cannabis in a Motor Vehicle below. Just having a medical card for use, especially from another State, will not necessarily exonerate you from having or using cannabis inside of a vehicle. •The punishments you may face when charged with driving while under the influence of cannabis will depend upon whether or not it is your first time being charged with a driving under the influence offense. •If you are charged with driving under the influence of cannabis for the first time, you may be charged with a class A misdemeanor. The penalty you generally face for a class A misdemeanor is up to one year in prison (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-55). Also, a first time offender may be charged with fines up to $2,500 and be placed on court supervision for up to two years (625 ILCS 5/11-501). •If you are charged with driving while under the influence of cannabis for a second time the penalties are more severe than the penalties for first time offenders. If you are charged with driving while under the influence of cannabis for a second time you may be charged with a class A misdemeanor. The penalty you generally face for a class A misdemeanor is up to one year in jail and fines which are not to exceed $2,500 (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-55). Also, if you are charged with driving under the influence of cannabis for a second time you will generally face the penalty of a mandatory 5 days in jail or 240 hours of community service. Along with these penalties, you may also be penalized with the revocation of your driving privileges (625 ILCS 5/11-501). •If you are charged with driving under the influence of cannabis for a third time the penalties are more severe than the penalties for first and second time offenders. If you are charged with driving while under the influence of cannabis you may be charged with a class 2 felony. The penalty you generally face when charged with a class 2 felony is three to seven years in prison (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-35). When you are charged with driving under the influence of cannabis for a third time, you might also face the penalties of probation of up to 48 months along with mandatory 10 days in jail or 480 community service hours. You may also be fined up to $25,000 (625 ILCS 5/11-501). * County jail is where people may be held for up to 364 days and prison is where people are held or confined for more than 1 year.
Cannabis Trafficking If you bring 2,500 grams or more of cannabis into the State with the purpose or intent to manufacture or deliver, you may be charged with cannabis trafficking. If you are charged with cannabis trafficking, you cannot also be charged with possession of cannabis. The penalty you might generally face for cannabis trafficking cna vary depending on the amount of cannabis you are charged with trafficking (720 ILCS 550/5.1). •The generally faced penalty if you bring more than 2,500 but less than 5,000 grams of cannabis into the State with the purpose or intent to manufacture or deliver, you will generally face the penalty of eight to thirty years in prison along with fines no less than $150,000 and no more than $300,000 (720 ILCS 550/5.1). •The generally faced penalty if you bring more than 5,000 grams of cannabis into the State with the purpose or intent to manufacture or deliver you will generally face the penalty of 12 to 60 years in prison along with fines no less than $200,000 and no more than $400,000 (720 ILCS 550/5.1). *County jail is where people may be held for up to 364 days and prison is where people are held or confined for more than one year.
Possession of Cannabis and Other Contraband in a Penal Institution If you bring cannabis or other contraband into a penal institution, which is a place where persons are confined for punishment, or you possesses cannabis or other contraband in a penal institution you may be charged with possession of cannabis and other contraband in a penal institution (720 ILCS 5/31 A-1.1).
•If you bring cannabis or other contraband into a penal institution or possess cannabis other contraband in a penal institution you may be convicted of a class 3 felony. The penalty you generally face when convicted of a class 3 felony is two to five years prison and fines which are not to exceed $25,000 (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-50) (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-40) (720 ILCS 5/31 A-1.1). *County jail is where people may be held for up to 364 days and prison is where people are held or confined for more than one year.
Possession of Medical Cannabis in a Motor Vehicle If you are in unlawful possession of medical cannabis in a motor vehicle and are a medical cannabis card holder using cannabis within the passenger area of a car; or a medical cannabis card holder, designated care-giver, or dispensing organization agent, with cannabis in the passenger area of a car without it being sealed in a tamper-evident medical container for cannabis, you may be charged with possession of medical cannabis in a motor vehicle. If you are a medical cannabis cardholder in Illinois you may drive with cannabis in your system as long as you are not impaired. Note, however, that simply having a medical cannabis card is not a defense if you are charged with driving under the influence (625 ILCS 5/11-502.1).
•If you are found guilty of possession of medical cannabis in a motor vehicle you will generally be charged with a class A misdemeanor. The penalty you generally face when charged with a class A misdemeanor is up to one year in jail and fines which are not to exceed $2,500 (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-55) (625 ILCS 5/11-502.1). •Other penalties you generally face when charged with possession of medical cannabis in a motor vehicle are the revocation of your medical cannabis card for two years from the end of the imposed sentence and the revocation of your status as a medical care giver, cultivation center agent or dispensing organization agent for two years from the end of the imposed sentence (625 ILCS 5/11-502.1). *County jail is where people may be held for up to 364 days and prison is where people are held or confined for more than one year.
Categories: Cannabis Charges, Punishments for Cannabis Tags: cannabis, charges, fines, possession, punishment Permalink | Email This Post Posted In: Cannabis Charges, Punishments for Cannabis Connect Contact Us FREE CONSULTATION (309) 734-1001 Name: Email: Phone: Message: Enter text from the Image Above: Questions and AnswersDriving Under The Influence of Alcohol Topics DUI - Challenging the Traffic Stop (2) Iowa Drivers in Illinois (2) Audio Video Evidence (2) Your BAC (breath alcohol concentration) (2) Ending License Suspenion (2) DUI - Challenging the Blood Draw (1) Speeding and Traffic Offenses (2) DUI Plea Consequences (1) Cannabis Charges (2) Punishments for Cannabis (1) Knowingly Possess (1) Search Recent Entries
November 15, 2014 The Confrontation Clause in Illinois DUI Cases The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right for the accused...
November 13, 2014 Is it legal to avoid DUI Roadblocks? Avoiding Roadblocks Often, motorists will seek to avoid roadblocks for a variety of reasons....
April 23, 2014 WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO KNOWINGLY POSSESS? The Cannabis Control Act states, "It is unlawful for any person to knowingly possess cannabis"...
March 25, 2014 EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT CANNABIS CHARGES AND PENALTIES The penalties and fines for possession, distribution, growing, and driving under the influence (DUI) of...
October 8, 2013 RECKLESS DRIVING GUIDE FOR DUI AND TRAFFIC LAW PRACTITIONERS IN ILLINOIS You are prepared to try your client's DUI case. You are looking forward to the...
October 1, 2013 TALKING AND DRIVING NOW ILLEGAL IN ILLINOIS Texting and driving has been illegal in Illinois for some time now. For those...
The Supreme Court of Illinois does not recognize certifications of specialties in the practice of law, nor does it recognize certifications of expertise in any phase of the practice of law by any agency, governmental or private, or by any group, organization or association.
MONMOUTH OFFICE 122 W Boston Ave Monmouth, IL 61462 Phone: (309) 734-1001 Fax: (309) 734-1005
BETTENDORF OFFICE Quad City Office #300 Northwest Bank Tower 2550 Middle Rd Bettendorf, IA 52722 Phone: (309) 734-1001 Fax: (309) 734-1005
PEORIA OFFICE 809 W Detweiller Dr, #800 Peoria, IL 61615 Phone: (309) 221-4292 Fax: (309) 734-1005
In California, driving under the influence is a crime. Using a handheld cell phone, or texting while driving, on the other hand, is a mere traffic violation under Penal Code 23123, also known as California’s “distracted driving” law. But there is little difference between a DUI and distracted driving if you injure someone as a result. And if you kill someone while using a handheld phone, you could face charges under Penal Code 192(c) PC Vehicular Manslaughter, which makes it a crime for a driver to kill another person by driving in an unlawful way, or in a lawful way that is, nevertheless, dangerous.
District attorneys in California have the discretion to prosecute vehicular manslaughter as either a misdemeanor or a felony. If convicted of misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter, you may face up to one year in a county jail. If convicted of felony vehicular manslaughter, you may face two to ten years in state prison.
It happened to a Costa Mesa man in 2008, when a jury found him guilty of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence after he killed a pedestrian while sending a text message as he was driving. And last month, a Bakersfield woman was arrested and charged with felony vehicular manslaughter for killing three people after she first ran a stop sign, and then a red light, while talking on her cell phone.
According to the California Office of Traffic Safety, texting while driving can delay a driver’s reactions as much as driving with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .08, the current legal limit. The OTS and the California Highway Patrol report that more than 57,000 California drivers were ticketed for handheld cell phone talking or texting during April’s Distracted Driving Awareness Month.
A recent case suggests that courts are getting tougher on people who use handheld wireless devices while they drive, even if it’s just to look at a map of where they’re going. In December, a California appellate court ruled that holding a phone to check a GPS or other mapping application constitutes a violation of California Vehicle Code section 23123(a), which prohibits driving a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone. The court said that the distraction a driver faces when using his or her hands to operate a phone is present whether it is being used as a telephone, a GPS navigator, a clock or a device for sending and receiving text messages and emails.
The message that courts and prosecutors are sending is clear: if you look at your handheld phone while you drive, you might find yourself in need of a good lawyer.
As previously discussed, the wet reckless charge is a tool prosecutors use to "split the baby" when there is a DUI case with problems for them. The wet has reduced punishments, but it is also priorable if the defendant gets another DUI.
The differences can be significant. For these purposes, I will use the San Diego Superior Court Standard Sentencing Guidelines for Infractions and Misdemeanors.
First, the Standard DUI, California Vehicle Code Sections 23152(a) or (b):
Five Years Summary Probation (terms, among others, to Violate No Laws (VNL)) $2,064, fine including $100 SAAU (Substance Abuse Assessment Unit) fee PSP (Public Service)- days of PSP are dependent on BAC .15% - .19% is 5 Days .20% - .24% is 10 Days .25% and above is 15 Days FCP (First Conviction Program) is mandatory, and the length also depends on the BAC .19% and below is three months .20% and higher is Nine months Driving under the influence victim impact panel (MADD) *DMV handles license suspension, mostly Refer to SAAU (Substance Abuse Assessment Unit) VC 23593 advisal (upon being given, if defendant drinks and drives again, and kills someone, they can be charged with murder). *Judges/Commissioners are advised to give "heightened consideration" to IID if the BAC is greater than .15%
Some notes, while VNL is the term that specifically states that violating no laws is a term of probation, the entire sentence becomes individual terms of probation. For instance, if a person does not attend the MADD victim impact panel, or report to SAAU, a notice of probation violation will be sent to the court and the defendant. A bench warrant will be issued for the non-compliant defendant. They will have to go into the court and request that probation be reinstated and the bench warrant dismissed. If not, the court has all statutory options from the original charge available to them. For a DUI, that means up to six months in jail or $1,000 fine (not including penalties and assessments).
The substance abuse assessment unit (SAAU) is an office in the courthouse that helps the defendant assess if they have a drinking problem. Depending on the responses, there may be additional terms of probation to help reduce the likelihood of recidivism. For instance, speaking with a counselor, or attending AA meetings.
The PSP, or public work service, is a program that is administered by the San Diego Sheriff's Department. The most common public service is cleaning up trash at the side of a road. Those performing public service must be present at 8:00am, then they are assigned to work crews that clean trash. They may also clear invasive vegetation from waterways.
Sometimes, if the person is physically challenged, handicapped, otherwise infirm, or otherwise logistically challenged, public work service can be satisfied by volunteer work service. Volunteer work service is volunteering for a non-profit organization, and 8 hours of volunteer work service satisfies one day of public work service. I recently got a clients public work service transferred into volunteer work service because she was going to be attending college out of the county and participating in collegiate athletics.
Volunteer work service is much less demanding, and can be more satisfying. I advise my clients to look up organizations and non-profits that they may be interested in and contact them. For instance, one client volunteered at a state park during a clean up. Volunteer work service is satisfied with a letter on the organizations letterhead saying that defendant performed so many hours of volunteer work.
In the next blog entry we will go over the dry and wet reckless standard sentences and why they are beneficial for most people charged with a DUI in San Diego County. As always, I am available to discuss either specific DUI cases, or general topics in DUI law and I can be reached here.
Determining who will prosecute; Differences between Arizona, Federal laws and penalties.
A Phoenix AZ man was recently sentenced to 25 years in prison for charges of methamphetamine possession with intent to distribute; and prohibited possession of a firearm. The suspected was prohibited from possessing a firearm because of a prior felony conviction on his record.
In another recent case Phoenix police and federal agents from Homeland Security raided two houses and seized five pounds of meth, heroin and marijuana, 7 kilos of cocaine, and 12 weapons (rifles and handguns). The houses were within 1,000 feet of a high school. Neighbors were unaware of the criminal activity. However, four suspects were booked for narcotics possession in a drug free school zone, as well as weapons offenses.
We will refer to these illustrations to outline differences between state and federal investigations, laws, penalties, and the burden of proof held by the prosecution at both levels below.
Arizona V. Federal Laws and Prosecution
Weapons and drug trafficking charges may be brought in federal court. This exposes a person to mandatory minimum sentences. Sometimes both state and federal criminal laws apply, but often serious drug offense may be prosecuted at a Federal level. Generally, the Federal Government prosecutes the larger scale drug crimes, including drug trafficking, and offenses involving more sophisticated and organized illegal drug activity. The Federal Government generally decides if they will prosecute the drug charged in violation of The United States Code (USC) Controlled Substances Act.
The Federal Government also prosecutes large scale drug trafficking offenses involving drug crimes committed across state lines, or involve multi-state operations. In December 2013, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) announced on its combined efforts with Arizona law enforcement officials that uncovered a 1.6 million dollar drug laundering operation. So it is common for both the State and Government to partner together for purposes of the investigation itself. Other agencies are commonly involved including Homeland Security and Counter Narcotics Alliance as part of the investigations involving major drug offenses.
Though state laws vary, in general, Federal punishments are usually more severe than the penalties at the state level. If the state prosecutes the State Penalties apply. Generally, if the Federal Government conducts the investigation and prosecution the defendant will be exposed to the more harsh federal mandatory sentencing guidelines and penalties. Under Federal law, it is a federal crime to possess a firearm “in furtherance of” a drug trafficking crimes. The burden of proof required by the State to convict the defendant lies with the State of Arizona in this case. The State prosecution must prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the firearm was possessed with the intent to advance or promote the commission of the drug-related offense.
Regarding federal drug charges and gun possession, there must be a connection between the guns and the offense. In other words it’s not enough for the prosecutor to simply point to the possession of the firearm and possession of the drugs. In the case described above, the prosecutor would need to show how the rifles and handguns were connected to possession of the illegal drugs. For example, he or she would need to show that they were carried in case competitors tried to steal the drugs or in case where the “drug deal went south” so to speak. Sometimes to bridge a gap in the evidence, the prosecutor will call an experienced detective who is an expert on drug dealing to testify that drug dealers used their guns to intimidate competitors and protect their business. This has been insufficient in past cases where the detective is unable to present his or her methods and principles in a reliable, consistent fashion. The credibility of this type of “expert” can be challenged by an experienced criminal defense attorney.
Federal law also prohibits anyone who has been previously convicted of a felony (a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than a year) from possessing a firearm or ammunition. A felon who possesses a gun may be punished with 10 years in prison. Federal law also restricts gun possession for those who have been convicted of misdemeanor domestic battery.
Arizona Drug Crimes and Weapons Laws
While Arizona has less stringent laws related to gun possession in some ways. However some provisions are stricter than others. Violations of Weapons laws under A.R.S. 13-3102 can be very serious alone and those convicted are exposed to harsh penalties. In Arizona, possession or use of a firearm during the commission of a felony drug offense and is as a Class 4 felony. All felonies in Arizona expose a defendant to prison terms, large fines, and felony criminal record if they are convicted.
In the second illustration above, multiple Arizona criminal law violations resulted in what is know as “aggravated factors” under Arizona sentencing guidelines. This includes a drug crime committed within a school safety zone which is within 1,000 feet of a school or its grounds. This offense subjects a person to increased punishments under A.R.S. 13-709 sentencing guidelines in violation of A.R.S. 13-3411.
In addition, possession of illegal drugs which exceeded the “Threshold Amounts” in violation of A.R.S. 13- 3401. (36) for each of the drug classifications heroin, meth, marijuana and cocaine. Drug convictions involving quantities exceeding the Threshold Amount call for aggravated prison terms. The higher the quantity found to be over the Statutory Threshold Amount, the longer the prison sentencing terms.
Certain weapons are wholly prohibited in Arizona, including short barrel shotguns and bombs. Carrying a concealed weapon without a permit (or carrying a deadly weapon into certain places like school grounds or an election polling place) is a Class 1 misdemeanor. The least serious type of felony is a Class 6 felony. Selling or transferring a deadly weapon to someone who is not allowed to have a deadly weapon qualifies as a Class 6 felony. Such an offense can be punished by up to 1 year in prison.
If a person discharges a firearm in an occupied area in order to further gang activity or give a firearm to someone else knowing they will use it in commission of a felony, you may be punished by up to 3 1 years’ imprisonment for a Class 3 felony. In the second real life incident described at the beginning of this post, anyone who gave or sold the guns to the men who possessed the guns and drugs knowing they would use it as protection while drug trafficking, could be punished for a Class 3 felony.
Arizona also has random gunfire laws, better known as “Shannon’s Law” under A.R.S. 13-1307, named after a teenager who was killed by random gunfire in Arizona. If a person shoots a firearm into or within the limits of any municipality in Arizona, they will face Class 6 felony charges, whether or not anyone is physically harmed as a result of the firearm being randomly discharged.
Drug and weapon crimes can be extremely serious and complex. To protect your rights, future, and freedom, you will need to consult an experienced criminal defense attorney to discuss your matter and options for defense. Early intervention and retention of a qualified criminal attorney is key to increase your chances of mitigating the penalties you will be exposed to, if you face charges. If you face drug or weapons charges contact the Law Office of James Novak. James Novak, DUI & Criminal Defense Attorney will provide you with a free and confidential consultation regarding your matter. If retained, he will tailor and provide strong defense on your behalf.
Additional Resources:
• Arizona Gun Laws
• Arizona sentencing for serious, violent or aggravated offenses
• Phoenix Superior Court
• Administration – Federal Trafficking Penalties
MORE BLOGS
Aggravated Assault: The High Cost of Harming a Police Officer, Arizona Criminal Defense Attorney Blog, August 3, 2012 Assault Convictions Require “Intent” and “Knowledge” or “Recklessness”, Arizona Criminal Defense Attorney Blog, June 1, 2012
I’m always pleased when I read about the court and prosecutors recognizing that police must adhere to the Constitution in investigating crimes. I can say with first-hand knowledge that this, unfortunately, is a rare occurrence for many individuals arrested on suspicion of DUI. Jesse R. White of Charleston, Illinois who was arrested and charged with driving under the influence is one of the lucky few where justice prevailed.
White was stopped because, according to the arresting Eastern Illinois University police officer, he ran a red light. The traffic stop led the officer to believe that White was driving under the influence. And, in fact, White was subsequently arrested for felony drunk driving charges because White had suffered prior DUI convictions.
In one of my first posts for duiblog.com, I explained why I unreservedly agree with law enforcement equipping squad cars with “dash-cams.” The article can be found here: https://www.duiblog.com/2014/04/25/the-use-of-dash-cams-in-dui-stops-2/. The gist of it is that dash-cams (also called MVARS) are an objective capturing of the evidence, unlike the arresting officer’s memory of the events. What’s more, unlike officers, dash-cams can’t lie.
Fortunately for White, the officer who arrested him had a dash-cam attached to his vehicle. A review of the dash-cam video revealed that White had actually run a yellow light, not a red light as the officer had claimed. As such, the officer had absolutely no reason to pull White over.
The United States Supreme Court has held that law enforcement can initiate a traffic stop if they have reasonable suspicion, based on specific and articulable facts, to believe that an offense has occurred. In fact, on several other occasions, the United States Supreme Court has even held that where an officer has observed a traffic violation, the higher standard of probable cause is met.
Without reasonable suspicion, the traffic stop is illegal and any evidence obtain as a result of the illegal traffic stop is inadmissible as evidence.
Because White had only run a yellow light, not a red light, the arresting officer had no reasonable suspicion that White had committed any offense, thus making the stop illegal. Therefore, the evidence obtained as a result of the illegal stop, presumably the telltale signs of intoxication (bloodshot eyes, distinct odor or alcohol, slurred speech), are inadmissible in a DUI trial.
White’s attorney filed a motion to suppress the evidence arguing exactly this.
At the hearing on the motion to suppress the evidence, the judge dismissed the charges against White after the prosecutor, Coles County State’s Attorney Brian Bower, viewed the dash-cam footage and agreed with the motion.
While Bower was correct in agreeing with the motion, he was wrong in justifying the officer’s stop of White’s vehicle. According to Bower, the officer didn’t do anything wrong and likely saw the red light after it had changed from yellow.
Okay, so either the officer made a mistake or was lying about the red light. Either way, at trial the officer would have testified that White had run the red light. Without other evidence, like a dash-cam, how else are we to determine whether White ran the red light? Unfortunately, we can’t.
How many others have been stopped or arrested when the officer was mistaken, or worse, lied about whether a traffic violation occurred?
This entry was posted on Monday, November 10th, 2014 at 7:22 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.
Oakland Raiders wide receiver Darrius Heyward-Bey plans to fight his recent DUI charge at trial, according to a recent San Jose Mercury News report on the NFL player’s legal troubles.
This offseason has been full of drunk driving arrests by NFL players, and the league and its teams have started to take notice. Both the NFL and several teams have threatened to increase penalties for such legal troubles, but they must first wait for the legal system to sort out the players’ alleged crimes.
In this case, it appears that Heyward-Bey is planning to fight his charges, which include one count of driving under the influence of alcohol.
Sources say that the wide receiver told a San Francisco judge last week that he was planning to plead not guilty to the charge, and that he intended to have his guilt determined by a jury trial. That trial is slated to begin on July 23.
The majority of DUI cases in most states are usually handled through plea bargaining, which saves the defendant and the state time and money, but many people who are arrested for drunk driving opt to fight the charges during a trial.
According to sources, Heyward-Bey’s DUI attorney believes that there may have been some procedural errors during the wide receiver’s arrest that invalidated the charges.
In his attorney’s words, “[a]fter investigating all the procedures and all the chain of events, it appears not everything was done according to the rule of law, and there may be some questions that need to go before a jury.”
Common procedural errors that may occur during a DUI arrest include a failure to read the arrestee his or her Miranda rights, improper use of breathalyzers or other equipment used to detect blood alcohol levels, and other police mistakes.
If one of these mistakes occurred during Heyward-Bey’s arrest, it’s entirely possible that his DUI arrest could be deemed unlawful, and he would escape punishment for his alleged drunk driving incident.
Still, the 25-year-old wide receiver has a tough task ahead of him, as sources say that his blood alcohol content at the time of his arrest was 0.12, which is well above the legal limit of .08.
In the meantime, the Oakland Raiders are withholding judgment on their player’s actions until they know the outcome of his trial.
According to his coach, Dennis Allen, the team is “monitoring” the situation and will wait and see “how the whole legal proceedings carry out.”
A South Carolina state representative who is currently running for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives has been arrested for drunk driving and illegally carrying a handgun, according to a report from Columbia’s WACH News.
Ted Vick, a 39-year-old resident of Chesterfield, South Carolina, was being held earlier in jail this week on charges of speeding, committing a DUI, an carrying a pistol without a valid permit, sources say.
Shortly after his arrest, Vick was given a personal recognizance bond on the speeding and DUI charges, but the court has not yet set a bond for the weapons charge.
Vick was arrested by the Columbia Police Department after he was caught driving more than 10 miles per hour over the speed limit.
When the officer pulled him over, he detected a “strong high odor of an alcoholic beverage” coming from the car, according to the police report.
When asked to perform a field sobriety test, Vick refused. The state representative also refused to take a breathalyzer test before he was hauled off to jail.
Police also found a .380 semiautomatic pistol in Vick’s front right pocket, and they eventually learned that his concealed weapons permit had expired in 2007. In addition, Vick did not tell the officer who pulled him over that he had the handgun in his pocket.
The police report written after the incident says that Vick had a few drinks with a female student from the University of South Carolina at a local pub before heading to another bar, where they continued to drink.
Needless to say, the DUI and weapons charge, as well as the information that Vick was drinking with a young college student, amount to a public relations nightmare for a man who is running for federal office.
His campaign, however, did not immediately offer any comments on Vick’s arrest, and sources do not say whether he has hired a DUI attorney.
According to his campaign website, Vick has a wife and two daughters. His website also describes him as a “trained minister” who “is a strong believer in traditional southern family values.”
Vick is one of five Democrats who are vying for the nomination to represent the 7th Congressional District, a newly minted political district.
For his alleged crimes, Vick is facing potentially hefty fines, a possible loss of his license, and perhaps even jail time, although it’s too early in the process to gauge exactly what his punishment will be. In the meantime, Vick will have to determine whether he should continue his campaign.
Randy Babbitt, the former head of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), has cleared his name after a Virginia judge dismissed a DWI charge that led to Babbitt’s departure from the agency.
The 65-year-old Babbitt resigned from his post this December after he was arrested for allegedly driving on the wrong side of the road while intoxicated, according to a recent report from Reuters.
Sources say that police administered an alcohol breath test for Babbitt at the scene, but they initially refused to publicly release the results of the breath test. It appears police had a good reason for keeping the results quiet.
Apparently, Babbitt’s initial breath test revealed a blood alcohol level of .07, which is just below the legal limit. After the first test, the police then administered a second test, which showed a reading of .08.
However, according to Babbitt’s attorney, in Virginia police are not allowed to engage in such tactics. In addition to the flubbed breath test, the police reportedly made other errors.
Sources indicate that the arresting officer’s report of the incident said that Babbitt was driving on the wrong side of the road. But video footage of the incident reportedly shows Babbitt making a legal left turn into a parking lot.
On this evidence alone, the judge for Babbitt’s case decided to dismiss the DWI charge after determining that the arresting officer did not have a legitimate reason to pull the man over. The judge criticized the officer for simply acting on a “hunch” that Babbitt was driving while intoxicated.
The case was dismissed so quickly that the state’s prosecutors were not even given a chance to present their case, according to sources.
Randy Babbitt, to his credit, handled the dismissal of his claim and the actions of the police officer with plenty of class. After the dismissal, Babbitt told reporters that the police officer was “acting in good faith,” which suggests that he does not harbor a grudge against the man who caused him to lose his job.
The dismissal of Babbitt’s DWI provides a strong example of the potential merits of challenging an alcohol breath test after a DWI arrest. In addition, it also reveals the value of obtaining police footage of DWI arrests.
After an arrest for drunk driving, many people are concerned that they won’t be able to fight the charges. This, however, couldn’t be further from the truth.
A number of different errors can be made during the DUI process, and a DUI attorney may help alleged drunk drivers challenge several aspects of their arrests.
It would appear that Fall River’s Shawn Drumgold, 45, (hereinafter the “Defendant”) has clutched defeat out of the jaws of victory. He was once wrongfully convicted of a 1988 Boston murder. He ended up being exonerated and released. He then even won a lawsuit, and a $14 million judgment for said conviction.
That's where the good news ends.
Yesterday, he was back before the bar of justice...now arrested on drug charges, including possession of a Class A substance with intent to distribute. After pleading “not guilty”, he was released on $500 cash bail.
According to a Boston police report, an informant told police earlier this month that drugs were being sold out of a particular Roxbury. Police raided the apartment on Wednesday, the report states, and recovered several bags of heroin and crack cocaine, as well as $304 cash from the Defendant’s person. He was arrested along with several other suspects, authorities said.
The Defendant had been released in November, 2003 after prosecutors said they believed he was wrongfully convicted because he did not receive a fair trial. In April 2008, a federal jury in Boston ruled that a city police detective violated the Defendant’s civil rights during the investigation by concealing that he gave money to a key prosecution witness before that witness testified in the murder trial. The jury awarded the Defendant $14 million, plus interest, in October 2009.
The Defendant’s current lawyer says that the Defendant has been working as a day laborer but has not received any job training or counseling from the state, which is required by law under the wrongful conviction statute.
‘‘I’m sure that 15 years of demons [in prison] takes a lot of counseling to take care of,’’ she said.
I have been in the criminal justice trenches for around 25 years. I can tell you that to be able to show your innocence and get out of prison on a murder case is to seriously beat the odds. To have such a thing happen at the behest of the prosecution is basically a miracle.
Indeed, the Defendant’s life seems to be a roller coaster ride. Big highs, big lows.
After all, being found guilty of murder and thrown into prison is a downer for anyone. One can only imagine the horror if you know you are not guilty! How that effects a person I can only imagine.
One can also only imagine the difficulty of trying to rejoin society after such a thing with no training or counseling.
By the way...if you are wondering what happenned to the money he won? He hasn't gotten it. The Commonwealth is deciding whether to appeal the jury's verdict.
And yet…while that may be a part of how the Defendant finds himself in this new trouble, the same system which wronged him before will likely not consider these uncomfortable details. Today, he stands simply just another criminal defendant who has been arrested in our crusade against the drug trade.
And who’s job will it be to stand up and demand that the judge and jury remember that he is a human being, not just a “defendant”?
His lawyer. If the Defendant is lucky, she is an experienced attorney. It could make the difference between fair treatment as a human being and another cruel blow of criminal justice fate like he received before.
If you would like to discuss a criminal matter with me, whatever your past, please feel free to call me at t 617-492-3000 for a free consultation.
In the meantime, have a great, safe and a law-abiding weekend!.
To view the original story, and charming photograph about which parts of this blog were based, please go to : http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2011/01/man_cleared_in.html?rss_id=Top+Stories
Having a driver’s license is extremely important to virtually every adult. Most of us drive every single day -- to and from work, to pick up the kids from school or take them to soccer practice, to pick up dry-cleaning or take-out food after a long day at the office, or just to go out to the movies. In any case, not having a driver’s license is difficult and can result in traffic tickets or criminal charges, in addition to collateral consequences such as losing or being unable to find employment.
You can be charged with driving without a valid driver’s license if you never actually had a driver’s license. Driving with an expired license can also be a criminal matter, notes Fort Lauderdale criminal attorney Moore. Perhaps the most common situation, however, is driving with a suspended driver’s license. Driver’s licenses can be administratively suspended by the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles for a number of reasons. An arrest for driving under the influence, even if you have not been convicted, will suspend your driver’s license, and refusing a breath, blood, or urine test at a law enforcement officer’s request can lengthen the period for which the license will be suspended (however, the suspension can be challenged by a Fort Lauderdale DUIlawyer within 10 days of your arrest). Additionally, a drug-related conviction -- even misdemeanor simple possession of marijuana -- can result in a suspension of your driving privileges for two years. Many people are also surprised to learn that falling behind on child support payments can also result in a suspended driver’s license. Modifying child support can be tricky, especially if arrears (back payments still owed) have accrued, and the economic problems in Broward County have worsened the problem.
Sometimes, an experienced Broward DUIlawyer can negotiate a great deal with the State Attorney’s Office -- such as dropping the case if you can come back to court with a valid driver’s license. Of course, these types of agreements depend on which courtroom your case is in, the individual circumstances of your case, and other factors. Sometimes, reinstatement of your license or obtaining a valid license is impossible, but options such as completing classes or just paying court costs can resolve the matter. Also, criminal defendants have the right to a trial, with DUIs being the most commonly tried criminal traffic cases, and Broward DUIlawyer Moore regularly handles these types of cases.
Well, Gerald M. Hill, 48, (hereinafter, the “Defendant”) got good news and bad news yesterday at Boston’s Suffolk Superior Court. The good news? The robbery charges against him have been dropped. The bad news? He’s going back to jail, perhaps for life, anyway.
You see, the Defendant was on parole when he was accused of robbing a taxi company at gunpoint in 2009. His prior case, on which he was out on parole, involved the participation in two 1977 killings. I don’t know much about that case, but can tell you that he had not been found guilty of Murder in the First Degree because, if he had been, he would not have been eligible for parole.
The new charges were dismissed yesterday because the evidence against him were suppressed by the court because the court found that critical evidence against him had to be suppressed because of the police’ failure to follow “the rules” of search and seizure. Because the evidence was suppressed, prosecutors said, they no longer had enough of a case to prosecute the Defendant.
Because the evidence could not be used, in other words, there would be no trial against the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant, heretofore presumed innocent under the law, could never be found guilty. Therefore, he remains presumed innocent and goes home free....right?
Wrong.
After all, the Defendant did get arrested.
As we have discussed in the past, merely getting arrested is a violation of either probation or parole.
I have been handling matters involving homicides, robberies, probation and parole as a Boston-criminal defense attorney of many years, as you have probably gathered over the years, there are certain issues that really light a fire in my gut.
This is one of them.
It is very easy to get arrested in this day and age, as I have often described to you. You could be at the wrong place and wrong time. You could have angered someone who has the ever-increasing knowledge of how to “work the system” and is trying to get revenge on you. You might also be stuck facing an accusation that everyone knows is extremely unlikely, but, out of fear of tomorrow’s newspapers, are afraid not to take action because of the fear that you might “go out and kill somebody”.
We know, of course, that sometimes innocent people are sent to jail. Many will say that simply cannot be helped. But what about here, when someone has been out on parole (or it could be probation) and they will never have their “day in court” because of how the Commonwealth handled the investigation? Is it right that the accused be sent back to prison anyway because there was, after all, an accusation and the person did, after all get accused in the first place?
The arrest,we all know, is simply an accusation. The suspect is still allegedly presumed innocent.
But, because they were accused in the first place, that presumed innocent person goes back behind bars to either wait to have a day in court or, here, where said day will never come, simply be locked back up by the Commonwealth. Yes, that would be the same Commonwealth who screwed up the investigation in the first place.
Makes you feel real confident that we give much credence to that old document they call the Constitution, doesn’t it?
Of course, many of you will disagree with me. You will argue, “Well, it’s more complicated than that!”
It shouldn’t be.
“We all knowthe guy is a bad guy…!”
In that case, why was he even brought to court? Why have a trial, much less evidentiary hearings?
In short, let’s cut the hypocrisy. Is he an already established “bad buy” so that we do not have to waste court’s time with him and we can just lock him away or shoot him because he was, after all, arrested…..or do we really care about a presumption of innocence?
Well, you decide what you want. I will wager this, though. If it were you or a loved one who were accused, you would likely care about that presumption of innocence stuff.
Why don’t you give me a call when that happens…particularly if you want a free initial consultation. I can be reached at t 617-492-3000.
In the meantime, be careful of the snow and have a great, safe and law-abiding weekend!
(if not, you might get arrested.)
To view the original story, and charming photograph about which parts of this blog were based, please go to : http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/01/21/convicted_killer_gets_2009_taxi_robbery_charges_dropped/?p1=Local_Links
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.
Contact Us FREE CONSULTATION\ABS\Auto Blog Samurai\data\DUI blog by Peter Drill\Illinois DUI\badge-ncdd.png)
\ABS\Auto Blog Samurai\data\DUI blog by Peter Drill\Illinois DUI\militarybutton.png)
District attorneys in California have the discretion to prosecute vehicular manslaughter as either a misdemeanor or a felony. If convicted of misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter, you may face up to one year in a county jail. If convicted of felony vehicular manslaughter, you may face two to ten years in state prison.
A Phoenix AZ man was recently sentenced to 25 years in prison for charges of methamphetamine possession with intent to distribute; and prohibited possession of a firearm. The suspected was prohibited from possessing a firearm because of a prior felony conviction on his record.
This entry was posted on Monday, November 10th, 2014 at 7:22 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.