Convicted Drunk Drivers Viewed as “A Significant Public Safety Threat” by the Department of Homeland Security

Convicted Drunk Drivers Viewed as “A Significant Public Safety Threat” by the Department of Homeland Securitycategories: DUI

Immigration authorities announced Monday that over 2,000 foreigners who had criminal convictions had been arrested during a five day nationwide operation in early March. This “sweep” was conducted primarily by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. Alejandro Mayorkas, Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, conducted a news conference in Washington, saying, “It had focused on deporting people who were the department’s top priorities because they posed serious public safety or national security threats.” Security officials went on to state that of the more than 2,000 people arrested “hundreds of them had convictions of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.” Advocates for immigrants have asked for leniency for immigrants with drunk driving cases, saying that oftentimes they were workers supporting their families. But immigration officials said Monday that they regarded those drivers as “a significant public safety threat.”Read More

A central part of President Obama’s immigration policy is showing tough immigration enforcement. President Obama’s controversial executive actions that protect millions of immigrants from deportation has been controversial – and has currently been placed on hold by a federal judge in Texas.

The significance of this story is that a cabinet leveled agency has now defined and labeled drivers convicted of DUI/drunk driving as “a significant public safety threat.” It has never been more important to hire an experienced and aggressive DUI/drunk driving defense team to work for you if you have been arrested and charged with DUI. Remember – “an arrest is not a conviction!”

Greenville, South Carolina DUI Attorney Steve Sumner primarily handles misdemeanor and felony DUI/drunk driving cases. Steve is a former DUI prosecutor and has been in private practice since 1994. Steve has been recognized as a South Carolina Super Lawyer® in the field of DUI defense since 2013. He is a member of the National Trial Lawyers: Top 100 Trial Lawyers™ for criminal defense. He is a member of the National College for DUI Defense and has held a judicially endorsed AV-Preeminent rating from Martindale-Hubbell® and a “Superb” (10.0 out 10.0) ranking with Avvo since 2011.
Link to Story: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/us/us-immigration-authorities-arrest-foreigners-convicted-of-crimes.html

Continue Reading...

Federal Study Says Stoned Drivers Safer than Drunk Drivers

According to a new federal study from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), drivers that are under the influence of marijuana are significantly less likely to be in a collision than drivers who are under the influence of alcohol.

The study confirms what I’ve previously said on this blog, namely that, although marijuana does affect reaction times, the effects of alcohol on driving ability are far more likely to cause an accident.

The study, which is “the first large-scale [crash risk] study in the United States to include drugs other than alcohol,” analyzed over 10,000 drivers over a 20 month period.

According to the study, the risk of an accident for someone with a blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent was twice that of someone who was sober. Those with a blood alcohol content of 0.10 percent were six times more likely to be involved in an accident. The risk of an accident rose as high as 12 times for those with a blood alcohol content of 0.15 percent.

The numbers for the risk of an accident with marijuana use were significantly less.

Although drivers who had a THC in their system were 25 percent more likely to be involved in an accident, once the researchers accounted for other variable such as sex, age, and race/ethnicity, the risk ratio for marijuana use was no longer statistically significant.

“This analysis shows that the significant increased risk of crash involvement associated with THC and illegal drugs…is not found after adjusting for these demographic variables. This finding suggests that these demographic variables may have co-varied with drug use and accounted for most of the increased crash risk. For example, if the THC-positive drivers were predominantly young males, their apparent crash risk may have been related to age and gender rather than use of THC.”

In other words, the study suggests that the risk of an accident when a driver had THC in their system could be attributed to variables other than the presence of THC. And while this may be true, the NHTSA warns, “these results do not indicate that drug use by drivers is risk-free.”

However, the NHTSA also admits that, although it tested for the accident risk of drivers with THC in their systems, the presence of THC in not necessarily an indicator of actual impairment at the time of driving. THC can stay in a person’s system weeks after using marijuana and well after the person is impaired by its use.

Continue Reading...

One Sonoma CHP Officer Gets Two DUI Drivers on 101

One Sonoma CHP Officer Gets Two DUI Drivers on 101 - Marin DUI Lawyer Blog Marin DUI Lawyer Blog Published by Marin, California DUI Attorney Law Office of John Stanko, Inc. HomeFirm WebsitePractice AreasContact Us « Previous | Home One Sonoma CHP Officer Gets Two DUI Drivers on 101 |Share February 4, 2015

Sonoma County CHP Officer Mike Phennecie arrested two drivers within a matter of hours on Highway 101 on Monday.

Shortly before 6 a.m. Officer Phennecie stopped a Honda Civic traveling northbound for speeding, allegedly at 92 mph. The driver of that vehicle, a Petaluma man, displayed signs of intoxication, and was arrested on suspicion of drunk driving.

After Officer Phennecie finished writing his police report he got back out on the streets around 1p.m. and as he was driving on Rohnert Park Expressway, he received a CHP dispatch concerning a possible DUI driver. A concerned motorist had called 911 to report a Dodge Sprinter swerving on the highway.

Officer Phennecie stopped on the shoulder of Highway 101 to wait for the suspect vehicle. When the Dodge drove by the officer observed it to be swerving in a manner that forced other cars to avoid a collision. At that point the officer stopped the Dodge and arrested the driver, a Cotati man, for driving under the influence.

Drivers arrested for a DUI face the possibility of jail time, the loss of their driving privilege, fines and mandatory attendance at a DUI school if convicted. The costs of defending a drunk driving case can sometimes exceed $10,000.

If you are arrested for drunk driving, in Novato, San Rafael, Sausalito, Mill Valley, or anywhere in Marin County call an experienced aggressive traffic ticket and DUI defense attorney for help.

For more information about driving under the influence, traffic or criminal charges in Marin County, San Francisco and throughout the Bay Area, or for a free consultation, call attorney John Stanko at 415-755-8899, or toll free at 1-877-204-8900.

Categories: DUI Posted by John Stanko | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DUI

Contact Us 415-755-8899 Name: Email: Phone: Comments: Enter text from the Image Above: Search Connect Topics DUI (102) DUI Checkpoints (45) Celebrity DUI (2) DUI Field Sobriety Tests (16) Ignition Interlock Device (11) DUI Trials (2) DUI Program (24) Felony (6) Dry Reckless (1) DMV Administrative Hearings (10) Suspended Driver's License (51) Negligent Operator (4) San Francisco DMV DUI suspension (1) Oakland DMV license suspension (1) Santa Rosa DMV license suspension (1) Traffic Ticket Defense (32) Red Light Camera Tickets (11) Speeding Tickets (23) Hit and Run (1) Cell Phone and Texting Tickets (2) Criminal Defense (12) Sex Offenses (1) Assault and Battery (6) Batter on a Police Officer Battery on a Police Officer (2) Marijuana (2) Drunk in Public (1) Vandalism (1) Theft Crimes (5) Felony (8) Drug Possession (6) Child Endangerment (5) Domestic Violence (2) Evading a Police Officer (2) Trespassing (1) Resisting Arrest (2) Conspiracy (2) Embezzlement (1) Misdemeanor (5) Domestic Violence (1) Car Theft (2) Probation Violation (3) Felony (4) Drug Possession (2) Child Endangerment (1) Probation (8) Evading a Police Officer (1) NHTSA (7) Robbery (1) Drug Crimes (3) Under the Influence of a Controlled Substance (1) Speed Trap (1) Recent Entries

Feb 4, 15 11:31 AMOne Sonoma CHP Officer Gets Two DUI Drivers on 101 Sonoma County CHP Officer Mike Phennecie arrested two drivers within a matter of hours on...

Jan 31, 15 04:32 PMSonoma County DUI Enforcement Increased for Super Bowl Sonoma County law enforcement agencies will be sending out extra patrols to look for intoxicated...

Jan 30, 15 04:41 PMExtra DUI Patrols In Marin For Super Bowl Weekend The multi police agency DUI enforcement team, "Avoid the Marin 13" will be putting extra...

Dec 16, 14 10:22 AMHoliday DUI Checkpoints Planed in San Rafael The City of San Rafael Police Department will be conducting drunk driving checkpoints and special...

Dec 14, 14 09:56 AMNovember 2014 Bay Area Traffic Court Results LAW OFFICE OF JOHN STANKO, Inc. ________________________________________ TRAFFIC COURT RESULTS October 2014 COURT CHARGE RESULT...

Dec 13, 14 09:53 AMOctober 2014 Traffic Court Results LAW OFFICE OF JOHN STANKO, Inc. ________________________________________ TRAFFIC COURT RESULTS October 2014 COURT CHARGE RESULT...

   4040 Civic Center Dr #200
San Rafael, CA 94903

Phone: 415-755-8899
Toll Free: 877-204-8900
Fax: 415-532-1436
Phone: 707-642-8900 Home Website Disclaimer Contact Us Website Map Blog Posts Copyright © Marin DUI Lawyer Blog Justia Legal Website Design  

Continue Reading...

New Format For Ohio Drivers License

Effective  January 5, 2015, the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) will issue a new format of the Ohio Drivers License (DL) and Identification Cards (ID) to customers renewing their DL or ID.

Visible changes to the DL and ID include:
•Blue/green card in place of the salmon colored card
•Laminate on front of card now contains the word “OHIO” and the year “1803” near the top of the card

Individuals holding an Ohio Drivers License or ID printed in the old formats are still valid until the DL or ID is expired. Customers are not required to obtain a replacement DL or ID if they have the old format. If you wish to obtain a new DL or ID, before your current DL/ID expires, you may do so by paying a $25.75 (DL) or $8.50 (ID) fee at your local Deputy Registrar. Anyone with questions regarding the new format should contact the Ohio BMV at 614-752-7500.

Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in the Miami Valley and throughout Ohio. He has the credentials and the experience to win your case and has made himself Dayton’s choice for drunk driving defense. Contact Charles Rowland by phone at (937) 318-1384 or toll-free at 1-888-ROWLAND (888-769-5263). If you need assistance after hours, call the 24/7 DUI Hotline at (937) 776-2671. You can have DaytonDUI at your fingertips by downloading the DaytonDUI Android App or have DaytonDUI sent directly to your mobile device by texting DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500. Follow DaytonDUI on Facebook, @DaytonDUI on Twitter, YouTube, Tumblr, Pheed and Pintrest or get RSS of the Ohio DUI blog. You can email CharlesRowland@DaytonDUI.com or visit his office at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.

“All I Do Is DUI Defense”

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

 Keywords: Dayton DUI, Dayton OVI, Ohio Drivers License,

Continue Reading...

Proposed Laws Would Bar Drunk Drivers From Buying Alcohol

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading...

2 drivers charged for DWI

According to media outlets, a man in New Jersey received charges for drunk driving after he was involved in an car accident on Jan. 5. The incident took place in Cranford while the 46-year-old man was driving a 2003 Honda. Around 5:30 p.m., the man allegedly struck a parked car near the intersection of Lincoln Avenue West and Burnside Avenue.

Following the collision, the man allegedly tried to drive away before his vehicle became disabled further down the road. A patrolman took the man into custody after an investigation, and he received a DWI charge. The man was also cited for driving without a license, careless driving, leaving the scene of an accident and driving with tinted windows.

At approximately 12:20 a.m. on Jan. 6, another man was also charged with DWI in Cranford. The 37-year-old driver was pulled over along the Garden State Parkway near East North Avenue for a broken headlight. In addition to DWI, the man was cited for refusal to submit to a breath test and failure to maintain lights. Both of the drivers who were charged were released on their own recognizance.

People facing a DWI charge might want to hire a legal representative to protect their interests in court. An attorney may be able to assess how strong the prosecution's case is and determine the best strategy for a defense. For example, if blood tests were mishandled or if equipment was not calibrated correctly, a lawyer may argue that the results are not reliable.

Source: NJ.com, "Two cited for DWI in Cranford," Jan. 11, 2015

Tags: Drunk Driving Charges

Continue Reading...

I’rm Jush Tipsy! Speech Analysis Could Outsmart Drunk Drivers

Computer scientists at Queens College and Columbia University have developed software to identify if someone is drunk based on their speech. They believe someday the technology could be added to cars to keep people from driving while under the influence of alcohol.

The software is based on the work of researchers in Germany. Over a two-year period the researchers collected data from 162 participants in various states of drunkenness. They identified speech patterns often associated with intoxication, such as stammering, stuttering, and slurring.

The U.S. scientists believe their software could be used as a preventative measure to keep a car from starting if it determines a driver is impaired. However, they acknowledge the technology is several years away from practical use—in its current state the software correctly identifies a driver’s drunkenness or sobriety less than 75% of the time.

The drunken speech software is another component in the trend to use in-vehicle technology to outwit would-be drunk drivers. All 50 states have laws that require ignition interlock devices for some DUI offenders. And in 2015, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) starts the third phase of research on the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (DADSS) in hopes of developing passive, non-invasive alcohol detection sensors that could be added to all cars.

While NHTSA statistics for 2013 show that the numbers are once again decreasing, annual deaths from alcohol-related crashes still top 10,000. Is creating technologies that allow vehicles to stop people from driving while intoxicated a step in the right direction?

Continue Reading...

The Year in Review: Significant Court Decisions for South Carolina Drivers Accused of DUI/Drunk Driving

As we move into 2014, I have taken the opportunity to briefly summarize some of the more critical DUI/drunk driving court opinions from 2013 that will affect South Carolina drivers accused or charged with DUI/drunk driving.

US Supreme Court

Missouri v. McNeely 133 S. Ct. 832 (2013):

FACTS:

The defendant declined a breath test; and afterwards, he was arrested for DUI and forced to provide a blood sample. The arresting officer never attempted to obtain a search warrant prior to the blood test.

ISSUE:

Does the lone factor that a suspect’s blood alcohol level is dissipating justify a warrantless blood draw in DUI/drunk driving cases?

HOLDING:

No. In DUI cases, the natural dissipation of alcohol in a suspect’s blood stream does not constitute an “exigent circumstance” in every case sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without first obtaining a search warrant.

South Carolina Supreme Court

State v. Hercheck 743 SE 2d 798, 403 SC 597 (2013)

State v. Elwell 743 SE 2d 802, 403 SC 606 (2013) (these two cases were consolidated for the purposes of oral argument from the South Carolina Court of Appeals):

FACTS:

Both defendants verbally refused to offer a breath sample prior to the expiration of the twenty (20) minute observation period which is required in South Carolina prior to providing a breath sample. In both cases, the police officers terminated or ended the statutorily required videotaping of the defendant concurrent with their refusal to take the test, and prior to the expiration of the twenty (20) minute observation period.

ISSUE:

Does South Carolina Code Section 56-5-2953 require law enforcement officers to videotape a twenty (20) minute pre-test waiting period when the arrestee refuses to take the breath test?

HOLDING:

No. South Carolina Code Section 56-5-2953 does not require a law enforcement officer to videotape the entire twenty (20) minute pre-test waiting period once the arrestee refuses a breath test. A valid legal construction of the statutory subsection at issue is that only when the waiting period is required can the videotape recording also be required; and if no test is administered, then the twenty (20) minute waiting period is unnecessary and there does not have to be a videotape recording provided.

South Carolina Court of Appeals

Chisolm v. SCDMV 741 SE 2d 42, 402 SC 593 (2013):

FACTS:

The defendant was offered a breath test and actually blew into the DataMaster machine for approximately one minute and fifty-three seconds. The arresting officer testified that the machine was emitting a “steady tone” (meaning air was going into the breath testing instrument); however, the officer also testified that the instrument would ” just not read it”. Because the machine would not read the sample, the arresting officer considered it to be a “refusal” by the defendant to take the breath test and initiated a six month administrative suspension of her license.

ISSUE:

Does a “legal refusal” only take place when the defendant actually refuses the conscious act of blowing into the breath machine?

HOLDING:

Yes. South Carolina, a “legal refusal” only takes place when the test subject actually refuses the conscious act of blowing into the instrument.

City of Greer v. Humble 742 SE 2d 15, 402 SC 609  (2013):

FACTS:

The arresting officer did not have a video recording of the defendant pursuant to the requirements of SC Code Section 56-5-2953. The officer submitted a form affidavit certifying that the video recording equipment in his car at the time of the arrest was “inoperable and stating that reasonable efforts had been made to maintain the equipment in an operable condition.”

ISSUE:

Did the Circuit Court err in reversing the municipal court’s dismissal of Humble’s DUI charge because the affidavit required by South Carolina Code Section 56-5-2953(b) was deficient on its face?

HOLDING:

Yes, the Circuit Court erred in overturning the original dismissal of the DUI charge. The applicable statute now requires an officer to state which reasonable efforts had been made to maintain the video recording equipment in an operable condition. The affidavit Officer Williams provided to the municipal court did not state which reasonable efforts were made to maintain the video recording equipment in an operable condition; thus, the City of Greer failed to comply with the plain statutory requirements of Section 56-5-2953. A supplemental affidavit was never filed and the oral testimony presented at trial to supplement the affidavit was insufficient to meet the affidavit requirements of the statute.

State v. Henkel Appellate Case No.: 2011-184986, No. 5159, filed: July 10, 2013:

FACTS:

The driver of a vehicle involved in a one car wreck was subsequently apprehended near the scene. The arresting officer found the defendant being examined by EMS in an ambulance. The officer then read the defendant his Miranda rights and performed a field test inside the ambulance. The defendant later failed the “ABC’s” field test. Once inside the patrol car, the officer turned the dashboard video camera toward the defendant and again read him his Miranda rights.

ISSUE:

Did the trial court correctly find that the video tapes offered into evidence complied with South Carolina Code Section 56-5-2953?

HOLDING:

No. Accordingly, the trial court’s decision was reversed and the defendant’s conviction for DUI was vacated. SC Code Section 56-5-2953(A) requires that the videotaping at the incident site “include the person being advised of his Miranda rights before any field sobriety tests are administered” if the tests are administered. Because the videotape did not include Sgt. Hiott giving the defendant Henkel his Miranda warnings, it did not conform to the provisions of SC Code Section 56-5-2953. Accordingly, the trial court was required to dismiss the charge, and it erred by not doing so.

South Carolina DUI Attorney Steve Sumner primarily handles misdemeanor and felony DUI/drunk driving defense. Steve is a South Carolina Super Lawyer® in the field of DUI defense. He is a member of the National Trial Lawyers: Top 100 Trial Lawyers™. He is a member the National College for DUI Defense, holds an AV-preeminent rating from Martindale-Hubbell® and a “Superb” ranking with Avvo. He is a frequent lecturer and author on topics related to the defense of DUI charges. He represents clients in Greenville, Spartanburg and Anderson counties, South Carolina.

Continue Reading...

New Florida DUI Laws Give Drivers a Choice

New Florida DUI Laws Give Drivers a Choice | Orlandoduiteam#topnav ul li a,.sidebar h4,.tk-news-gothic-std{font-family:"news-gothic-std",sans-serif;}p{margin-left:0 !important;}a{color:#0D8BB7 !important;} Orlando DUI Team Published by Orlando, Florida DUI Lawyers :: Katz & Phillips, P.A.(321) 332-6864 HOMEBLOGCONTACT US David S. Katz Founding partner
Katz & Phillips, P.A James D. Phillips Founding partner
Katz & Phillips, P.A Annmarie Jenkinson Associate Attorney Matthew R. Gunter Associate Attorney David A. Faulkner Associate Attorney Catherine Gleason Attorney

TopicsBreath Test (4)Drunk Driving (7)DUI (7)DWI (6)Uncategorized (3) Recent Entries

23 ,23 2013
To Blow or Not To Blow - Should I Take The Breath Test
As a DUI practitioner, the most frequent question I am asked is, "should I take ...

23 ,23 2013
Traveling To Meet a Department Inspector - Violation of Breath Testing Rules
Florida used to have eight Department Inspectors traveling throughout their assi ...

23 ,23 2013
Its Only a Hole - The Whole Hole Problem Explained
Florida decided to use the Intoxilyzer 8000 as the only acceptable breath test m ...

23 ,23 2013
FHP Trooper Jailed for 5 days for Missing DUI Trial
The Orlando DUI Team has learned that a Florida Highway Patrol trooper has been ...

23 ,23 2013
You have the right to remain silent !! Do you have the ability?
Everyday I sit down in my conference room with someone who has been arrested for ...

23 ,23 2013
Temporary Driving Permits - What are they good for?
Arrested for DUI in Florida? Did you have a valid driver's license at the time o ...

Contact Us DO YOU HAVE A CASE?Contact our attorneys NOW Name: Email: Phone: Comments: Enter text from the Image Above: New Florida DUI Laws Give Drivers a Choice

This month a large number of new laws went into effect in Florida. Several of these laws make changes in how DUI cases are handled, and show promise for drivers who stand accused. For example, it’s now easier to force a subpoenaed police officer to appear at review hearings, or even get driving privileges restored if they refuse to show up. But the biggest change gives first-time DUI defendants a choice – one that may allow them to keep driving.

The state of Florida, like most states, mandates that when you get behind the wheel, you are agreeing to take a breathalyzer or blood test anytime a police officer pulls you over. In other words, it’s illegal to refuse testing. That comes uncomfortably close to forcing you to incriminate yourself, but if you refuse the test your license is automatically suspended – and the suspension stands even if you’re later found not guilty at trial.

Of course, most drivers who refused the test would then challenge that suspension on various grounds. Often these challenges are unsuccessful, but they’re handled separately from the criminal case and they cost the state a lot of time and money. So the new Florida law attempts to sweeten the deal and discourage drivers from challenging the suspension.

It’s still required to take a blood, breath or urine test, but now – for first-time DUI charges – if you waive your right to challenge the suspension, you can immediately get a “hardship” driving permit. This restores at least part of your driving privileges, even while your license is technically suspended, the very next day – so you can go to work and keep your life on track.

This is a huge change: Under the old law, if you lost your formal review hearing, you weren’t even eligible for a hardship permit until 90 days of no driving what so ever had gone by.

This law was passed to reduce the number of challenges to suspended licenses, easing the burden on the review process. But it has a potential benefit for drivers: If you’re pulled over on suspicion of DUI, and arrested, at the very least, you can ensure that you will be able to continue to drive for work purposes. In the past, many arrestees lost their jobs because they could not drive.

As knowledge of the new law spreads, an unintended side effect may occur. More people may refuse to take the test. In the past, the suspension of your driving privilege was far worse if you refused the test than if you took it. If you refused, as stated above, you would have a one year suspension with the first 90 days of no driving whatsoever. If you took the test and blew above a .08, you would have a 6 month suspension, which began with 30 days of no driving. Although the refusal still carries a longer suspension, neither now require a period of no driving, if you waive your right to a hearing. A driver may now choose to deprive the state of this key piece of evidence because they will have no period of hard suspension (no driving).

Of course, there is a down side to the new law. Drivers who waive their right to a hearing so as not to risk the period of no driving are giving up their right to challenge the suspension. If you waive your right to a hearing, the suspension will appear on your driving record forever. If you challenge the suspension and win, it will be removed from your driving record. By waiving your right to a hearing, you are giving up the opportunity to have a trained DUI lawyer fight the suspension and the opportunity to have a clean driving record.

(Note that this applies only to first-time DUI arrests: If you’ve been charged with DUI before, it’s vital that you submit to the test when the officers ask you to. Refusing is a criminal charge if you have previously refused to take a lawful test of your breath, blood, or urine, punishable by up to 1 year in jail.)

  Contact Us: 407-505-6811
121 South Orange Avenue
Suite 1420
Orlando, FL 32801 Home Disclaimer Contact Us Blog Posts Copyright © Orlando DUI Team  

Continue Reading...

AAA reports Senior Drivers Support Tougher Driving Laws for Themselves

Tampa, FL – While senior drivers favor tougher driving laws, from bans on wireless devices to ignition interlocks for first-time DUI offenders, an overwhelming majority support greater scrutiny in the license-renewal process for themselves and their peers, according to the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety’s latest report on aging Americans.
More than seven out of 10 drivers age 65 and older favor policies that require drivers age 75 and older to renew their license in person, and also support requirements that seniors pass a medical screening to remain licensed.

Continue Reading...

Police to Use Marijuana Breathalyzer to Identify Stoned Drivers

Stoned drivers beware. Cops may soon use a handheld device to determine if a driver is under heavy influence of marijuana.
According to a Bloomberg report, a team of researchers at Washington State University is trying to develop a breathalyzer similar to the device used to determine alcohol level content among drivers, except this one is for marijuana usage. The handheld device will be able to detect if drivers have THC, marijuana's psychoactive component.

Herbert Hill, a chemistry professor at Washington State University, leads the research team to develop the handheld device, according to News Tribune.
Hill is collaborating with Jessica Tufariello, a doctoral student from the same university, to develop the device that uses ion mobility spectrometry, a technique used to detect the level of THC in human breath.
Although the prototype of the device could not identify the exact amount of THC, Hill remains confident that the technology they are developing will assist police officers to determine whether THC is present.
“We believe at least initially that it would lower the false positives that an officer would have,” Hill told the News Tribune. “They would have a higher level of confidence in making an arrest.”
Police officers are hampered by protocols to determine if a driver is THC impaired. According to a 2012 study conducted by the U.S. National Library of Medicine of the National Institutes of Health, it takes 24-hours to get the results of blood tests to find out the THC levels of marijuana users. In most cases, police officers use traditional techniques used in standardized field sobriety tests the most common of which is to make them walk a straight line.
Right now, officers and prosecutors rely on blood tests to determine how much active THC is present in a driver’s blood. Those test results aren’t immediately available to patrol officers who suspect someone is driving high.
The recreational use of marijuana has been legalized in Alaska, Colorado, Oregon and Washington, but driving under the influence of pot remains illegal.
The most law enforcers can do, like in the state of Colorado, is to file charges against drivers who are high on marijuana using DUI penal statutes that apply to drunk drivers.
Studies show that marijuana use leads to poor reaction time that affects a user's hand and eye coordination, which could be dangerous when driving. Other effects of marijuana include a blurred perception of physical distance and time and short-term memory.
Since the legalization of recreational marijuana use, Washington has seen a dramatic jump of 25 percent of drivers who have tested positive for THC.

Continue Reading...

Silent Witness offers cash for DUI drivers

Yavapai Silent Witness board of directors has decided to help in the battle against impaired drivers in Yavapai County. Silent Witness is now offering a $100 cash reward to callers who supply information to Silent Witness at 1-800-932-3232 when an active DUI driver is arrested in the act. The board feels that this Christmas season is the perfect time to get involved and help make the streets safer.

Callers must call the Silent Witness 800 number and supply the necessary information for law enforcement to locate and arrest the impaired driver to qualify for the reward. Callers will be ask to follow the DUI vehicle in order to monitor the direction of travel and direct law enforcement to their location. In addition they'll need to supply the make and color of the vehicle, the direction of travel and the street the vehicle is traveling on. The caller should also try to supply a license plate number.

Callers are reminded that they can call Yavapai Silent Witness 7 days a week 24 hours a day and they never have to give their names.

Continue Reading...

Scientists Creating Marijuana Breathalyzer to Test Stoned Drivers

By guest-writer

Unlike alcohol, which allows police officers to easily detect the amount of the substance in a driver’s system, marijuana poses all sorts of testing issues for state officials.

First, THC, the psychoactive agent in marijuana, stays in a person’s body for weeks after the initial high has long since worn off. And, today, scientists do not have a reliable test to determine exactly how much marijuana is in a person’s system at any given point of time.

However, scientists across the country are working on developing a saliva test to determine whether a driver is impaired by marijuana, as several states look to push more aggressive marijuana marijuana DUI laws , according to a report from Reuters.

Sources indicate that scientists at the National Institute on Drug Abuse, a relatively obscure government research lab, have been developing a simple saliva test that will be able to detect whether a driver has recently been using marijuana.

The test, though, won’t be able to specifically measure the user’s level of marijuana use. In fact, according to the so-called White House drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, “I’ll be dead – and so will lots of other people – from old age, before we know the impairment levels.”

So, scientists are creating an admittedly less-than-reliable saliva test to gauge whether a person who is driving after smoking marijuana is too impaired to get behind the wheel.

And the unreliability of the saliva test has many DUI attorneys concerned that their clients could be hauled before a judge for DUI violations due to drug use that occurred days, or perhaps weeks, before the incident in question.

In response, law enforcement officials say that there are other gauges to determine just how stoned a driver is, including the redness of eyes, coordination, speech, and the like. But this seems to add a lot of guess work to an arrest that could lead to jail time or serious fines.

In fact, these concerns have already been addressed by a wary public. In California, for example, Proposition 19, which would have elevated marijuana to the status of alcohol in DUI arrests, failed in 2010 in part because voters were concerned that it didn’t specifically set forth a THC driving limit.

In the voters’ minds, if blood alcohol levels are capped at .08 percent, then THC levels should have an equally concrete limit for drivers. This limit, however, may be impossible to adequately set, given today’s current marijuana-detecting technology.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Colorado Senate Votes to Criminalize Marijuana Levels in Drivers

Over past years, Mothers Against Drunk Driving has been successful in getting legislation passed across the country criminalizing the presence of a largely arbitrary level of alcohol in a driver’s blood.  

Whereas previously the drunk driving laws made it illegal to drive a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, the new ones didn’t care about impairment but simply made it a crime to have a blood-alcohol level of .08% or higher.  It didn’t matter if a given driver had higher than average tolerance to alcohol; whether a citizen was impaired and a danger or not was no longer relevant.  The crime was the presence of alcohol in the body.

This, of course, made it much easier to prosecute and convict citizens of drunk driving — even if they weren’t "drunk".

Now that strategy is increasingly being adopted by states for the offense of "driving while stoned" — that is, driving while under the influence of marijuana.  As with alcohol, it is more difficult to prove that a citizen’s driving ability is impaired by marijuana than it is to prove that there is an arbitrary amount of it in his body.  

Solution: criminalize the presence of a given amount of cannabis in the blood.  Of course, there is little scientific consensus as to what levels of marijuana cause driving impairment.  But the result will be more arrests, prosecutions — and more unimpaired drivers convicted.   

"The ends justify the means", right?  

Colorado Senate Gives Initial OK to Stoned-Driving Limits 

Denver, CO.  May 2 – The Colorado Senate Tuesday gave initial approval to a bill making it easier to convict people of driving while stoned, in the toughest test yet for the proposal…

The measure, Senate Bill 117, would set a limit of THC — the psychoactive chemical in marijuana — in the blood above which it would be illegal to drive. King said numerous studies suggest that the large majority of people with more than 5 nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood are impaired.

[Bill sponsor Steve] King said the bill is needed to stem what appears to be an increase in stoned driving in Colorado. Drivers whose blood tested positive for THC at the state toxicology lab have increased from a couple hundred in 2009 to more than 1,000 last year, King said…

Opponents say that research isn’t conclusive that everybody is stoned at 5 ng and that the bill would result in sober drivers being convicted. Sen. Morgan Carroll, D-Aurora, called the bill, "a shortcut on burden of proof." Sen. Pat Steadman, D-Denver, said state law already makes it illegal to drive while stoned — including for those drivers who are impaired at less than 5 ng.

"I would prefer to stick with current law, where the question of impairment is put to a jury and where evidence of someone’s conduct is presented in court," Steadman said.

Steadman said the bill would hurt medical-marijuana patients who regularly use marijuana and may have higher baseline levels of THC in their blood.
But King said the bill sends an important message that driving high is not OK.

"What I’m saying is, you can’t get high and drive," King said. "It has an impact on the rest of us. You can smoke and wait. You can smoke and walk. You can smoke and find a ride. But you cannot smoke and drive."

Fourteen other states have laws creating a THC limit for driving — laws that are known as "per se" laws. Several other states have zero-tolerance driving laws for THC.

Notice the focus of the law in the opening line of the story:  "a bill making it easier to convict people".  Not a bill to reduce casualties on the highways.  Not a bill to punish criminals. No, a bill making it easier to convict citizens.

The great legal scholar Blackstone famously stated back in the 1760s: "Better that ten guilty guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer".  That revered old legal principle has been reversed in DUI cases..  

The concept goes back even further — much further.  From Genesis 18:23-32 of the Bible:  

Abraham drew near and said, ‘Will you consume the righteous with the wicked?  What if there are fifty righteous within the city?  Will you consume and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are in it?  What if ten are found there?".  He [The Lord] said, "I will not destroy it for the ten’s sake".  

The dragnet approach to justice.  Yet another example of what I have termed "The DUI Exception to the Constitution".

This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012 at 9:18 am and is filed under Duiblog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Most Drunk Drivers Still Can’t Visit Canada

DUI Drivers Still Can't Visit Canada

Previously, those convicted of DUI were barred from visiting Canada.  Last month, the Canadian government passed a law that would allow some offenders to enter the country:

As of March 1, foreign nationals with a single misdemeanour conviction – including for driving under the influence – could be given a one-time pass to skip an onerous application process and cross the border into Canada under what’s been dubbed the Tourism Facilitation Action Plan.

While the directive applies to all foreigners coming to Canada by land, air and sea, it’s really meant to appease tourism operators in remote regions who’ve seen busloads of customers turned away at the Canada-U.S. border because one per-son didn’t realize a three-year-old conviction for drunk driving was enough to get them barred.

But there is a notable catch:

According to the directive, individuals with a single misdemeanour conviction, which can also be for crimes such as public mischief and shoplifting, will be issued a temporary permit to enter Canada without having to apply in advance and pay a $200 fee.

Foreigners qualify so long as they have just a single conviction for which they served no jail time. The waiver applies once and individuals seeking to enter Canada a second time will be warned to follow the proper procedures the next time.

In reality, the vast majority of those convicted for DUI in Pennsylvania do serve mandatory jail time and therefore cannot benefit from this new exception.  This holds true all over the country where mandatory minimum ensure that many first time offenders have to face prison time.

If you have been convicted of a DUI and are planning a hunting or camping trip to the Great White North- think again.

This is just one more example of the heavy handed punishment and stigma that comes along with a DUI conviction.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Broward DUI Attorney -- Drivers License Administrative Suspension Issues

A DUI arrest in the state of Florida can be devastating. It can have a long-term effect on your future, including your prospects for employment, or even continuing at the job you already have. For many, a valid driver's license is necessary for work. Truck drivers and taxi operators come to mind immediately, but other professions require that workers drive regularly. For example, Fort Lauderdale DUI lawyer William Moore drives to court. Even driving just to get to your place of employment is important, as is driving children or other family members to school, doctor's appointments, and the like.

After a driver is arrested for driving under the influence in Florida, he or she has only 10 days in which to formally challenge the administrative suspension of his or her drivers license by the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. Broward DUI lawyer Moore provides representation at these hearings. The arresting law enforcement officer may appear at the hearing and provide testimony regarding the reasons for the traffic stop. The administrative suspension of the drivers license is a separate matter from the criminal case. In fact, even if a defendant goes to trial and is found not guilty of DUI by a judge or jury, the driver's license suspension by the FDHSMV is not invalidated at that point. If the defendant did not successfully challenge the suspension in the 10 day period following the arrest, the drivers license will not be reinstated until after the suspension period runs and the defendant applies for reinstatement with the FDHSMV, according to Broward DUI lawyer Moore.

It is important to remember not to drive unless your license is valid. Drivers licenses can be suspended for failure to pay tickets, a DUI arrest, and having child support in arrears. However, driving with a suspended license may sound like a simple traffic ticket, but is actually a fairly serious criminal matter. It is not uncommon in many jurisdictions in Florida for the prosecutor to seek significant time in jail -- for instance, 30 days -- simply for an arrest for operating a motor vehicle with a suspended license. Such an arrest could also constitute a violation of the terms of dui probation, which usually includes reporting, attending DUI school, attending a victim impact panel, the payment of various fees and fines, and not driving or picking up new criminal charges. In terms of operation of a motor vehicle in violation of a drivers license suspension, the definition of what constitutes a motor vehicle can also be fairly broad, encompassing many of the scooters popular to cruise around the beach in Fort Lauderdale.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Driver’s License Charges Addressed by a Broward DUI Attorney

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 DUI lawyer 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 DUI lawyer 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 DUI lawyer Moore regularly handles these types of cases.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Drunk Drivers Endanger Children, Steal Police Car

Unfortunately, as we’ve chronicled many times before, driving under the influence and poor decision-making tend to go hand-in-hand.
In a couple of incidents reported in the news recently, alleged drunk drivers endangered children — a far too common occurrence — and police in two separate incidents stemming from DUI.
The Chicago Sun-Times is reporting that a man is accused of driving drunk and texting, all with four children in the back seat of his SUV.


Ruben Rodriguez was seen by police to be speeding and texting on a Sunday. They pulled him over and determined that he was driving under the influence.
They also learned that he had four children in the back seat of his Kia sport utility vehicle.
The man was also driving with a driver’s license that required him to drive only vehicles with an ignition interlock device to measure his blood alcohol content before starting the car. The Kia that he was driving did not have the interlock device.
Because of that violation, police charged him with a driving with a suspended license charge.
Rodriguez has been charged with several crimes, including four counts of child endangerment, speeding, improper lane usage, driving with a suspended license and texting while driving.
In Missouri Valley, Iowa, a man faces charges that could land him in jail for up to a decade after he allegedly stole a police car after being pulled over from DUI.
RadioIowa features an article reporting that Richard Garule was pulled over under suspicion of drunk driving early on a Tuesday morning. The police officer saw firearms of some kind in the vehicle, so he put Garule in the front seat of his police cruiser.
Garule then apparently hopped over to the driver’s side, locked the doors of the patrol car and drove away, escaping attempts by the the deputy to keep him from leaving.
Garule allegedly wrecked the cop car in another town, then stole another SUV. That SUV was found in Blair, Nebraska. Garule was taking a nap inside.

The series of charges that he faces after his apparent joyride could lead to ten years in prison

Continue Reading...