Showing posts with label Drugs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Drugs. Show all posts

January 29, 2015

Los Angeles DUI Community Saddened as Redondo Beach Driver Kills Three After Taking Prescription Drugs

Los Angeles DUI accidents can claim lives at any time; an awful crash in Redondo recently killed 3 Californians and injured many more.Margo-Bronstein-DUI

According to reports, twelve people suffered injuries, when a woman crashed into a group of Christmas concert-goers in a Redondo Beach church last December. Margo Bronstein had been exiting St. James Catholic Church when she slammed into pedestrians leaving the concert. Three people died; two suffered bad injuries; and seven others suffered minor injuries.

Bronstein, a paraplegic, had a spotless driving record, but she had been taking medication that day. Her car had been outfitted with various technology to assist her driving. She had hand brakes on the steering wheel and special rear-view mirrors.

Police might charge Bronstein with felony DUI and vehicular manslaughter. Her attorneys have been urging the public to avoid jumping to conclusions about the accident. It is possible, they argue, that a defect in the hand brakes could have contributed to the accident.

If Bronstein’s lawyers can prove that the incident had been an accident — and that medication had not been to blame – perhaps they can fight or eliminate the charges. Her medications included muscle relaxers and other pain relievers to help her cope with chronic health issues.

Accidents involving prescription drugs can still be charged as DUIs, and the consequences of even non-injury stops can include jail time, license suspension, fines and fees and beyond. If a blood or urine test measures a drug’s present in the bloodstream, a conviction could follow.

What should you do if you or someone you love faces a serious DUI count? Will you go to jail? Will you lose your license? Call Los Angeles DUI defense lawyer Michael Kraut immediately to understand your options and craft a strategic response.

Did police stop you for driving under the influence in Los Angeles? Contact DUI defense attorney Michael Kraut for assistance at (323) 464-6453 or online. We’re located at 6255 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1480, Los Angeles, California 90028.

Continue Reading...

December 30, 2014

Mayors DUIs and Drugs - out of control

Posted On: November 28, 2013 by Bruce M. Robinson

I thought I had heard it all when the mayor in Toronto- Rob Ford admitted to partying and smoking crack! Funny, but not really. You can almost look at the man and see crack written all over him so since you elected him shame on you. Now you can't get rid of him. However, if you use Washington DC as an example, Mayor Barry, well heck it's almost a right of passage. Not to mention that he was re-elected after this miraculous concession of smoking crack!

Having said that, the purpose of this article is to shed some light on the attractive Grafton, Cleveland Mayor Megan Flanigan. She allegedly was driving drunk when she struck a fire hydrant very close to her house. It is unclear to me what happened next but the article seems to indicate that she was on scene when the cops arrived, possibly still in the vehicle. I don't know if she left or could have left the scene and returned when the police arrived. The cops smelled alcohol on her breath and requested she perform the normal field sobriety tests (mistake #1) which apparently did not go well and she was arrested and taken to the station. The article did not indicate what if any number she blew at the station (mistake #2) if she did blow.

The article did continue on however that after she left the police cruiser evidently they found some illegal pill of some kind in the back seat which they are attempting to charge the mayor with. This of course will not stick because the police failed to do their job correctly, but that does not stop them from attempting to stick the pill on the drunken mayor.

At the outset, the mayor in this case hit a fire hydrant, it's not clear if her airbags deployed thereby hitting her in and about the face and chest area with great force. Either way, deployment or not, following an accident, the field tests are a dumb idea! These damn tests are bad enough for a sober person to perform in the dark and under the stress of an arrest. Factor in an accident of any significance, compounded by an airbag explosion and they become the most ridiculous display of physical acumen that one can ask for. The cops however don't give a damn, nor should they. They are after the ever elusive conviction just like the prosecutor's office. Thus, any evidence that supports their contention that a driver was drunk will work nicely for them. It therefore becomes incumbent on the motorist to recognize the insanity they are being asked to take part in and say "no freaking way am I doing roadside gymnastic tests following an accident." Frankly, one should say that same line under any circumstance accident or not because the stupid tests are strictly voluntary and since they are designed and offered under circumstances which all but guarantee failure, it's a bad idea.

Now, regarding the pill in the car, give me a break! If the cops failed to search this woman at the time of arrest for whatever reason, that is on the cops. Anything you find in the car after that is too damn bad. No way to prove beyond a reasonable that something that small was not left there by the previous guest in the car. If the cops are unable or unwilling to search their collar as per procedure, what makes anybody think they are able to properly search and clean their own car?

Indeed it's unfortunate to have another mayor fall under such dubious circumstances but this case sounds a little anemic to me.

Continue Reading...

July 3, 2012

Clarification on DUI Prescription Drugs

On a recent post about DUI prescription drugs a reader commented that prescription drugs in fact do impair drivers and thus they are not innocent.  I feel this issue needs to be clarified.

Face it Cops Mess Up and Arrest Innocent People. Face it- Cops mess up and arrest innocent people. Bad laws just make matters worse.

While many prescription drugs can cause impairment, there is a growing number of cases where a driver took prescription drugs, was not impaired but was charged for a DUI drugs violation anyway. A doctor prescribed drug is perfectly safe and non-impairing despite use when the person is in the therapeutic range which is totally different from person to person and over the use history by that person.  Here is a common scenario:

A common citizen who is not impaired is driving down the highway late at night.  The person doesn’t keep a perfect lane.  A police officer working on a DUI patrol sees this and pulls the driver over.

When asked to perform the field sobriety tests, the driver (maybe from nervousness or drowsiness) stumbles.  The officer assumes this person is impaired.  Upon questioning the driver honestly reveals that he/she takes prescription medication.  The officer assumes that the prescription drug is causing the perceived impairment and arrests the driver for DUI drugs.

Swerving and stumbling are not specific to impairment.  Someone could be drowsy or clumsy. [Even some police officers can't do the sobriety tests.]  Furthermore, all prescription drug users are not impaired.   The assumption that prescription drugs must have caused this impairment is faulty and downright ridiculous.

Like I have mentioned before, law enforcement is a human endeavor.  Police officers make mistakes and this problem is compounded by the fact that they go through very little meaningful training on DUI or DUID.

If the police were perfect, we wouldn’t have criminal defense attorneys and we wouldn’t have movements like The Innocence Project.


View the original article here

Continue Reading...

December 27, 2011

Why You Should Fight Your California “Driving Under the Influence of Drugs” Charge

As is most often the case with a holiday weekend, California law enforcement officers stepped up their patrols this past weekend. Not only were they operating a number of DUI / driver’s license checkpoints but they were also engaging in roving DUI saturation patrols. If you were unfortunate enough to be arrested for driving under the influence of drugs, here are a few reasons why you should definitely fight the charge.

First, because of the fact that it was a holiday weekend, officers were expecting drivers to be under the influence. This inherent bias can easily lead to incomplete or shoddy investigations…investigations that lead to an illegal or hasty arrest. We will highlight the officer’s bias to prove that…in the officer’s eyes…you were guilty from the word go.

Second, unlike a DUI involving alcohol…where the jury typically sees a blood alcohol reading…allegations of driving under the influence of drugs “DUID” are often more difficult to prove. Even if there was a blood test that revealed drugs in your system, that doesn’t mean that you were under their influence at the time of driving. We know the most persuasive arguments to convince prosecutors, jurors and judges that innocent explanations such as fatigue, anxiety or illness could have been responsible for your alleged impairment.

Third, even if it appears that you were guilty of the offense, if we can present proof that the collection, storage or analysis of your blood test was improper, the prosecutor will likely reduce or even dismiss your charges.

These are just a brief sample of why it is important to fight a California “driving under the influence of drugs” charge. The fact is that there are countless other defenses that…depending on the specific facts of your case…may also be applicable. Don’t assume that just because you were arrested for DUI means that you must be convicted of DUI because it just isn’t the case.


View the original article here

Continue Reading...

February 5, 2011

Driving Under the Influence & Prescrption Drugs -- Broward DUI Attorney

Alcohol consumption is not necessary for a person to be arrested and convicted of driving under the influence, says Broward DUI lawyer William Moore. Alcohol is easier to quantify through the use of a breath test. Although urinalysis can detect the presence of drugs, the test does not show the amount that was present in a person’s system at the time of the test. Only a blood test quantifies the amount.

In cases where a blood test was actually obtained, the results will usually be interpreted by a toxicologist, who will be called by the state to testify regarding the substances actually present as well as the amount of the drugs present. For example, just knowing that a driver had a breath test of 0.02 -- well under the per se limit of 0.08 at which the law presumes a driver to be too impaired to operate a motor vehicle -- combined with the presence of Xanax in the body is insufficient to prove a DUI. However, if a toxicologist is present with the results of a blood test, that information can be key for a jury to make a decision regarding a person’s guilt. If the Xanax was at therapeutic levels, or the level generally prescribed by a physician, the person is less likely to be found guilty of driving under the influence. If, however, the levels are several times higher than the therapeutic dose, the case is more difficult. This is particularly true where the blood test results conflict with statements made by the defendant following his arrest regarding how much Xanax he took.

Generally, the police will also need a reason to request testing beyond a breathalyzer. For a urine test, there must be probable cause to believe that the person has drugs in his or her system. Blood draws are more complicated. The first reason a police officer can require a blood draw, even forcible, is following an accident with a fatality or where there were serious bodily injuries. The second would be where it is impractical to use a breath test, such as a driver who is unconscious or is being treated in a hospital. The third way for a blood draw to come about is if the driver consents to it, after being informed that it is an alternative to a breath test. Drivers do not have a choice of test, even though there is evidence that blood tests are more accurate than the breathalyzer machine, notes Fort Lauderdale DUI lawyer Moore.

Article provided by Mallory Lynn, Esq.


View the original article here

Continue Reading...

January 30, 2011

Mattapan Suspect Arraigned In Boston Superior Court For Home Invasion And Drugs But Not Murder- Attorney Sam’s Take

It may take awhile for felony prosecutions to come, but, usually, when the police painstakingly take their time in their investigation, suspects emerge. This is being played out in Boston’s Suffolk Superior Court. Kimani Washington, 35 (hereinafter the “Defendant”), has been arrested in connection with the quadruple homicide in Mattapan in September. He was charged with various charges, including armed robbery, armed carjacking, trafficking cocaine, and being an armed career criminal.

He has pleaded “Not Guilty” and was ordered held on $500,000 cash bail after arraignment in Suffolk Superior Court.

Interestingly, the Defendant was not charged in the actual murders, although the prosecutors allege that he was a mastermind behind the armed home invasion that precipitated the deadly shootings.

Apparently, during the investigation into the murders, police found over 28 grams of crack cocaine allegedly taken during the robbery, as well as two guns. They say that these were found in a location where the Defendant often stayed. The Commonwealth also claims that one of these firearms were fired during the multiple homicide.

The Defendant is not the only one charged in the case. Another man has been actually charged with the murders and are expected in Suffolk Superior Court shortly. Further, another gentleman was arraigned previously arraigned on murder charges and held without bail.

Prosecutors allege that the Defendant and one of his alleged co-perpetrators knew each other from mandatory visits to prison, and that they hatched a plan to rob the location of the homicides of drugs and cash. On the morning of September 28th, the burglary was carried out according to authorities.

The Commonwealth further claims that the Defendant left the house after the robbery, which is when the executions were carried out. Later in the morning, the three men met again to divide the proceeds from the robbery.

I have handled several gun and murder cases over the past 25+ years as attorney in the criminal justice trenches. While there are nuances in every case, fact scenarios generally fall into a few common patterns. This does not mean, however, that the Commonwealth treats them all the same.

In many cases, the Commonwealth would be charging the Defendant with Murder In The First Degree along with his alleged cohorts.

“How, Sam? He left before the shooting ever took place according to the allegations.”

First of all, we do not know how the Commonwealth came to that conclusion. I will come back to why that may be important in a moment.

Understand that, whenever possible, the Commonwealth charges people they believe are acting together as being a conspiracy or, at least, a joint venture. Under either of these theories, each person is responsible for what the other(s) do during the course of whatever was planned.

Even if something foreseeable, if not planned, took place. For example, two guys rob a store and, as leaving, one of them turns and shoots the store owner. The shooting was foreseeable, so both would normally be charged. The applicable law does allow for someone to withdraw from a conspiracy or joint venture, but it requires a good amount of announcements by the “withdrawer” to qualify.

Further, there is apparently evidence that the group met up again after the killing. It would seem, therefore, that the joint enterprise was still in existence at that time.

I find it interesting that this Defendant is being arraigned all on his lonesome and is not charged with the killing. Also, unless there was a video camera going at the scene of the crime, how does the prosecution know who planned what when and who left when? The victims, of course, are dead. Math is not my strong point, but it seems to me that this just leaves the Defendant and company who would be able to tell the Commonwealth these things.

Could it be that the Defendant is now a Commonwealth witness in exchange for not being charged with murder? Obviously, I don’t know. I will tell you, though, that, as a trial attorney, particularly one in criminal practice, I have developed a well-toned a strong case of “professional paranoia”.

It helps. A lot.

Might I suggest that if you find yourself suddenly facing down the barrel of a criminal charge, you look for an experienced criminal defense attorney with that occupational disease? If you want to contact me to discuss such a situation, please feel to call me to arrange a free initial consultation at 617-492-3000.

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_held_on_hig.html


View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Links

Developed in partnership with SanFran Coders.

Blogroll

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