Showing posts with label Going. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Going. Show all posts

January 20, 2015

Going Federal On Implied Consent

Posted on January 9, 2015 by Chuck Ramsay

There comes a time when it becomes clear that the persistent and systematic violation of a constitutional right is falling on deaf ears in state courts. Here in Minnesota, in case after case, the fundamental constitutional right to be protected from warrantless invasions of bodily integrity – your right to refuse to give your breath, blood, or urine when there is no search warrant -- is being flagrantly violated by police during DWI investigations, and the courts are doing nothing about it. When that time comes, as it certainly has, the only remaining option is going federal.

Today, on behalf of a client, we filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. We put together evidence of our state courts’ failure to uphold the Constitution, and we are asking the federal court to step in to protect our rights. Minnesota courts have left us with no other choice. Since January 2014, in the aftermath of the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Brooks, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has decided at least 70 appeals from district court cases dealing specifically with the issue of consent in the context of DWI. In every single one of those 70+ cases, the court concluded that the driver freely and voluntarily consented to a custodial, warrantless search. In one case, Bathen v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, the Court of Appeals found that a driver “freely and voluntarily consented” to an in-custody, warrantless search after law enforcement sicced a police dog on him, and one officer punched him in the head while another officer threw punches below the waist.

In at least 24 cases, under an astounding array of factual scenarios, the Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s conclusion that a driver’s consent was free and voluntary. Far more alarming is the fact that in one year the Court of Appeals unanimously reversed district courts’ determinations that consent was coerced and was not free and voluntary in at least 43 cases. In 2014, district court judges found coercion almost twice as often as they found consent, and yet the Court of Appeals reversed every single district court judge who found that, under the totality of the circumstances, a driver was coerced into consenting. The situation is so dire that the Court of Appeals has taken to dismissing the lack of consent in the majority of cases by concluding that drivers are “consenting” to the execution of warrantless searches “as a matter of law.”

Anyone with a dictionary, an eighth grade education, and a speck of common sense knows that it is impossible to give free and voluntary consent – or free and voluntary anything - as a matter of law. If some act is required by law, your willingness to perform that act is irrelevant; you have to do it whether you want to or not. Here, the Court of Appeals sees no problem with a law that makes it a crime not to consent to a warrantless search.

The decision to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court is a significant one. The Minnesota Court of Appeals’ clear endorsement of an unconstitutional law calls for significant action. The time has come to call on the federal courts to end this injustice and reinstate the Fourth Amendment protections of the Constitution in Minnesota.

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://www.mndwidefenseblog.com/admin/trackback/319032
Continue Reading...

San Diego County Going To Require IID’s For All DUI Convictions?

IIDCalifornia State Senator Jerry Hill plans on introducing a bill on Monday, January 5th,  that would require all defendants who are convicted of drunk driving to install ignition interlock devices, (IID’s).  A first DUI conviction would result in a 6-month requirement.  A second driving under the influence conviction would result in a 1-year IID requirement.  (See news article on CBS.)

What is an IID?  It is a breathalyzer instrument that is professionally installed in your vehicle by a court-approved company.  The driver must blow into the device, providing an alcohol-free sample, in order for the car to start.  If alcohol is detected, the car will not start.  Once started, the driver will be prompted to give another sample within 15-minutes of driving and then again about every 45-minutes.  If alcohol is detected during these random samples, the car will stall and become inoperable.  Sample “failures” are reported to the court.

Currently, there are four counties in California that are participating in an IID pilot program:  Los Angeles, Alameda, Tulare, and Sacramento, (see CA Vehicle Code Section 23700).  According to this statute, first time DUI defendants must install an IID for a period of 5-months in any car that they operate or drive.  On a second conviction, the term is extended to 1-year.  On a third conviction, the device is required for 2-years.  On the third or subsequent DUI conviction, the IID is ordered for 3-years. 

If the case involved an injury, (CA Vehicle Code Section 23153), the IID is required for 1-year on a first conviction, 2-years on a second, 3-years on a third, and 4-years for a fourth or subsequent conviction.

Hill’s bill will extend the ignition device requirement to all counties in California, including San Diego.  Typically, San Diego prosecutors are only asking for an IID at sentencing for first time DUI defendants if the blood alcohol was at or above a .15% and/or the defendant refused to submit to a chemical test after a DUI arrest.

A  judge, however, may order the installation of an IID in any DUI related case, including drunk driving, drunk driving with injury, and even driving on a suspended license if the suspension was due to a DUI conviction.   The maximum IID term is for three years.

The above summary of ignition interlock devices is by no means all-inclusive and is not legal advice. Laws may have changed since our last update. For the latest information on IID’s, speak to a DUI attorney in your area.

The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman offer free telephone consultations.  If you have a pending drunk driving case or questions about your case after sentencing, contact our office at 619-260-1122, or use the Contact Us form on this page.

Continue Reading...

February 9, 2011

Travis County is going to start doing more blood draws at the jail

Posted on May 11, 2010 by Ken Gibson

The Austin American Statesman reported today that the Travis County Commissioners voted to enter into an agreement between Travis County and the City of Austin that will allow for a phlebotomist to be at the jail from Tuesday night through Sunday morning.  These folks have reported that they anticipate the cost of this service to be approximately $60,243 per year.  What they are not taking into account is the added cost of having those folks present to testify in the cases for which they drew blood.  I was told that they plan to contract with a "phlebotomy service", rather than hire a single phlebotomist.  The logical nightmare will be when the actual person that took the blood no longer works at the contracted service.  Further, who do they think is going to pay for their time. 

The article states that the phlebotomist(s) will work from 9:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m.  Well, we shall see how they feel about waking up to be in court at 9:00 a.m.   Further, who is going to pay for the blood to be tested.  Chief Acevedo has been pushing for a full time no refusal policy, and I think this is just one step towards his goal.  As I have stated in past posts, this isn't Williamson County.  Folks, in general, are against people being held down and stabbed with a needle.  Sooner or later, Acevedo will have to realize that.  Either that, or maybe another city will consider him for their Chief, since Dallas apparently didn't want him.


View the original article here

Continue Reading...

December 24, 2010

New Jersey Cop Martin Abreu Going to Prison

DUI News

Martin Abreu, 26, was a Jersey City police officer. Now he is a convict and prison resident. One year ago Abreu was traveling on West Street when he drove his vehicle into pedestrians Marilyn Feng, 26, and Dennis Loffredo, 26. Feng recently graduated from New York University Law School and was her parent’s only child. She died from her injuries. Her boyfriend, Loffredo, was injured but survived.

Abreu plead guilty to aggravated vehicular manslaughter because he was driving double the speed limit and he had a blood alcohol level of .124. The legal limit is 0.08. Abreu understood the horror he brought upon these two innocent individuals by stating, “There’s not a day that goes by that I wish I could trade my life for the victim’s. Everyday I live this. I’m going to live it for the rest of my life.”

However, his ignorant mother does not understand the dangers of drunk driving. She was quoted saying, “So my son went out and had a couple of drinks. He deserves to have a good time now and then.” Mrs. Abreu never leave your home and never open your mouth again. You lack the basic intelligence and decency to be part of a civilized society. Getting blitzed out of your mind, driving like a maniac and careening into pedestrians is not a “good time.” Alcohol impairs judgment and in your son’s case alcohol devastated his judgment.

No one has the right to a “good time” at the expense of human life.


View the original article here

Continue Reading...

November 16, 2010

New Jersey Cop Martin Abreu Going to Prison

DUI News

Martin Abreu, 26, was a Jersey City police officer. Now he is a convict and prison resident. One year ago Abreu was traveling on West Street when he drove his vehicle into pedestrians Marilyn Feng, 26, and Dennis Loffredo, 26. Feng recently graduated from New York University Law School and was her parent’s only child. She died from her injuries. Her boyfriend, Loffredo, was injured but survived.

Abreu plead guilty to aggravated vehicular manslaughter because he was driving double the speed limit and he had a blood alcohol level of .124. The legal limit is 0.08. Abreu understood the horror he brought upon these two innocent individuals by stating, “There’s not a day that goes by that I wish I could trade my life for the victim’s. Everyday I live this. I’m going to live it for the rest of my life.”

However, his ignorant mother does not understand the dangers of drunk driving. She was quoted saying, “So my son went out and had a couple of drinks. He deserves to have a good time now and then.” Mrs. Abreu never leave your home and never open your mouth again. You lack the basic intelligence and decency to be part of a civilized society. Getting blitzed out of your mind, driving like a maniac and careening into pedestrians is not a “good time.” Alcohol impairs judgment and in your son’s case alcohol devastated his judgment.

No one has the right to a “good time” at the expense of human life.


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