Top 10 Dumb Mistakes Made by People Under the Influence of Alcohol

A recent post on our Los Angeles DUI blog, we spoke about how alcohol affects the brain’s ability to care about mistakes. There’s never a shortage of news to justify that finding. Here are ten of the dumbest mistakes people have made while intoxicated:

1.    A drunk man in Florida caused a scene and repeatedly called 911 after being told he was not allowed to bring his kitten into a strip club. He was arrested for misuse of 911 and public intoxication.

2.    An intoxicated Louisiana man rode his horse into a bar and lassoed a patron, attempting to drag him into the parking lot.

3.    Police arrested an inebriated man in Pennsylvania after catching him trying to resuscitate a dead opossum on the side of the highway.

4.    Police arrested a man in Cincinnati after he drank too much alcohol, streaked nude though his yard, and somehow ended up in his neighbor’s dryer.

5.    Police confronted a visibly intoxicated Floridian man for firing off guns on a public beach dock. During the conversation with the deputy, the man pooped his pants. He was arrested for use of a firearm while intoxicated.

6.    A North Carolina man was arrested for drunkenly riding a bicycle while wielding a chainsaw.

7.    A drunk Toronto man had to be rescued from his neighbor’s chimney. He climbed in, trying to enter the home, but got stuck and spent 5 hours in the freezing cold.

8.    A man was arrested for public intoxication in Minnesota when he tried to make a phone call with a $20 bill, convinced it was his phone.

9.    An intoxicated Canadian man was arrested at a Christmas parade for screaming to little kids that Santa isn’t real.

10.    An intoxicated man in Minneapolis was arrested for breaking into a home and destroying a toilet, causing almost $2,000 in damage. He was charged with burglary.

Respond strategically to your arrest and charges by calling a former Senior Deputy D.A. and highly successful Los Angeles DUI defense attorney with the Kraut Law Group today for a complimentary consultation.

Have you been stopped for DUI in Los Angeles, contact attorney Michael Kraut at (323) 464-6453 or online. Our team is located at 6255 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1480, Los Angeles, California 90028.

Continue Reading...

Research Suggests an Intriguing Reason for Why People Do Stupid Things While DUI in Los Angeles and Elsewhere

One of our recent blog posts covered some strange Los Angeles DUI stories, and today’s tale isn’t any less bizarre. On February 17th, an Australian man presented at a local hospital with a deep chainsaw wound that he had allegedly caused himself.

After accidentally cutting his hand with a chainsaw, Timothy Woodrow stitched the wound at home and doused it in gin before taking a few swigs for the pain. He attempted to drive himself to the hospital while intoxicated. Police pulled him over for neglecting to stop at a stop sign. When they tested Woodrow’s BAC, they found he was significantly over the legal limit and arrested him.

Alcohol and Judgment

What makes strange errors of judgment so frequent with DUI cases?

New research into alcohol’s effect on the brain indicates that the same reaction that causes impaired judgment is also responsible for slowing the brain’s “alarm signal” response. This response alerts other parts of the brain that something is wrong.

Researchers measured participants’ moods, perception, and accuracy while performing computer tasks under the influence. Results showed that the affected participants made little effort to correct or avoid errors. The researchers found that alcohol’s influence on the brain doesn’t actually reduce its ability to recognize mistakes, but instead affects the ability to care about them. Participants in the study simply didn’t feel bothered by the mistakes they knew they were making.

Perhaps this is why people sometimes find themselves apologizing to friends the morning after a night of drinking. This may give some insight into why people insist on driving when they know they’ve had too much to drink. An individual may recognize that driving would be a mistake, but he or she feels confident that “everything will be fine” and gets behind the wheel anyway.

If you made a mistake, and police arrested you for a DUI, seek experienced counsel to respond to your charges. Call a qualified Los Angeles DUI lawyer with the Kraut Law Group today to schedule a free consultation.

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

Continue Reading...

Authority and Alcohol: People in High Positions Can Get Los Angeles DUIs, Too

Although stories about celebrities facing Los Angeles DUI charges are reported every day, average citizens often act surprised when people in authority face similar charges. The attorneys at the Kraut Law Group have seen plenty of people in positions of authority deal with DUI charges and want to set the record straight on the prevalence of this problem.

Oklahoma Senator Charged

Republican senator Bryce Marlatt was recently charged with a subcategory of DUI known as actual physical control, or APC. APC indicates the vehicle was actually moving when the suspect was pulled over for the DUI. Woodward, OK, police found Marlatt asleep in his moving car. When asked how many beers he had, Marlatt replied, “None – I had what you call a bourbon and Coke.” He also said he had consumed “no more than anybody else” when asked further about his alcohol consumption.

Senator Marlatt’s attorney claims that Marlatt had been having sleep problems and that he took a prescription sleep aid before getting behind the wheel last Monday night. He had imbibed a mixed drink and had been concerned about the effects of the mixture, so allegedly pulled over to sleep off the aid and the alcohol. However, the charges of APC indicate Marlatt’s vehicle may have been moving without his knowledge.

Auto President Faces DUI

Another authority figure recently charged with a DUI is Robert Butler, president of the Butler Automotive Group in Indianapolis. Allegedly, Butler had been driving DUI on Interstate 465 and hit a vehicle parked on the emergency shoulder. The accident caused “serious leg injuries” to 25-year-old Latin McKinney, according to The Indy Channel. McKinney and his sister had apparently been trying to jump-start McKinney’s stalled car on the emergency shoulder.

Butler admitted he had four glasses of wine while watching a ball game in downtown Indianapolis before getting on the interstate. Police measured his blood alcohol level at twice the legal limit. However, Butler pleaded not guilty to DUI charges even after admitting he’d been drinking.

Designing and executing an effective defense against DUI charges (even simple ones) is not intuitive. Fortunately, you can trust the seasoned, highly successful Michael Kraut. Call a DUI lawyer in Los Angeles with nearly two decades of experience.

Call attorney Michael Kraut at (323) 464-6453 for help if you’ve been stopped for DUI in Los Angeles. Or Contact our team online. We’re located at 6255 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1480, Los Angeles, California 90028.

Continue Reading...

In People v. Tom, the Supreme Court of California Extends Salinas v. Texas to Allow Post-Arrest, Pre-Miranda Silence to be Consciousness of Guilt, part 3.

In the first blog post the Salinas v. Texas decision and "consciousness of guilt" was discussed. In the second blog post, the facts of the People v. Tom case were discussed, and the prosecutor's arguments.

In this blog post we will discuss the reasoning behind the majority decision. This was a difficult post to write, because I do not support the majority decision's logic. DUIs often involve people that were never expected to be in the criminal justice system. When they are, it often involves an education into how criminal law works, as well as what law enforcement can and can not do. The Bill of Rights (the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution) are supposed to be intuitive- just like those magical words by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, "we hold these truths to be self-evident."

But people do not understand their rights- as written about , we are becoming a two class society- those that know their rights, and those that do not. The decision in People v. Tom leads us further down unfortunate road and the reasoning is less intuitive than what triggers Miranda rights. Who will know that an arrestee needs to speak up, and speak up the right way, in order to exercise their right not to incriminate themselves?

How can the California Supreme Court punish an arrestee (still not guilty) for keeping quiet? They approach the decision from the point of view of the State, and law enforcement. While Constitutional rights belong to the individual, the People, represented by prosecutors and law enforcement, have rights too. Specifically, the People have the right to "everyone's testimony." There are only exceptions to the People's right to testimony, and one of those exceptions is the Fifth Amendment for a citizen not to incriminate himself.

As previously discussed, the Fifth Amendment is not the popularly conceived "Right to Remain Silent"- only not to incriminate oneself. The primary interest protected is against a false confession, which is protected by the right to have counsel present during questioning, and Miranda rights when a suspect is questioned in custody. The two work in tandem- Miranda informs the individual of his rights to ensure that any further questioning (or confessions) are voluntary. Part of Miranda is to insure that the arrestee knows his right to counsel and to remain silent.

The California Supreme Court quotes the U.S. Supreme Court in People v. Salinas that "[t]he privilege against self-incrimination 'is an exception to the general principle that the Government has the right to everyone's testimony.' This puts law enforcement on notice that the silence is on purpose, and not being done to think of a good lie, because they are overwhelmed with guilt, or some other nefarious reason.

Also, when someone else exercises their right not to incriminate themselves, law enforcement has the option to make a deal, or to question the individual about something else. For instance, John Smith will not answer questions about where he got the car stereo, but if he is offered immunity for his role, perhaps he will testify about theft ring he is a member of.

From the Supreme Court decision, Salinas v. Texas, the California Supreme Court considers that while out of custody Salinas' silence was used against him, and that if he wanted to remain silent for constitutional protection purposes he would clearly and unambiguously communicate it. From there, it is only a small step to allow Tom's silence, in custody but prior to being Mirandized, as fair game for the People in there case in chief.

The People, after all, are entitled to everyone's testimony, even if that testimony is silence.

In the last and final blog entry in this series, we will discuss the dissent of Justice Liu, who expertly discusses the logical and intuitive problems with the Tom decision.

Continue Reading...