PA Police to be out in full force on Super Bowl Sunday

As with any other holiday, you can expect an increased presence from police on Super Bowl Sunday.  That means extra roving patrols and DUI checkpoints.

While many of us will be out and about enjoying time with our family and friends,  police will be out in full force stopping us at DUI roadblocks with no articuable and individualized probable cause. Many states have found such roadblocks to be per se unreasonable.  These “checkpoints” are becoming more and more intrusive and we have all seen the videos of some police who cross the line and abuse the tenuous grant of authority.

We know that these “checkpoints” are not efficient. They are not statistically justified. And roving patrols use least resources with more effectiveness with a better chance of getting at the true danger: impaired driving.

In our opinion and the opinion held by many, these “checkpoints” are based upon faulty interpretation of the 4th Amendment and Article I Section 8 of the Declaration of Rights (Pennsylvania State Constitution). In essence, the courts have justified that a compelling state reasons exist in insuring safe roads by the use of these totally inefficient “checkpoints.” To try to give some sort of veneer of adherence to a water-downed version of the 4th Amendment, the Courts have placed some restrictions and guidelines that police have to follow in order for them to be allowed.

The majority of arrests and charges from these checkpoints have nothing to do with drunk driving.  As the statistics reveal, it is about money. Most are non-moving violations, license issues, or warrants. The simple fact is there is a whole lot of money in DUI checkpoints.  Police departments and PennDOT and county DUI task forces get federal and state grants to set up these checkpoints. We have fallen far astray from what was perhaps the initial noble cause: get impaired drivers off the road.

As always, we encourage you to make responsible decisions.  If you are stopped at a checkpoint, it helps to know your rights.

The McShane Firm is available 24 hours a day to answer your legal questions. Call 1-866-MCSHANE now.

comments

Continue Reading...

Police must act properly during course of DUI investigation

Imagine that the police pull you over one night. You were drinking previously, but you don't think you had enough to put you over the legal limit of 0.08. The police approach your vehicle and ask you to roll down your window. When this happens, the police smell a scent of alcohol, and they begin their typical procedures for investigating someone who may by intoxicated behind the wheel of a motor vehicle.

However, in the process of their investigation, the police make a mistake that would result in the elimination of the charges against you -- but you don't know this. So the case proceeds as normal. You don't get a lawyer, and just accept your fate. 

Obviously, not getting a lawyer was one of your first mistakes. But in a broader sense, this is a miscarriage of justice. The police did something wrong, and they shouldn't be able to bring the charges against you as a result. This happens sometimes with DUI cases, and it is important for those who are accused of such offenses to realize that having a lawyer by your side makes it easier to identify the mistakes police made during the course of the investigation.

We bring all of this up in light of the president of the clothing company Sean John -- Jeff Tweedy -- was arrested on the suspicion of driving under the influence. However, the charges were later dropped for undisclosed reasons. Could it have been that a police mistake cost them the investigation?

Source: Page Six, "Sean John president's drunk driving charges dismissed," Rebecca Rosenberg, Jan. 23, 2015

Tags: Drunk Driving Charges

Continue Reading...

The Police Will Take Your House Even If You Did Nothing Wrong

A city attorney in New Mexico explains how the police can take people’s houses away, even if they didn’t commit any crime under state law:

Scary stuff. What he’s describing is known as “equitable sharing.” A state police department teams up with a federal law enforcement agency and can then seize property for a violation of federal law. Even though a state has made selling marijuana legal under state law, it’s still illegal under federal law.

What’s more concerning about the video is the flippant attitude towards seizing property of people who have only been charged with a crime.

No drugs, no problem:

In many cases, the seized property belongs to someone not involved in criminal activity. Here’s how the police departments and city attorneys get around that “snag.”

You would hope that the police and the city attorneys would take their obligation to serve the public seriously, and not let their unchecked power intoxicate them… but…

I think that says it all.

Sam began his legal career at one of the largest law firms in Florida, working directly for national insurance companies and health care conglomerates. This valuable experience gives him a definitive edge in knowing how insurers will fight against compensating you for your claim. He then moved to one of the top statewide plaintiff’s firms, gaining insight into insurance coverage and insurance bad faith matters. He joined with Brett Metcalf to begin Metcalf Harden in 2014. Sam is a member of the Florida Justice Association, the American Association for Justice, the Tampa Bay Trial Lawyers Association, and the Hillsborough County Bar Association. He is licensed to practice in all Florida state courts, as well as the federal Middle District of Florida. Sam lives in Lutz with his wife Kristin, a Tampa native, and son Robbie.

Read all posts by Sam Harden

Continue Reading...

San Francisco DUI Attorney on constitutionality of police stops

Posted by Paul Burglin on Mon, May 12, 2014

Whether the police lawfully stopped you by reason of a reported complaint to the police about your manner of driving depends on what the United States Supreme Court refers to as “the totality of circumstances.” Last month, the high court reviewed the trial court record of a vehicle enforcement stop in Berkeley, California, in a case called Navarette v. California. 

     In this particular case, the enforcement stop was deemed constitutional based on the following facts:

•   Use of 911 system (suggestive that caller was not concerned about the report being traced back to him);

•   Detailed description of driving which was consistent with the driving of an impaired motorist (i.e., it was more than just a conclusory statement that the suspect was a drunk driver---it specifically described a reckless manner of driving);

•   Detailed description of car (the vehicle style and license plate number were provided)

•   Description of location and direction of the vehicle was given;

•   Contemporaneous report (i.e., it just happened)

     Because the Navarette Court in this 5-4 decision agreed that these facts amounted to "a close call" in terms of upholding the warrantless stop, any set of facts that amount to something less than the aforementioned circumstances is subject to the suppression of evidence with a California Penal Code section 1538.5 motion.

     Thus, if you were stopped for no reason other than somebody having reported you or your car to the police as a drunk driver, it may be possible with the assistance of knowledgeable defense counsel to have the evidence against you (e.g., field sobriety tests and chemical test evidence) thrown out of court and the charges against you dismissed.  This remedy is mandated by the federal exclusionary rule to deter police from violating the Fourth Amendment.

     If you were you stopped by the police we can review the report and any audio and video tape in the case and determine if the stop was constitutional.  I am a Board Certified DUI defense lawyer and ready to defend you---call me today.    

Continue Reading...

Can Police in California take Forced DUI Blood Draws?

You are driving home from drinks with friends when you are stopped by the police. After you fail field sobriety tests, the officer asks you to agree to a breath test to measure your blood alcohol concentration (BAC). You decline.

You are placed under arrest and taken to a nearby hospital. The officer asks you to agree to a blood test, telling you that in California, refusal to submit to a chemical blood or breath test can result in the automatic loss of your driver’s license for a minimum of one (1) year.

You again say no.

Can the officer order a lab technician to take your blood without your consent? Can the police literally strap you down and forcefully take a blood draw?

Not without a warrant, the United States Supreme Court held in Missouri v. McNeely, unless there are specific exigencies that make obtaining a warrant impractical.

Otherwise, taking the blood of someone suspected of a DUI, without a warrant, may constitute a violation of that person’s Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures.

The warrant requirement is subject to exceptions, the court noted. One well-recognized exception is when the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

But just because motorists have a diminished expectation of privacy in their cars, the court said, that does not diminish their privacy interest in preventing a government agent from piercing their skin. In routine DUI cases, police may need to seek a warrant.

In the case before the court, the defendant had been stopped by a Missouri police officer for speeding and crossing the center line. The officer noticed several signs that the defendant was intoxicated, including bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and the smell of alcohol on his breath.

The defendant declined to take a breath test to measure his BAC. He was arrested and taken to a hospital for blood testing, which he also refused.

The officer did not attempt to get a warrant, but directed a lab technician to take his blood anyway. The test showed that defendant’s BAC was well above the legal limit and the defendant was charged with driving while intoxicated in violation of Missouri statute 577.010.

The percentage of alcohol in an individual’s blood typically decreases by approximately 0.015 percent to 0.02 percent per hour once the alcohol has been fully absorbed, testimony in the case established.

The state of Missouri argued that because BAC dissipates so quickly, there are inherently “exigent circumstances” whenever an officer has probable cause to believe that a person has been driving under the influence.

But the justices disagreed, saying that the mere fact that BAC dissipates quickly does not, in and of itself, constitute exigent circumstances that justify an exception to the warrant requirement for nonconsensual blood testing in drunk-driving investigations.

In some situations, the justices acknowledged, exigent circumstances may exist because obtaining a warrant may be impractical.

But in other situations, the warrant process will not significantly increase the delay before the blood test is conducted. As an example, the justices cited a situation in which an officer could take steps to secure a warrant while the suspect is being transported to a medical facility by another officer.

In such a case, they said, there would be no plausible justification for an exception to the warrant requirement.

In short, the court concluded, while the natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood may support a finding of exigency in a specific case, it does not do so categorically. Whether a warrantless blood test of a drunk-driving suspect is reasonable must be determined case by case based on the totality of the circumstances.

The case is Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U. S. ____ (2013).

Continue Reading...

What the police don't want you to know about Miranda Rights

DetailsCategory: DUI Blog

By Jessica Towne

Miranda rights are back in the news. The New York Times Science Section under "Well" on October 14, 2014 had an eye-opening article on juveniles and police interrogators. Researchers determined that the brains of adolescents are different than adult brains, and teens don't necessarily understand the implications of telling the police what their involvement in a crime may or may not have been.

It's not just juveniles who quickly waive their Miranda rights.

These are very important rights that many of us have heard on TV, in the movies, and perhaps live and in person.

To simplify the decision that gave us our Miranda rights in 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court held that without proper safeguards, the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual's will to resist and compel him to speak where he would otherwise not do so freely. Therefore, a defendant must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.

In other words, even our Supreme Court recognizes that the cards are stacked in favor of the police. Someone who's being questioned doesn't know the criminal laws and procedures like the police do, just like the police don't know how to do your job. It's only fair that the police tell you before they question you that the entire purpose of this question-and-answer session is to gather evidence to prosecute you and put you in jail.

Continue Reading...

Man Allegedly Passes Out at Drive Through and Then Tries to Order Food From Police

Normally a DUI stop involves the police pulling over a driver who is swerving, weaving, or driving in some way that suggests the driver might be under the influence. In some cases, civilians will call the police when they are concerned that someone is driving drunk.

According to a recent news article from the News Tribune, workers at a fast food restaurant called the police after a man who appeared to be drunk came up to the drive through window and passed out. The man must have woken up at some point, because police arrived to find his car straddling two parking spaces designated for disabled persons.

When the officers approached the man’s car, the backup lights turned on, and the car started moving. The officer moved out of the way to avoid a collision and approached the car on foot. Officers alleged that they saw the man throw his car keys into the back seat. When they attempted to speak to him, he allegedly tried to order food from the police.

The driver, who is 23 years old, said that he did not trust police and asked to speak with an attorney. He supposedly spoke with a public defender and then agreed to take a breath test, where it was determined that his blood-alcohol content (BAC) was approximately .18 which is more than twice the legal limit of .08 grams per 100 milliliters of blood.

A public defender on the phone told the police that the suspect wanted a blood test from an independent lab. The officers asked if he still wanted this, and he supposedly told the officer that he did not and would rather have a glass of water. He was then charged with driving under the influence (DUI) alcohol.

As our Birmingham DUI attorneys can explain, the observation that the officers claim to have made, where they saw the man throw his keys into the back seat, is often important in cases where the police find a sleeping driver. Drunk driving essentially has two elements. The police prove that the suspect was intoxicated and that the suspect was driving.

When the officers don’t witness the suspect driving, the officers will try to use other evidence to establish that the alleged drunk driver recently drove the car. Throwing the keys into the backseat can demonstrate what they call the exercise of dominion and control over the vehicle.

This can be a significant issue where the police arrested a person who knew he or she was too drunk to drive and decided to the right thing and sleep in the car rather than driving. The problem is that if an officer finds a person sleeping in the car, the officer will claim they are doing a wellness check and ask the person why they are sleeping in the car. The officer will then allege that the person was operating the car and place him or her under arrest for driving under the influence, even if the suspect had no intention of driving anywhere.

Additional Resources:

Police Beat: A drive-thru DUI, a meat cleaver, and an interrupted weed party, October 11, 2014,News Tribune

More Blog Entries:

Interlock Ignition Law Goes Into Effect: But Do They Work? August 3, 2014, Birmingham Underage DUI Defense Lawyer Blog

Continue Reading...

New Jersey man accused of DWI after police chase

Police in New Jersey accused a man of driving while drunk, leading officers on a chase and several moving violations on Nov. 3. Officers in Garwood took the Roselle man into custody on charges of DWI, eluding an officer and other offenses.

A sergeant from the Garwood Police Department said that he saw a grey Nissan traveling on North Avenue attempt to turn onto Center Street. The driver of that car reportedly entered the northbound lanes traveling south and then re-entered North Avenue at a high rate of speed. The officer attempted to stop the driver after witnessing the car swerving, but the driver allegedly failed to comply.

The Nissan stopped in the 200 block of Second Avenue. Officers removed and handcuffed the four occupants from the vehicle. The car's three passengers were released after police concluded that the presumed driver, the Roselle man, was intoxicated.

Police took the accused driver into custody and booked him at Garwood Police headquarters. Officers released him after he posted bond, which had been set at $25,000.

Field sobriety tests are often admitted into evidence in court to substantiate DWI charges. However, these tests are often unreliable, and officers may read certain symptoms as confirmation of intoxication when they could be the result anxiety or certain medical conditions such as speech problems or mobility issues like poor balance.

People accused of DWI, particularly when it is added to another charge, may expect long sentences in jail, high fines and other penalties. DWI defense attorneys may move to dismiss evidence such as unreliable field sobriety tests, which may result in prosecutors agreeing to lesser charges.

Source: NJ.com, "Roselle man charged with DWI by Garwood Police following chase", Barbara Rybolt, November 14, 2014

Tags: DWI charges, fines, penalties

Continue Reading...

When Police Do Bad Things During Los Angeles DUI Stops – Like Shoot Dogs

LAPD officers engage in the dangerous work of patrolling our streets and stopping drivers suspected of Los Angeles DUI and other crimes. Without these courageous men and women, it is absolutely true that our surface streets and freeways would be more dangerous and more people would die and get hurt.

We applaud these efforts.

But we also want to make sure that patrol officers obey the law and respect the rights of suspected DUI drivers. So what restrictions on officer behaviors are appropriate and required? And when can officers effectively break standard procedure?

A sad but compelling case out of Mesa County, Colorado speaks to these two questions.

According to AP reports, a sheriff’s deputy near Grand Junction Colorado shot and killed a dog that allegedly attacked him while he was struggling with a DUI suspect. Reports say that police responded to an emergency call at a grocery store last Monday night. A man allegedly had been driving all over the road. When police arrived, the suspect ran away, and his shepherd mix dog jumped onto the deputy and bit him on the upper thigh. The deputy instinctively shot the dog and killed it.

According to the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, the suspect, Joseph McMillan, said that his dog had not been vaccinated for things like rabies, so now local animal services is submitting the dog’s body for tests for rabies.

In this case, at least according to reports, what the officer did sounds completely appropriate.

Although officers generally do not like to brandish their weapons against dogs or people, they do deserve and need the right to protect themselves (and victims) from harm caused by wild, erratic and dangerous people and animals.

Some cases, however, are ambiguous.

For instance, the shootings in Ferguson, Missouri this summer catalyzed intense and divisive debate over the use of police force in emergency situations. And we have covered many instances in which police officers have said or done things that are either inappropriate or downright ridiculous/Unconstitutional after DUI stops.

What should you do if you suspect that police behaved inappropriately (or even Unconstitutionally) during your DUI stop, tests or arrest?

The short answer is: take action by getting in touch with a qualified Los Angeles DUI lawyer as quickly as possible. Call attorney Michael Kraut and leverage his knowledge to obtain the results you need.

Have you been arrested for a DUI in Los Angeles? If so, please contact DUI defense attorney Michael Kraut at (323) 464-6453 or online. Our building is located at 6255 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1480, Los Angeles, California 90028.

Continue Reading...

What you must know before you talk to the police

DetailsCategory: DUI Blog

By Jessica Towne

So, you've been arrested, say for something simple, like DUI. You've been read the Miranda warning and you feel that you know what is going on. I'd suggest you call your lawyer before you talk. Because you probably don't know the police don't have to follow the same rules that everyone else does. For instance:

5 scary things about police interviews

1. The police interrogators are allowed to lie to you.
They can make stuff up, like "we have you on camera" or "an eyewitness described you to us" or "your buddy is next door telling us that you planned this together" even if there is no video, no eyewitness and your buddy has exercised his right to remain silent (or is off at grandma's house in Florida). No judge is going to rule that your confession is inadmissible because the police lied. The jurors don't care that the police lied, and even though the judge will instruct the jury that what the police say in the recording is not evidence, the jury may consider the police statements. We just don't know.

2. The police cannot make any promises. The police have no influence with the prosecutor. If the only reason you answer questions is that the police say you can have a cigarette, or a Coke, or go to the bathroom, those are not promises that will make any statement inadmissible in court. The police officer doesn't "know the judge" or have any influence over a possible sentence or how the prosecutor will draw up charges. If the officer does make a promise, your statement may be inadmissible, but the police know where the line is drawn, and they dance right up to it.

3. Police interrogations do not have to be video or audio recorded. Law enforcement guidelines and standard operating procedures are not law. There is no requirement anywhere that your interrogation be recorded. Yeah, that's a two-way mirror, and yes, that hole in the wall has a camera, but don't assume that the recording equipment works.

4. The police interrogator is checking with his supervisor before ending your questioning. He or she is not just merely stretching his legs, or going out for a smoke. Someone is making sure you've told them everything they didn't already know so that a conviction is all but certain.

5. It's never to late to stop talking. You can stop answering questions any time you want to. Let's say it's late, you're sleepy, you forgot that you're not required to answer anything at all. Suddenly, you remember that you should remain silent. Even if you've been answering questions for the past half-hour or more, you can say "I'm not going to say anything else. I want an attorney."

Continue Reading...

DUI, DWI case of Fruitland Police Chief Michael Phillips set for Monday in Princess Anne.

The impaired driving case of Fruitland Police Chief Michael Phillips will go to trial Monday, said defense attorney John Phoebus.
"We're looking forward to our day in court," Phoebus said Wednesday.
Phillips, 48, of Salisbury faces charges of driving while under the influence of alcohol and driving while impaired by alcohol, along with a charge of following vehicle too closely.
A Somerset County sheriff's deputy stopped Phillips' personal vehicle at about 10:25 p.m. June 29 on northbound Route 13 at Somerset Avenue outside Princess Anne, online court records state.
Phillips' trial is scheduled for 9 a.m. Monday. The case is in District Court in Princess Anne, which means it will be a judge trial –– not a jury trial.
A special prosecutor has been assigned to the case: Jonathan Naylor, traffic safety resource prosecutor with the Maryland State's Attorneys Association in Ellicott City. A petition to appoint special counsel from Somerset County Deputy State's Attorney Edmund Widdowson was made since Phillips is Fruitland's police chief and a retired Maryland State Police trooper who worked in Somerset County.
Naylor said Thursday he would not be able to speak about facts of the case prior to a trial.
Phoebus wrote in a statement June 30 that Phillips asked to be placed on paid administrative leave until the case is resolved, and the Fruitland City Council agreed. He wrote this wasn't an admission of guilt by Phillips, but what would be standard procedure for any Fruitland officer.
Fruitland City Manager John Psota wrote in an emailed statement July 1 there would not be an interim chief taking Phillips' place during the paid administrative leave.
Phoebus said Wednesday that he was not in a position to say whether Phillips would or would not testify at the trial.

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...

Commonwealth's attorney bonds out of jail following arrested for DUI

Virginia Peninsula Regional Jail said that Surry County Commonwealth's Attorney Gerald Poindexter bonded out of jail late Saturday or early Sunday, following his arrest for Driving Under the Influence.
James City County police officers took Poindexter into custody at the Jamestown Ferry Dock shortly after 3:30 p.m. Saturday. Ferry officials called them to report a minor car crash involving an intoxicated driver.
Police said that driver was 73-year-old Poindexter and that he hit a curb while getting on the ferry on the Surry County side of the James River.
Ferry attendants tried to stop him from continuing to board, but told officers Poindexter drove onto the ferry and hit another vehicle, causing minor damage.
Officials suspected Poindexter was under the influence of alcohol.
Besides facing a DUI charge, Poindexter faces a charge for No Driver's License in Possession.
He was being held on a $2,500 unsecured bond before his release.

Continue Reading...

Connecticut State Police report 665 accidents, 25 DUI arrests during holiday enforcement

Connecticut State Police say they've responded to 665 car crashes and arrested 25 people for driving under the influence during beefed-up enforcement during the Thanksgiving holiday period.
Extra patrols began early Tuesday morning and will continue through Sunday night.
Troopers say 88 accidents involved injuries and one person died. Police say 29-year-old Luis Contreras of Norwalk was killed Tuesday when his car crashed on Route 7 in Norwalk. The cause of the accident is under investigation.
State police say they're targeting drunken drivers and aggressive drivers.
Troopers say they've issued nearly 890 speeding tickets and nearly 300 tickets for failure to wear seat belts. They've also cited nearly 2,600 drivers for hazardous moving violations including tailgating and illegal cell phone use while driving.

Continue Reading...

California police looking for men posing as officers

FRESNO, Calif. --

There is a warning from police in California, as they are looking for two men impersonating law enforcement.

Investigators say they are very concerned about finding and stopping the fake officers. They say a Fresno man was approached in his car, while at an intersection, by a man shining a flashlight in his eyes early Sunday morning.

Authorities say two fake officers ended up allegedly robbing the man.

"He believed they were cops," said Lt. Joe Gomez, spokesman for Fresno police. "He never thought twice of it."

Police say the victim left a bar in Central Fresno around 1 a.m. and later admitted he was drinking and driving when the two suspects approached him about three miles away.

"As he's making a turn there at that intersection he sees a car pull up next to him," Lt. Gomez said. "He describes it as a gray sedan, similar to a police car."

While stopped there, police say the suspects reportedly sounded very much like officers. They told the victim they smelled alcohol on his breath and wanted to see his wallet. Police say the victim never saw weapons or badges, but the suspects had on what looked like green law enforcement vests.

"So he believed they were working undercover for the sheriff's department, and their car matched that, too," Gomez said. "So he thought nothing of this. He thought he got a break on the DUI."

The sheriff's department had no one working there that night, FPD said. Investigators added there were no Fresno police officers in the area either.

The victim left his car locked up at the scene, convinced the so-called officers let him off the DUI charge with a warning.

The next morning, he told authorities he noticed $300 missing from his wallet.

Being careful of suspicious stops, police say, is OK.

"If you believe it's suspicious, drive to a well-lit area, convenience store is good, if you're close to a police department or sub-station that'd be excellent, but where people are," Lt. Gomez said.

Police say the victim is brave for stepping forward. The only decent description they have of these suspects is one man was Hispanic with a medium build, in his 20s with heavy acne.

Continue Reading...

Police ramp up DUI enforcement during holiday season

PHOENIX (KSAZ) - The Governor's Office of Highway Safety is working to make sure people stay safe this holiday season.

Governor-elect Doug Ducey and law enforcement leaders from around the state kicked off this year's "Holiday DUI enforcement" and "Sober designated driver" campaigns.

Extra officers and deputies will be out most nights through the end of the year cracking down on impaired driving.

Police will also be ensuring motorists are driving safe by using seatbelts

In 2013, officers made 14,284 DUI arrests; of those 1,693 were for aggravated DUI, an additional 3,726 arrests were made for extreme DUI.

Continue Reading...

Police On the Lookout for DUI's On the July 4th Holiday

The July 4th holiday is a time for many to barbeque, light fireworks, and to spend time with their family and friends. However, the July 4th holiday tends to be one of the heaviest days of the year for DUI arrests.

As a result the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) will be ramping up DUI sobriety checkpoints and DUI saturation patrols for the July 4th holiday period.

Here are the latest Los Angeles DUI sobriety checkpoints that are scheduled for this week and into the weekend. For more information, you can contact the local law enforcement agency a couple of hours before the reported time to learn the exact locations of some of the more general posts.

Wednesday 7/4
The LAPD will conduct a saturation patrol from noon to 8 p.m. in the Harbor patrol area.

The California Highway Patrol (CHP) will also conduct saturation patrols in the South Los Angeles patrol area, Baldwin Park patrol area, and the Alta Dena patrol area.

Thursday 7/5
The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD) will conduct a DUI sobriety checkpoint in Norwalk patrol area.

From 7 p.m. July 5 to 3 a.m. July 6, the LAPD will conduct a DUI sobriety checkpoint in the Olympic patrol area at Vermont Ave. and Sixth St.

Friday 7/6
From 7 p.m. July 6 to 3 a.m. July 7, the LAPD will conduct a DUI sobriety checkpoint in the Southeast patrol area at Rosecrans Ave. and Menlo Ave.

From 7 p.m. July 6 to 3 a.m. July 7, sobriety checkpoints will be operated in the Pacific patrol area at Lincoln Boulevard and Maxella Avenue.

Saturday 7/7
LAPD will operate sobriety checkpoints from 7 p.m. July 7 to 3 a.m. July 8 in the Foothill patrol area at Laurel Canyon Boulevard and Paxton Street.

LAPD will operate sobriety checkpoints from 7 p.m. July 7 to 3 a.m. July 8 in the Mission patrol area, at Roscoe Boulevard and Noble Avenue.

Sunday 7/8
A DUI saturation patrol will be conducted by LAPD from noon to 8 p.m. in the Rampart patrol area.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Bay Area Police Reconsider Controversial DUI Arrest Procedure

By guest-writer

A traffic court judge near San Francisco ruled last week that Pinellas County police officers cannot perform a key DUI test off camera, according to a recent report from Bay News 9.

During DUI stops, police officers in Pinellas County keep onboard cameras rolling during the entire arrest process, with one key exception.

Sources say that the officers do not film an important roadside test called the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus, which is also known as HGN and is considered the most important roadside test to determine a driver’s sobriety.

During this test, officers look at a driver’s eyes to determine whether he or she is drunk. If the drivers are inebriated, their eyes will jerk from side to side during the test. But this test is the only part of a DUI arrest that isn’t filmed.

Last week, a judge ruled that this practice was unlawful after hearing a complaint from Christopher Hastings, who was arrested for a DUI last year and challenged the legality of the arresting officer’s decision to make him perform the HGN test off camera.

At trial, the state prosecutor asked the arresting officer why he chose to perform the test off camera, and the officer claimed he was just abiding by the police department’s policy. This statement proved true, as the police department does ask officers to keep the HGN tests off video.

This practice, however, was attacked by the defendant’s DUI attorney, who claimed that the policy was intentionally implemented to exclude evidence from trial. The DUI attorney also claimed that the policy was “crazy and archaic.”

The judge sympathized with this perspective, and ruled that it is unfair for the police department to exclude proof of the HGN test from trial but still go to court and testify about the results of the test.

As a result, the prosecutor cannot use the results of the HGN test to convict Hastings. Of course, Hastings allegedly had a blood alcohol content of 0.16 at the time of his arrest, so he still faces a tough battle in court.

But Hastings and his attorney may have stumbled into a watershed moment for DUI laws in California, despite skepticism from some law enforcement officials.

Some observers claim that filming the HGN test will not show a person’s eyeballs moving back and forth, but supporters of the new rule claim that the video can show if police violate procedures during the test. This, perhaps, would be the most important benefit of filming the HGN process.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Police Issue Arrest for Tulsa Man who Left Wife at Scene of DUI Crash

By guest-writer

The Oklahoma Highway Patrol has issued a warrant for the arrest of a man who allegedly crashed his car while driving drunk and left his severely injured wife at the scene, according to a shocking report from Oklahoma’s News on 6.

Sources say that Jerry Arthurs is wanted by state police for leaving the scene of a DUI accident in which his wife was paralyzed from the neck down.

The crash occurred on New Year’s Eve in Tulsa, Oklahoma, when Arthurs was reportedly driving while intoxicated down a dark country road when he smashed his vehicle into a tree on the side of the road.

Neither Arthurs nor his wife was wearing a seatbelt at the time of the accident, but Arthurs’ wife, who is the mother to the couple’s 6-month-old son, clearly suffered the brunt of the force of the impact.

After the accident, Arthurs reportedly called some friends to come and retrieve him while he left his wife suffering in the passenger seat. Police later discovered his wife, who spent 33 days in the hospital recovering from her injuries.

At first, doctors feared that she would be a quadriplegic because she could only feel sensation above her neck. However, after four months of rest and rehabilitation, she can reportedly use her arms and hands, and is regaining some movement in her legs.

According to Chiane Arthurs, the victim of the crash, “I can walk with a walker, not by myself, I have to have assistance. But I can take steps and stuff.”

Of course, the injury and her husband’s incredible actions have left emotional scars. In her words, “you cannot imagine the struggle and emotional and physical pain and everything that comes with an injury like this. It completely turns your life upside down.”

Fortunately, though, the woman is recovering, and she says her son was her primary motivation to regain her strength. Not surprisingly, she has filed for divorce from her fugitive husband.

For his action, Arthurs has been charged with ten separate crimes, including leaving the scene of an injury accident, driving drunk and causing great bodily injury, failing to render assistance at the scene of an accident, and failing to report a personal injury accident.

When Arthurs is finally caught, he will likely face a sentence that is far more serious than what he would have faced if he hadn’t fled the scene of the accident.

According to a spokesman for the Oklahoma Highway Patrol, Arthurs is a “fugitive on the run, and we’ll spare no expense finding this person.”

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Los Angeles Police Department to Increase DUI Checkpoints for Cinco de Mayo Holiday

For many, Cinco de Mayo is a time to gather with coworkers, friends, and family for margaritas and to celebrate an important cultural holiday.

However, law enforcement agencies are beefing up DUI saturation patrols and California DUI sobriety checkpoints to stop, test, and arrest drivers they suspect of being under the influence.

Here are the latest Los Angeles DUI sobriety checkpoints that are scheduled for this weekend. For more information, you can contact the local law enforcement agency a couple of hours before the reported time to learn the exact locations of some of the more general posts.

Thursday 5/3
The Los Angeles Police Department will conduct saturation patrols in Van Nuys from 6pm Thursday night to 2am Friday morning.

Friday 5/4/12
Sobriety checkpoints will be operated at the intersections of Vermont and Sixth Street and at Hollywood Blvd. and Gower St. from 7 pm Friday to 3am Saturday.

Saturday 5/5/12
LAPD will operate sobriety checkpoints at the intersections of Cahuenga Blvd. and Northlawn Drive in North Hollywood from 7pm Saturday to 3am Sunday.

The California State University, Northridge Police Department will conduct a sobriety checkpoint beginning at 9pm Saturday to 3am Sunday at an intersection near the CSUN campus.

Sunday 5/6/12
DUI saturation patrol will be conducted in 77th Street area from 12pm to 8pm.

Sobriety checkpoints will be operated at the intersection of Imperial Highway and Main Street in Southwest area from 7pm Sunday to 3am Monday.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...