Will stronger penalties for DUI really reduce drunk driving?

A DWI task force in the state of Minnesota wants lawmakers to increase the penalties on people who are accused of committing a driving while intoxicated offense, and they also want to lower the threshold at which police and prosecutors can file stronger charges against an accused DWI offender -- even if it is just the individual's first offense.

While these suggestions may not necessarily become law, the mere fact that they are being thrown out there is both expected and also a little scary. The hope, from the task force's perspective, is that these suggestions become law and, thus, fewer people will be out on the road driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. With stronger penalties, who would want to be caught behind the wheel of a motor vehicle while inebriated?

But this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how someone who is intoxicated thinks. When you are inebriated, you aren't thinking clearly. If your car is nearby, you aren't thinking about the penalties associated with a DWI, nor are you considering the task force's push to get stronger penalties. The individual in this situation is just trying to drive home -- an admittedly terrible decision, but one influenced by the substance in his or her body.

Stronger penalties may make it seem like "something is being done" about drunk driving, but the truth is that drunk driving will always be a societal issue. We need to take alcohol abuse and drinking problems more seriously in this country. Throwing added punishment at a DWI offender will only make it more difficult for that person to turn his or her life around in the wake of the charge -- and that could lead them to drinking again.

Source: Star Tribune, "Task force wants Minn. lawmakers to get tough on DWI offenders," Abby Simons, Jan. 2, 2015

Tags: Drunk Driving Charges

Continue Reading...

How DUI field tests really work

DetailsCategory: DUI Blog

By Jessica Towne

Miranda warnings don't apply at the side of the road. The police do NOT have to read you the Miranda warning until you are in custody. When the police are talking to you at a traffic stop, they are gathering the evidence they need to determine if you can be arrested for DUI. They can, and will, ask you all kinds of questions during this process. Since you are not "in custody," they do not read the Miranda warning to you before they start asking you questions.

Officer Friendly knows how to make general statements designed to have you offer evidence in the spirit of cooperation. Thus you are not being questioned when Officer Friendly says "I'd like you to do these field sobriety tests to see if you're safe to drive." What he means is:

"I smell alcohol, but before I arrest you for DUI, I need more evidence.Will you admit that you've been drinking?Will you try these tests that have no correlation to driving that are designed for failure so I can capture you looking ridiculous on a camera that may or may not be working? Then, I'll have enough evidence to convict you of DUI."

Don't play along. Don't talk to Officer Friendly. Unless you really want to incriminate yourself.

What will the officer do when you refuse? He has a few choices.

Continue Reading...

How Bad Can a Bad Lawyer Really Be?

No matter how many times it’s said,  some people still don’t understand how bad a bad lawyer can really be.  The Innocence Project list bad lawyering as one of the leading causes to false convictions.  Here is an excerpt from on of the profiles highlighting this issue:

The exoneration and release of Jimmy Ray Bromgard from Montana prison provides a sobering view of the effects of inadequate or incompetent counsel. Bromgard, arrested when he was 18, spent 15 years in prison for the brutal rape of an eight-year-old girl, a crime post-conviction DNA testing proved he did not commit. Bromgard’s trial attorney performed no investigation, filed no pre-trial motions, gave no opening statement, did not prepare for closing arguments, failed to file an appeal, and provided no expert to refute the fraudulent testimony of the state’s hair microscopy expert. Other than the forensic testimony and the tentative identification, there was no evidence against Bromgard.

There is certainly quite a difference between Homer Simpson's Lawyer and O.J. Simpson's.

Just as in any profession there is a big difference between the true professionals and ones who are downright bad.  Take mechanics for instance.  A good mechanic will identify the problem and fix it right the first time.  A bad mechanic may miss the diagnosis and fix something else.  After a a few trips back and forth, your problem isn’t fixed and you’ve spent more time and money than had you opted for the better mechanic in the first place.

Add up the costs of a DUI conviction.  You have:

FinesPay lost while you serve jail timeCosts of getting to and from work while you serve a license suspensionIncreased insurance costs

All of those costs added up are far more than the cost of a professional DUI lawyer.

The moral of the story is when choosing a mechanic or DUI lawyer -do it right the first time. Good lawyers aren’t cheap. Cheap lawyers aren’t good.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Police Officers Really Do Lie About DUI

In my many years as a Pennsylvania DUI Attorney defending the rights of those accused, I have seen many, many cases of police officers “fudging” or “shading” the truth and even outright lying. This is one of the main reasons why anyone who is accused of a DUI should have an experienced PA DUI lawyer fully examine the facts of their case.

Apparently police officers have no problems with lying in DUI cases.

Take for example a recent scandal in Georgia where a police officer falsified DUI readings:

The forced resignation of a deputy assigned to the DUI task force could affect the prosecution of hundreds of cases, according to those in the legal community.

Erik Norman faced mandatory resignation from the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office on Oct. 19 after a prosecutor reported that Norman told her he had falsified readings from a hand-held alcohol-testing device.

Unfortunately, police corruption happens all over the country and Pennsylvania is no less a victim than any other state.  The same problems of lack of transparency and oversight as well as the absence of criminal prosecution for these offenders creates an environment where “a little lie here and there” becomes the rule rather than the exception or that “the ends justify the means.”

If you or a loved one is arrested for a Pennsylvania DUI violation, you should have an expert PA DUI attorney examine the evidence against you to determine whether it is real or a fabrication by the police.  For a free consultation please call 1-866-MCSHANE.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Pennsylvania DUI Checkpoints: Are They Really Worth It?

While most of us will be enjoying the next few weeks as part of the holiday season, police all across Pennsylvania are gearing up for the DUI Checkpoint season.  As a part of their DUI enforcement efforts, PENNDOT, Pennsylvania State Police and local police from all across the Commonwealth will be setting up more and more DUI checkpoints along Pennsylvania’s busy roadways.

But as taxpayers, aren’t we entitled to ask, “Are DUI Checkpoints worth the money?”

Police in Pennsylvania are gearing up for more DUI checkpoints over the holidays.

According to a recent article, ” Statistics don’t justify sobriety checkpoints“:

Consider that over 1 million vehicles went through 1,469 California sobriety checkpoints in 2008. Police arrested just one-third of 1 percent of those motorists for drunken driving. A similar analysis found that in 2007, less than 1 percent of the more than 181,000 drivers stopped at Pennsylvania checkpoints were arrested.

This is pretty consistent with the police reports in the local papers. The DUI arrests normally represent only 1% or less of the vehicles stopped. That’s 99 drivers being stopped, searched and being treated like a criminal for one POSSIBLE drunk person.

Not only are DUI checkpoints a bad idea statistically, but the economic costs are much higher than the alternatives. Once again the author of this article asks:

These exercises in futility are extremely expensive. Checkpoints can cost more than $10,000 each time they’re set up compared to $300 for each roving patrol. Considering how tight state and local budgets are in this dismal economy, is it really a wise investment?

The sad fact is, politicians don’t make laws based on statistics or the economic impact. They make DUI laws based on what lobbyists tell them to do.  MADD and other powerful DUI lobbies are hard at work pushing their agendas and politicians fall in tow and dare not question the simulated reality.

This is why we need to wake up to these facts and continue to ask for a better way.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...