Tag Archives: DUI

California’s 14%

Posted on by

One in seven weekend nighttime drivers in California tested positive for drugs that can affect driving ability, according to a voluntary survey of drivers across nine cities in California. The survey was the first of its kind conducted in the state, which was an anonymous study that paid participants to submit to drug and alcohol tests and answer a series of questions. Some drivers were found to be over the legal limit, and were asked to stay at the site until a sober driver could retrieve them, and no one was placed under arrest.

The survey results were announced by the California Office of Traffic Safety. There were more drivers who tested positive for drugs known to impair driving (14 percent) than drivers who tested positive for alcohol (7.3 percent). Marijuana was the most prevalent drug found, and 7.4% of the drivers tested positive for it.

Of the 7.3% of drivers who tested positive for alcohol, 23% of those drivers also tested positive for at least one other drug. 4.6% of the drivers tested positive for illegal drugs, and 4.6% of the drivers also tested positive for legal, over-the-counter medications that could potentially affect driving ability. Of the 7.4% of drivers who tested positive for marijuana, 26.5% of those drivers also tested positive for at least one other drug.

Over 1,300 drivers voluntarily provided breath and saliva samples at the roadside locations set up across nine cities where the survey was conducted. The survey spanned from 10:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday nights. The samples were collected during these times as a reflection of the peak times of impaired driving according to arrests reports. The breath samples were tested for alcohol, and the saliva samples tested for the active ingredient in marijuana (THC), major illegal drugs, prescription drugs, and over-the-counter medications known to potentially impair driving abilities.

The $650,000 study, as reported by the Orange County Register, was conducted by the Maryland-based Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation. The study was paid for by federal funds and was conducted to supply data needs identified in the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan, which is, according to the California Office of Traffic Safety, a “dynamic action plan developed by federal, state and local government agencies, as well as organizations and advocacy groups dedicated to all aspects of traffic safety.”

DUI Look-back Periods

Posted on by

Alabama has a 5 year “look back” period when convicting DUI cases. Previous drunk driving charges can only be considered if they have occurred in the past five years. For instance, a driver may have been convicted of drunk driving seven times in one year, say, 2007. They had a very bad year. Assuming they have somehow been released from prison or jail, that person can be caught drunk driving in 2013 and it will be treated as their first DUI.

Alabama is one of the most lenient states when concerning DUI look-back periods. Other states with a five-year back period include Colorado and Missouri. Look-back periods (also referred to as washout periods) vary by state, and often states will change their DUI laws. For instance, until 2008, Georgia had a five year look-back period. The law was amended in 2008 so now Georgia will review any DUI conviction on your record in the past ten years.

States with lifetime look-back periods include Kansas and Massachusetts. In Michigan, a third DUI will be charged as a felony, after the ten year look-back period was dropped in 2007 under a new law called Heidi’s Law. This is an example of how social pressure can change a state’s DUI laws.

Heidi Steiner was a northern Michigan high school senior who was killed by a drunk driver named Danny Buffman in 1991. Buffman served a prison term and was eventually released. He was arrested again for DUI in 2005, but was charged as if were his first DUI because more than 10 years had passed since his 1991 conviction. Even though his DUI (referred to as OWI in Michigan) record included manslaughter, his record could only be looked at from 1995-2005.

Can a Judge Order Church Attendance as a Term of Probation in a DUI Case?

Posted on by

If you are in Oklahoma, the answer is yes. Muskogee County District Judge Mike Norman has imposed an unusual penalty on a teenager who was charged with DUI manslaughter in Oklahoma. Tyler Alred, 17, has been ordered to attend church on Sunday for the next ten years as part of his deferred DUI manslaughter case.

This is not the first time a judge has unconstitutionally ordered church attendance in lieu of jail time. In the town of Bay Minette, Alabama, the city judge offers the option of church attendance for a year or jail time to people charged with misdemeanor offenses.

On Dec. 3, Tyler Alred was driving a Chevrolet pickup at 4a.m. when he crashed into a tree on a county road; the crash killed his friend John Luke Dum, 16, who was the passenger in the truck. Oklahoma Highway Patrol troopers arrived and Alred admitted that he had been drinking. His blood alcohol content was between 0.06 and 0.07. The legal limit is 0.08, but drivers under 21 are not allowed to consume any alcohol and will be charged with DUI regardless of their BAC under a zero tolerance policy.

No one has challenged Judge Norman’s bizarre probation, and unless it is challenged, the ruling will stand. Professor of law Randall Coyne said the condition would not stand a legal challenge, but a challenge would have to be filed.

In the 1992 case of Lee v. Weisman, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the state may not use a “threat of penalty” to “coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise.”

Some have successfully challenged court-mandated attendance of A.A. and N.A. meetings. In the case of Kerr v. Farrey, Kerr objected to being forced to attend N.A. meetings as an atheist, because the meetings began with a Christian prayer and because Kerr perceived N.A. as having a deterministic view of God in the way that belief in a God was necessary for full recovery. The Court ruled that the N.A. program was decidedly religious and based on monotheistic principles and a policy of coercing prisoners to attend the meetings was unconstitutional.

In Tyler Alred’s case, not much will change. His defense attorney, Donn Baker, said, “My client goes to church every Sunday. That isn’t going to be a problem for him. We certainly want the probation for him.”

Nevada’s DUI Problem and Undercover Investigation

Posted on by

Gerard Ramalho of KSVN investigated DUI offenders in Henderson, Nevada showing up to required DUI School while under the influence of drugs and alcohol. According to KSVN, one of the biggest problems in the Valley are people getting behind the wheel intoxicated. How do Nevada’s DUI penalties stack up to other states, and why is DUI so prominent there?

Judge Bill Kephart, of Las Vegas District Court, says that the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department has 625 DUI arrests a month. He estimated that half of the DUI offenders that end up in his court room are from out of state, which may point to a problem of Vegas’ reputation as a place where one can break the law without punishment.

So what are Nevada’s DUI laws? For a first or second DUI, you will need to complete a DUI class which you are required to pay for. Other requirements may include a fine and attendance to a MADD panel (victim impact panel). Not completing these requirements within the time you are given could be in violation of your probation, which can result in being sentenced to jail for at least two days.

A first-time DUI can result in a driver’s license suspension for 90 days. A second-time DUI within seven years of your first DUI carries a license suspension of an entire year, and a third DUI in a seven year period can result in a three year license suspension. The Nevada DMV operates separately from the criminal court, so even if you are ultimately found not guilty for DUI, the DMV does not have to retract their imposed license suspension.

According to Judge Bill Kephart, it would be less expensive to travel by cab from Nevada to New York than to pay for a DUI in Nevada. According to Ramalho, the recidivism rate in Nevada is less than 3%.

“Avoid the 30” Program Acquires Large DUI Grant in Riverside County

Posted on by

Riverside received a grant to pay for additional DUI patrols; the $385,000 DUI grant came from the state Office of Traffic Safety. The grant will fund more checkpoints and extra patrols to find drivers who are DUI. The grant was received by the “Avoid the 30” program, which refers to the 30 law enforcement agencies in Riverside County. According to the “Avoid the 30” website, there have been 1,030 arrests this year due to additional police patrols on holidays such as Memorial Day, 4th of July, and Labor Day.

The grant money will be used to pay for overtime and other miscellaneous expenses. With this, law enforcement will be able to set up 13 checkpoints and 118 saturation patrols through till September 2013. There will also be self-funded checkpoints and patrols set up by law enforcement agencies.

Riverside Police Chief Sergio Diaz commented on the program at a news conference and said, “The main message is if you decided to become intoxicated and get behind the wheel, your chances of getting caught are very good.”

All DUI saturation points are in addition to the regular patrol and traffic enforcement operating in Riverside County.

86% of DUI Cases Acquitted by Judges in Worcestor County

Posted on by

The Boston Globe reports that Massachusetts’ highest court has been urged by a special counsel to toughen laws and courtroom policy after a report was revealed that 97% of DUI bench trials ended in acquittal in one county. The study was commissioned by the Supreme Judicial Court last year after a Globe Spotlight series found that a significant number of people charged with DUI do not have traditional trials by jury but instead go before a judge, and 4 out of 5 who go to bench are acquitted. The high number of acquittals is 11 percentage points higher in Worcester County than in the rest of the state, and the issue with having a near 100 percent acquittal rate is that it creates an appearance of leniency, according to the study. The recommendations by the study included requiring defendants to choose a bench trial earlier in the process to avoid “judge shopping.”

Defendants are allegedly waiving their right to a jury trial on the day of when a judge with a reputation for leniency appears on the bench. The Supreme Judicial Court chose Jack Cinquegrana, a former federal and state prosecutor, as special counsel on the issue. He produced a 148-page report which included other recommendations such as requiring district court judges to rotate through courts more often. It was also recommended that judges receive better training on how to handle scientific evidence.

The study points out that lawmakers may want to close a loophole that helps defendants evade conviction even with evidence that they had a blood alcohol level above the legal .08% limit. Defendants are allegedly arguing that while their BAC may have been .08% at the time of the test, that it was lower when they were actually driving because the alcohol in their system had not yet metabolized.

In drunk driving cases that go to trial, Jack Cinquegrana found that juries acquit 58% of the time, but judges will find defendants not guilty 86% of time. Cinquegrana reviewed 57,000 OUI (DUI) cases, and interviewed lawyers and judges for the study.

Alabama DUI & Actual Physical Control Laws

Posted on by

Al.com reports that a woman dressed as a zombie was arrested for DUI in Alabama when she was found asleep in her car. On the morning of November 1st, Birmingham police responded to a call that an unresponsive woman in a car was allegedly shot. Police arrived and found the victim in question was actually an intoxicated woman still dressed in her Halloween costume. The costume was ‘pregnant-zombie’, and the woman had fake blood covering the front of her body.

Police arrested the woman for DUI. Alabama’s DUI law states that a person shall not drive or be in actual physical control of any vehicle while their BAC is at or above .08%, and the definition of actual physical control is defined by judicial decision.

In 1980, Alabama DUI law changed dramatically. The term “intoxication” was taken out, removing the burden from law enforcement to substantially prove intoxication of a driver. Before 1980, the legal term for drunk driving was driving while intoxicated, and the law changes replaced DWI with driving under the influence, or DUI. This change made it easier for prosecutors to argue that a person could be under the influence of alcohol without showing signs of intoxication. Under Alabama law, a vehicle does not have to be in a state of operation but it must be capable to some degree of operation. For instance, in 1999, Nicholas Mester was arrested for DUI for steering an inoperable vehicle which was being moved along by another vehicle.

A motorist who is asleep behind the wheel and is in possession of keys can be charged with DUI in Alabama. If a person is physically capable of starting the engine or causing the vehicle to move, then direct evidence such as a law enforcement officer observing swerving or movement of the vehicle is not always needed for a drunk driving conviction.

Mississippi Bill Creates DUI Child Endangerment Law

Posted on by

In July 2012, Mississippi passed a DUI child endangerment law which created a separate offense for driving under the influence with a passenger under the age of 16.

If the offense does not include serious injury or death to the child involved, and if it is the first conviction for DUI, then the driver will charged with a misdemeanor, be fined no more than $1,000 and can be imprisoned for up to twelve months.

A second conviction that does not result in serious death or injury to the child will also be a misdemeanor offense, and the fines will be at least $1,000 and no more than $5,000. The offender can also be jailed for up to one year.

A third or subsequent conviction not involving injury or death to the child is a felony, and fines go up to $10,000 and the offender can be imprisoned for up to 25 years.

A first offense with injury or death to the child can be charged as a felony, and fines could go up to $10,000 and the offender can face up to 25 years in prison.

Up until this year, Mississippi was one of the only states that did not have a DUI child endangerment law. In 2011, a child endangerment bill died in session when no motion was made to table the motion to reconsider, and a similar bill met the same fate in 2010.

In September, a driver with five children in the vehicle crashed, resulting in a rollover. He faced five counts of endangering a child by DUI.

New Bill Deletes Options for CA Drivers Arrested for DUI

Posted on by
California drivers no longer have the option to choose which chemical test they may take when arrested for driving under the influence. The old law allowed a driver to decide whether they submit to a blood, breath, or urine test. Sometimes, the driver who submitted to a breath test would also be request to take either a urine or blood test, again one of their choosing.Revisions to this law prohibits the arrestee’s option of choosing a urine test, and instead requires that if a blood test is unavailable then they have automatically consented to giving a urine test. The new law states that a person only has the choice of a breath or blood test. If a person is unable to give a blood test and is exempted from doing so, then they must give a urine test.

California’s new bill was approved by the Governor on August 27. Under California law, an arresting officer must tell a driver the consequences of refusing a chemical test, which can include a one-year driver’s license suspension for a first DUI offense.

North Dakota Bill May Toughen State DUI Laws

Posted on by

Ed Gruchalla is a member of the North Dakota House of Representatives whose bipartisan suppport of a new bill to change the state’s drunk driving laws is said to be a game-changer. A member of the North Dakota Democratic-NPL Party, Gruchalla says that he has guidelines in place for the bill which would make substantial changes and tougher penalties for convicted drunk drivers.

The new bill would require first-time offenders to spend 30 days in jail, and require a $5,000 fine to be paid. For a third offense in ten years, the fine increases to $100,000 and five years in prison.

Gruchalla said the current laws are not working for North Dakota. He said, “I think if we’re going to make any progress, we’re going to have to focus on being tougher on offenders, and make them sit back and say, I’m not going to do that, because the penalties are just too severe.”

The bill would give offenders a chance to use an ignition interlock system on their vehicle in lieu of a full jail sentence. The bill has not been finalized as the lawmakers are still receiving input from other lawmakers about all the provisions they believe it should include.

There were 6,600 arrests last year for DUI in North Dakota, and an astounding 1,871 of those were repeat offenders.