If you have been arrested for DUI, it is essential to find a good lawyer to defend you. Lawyers cost money (they will run you at least a few grand), but it is not a good idea to attempt to navigate the law and the court systems on your own. Hire a professional so you can fully understand your rights and the ins and outs of the case.
Where to Find One
There is no shortage of DUI lawyers, so finding a local one should not be a problem.
1----Online directories: There are plenty of searchable databases on the Internet where you can find DUI lawyers in your area.
2----Offline directories: Check your local yellow pages for DUI lawyers in your town.
3----Word of mouth: Has anyone you know had to hire a criminal attorney? Ask them about their experience.
4----Direct observation: If you have the time, you can observe lawyers practicing in public cases to find one you would like to defend you.
What to Look For
While a lawyer may not be hard to find, you probably don't want to hire just anybody. Here are a few things to look for when choosing an attorney:
1---Are they a criminal lawyer? You want to hire a lawyer that specializes in criminal cases; if possible, they should specialize in DUI specifically.
2---How much experience do they have? Look for how long they've been practicing, what law school they graduated from, etc. If they are "AV-rated," that is a good sign.
3---Will they get results? It's all well and good if the attorney has been practicing for fifteen years, but if they haven't won a case, that may not be a good omen. Look for a lawyer with a good track record.
Conclusion
A good lawyer can use their expertise and experience from past cases to successfully defend you—or possibly reduce your sentence—in a DUI case. Choosing a DUI attorney is not a decision you should take lightly!
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Denver DUI Attorney
East or West of Denver:Take Interstate 70 (east or west) toward Denver. Exit Interstate 70 onto Interstate 25 southbound. Take I-25 south to the 6th Avenue exit.
Take 6th Avenue heading east (away from the mountains) for approximately one mile. You will pass Broadway which runs one way to the south. The next street will be Lincoln which runs on way to the north. Take a left on Lincoln.
Remain on Lincoln for 100 yards, then, take a right on 7th Avenue. Take your first left on Sherman Street. We are at the corner of the next intersection, at 8th Avenue & Sherman Street. Our building has looks like a gold cube, as it has gold reflective glass.
North or South of Denver:Take Interstate 25 (north or south) toward Denver to the 6th Avenue exit. Take 6th Avenue heading east (away from the mountains) for approximately one mile. You will pass Broadway which runs one way to the south. The next street will be Lincoln which runs on way to the north. Take a left on Lincoln.
Remain on Lincoln for 100 yards, then, take a right on 7th Avenue. Take your first left on Sherman Street. We are at the corner of the next intersection, at 8th Avenue & Sherman Street. Our building has looks like a gold cube, as it has gold reflective glass.
Useful Tips and Advice
If you are pulled over by Denver police and you are charged, or are concerned about being charged, with DUI:
1---Choose to take a breath test — It does not look good to a jury if you refuse to take the breath test. Naturally, the jurors will have the suspicion that you were hiding something when you refused. It is better to let your criminal defense attorney attack the reliability of the breath machine results. Please remember this important legal point: If you refuse the breath test, the District Attorney can tell the jury that you refused. But, and this is very important, if you refuse to speak to the officer, the District Attorney will never be allowed to tell this to the jury.
2---Choose not to perform the Field Sobriety Tests — It is almost certain that the officer will fail you on these tests. If the police officer has reached the point of making you get out of the car, he is likely intent on arresting you anyway. The field sobriety tests are voluntary, and since doing them will only produce additional evidence for the prosecutor in your case, you should decline to do them.
3---Do not speak to the police officer — Being pulled over is intimidating, and you will likely feel that you have to respond to the officer's questions. However, you have a constitutional right to remain silent. This means that if you didn't say a word to the police, the prosecutor would not be able to tell this to a jury. The best way to handle the situation is to hand the officer your driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance without saying a word.
4---Decline to take the hand held breath test — Denver area police will not invest the time to arrest you and take you to the station unless they are convinced that you will be over the limit. This is why they will ask you to blow into a small device while you are still at the scene of your traffic stop. The results of this test, called a "PBT," are not admissible as evidence in court. However, while the jury is prohibited from knowing the results, the prosecutor could nonetheless tell the judge what the result was at the time of sentencing in your case. A bad test result will not be mentioned in court if you refuse to take it.
5---Be respectful to the police officers — It is best to remain silent altogether. However, whether you speak or not, be respectful at all times. Aggressive or impolite behavior will look bad to the judge later in court. Further, the prosecutor could argue to the jury that you were acting out as a result of being under the influence and having impaired judgment.
1---Choose to take a breath test — It does not look good to a jury if you refuse to take the breath test. Naturally, the jurors will have the suspicion that you were hiding something when you refused. It is better to let your criminal defense attorney attack the reliability of the breath machine results. Please remember this important legal point: If you refuse the breath test, the District Attorney can tell the jury that you refused. But, and this is very important, if you refuse to speak to the officer, the District Attorney will never be allowed to tell this to the jury.
2---Choose not to perform the Field Sobriety Tests — It is almost certain that the officer will fail you on these tests. If the police officer has reached the point of making you get out of the car, he is likely intent on arresting you anyway. The field sobriety tests are voluntary, and since doing them will only produce additional evidence for the prosecutor in your case, you should decline to do them.
3---Do not speak to the police officer — Being pulled over is intimidating, and you will likely feel that you have to respond to the officer's questions. However, you have a constitutional right to remain silent. This means that if you didn't say a word to the police, the prosecutor would not be able to tell this to a jury. The best way to handle the situation is to hand the officer your driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance without saying a word.
4---Decline to take the hand held breath test — Denver area police will not invest the time to arrest you and take you to the station unless they are convinced that you will be over the limit. This is why they will ask you to blow into a small device while you are still at the scene of your traffic stop. The results of this test, called a "PBT," are not admissible as evidence in court. However, while the jury is prohibited from knowing the results, the prosecutor could nonetheless tell the judge what the result was at the time of sentencing in your case. A bad test result will not be mentioned in court if you refuse to take it.
5---Be respectful to the police officers — It is best to remain silent altogether. However, whether you speak or not, be respectful at all times. Aggressive or impolite behavior will look bad to the judge later in court. Further, the prosecutor could argue to the jury that you were acting out as a result of being under the influence and having impaired judgment.
Interventions
Drunk driving is a public health concern in the United States, and reducing its frequency may require an integrated community-based approach utilizing sanctions and treatmentsSeveral intervention programs have been developed, such as the Paradigm Developmental Model of Treatment (PDMT), a program encouraging a paradigm shift in the offender's view of oneself and the world.
SR-22
An SR-22 is an administrative form that attests to an insurance company's coverage, or the posting of a personal public bond in the amount of the state's minimum liability coverage for the licensed driver/ or vehicle registration. SR-22s are typically filed with the respective State's DMV, and in some States must be carried by the licensed driver, or in the registered vehicle (particularly if the licensee has been cited for coverage lapses, DUI or other administrative infractions). SR-22s may attest coverage for a vehicle regardless of operator (owner liability coverage), or cover a specific person regardless of the specific vehicle operated (operator liability coverage).
The form is required in 49 States and the US District of Columbia in order to register a vehicle for usage on public roads (with the notable exception being New Hampshire). It is also required to redeem a license which has been suspended due to coverage lapse in these required States. These States also, generally, require that the issuing insurance company provide the relevant State's DMV with timely updates as to the status of such coverage. (e.g. expiration/cancellations)
The form is required in 49 States and the US District of Columbia in order to register a vehicle for usage on public roads (with the notable exception being New Hampshire). It is also required to redeem a license which has been suspended due to coverage lapse in these required States. These States also, generally, require that the issuing insurance company provide the relevant State's DMV with timely updates as to the status of such coverage. (e.g. expiration/cancellations)
Driving While Impaired courts
These innovative courts use substance abuse intervention with hard-core repeat offenders who plead guilty to driving while intoxicated. Those accepted into the diversionary program are required to abstain from alcohol. Some are required to wear a device that monitors and records any levels of alcohol detected in their bloodstreams.
Booking and charging
If it is determined after arrest that the person's blood alcohol concentration is not at or above the legal limit of .08, they will probably be released without any charges. One may, however, still be charged with driving under the influence of alcohol on the basis of driving symptoms, observed impairment, admissions and/or performance on the field sobriety tests. And if there is suspicion of drug usage, a blood or urine test is likely, or at least the testimony of a specially-trained officer called a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE). Assuming sufficient evidence of impaired driving from drugs, the arrestee may face charges of driving under the influence of drugs or the combined influence of alcohol and drugs.
Most of the time, the driver will either be kept in a holding cell (sometimes referred to as the "drunk tank") until they are deemed sober enough to be released on bail or on his "own recognizance" ("O.R."). A date to appear in court for an arraignment will be given to them. If they cannot make bail or is not granted O.R., they will be kept in jail to wait for the arraignment on remand.
Most of the time, the driver will either be kept in a holding cell (sometimes referred to as the "drunk tank") until they are deemed sober enough to be released on bail or on his "own recognizance" ("O.R."). A date to appear in court for an arraignment will be given to them. If they cannot make bail or is not granted O.R., they will be kept in jail to wait for the arraignment on remand.
Chemical test
At the police station, the arrestee will be offered a chemical test of breath, blood or, much less frequently, urine. Breath test results are usually available immediately; urine and blood samples are sent to a lab for later analysis to determine the BAC or possible presence of drugs.
If the arrestee refuses to submit to chemical testing, they will usually be booked for driving under the influence; there will be no evidence for filing the second charge of driving with .08% blood alcohol content. In some cases the arrestee may be charged with DUI even after passing a breathalyzer test if he or she refuses also to take subsequent urine or blood tests. However, the refusal will carry increased penalties on the driving under the influence charge (typically a longer license suspension and/or an increased jail sentence), and the act of refusing may be admissible in court as evidence of "consciousness of guilt". In some states, refusal to submit to a chemical test can result in an automatic suspension of driving privileges, regardless of whether the suspect is convicted of DUI. In an increasing number of jurisdictions, if the suspect refuses to take a chemical test the police in some states may restrain the individual and forcefully withdraw blood. This is particularly common in situations involving an accident with injury or death. In some jurisdictions this may require obtaining a warrant from a judge. Some commentators, such as Brown University's Jacob Appel, have criticized the role of medical personnel in this process. According to Appel, "If physicians acquiesce today in the removal of a resistant patient's blood, soon they may be called upon to pump the contents of an unwilling patient's stomach or even to perform involuntary surgery to retrieve an evidentiary bullet."
While chemical tests are used to determine the driver's BAC, they do not determine the driver's level of impairment. However, state laws usually provide for a rebuttable legal presumption of intoxication at blood alcohol levels of .08 or higher (see blood alcohol test assumptions).
Breath and urine tests can only estimate the BAC at the time the test is taken, which can be different than when the vehicle was actually operated.
If the arrestee refuses to submit to chemical testing, they will usually be booked for driving under the influence; there will be no evidence for filing the second charge of driving with .08% blood alcohol content. In some cases the arrestee may be charged with DUI even after passing a breathalyzer test if he or she refuses also to take subsequent urine or blood tests. However, the refusal will carry increased penalties on the driving under the influence charge (typically a longer license suspension and/or an increased jail sentence), and the act of refusing may be admissible in court as evidence of "consciousness of guilt". In some states, refusal to submit to a chemical test can result in an automatic suspension of driving privileges, regardless of whether the suspect is convicted of DUI. In an increasing number of jurisdictions, if the suspect refuses to take a chemical test the police in some states may restrain the individual and forcefully withdraw blood. This is particularly common in situations involving an accident with injury or death. In some jurisdictions this may require obtaining a warrant from a judge. Some commentators, such as Brown University's Jacob Appel, have criticized the role of medical personnel in this process. According to Appel, "If physicians acquiesce today in the removal of a resistant patient's blood, soon they may be called upon to pump the contents of an unwilling patient's stomach or even to perform involuntary surgery to retrieve an evidentiary bullet."
While chemical tests are used to determine the driver's BAC, they do not determine the driver's level of impairment. However, state laws usually provide for a rebuttable legal presumption of intoxication at blood alcohol levels of .08 or higher (see blood alcohol test assumptions).
Breath and urine tests can only estimate the BAC at the time the test is taken, which can be different than when the vehicle was actually operated.
Probable cause to arrest
If the officer has sufficient probable cause that the suspect has been driving under the influence of alcohol, they will make the arrest, handcuff the suspect and transport them to the police station. En route, the officer may advise them of their Miranda rights and their legal implied consent obligation to submit to an evidentiary chemical test of blood, breath or possibly urine.
Laws relating to what exactly constitutes probable cause vary from state to state. In California it is a refutable presumption that a person with a BAC of .08 or higher is driving under the influence. However, section 23610(a)(2) of the California Vehicle Code states that driving with a BAC between .05 and .08 "shall not give rise to any presumption that the person was or was not under the influence of an alcoholic beverage."
Laws relating to what exactly constitutes probable cause vary from state to state. In California it is a refutable presumption that a person with a BAC of .08 or higher is driving under the influence. However, section 23610(a)(2) of the California Vehicle Code states that driving with a BAC between .05 and .08 "shall not give rise to any presumption that the person was or was not under the influence of an alcoholic beverage."
Romberg's test
Romberg's test is a neurological test that is used to assess the dorsal columns of the spinal cord, which are essential for joint position sense (proprioception) and vibration sense.
A positive Romberg test suggests that ataxia is sensory in nature, i.e. depending on loss of proprioception. A negative Romberg test suggests that ataxia is cerebellar in nature, i.e. depending on localised cerebellar dysfunction instead.
It is sometimes used as an indicator for possible alcohol or drug impaired driving and neurological decompression sickness When used to test impaired driving, the test is performed with the subject estimating 30 seconds in their head. This is used to gauge the subject's internal clock and can be an indicator of stimulant or depressant use.
A positive Romberg test suggests that ataxia is sensory in nature, i.e. depending on loss of proprioception. A negative Romberg test suggests that ataxia is cerebellar in nature, i.e. depending on localised cerebellar dysfunction instead.
It is sometimes used as an indicator for possible alcohol or drug impaired driving and neurological decompression sickness When used to test impaired driving, the test is performed with the subject estimating 30 seconds in their head. This is used to gauge the subject's internal clock and can be an indicator of stimulant or depressant use.
Field sobriety tests
The officer will administer one or more field sobriety tests (FSTs). FSTs are "divided attention tests" that theoretically test the suspect's ability to perform the type of mental and physical multitasking that is required to operate an automobile. The most commonly administered FSTs include:
*horizontal gaze nystagmus test, which involves following an object with the eyes (such as a pen) to determine characteristic eye movement reaction. A sober person should be able to smoothly track the object with their eyes. In an intoxicated individual the eyes will jerk as they follow the object.
*walk-and-turn (heel-to-toe in a straight line).
*one-leg-stand.
*modified-position-of-attention (feet together, head back, eyes closed for thirty seconds; also known as the Romberg test).
*finger-to-nose (tip head back, eyes closed, touch the tip of nose with tip of index finger).
*recite all or part of the alphabet (a common myth is that the alphabet must be recited backwards, however, this is never done during an FST, as many sober people are unable to do this.).
*touch each finger of hand to thumb counting with each touch (1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 3, 2, 1).
*count backwards from a number such as 30 or 100.
*breathe into a "portable or preliminary breath tester" or PBT.
Although most law enforcement agencies continue to use a variety of these FSTs, increasingly a 3-test battery of standardized field sobriety tests (SFSTs) is being adopted. These tests are recommended by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) after studies indicated other FSTs were relatively unreliable. The NHTSA-approved battery of tests consists of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, the walk-and-turn test, and the one-leg-stand. In some states, such as Ohio, only the standardized tests will be admitted into evidence, provided they were administered and objectively scored "in substantial compliance" with NHTSA standards (ORC 4511.19(D)(4)(b)).
FSTs are more effective at determining the level of impairment than they are at estimating the driver's blood alcohol concentration (BAC). However, studies question whether the tests increase the officer's ability to judge either. In 1991, Dr. Spurgeon Cole of Clemson University conducted a study on the accuracy of FSTs. His staff videotaped individuals performing six common field sobriety tests, then showed the tapes to 14 police officers and asked them to decide whether the suspects had "had too much to drink and drive". The blood-alcohol concentration of each of the 21 DUI subjects was .00, unknown to the officers. The result: the officers gave their opinion that 46% of these innocent people were too drunk to be able drive. This study showed the possible inaccuracy of FSTs. Cole and Nowaczyk, "Field Sobriety Tests: Are they Designed for Failure?", 79 Perceptual and Motor Skills Journal 99 (1994).
An increasingly used field sobriety test involves having the suspect breathe into a small, handheld breath testing device. Called variously a PAS ("preliminary alcohol screening") or PBT ("preliminary breath test"), the units are small, inexpensive versions of their larger, more sophisticated instruments at the police stations, the EBTs ("evidentiary breath test"). Whereas the EBTs usually employ infrared spectroscopy, the PAS units use a relatively simple electrochemical (fuel cell) technology. Their purpose, along with other FSTs, is to assist the officer in determining probable cause for arrest. Although because of their relative inaccuracy they were never intended to be used in court for proving actual blood-alcohol concentration, some courts have begun to admit them as evidence of BAC.
*horizontal gaze nystagmus test, which involves following an object with the eyes (such as a pen) to determine characteristic eye movement reaction. A sober person should be able to smoothly track the object with their eyes. In an intoxicated individual the eyes will jerk as they follow the object.
*walk-and-turn (heel-to-toe in a straight line).
*one-leg-stand.
*modified-position-of-attention (feet together, head back, eyes closed for thirty seconds; also known as the Romberg test).
*finger-to-nose (tip head back, eyes closed, touch the tip of nose with tip of index finger).
*recite all or part of the alphabet (a common myth is that the alphabet must be recited backwards, however, this is never done during an FST, as many sober people are unable to do this.).
*touch each finger of hand to thumb counting with each touch (1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 3, 2, 1).
*count backwards from a number such as 30 or 100.
*breathe into a "portable or preliminary breath tester" or PBT.
Although most law enforcement agencies continue to use a variety of these FSTs, increasingly a 3-test battery of standardized field sobriety tests (SFSTs) is being adopted. These tests are recommended by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) after studies indicated other FSTs were relatively unreliable. The NHTSA-approved battery of tests consists of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, the walk-and-turn test, and the one-leg-stand. In some states, such as Ohio, only the standardized tests will be admitted into evidence, provided they were administered and objectively scored "in substantial compliance" with NHTSA standards (ORC 4511.19(D)(4)(b)).
FSTs are more effective at determining the level of impairment than they are at estimating the driver's blood alcohol concentration (BAC). However, studies question whether the tests increase the officer's ability to judge either. In 1991, Dr. Spurgeon Cole of Clemson University conducted a study on the accuracy of FSTs. His staff videotaped individuals performing six common field sobriety tests, then showed the tapes to 14 police officers and asked them to decide whether the suspects had "had too much to drink and drive". The blood-alcohol concentration of each of the 21 DUI subjects was .00, unknown to the officers. The result: the officers gave their opinion that 46% of these innocent people were too drunk to be able drive. This study showed the possible inaccuracy of FSTs. Cole and Nowaczyk, "Field Sobriety Tests: Are they Designed for Failure?", 79 Perceptual and Motor Skills Journal 99 (1994).
An increasingly used field sobriety test involves having the suspect breathe into a small, handheld breath testing device. Called variously a PAS ("preliminary alcohol screening") or PBT ("preliminary breath test"), the units are small, inexpensive versions of their larger, more sophisticated instruments at the police stations, the EBTs ("evidentiary breath test"). Whereas the EBTs usually employ infrared spectroscopy, the PAS units use a relatively simple electrochemical (fuel cell) technology. Their purpose, along with other FSTs, is to assist the officer in determining probable cause for arrest. Although because of their relative inaccuracy they were never intended to be used in court for proving actual blood-alcohol concentration, some courts have begun to admit them as evidence of BAC.
Investigation
The officer will typically approach the driver's window and ask some preliminary questions. During this phase of the stop the officer will note if they detect any of the following indicators of intoxication:
*odor of an alcoholic beverage on the driver's breath or in the car generally
*slurred speech in response to the questioning
*watery, blood shot, and/or reddish eyes
*flushed face
*droopy eyelids
*difficulty in understanding and responding intelligently to question
*fumbling with his or her driver's license and registration
*the plain-view presence of containers of alcoholic beverages in the vehicle.
*admission of consumption of alcoholic beverage
If the officer observes enough to have a reasonable suspicion to legally justify a further detention and investigation, they will ask the driver to step out of the vehicle.
*odor of an alcoholic beverage on the driver's breath or in the car generally
*slurred speech in response to the questioning
*watery, blood shot, and/or reddish eyes
*flushed face
*droopy eyelids
*difficulty in understanding and responding intelligently to question
*fumbling with his or her driver's license and registration
*the plain-view presence of containers of alcoholic beverages in the vehicle.
*admission of consumption of alcoholic beverage
If the officer observes enough to have a reasonable suspicion to legally justify a further detention and investigation, they will ask the driver to step out of the vehicle.
Typical DUI investigation and arrest
Following are common procedures when a law enforcement officer has reason to suspect a driver is intoxicated.
Reasonable Suspicion to stop
There are several situations in which the officer will come into contact with a driver, some examples are:
* The driver has been involved in an automobile accident; the officer has responded to the scene and is conducting an investigation.
*The driver has been stopped at a sobriety checkpoint (also known as roadblocks).
*The police have received a report, possibly from an anonymous citizen, that a described car has been driving erratically. The officer should verify the erratic driving before pulling the driver over. In some cases, the driver will no longer be in the vehicle.
*The officer on patrol has observed erratic, suspicious driving, or a series of traffic infractions indicating the possibility that the driver may be impaired. This is by far the most common reason for stopping a suspect.
*A police officer has stopped a vehicle for a lesser traffic offense, notices the signs of intoxication, and begins the DUI investigation.
The following list of DUI symptoms, from a publication issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (DOT HS-805-711), is widely used in training officers to detect drunk drivers. After each symptom is a percentage figure which, according to NHTSA, indicates the statistical chances through research, that a driver is over the legal limit.
Turning with wide radius-------------------------------------65
Straddling center or lane marker----------------------------65
Appearing to be drunk----------------------------------------60
Almost striking object or vehicle----------------------------60
Weavin-----------------------------------------------------------60
Driving on other than designated roadway-----------------55
Swerving---------------------------------------------------------55
Slow speed (more than 10mph below limit)----------------50
Stopping (without cause) in traffic lane---------------------50
Drifting-----------------------------------------------------------50
Following too closely------------------------------------------45
Tires on center or land marker--------------------------------45
Braking erratically----------------------------------------------45
Driving into opposing or crossing traffic--------------------45
Signaling inconsistent with driving actions-----------------40
Stopping inappropriately (other than in lane)--------------35
Turning abruptly or illegally----------------------------------35
Accelerating or decelerating rapidly-------------------------30
Headlights off----------------------------------------------------30
If the officer observes enough to have a reasonable suspicion to legally justify a further detention and investigation, they will ask the driver to step out of the vehicle.
Reasonable suspicion requires less evidence than probable caus, but more than a mere hunc. A rule of thumb is that reasonable suspicion requires 25 % proof, and probable cause requires more than 50 % statistical chance. Therefore, if there is probable cause for arrest for DWI, as suggested by the research and examples used above, then there is reasonable suspicion to stop a driver.
Reasonable Suspicion to stop
There are several situations in which the officer will come into contact with a driver, some examples are:
* The driver has been involved in an automobile accident; the officer has responded to the scene and is conducting an investigation.
*The driver has been stopped at a sobriety checkpoint (also known as roadblocks).
*The police have received a report, possibly from an anonymous citizen, that a described car has been driving erratically. The officer should verify the erratic driving before pulling the driver over. In some cases, the driver will no longer be in the vehicle.
*The officer on patrol has observed erratic, suspicious driving, or a series of traffic infractions indicating the possibility that the driver may be impaired. This is by far the most common reason for stopping a suspect.
*A police officer has stopped a vehicle for a lesser traffic offense, notices the signs of intoxication, and begins the DUI investigation.
The following list of DUI symptoms, from a publication issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (DOT HS-805-711), is widely used in training officers to detect drunk drivers. After each symptom is a percentage figure which, according to NHTSA, indicates the statistical chances through research, that a driver is over the legal limit.
Turning with wide radius-------------------------------------65
Straddling center or lane marker----------------------------65
Appearing to be drunk----------------------------------------60
Almost striking object or vehicle----------------------------60
Weavin-----------------------------------------------------------60
Driving on other than designated roadway-----------------55
Swerving---------------------------------------------------------55
Slow speed (more than 10mph below limit)----------------50
Stopping (without cause) in traffic lane---------------------50
Drifting-----------------------------------------------------------50
Following too closely------------------------------------------45
Tires on center or land marker--------------------------------45
Braking erratically----------------------------------------------45
Driving into opposing or crossing traffic--------------------45
Signaling inconsistent with driving actions-----------------40
Stopping inappropriately (other than in lane)--------------35
Turning abruptly or illegally----------------------------------35
Accelerating or decelerating rapidly-------------------------30
Headlights off----------------------------------------------------30
If the officer observes enough to have a reasonable suspicion to legally justify a further detention and investigation, they will ask the driver to step out of the vehicle.
Reasonable suspicion requires less evidence than probable caus, but more than a mere hunc. A rule of thumb is that reasonable suspicion requires 25 % proof, and probable cause requires more than 50 % statistical chance. Therefore, if there is probable cause for arrest for DWI, as suggested by the research and examples used above, then there is reasonable suspicion to stop a driver.
History of drunk driving laws
The first jurisdiction in the United States of America to adopt laws against drunk driving was New York in 1910, with California and others following. Early laws simply prohibited driving while intoxicated, with no specific definition of what level of inebriation qualified. The first generally-accepted legal limit for blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was 0.15 (in 1938, the American Medical Association created a "Committee to Study Problems of Motor Vehicle Accidents"; at the same time, the National Safety Council set up a "Committee on Tests for Intoxication".In the US, most of the laws and penalties were greatly enhanced starting in the late 1970s, and through the 1990s, largely due to pressure from groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and Students AgainstDriving Drunk (SADD) and leaders like Candy Lightner. Most significantly, zero tolerance laws were enacted which criminalized driving a vehicle with 0.01 or 0.02 BAC for drivers under 21.
Flying while drunk and related laws
Federal Air Regulation 91.17 (14 CFR 91.17) prohibits pilots from flying aircraft with an alcohol level of 0.04% or more, and/or within eight hours of consuming alcohol, and/or while under the impairing influence of any drug. The same prohibition applies to any other crewmembers on duty aboard the aircraft (flight attendants, etc.). Some airlines impose additional restrictions, and many pilots also impose stricter standards upon themselves. Commercial pilots found to be in violation of regulations are typically fired or resign voluntarily, and they may lose their pilot certificates and/or be subject to criminal prosecution under Federal or State laws, effectively ending their careers.
Similar laws apply to other activities involving transportation; Michigan prohibits intoxicated bicycling, horseback riding, buggy driving, use of motorized farm implements, or boating, the latter whether a pilot or passenger, with much the same threshold of intoxication.
Similar laws apply to other activities involving transportation; Michigan prohibits intoxicated bicycling, horseback riding, buggy driving, use of motorized farm implements, or boating, the latter whether a pilot or passenger, with much the same threshold of intoxication.
DUI plates
In 1967, Ohio began to issue special license plates to DUI offenders who are granted limited driving privileges such as work-related driving until a court can rule that they can have full privileges back. However, judges rarely enforced the plates, so in 2004, the plates became mandated by state law to all DUI offenders. Unlike Ohio's standard-issue plates (which as of 2008 are red and blue on white), the DUI plates are yellow with red writing with no registration stickers or graphics. They are sometimes known as "party plates.
Penalties
Many jurisdictions require more serious penalties (such as jail time, larger fines, longer DUI program, the installation of ignition interlock devices) in cases where the driver's BAC is over 0.20, or 0.15 in some places. These additional sanctions are an attempt to deter and punish the operation of a vehicle at extremely high BAC levels and the concomitant danger posed to the safety of persons and property by heavily impaired drivers.
Compared to many other countries penalities for drunk driving in the United States are light, unless drink is involved in an incident causing injury or death of others. See Driving under the influence. Many states do not revoke driving permits even if the offender is convicted multiple times (example Wisconsin).
Compared to many other countries penalities for drunk driving in the United States are light, unless drink is involved in an incident causing injury or death of others. See Driving under the influence. Many states do not revoke driving permits even if the offender is convicted multiple times (example Wisconsin).
Driving under the influence of drugs
The key inquiry focuses on whether the driver's faculties were impaired by the substance that was consumed. The detection and successful prosecution of drivers impaired by prescription medication or illegal drugs can therefore be difficult.Breathalyzers have been developed for the purpose of administering roadside or laboratory tests that can detect the actual level of a controlled substance in an individual's body.
Laws
All states in the U.S. designate a per se blood or breath alcohol level as the threshold point for an independent criminal offense. A second criminal offense of driving "under the influence" or "while impaired" is also usually charged in most states, with a permissive presumption of guilt where the person's blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is .08 percent or greater (units of milligrams per deciliter, representing 8 g of alcohol in 10 liters of blood). Some states (e.g., Colorado) include a lesser charge, sometimes referred to as driving while ability impaired (this may apply to individuals with a .05 percent or above, but less than the .08 per se limit for the more serious charge.
The amount of alcohol intake to reach 0.08 percent varies substantially with body composition and health state. Risk of traffic accidents are increased already by far less dosage.
Prior to increased emphasis on drinking and driving in the 1980s, standards of .10-.15 percent were in place. The legal limit for commercial drivers in the New York is set at 0.04 percent.
The amount of alcohol intake to reach 0.08 percent varies substantially with body composition and health state. Risk of traffic accidents are increased already by far less dosage.
Prior to increased emphasis on drinking and driving in the 1980s, standards of .10-.15 percent were in place. The legal limit for commercial drivers in the New York is set at 0.04 percent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
