By guest-writer
A man with a history of driving under the influence of alcohol allegedly crashed his pickup truck unto a California condominium, causing serious injuries to a homeowner who remains in critical condition, according to a report from the Los Angeles Times.
According to Lt. Tom Albergo, a police officer in Escondido, California, a 23-year-old man who is believed to be responsible for the accident is currently under police custody on suspicion of drunk driving.
The man, whose name has not yet been released, apparently has a previous DUI conviction, which adds another layer of intrigue to a potentially tragic story.
The crash occurred around 7:30 p.m. last Thursday, after the unnamed man was driving eastbound on Country Club Lane in Escondido when his car suddenly leapt over a curb, struck an electric transformer, and crashed through the back patio of the condo.
A 14-year-old girl inside the condo miraculously suffered only minor injuries when the car drove into her house, but her father, who had been outside on the patio, was pinned under the pickup truck.
The girl’s father suffered critical injuries after being struck by the struck. Firefighters had to pull out him from the wreckage with special equipment, and they later transported him to a hospital where he is being treated for a broken leg, a concussion, and serious facial wounds.
At the time of the accident, two other family members were inside the home, and they are not reporting serious injuries.
For his actions, it is highly likely that the man who caused the accident will be charged with a felony DUI—and perhaps even worse if the injured father does not survive his injuries.
A felony DUI conviction carries very serious consequences, including a long sentence in prison and serious fines. Of course, it may also include a suspended license, although this would seem to be the least of the alleged DUI driver’s current concerns.
The driver’s previous DUI convictions also complicate his defense in court. Judges typically give stronger sentences to drivers who have had other convictions for drunk driving.
While first-time offenders aren’t usually treated with kid gloves, they do often receive lighter sentences than people who have already been hauled into court on suspicion of drunk driving.
So, while the man anxiously awaits word on the condition of the father that he struck, the court will determine how to handle his charges. How soon, exactly, should a man who engaged in such an irresponsible act be allowed to reenter society?
By guest-writer
A sheriff’s deputy with a checkered past from Okaloosa County, Florida has been charged with a DUI after wrecking his motorcycle in an accident late last week, according to a report from the Northwest Florida Daily News.
The deputy, 48-year-old Ted Cason, has been suspended without pay pending an internal police investigation into Cason’s activities last Thursday night.
That night, a bleeding Cason was found lying on the ground next to his fallen motorcycle around 10 p.m. He refused to take a field sobriety test or an alcohol breath test, according to a news release from the Sherriff’s Office.
According to the police citation, however, Cason smelled like alcohol, had a red face and slurred speech, and also had “glassy, watery eyes.” Sources indicate that Cason also told emergency personnel that he had a few drinks that night.
Surprisingly, Cason also admitted that he had lost his .45-caliber gun, and a search by deputies of the crash scene did not reveal the lost weapon. Oddly, the weapon was later found in a holster that Cason was wearing.
This incident would not have been such big news in Florida had in not been for Cason’s past troubles with alcohol. Since he started work with the Okaloosa County Sherriff in 1992, Cason has had other alcohol-related incidents.
In April 2002, for example, Cason was demoted and suspended for a month without pay for a charge that was labeled “improper use of alcohol off duty.”
This clean euphemism referred to an incident when he ran out of gas on a state highway early one morning and called sheriffs from Santa Rosa County for help. According to the police report from the incident, Cason “left little doubt” that he was too drunk to drive, but had nevertheless climbed behind the wheel.
Strangely, officials from Santa Rose County did not bring DUI charges against Cason because he was not behind the wheel of his car when they arrived.
In his own report, Cason admitted that he had made a mistake, agreed to undergo counseling to address potential problems with alcohol, and promised that such an incident would never happen again.
In addition to this mishap, Cason was also investigated in 2008 after an alleged victim accused him of aggravated assault with a firearm (the incident also included allegations of alcohol abuse).
Fortunately for Cason, though, the victim dropped the charges, and the internal investigation into the matter was never completed.
Finally, in April 2011, Cason left his unmarked car overnight in a public parking lot with a gun clearly lying in the back seat. An alert deputy picked up the car and returned it to Cason’s house. Again, no disciplinary action was taken after this incident.
By guest-writer
Haley Barbour, the former governor of Mississippi, raised many eyebrows after he pardoned more than 200 convicted felons in his home state when he left office. One of these pardons has already come back to haunt him.
In January, Barbour pardoned Harry Bostisk, who was a convicted DUI felon residing in a jail in Oxford, Mississippi, according to a report this week from CNN.com.
Bostick was in a jail cell awaiting charges from a drunk driving accident involving the death of 18-year-old Charity Smith. Fault for the accident has yet to be determined, but Bostick’s presence in jail wasn’t only related to the fatal accident.
Sources indicate that Bostick was initially thrown into jail for violating the terms of his probation that had been a result of a previous DUI sentence. In fact, Bostick appears to have a long record of drunk driving problems and subsequent good fortune with the police and court system in Mississippi.
According to CNN, Bostick was arrested for a felony drunk driving offense in March 2009. That incident was Bostick’s third arrest for drunk driving in a little more than a year, which is a staggeringly high rate of DUI arrests.
After his third DUI arrest, Bostick was eventually sentenced in March 2010 to a year of house arrest and four years in an alcohol treatment program, which had strict guidelines for repeat offenders.
During the beginning stages of this program, which occurred through the state’s drug court, Bostick began lobbying the governor for a pardon. Bostick had several high-profile friends send letters to the governor, claiming that Bostick’s behavior could be explained by a recent divorce with his wife and the recent death of his son in a freak house fire.
These letters, apparently, had an effect on the governor, as he eventually pardoned Bostick after receiving advice from the Mississippi Parole Board, which recommended a pardon by a vote of 3-2.
And, according to sources, one week after Bostick allegedly caused the fatal accident that resulted in the death of 18-year-old Charity Smith, he was unceremoniously released from jail.
State officials claim that Bostick had been pardoned before the accident, and that they did not realize he had caused the fatal accident when they released him from jail.
Of course, while charges have not officially been filed, the case is already a nightmare for the Mississippi Parole Board and Haley Barbour. Critics of the former governor were already claiming that he had abused his pardon privileges, and this incident simply adds fuel to their arguments.
By guest-writer
Experts often advise inebriated people to take public transportation rather than risk getting a DUI by driving home, but the worst possible choice is to try to combine driving and public transportation.
This dangerous mixture, however, recently occurred in San Francisco when an alleged drunk driver steered his SUV into the start of an underground train tunnel, which, predictably, caused a bit of chaos.
The driver, 40-year-old Scott Mitchell, a resident of Sebastopol, California, was charged with three different crimes, including driving under the influence, after speeding into a municipal train tunnel at 6 a.m. last Thursday morning.
Mitchell was able to progress at a clip of roughly 40 miles per hour in the inbound direction of the morning trains. His progress was stopped about a half mile into the tunnel when his car became lodged between the tracks.
Tyonne Julian, a city employee who witnessed the bizarre event, claims that Mitchell actually switched tracks halfway through his tunnel drive in order to miss an oncoming train. Observers noted that it was a miracle that Mitchell didn’t ram into a train.
When Julian saw the crazed driver, he radioed city officials to stop the morning train traffic, which was put on hold for more than two hours as cleanup crews made the tracks safe again for train travel.
Of course, this two-hour delay occurred during a weekday downtown rush hour, which caused untold frustration among the hundreds of thousands of San Francisco commuters who were adversely affected that morning.
For his efforts, police charged Mitchell with a strange combination of violations, including driving under the influence of alcohol, driving on train tracks, and failing to obey a traffic sign (which, presumably, warned drivers that the train tunnel was not, in fact, for vehicles).
And while Mitchell may have failed to correctly practice the art of taking public transportation when drunk, he was at least honing in on the correct form of transit.
For people who like to drink, and have the advantage of living in a metropolitan area, forms of public transportation such as the bus or a train offer a safe, often enjoyable way to get home.
Even people under the influence of all sorts of substances typically have the capacity to climb aboard a train or bus and stumble out at the appropriate exit. Buses and trains have likely saved countless drivers from unwanted drunk driving arrests.
Of course, trains and buses aren’t the only alternative form of transportation for people who’ve had too many drinks. If, for example, you have extra cash on hand, taxis offer a more expensive, but equally safe form of transit.
On the other hand, if you are poor in cash but rich in friends, calling someone else to drive you home or designating a sober driver at the beginning of the night can help ensure that you get home without an encounter with angry police.
By guest-writer
A Brazilian race car driver was recently arrested for a DUI manslaughter and vehicular homicide after allegedly causing an accident that killed a pedestrian in Miami Beach last week, according to a report from NBC Miami.
The South American race car driver, 20-year-old Joao Paulo Escudero Mauro, made his first appearance this Friday in Miami-Dade courtroom, where the judge set his bond at a lofty sum of $250,000.
Despite this high price tag, though, Mauro soon posted bond later that afternoon, but the court will follow his movements with an ankle monitor and the Brazilian driver had to surrender his passport.
According to a report from Miami Beach police, Mauro was driving his Mercedes-Benz SUV on Collins Avenue at a speedy clip of 60 miles per hour in a 30 miles per hour zone. While he was speeding north on Collins, Mauro allegedly swerved to the left and drove onto a nearby sidewalk.
At the same time, which was roughly 1:30 a.m. last Thursday night, 45-year-old Russell Knudson was trying to squeeze his bicycle into a rear door of his Toyota SUV when he was hit and killed by the speeding Mercedes, according to police.
After the accident, Mauro allegedly drove the Mercedes further along the sidewalk until he eventually stopped several yards later.
When police made first contact with Mauro, he reportedly had bloodshot eyes and a flushed face, and his breath apparently smelled like alcohol. Mauro admitted to police that he had been drinking earlier, and he claimed that he swerved his car to avoid another vehicle that had stopped in traffic in front of him.
While the presence of another car in the road could support Mauro’s claim that he is not guilty, Mauro’s felony DUI charge could be enhanced by the possible presence of drugs, as well as his admitted alcohol use.
When police arrested him, they noted that Mauro’s left nostril contained a “white powdery substance” and the arresting officers found a small bag of a substance that looked a lot like cocaine. The bag was found close to the area where Mauro was standing.
So, in addition to the charges of DUI manslaughter and vehicular homicide, the Brazilian national will also have to defend himself against a charge of cocaine possession.
Police also noted that Mauro had “a white powdery substance in his left nostril,” and that they found a small baggie of what appeared to be cocaine near where he was standing. He was later charged with cocaine possession in addition to the DUI and vehicular homicide charges.
Mauro, however, remains undaunted, and his attorney said that he and the defendant “believe that the evidence will show that Mr. Mauro was not driving under the influence or involved in vehicular homicide.”
In addition to this claim of innocence, Mauro’s attorney also acknowledged that the defendant felt “very badly for the Knudson family.”
Mauro has competed for a few years in Brazilian stock car racing and recently made his American appearance last June at the Road America 200 Continental Tire Sports Car Challenge in Wisconsin.
By guest-writer
The results of a recent study suggest that man are almost three times more likely than woman to be arrested for driving drunk, a finding that is sure to spur plenty of debate between the opposite sexes.
According to a report from KIVI-TV in Boise, Idaho, which cited evidence offered on an auto insurance website, men are about three times more likely to be arrested for a DUI, reckless driving, or driving without a seatbelt.
And, before male readers unleash their outrage at potentially misleading statistics, these numbers are backed up by insurance company practices.
In Idaho, for example, average car insurance premiums are 14 percent higher for men than they are for women. It seems that car insurance companies, which have a vested interest in doing ample research on safe driving, buy into the adage that men have a tendency to be more reckless behind the wheel.
In addition to the findings about DUIs, the study also discovered that roughly 80 percent of accidents involving cars hitting pedestrians are caused by men.
Of course, not everyone is convinced that men are more aggressive drivers. The report interviewed local body shops in Idaho, which confirmed that they see a 50-50 split in body work requests from drivers.
In addition, anecdotal evidence from following police blotters suggests that women are frequently asked to submit to blood alcohol tests, though it must be admitted that more male offenders seem to dot the DUI headlines each week.
And, while the debate may continue between men and women about their driving habits, there are certain demographic trends that help guide police efforts to reduce the overall instances of drunk driving.
For example, it has been conclusively shown that young people are more likely than older drivers to be arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol.
Due to this reality, ant-DUI marketing campaigns led by local governments and non-governmental organizations tend to focus their messages on younger audience to maximize the potential impact of their ad campaigns.
Thanks to the success of these forms of targeted marketing, statistics showing the proliferation of male drunk drivers may ultimately lead concerned police to target their messages to specifically male audiences.
If, in the future, anti-DUI messaging is restricted solely to young males, incidences of DUI arrests may very well decline. However, while statistics help reveal the realities behind DUIs, the act of driving while drunk has proven to be very difficult to eradicate.
Each year, millions of people get behind the wheel after having too many drinks, and a painfully small percentage of these drivers are ever caught.
By targeting DUI enforcement to certain populations, such as young males, police officers may be able to put a bigger dent in the problem of drunk driving than they would if they were casting a wider enforcement net.
Yes, this could be viewed as gender or age profiling, but in a country that sees 40,000 traffic deaths each year, drastic measures could be necessary to reduce the number of fatalities on American roads.
By guest-writer
A routine DUI traffic stop in northern California ended in a bloody melee, as a man trying to escape a DUI arrest was gunned down by police after he reached for his own weapon, according to a recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle.
Sources indicate that the 42-year-old driver, whose identity has not yet been released, was stopped last week on suspicion of drunk driving at around 10:00 p.m. in Santa Clara, California.
When the responding officer saw that the man was being uncooperative, he called for backup from a nearby fellow officer. According to a police report, before additional officers arrived, the suspect was seen reaching for a revolver in his car.
In a statement released by Santa Clara police captain Phil Cooke, the officer on the scene “fired in self-defense based on the suspect’s actions.” The shots fired by the officer ultimately proved fatal for the suspected drunk driver.
Again, according to Cooke, “unfortunately, the suspect was pronounced dead at the scene, but we’re grateful there were no other injuries.”
Police shootings of suspects, whatever the situation or crime, always foster a great deal of public scrutiny, and this incident will likely follow suit. Santa Clara police officials and other authorities have already launched a full-scale investigation of the matter.
While the investigation is proceeding, the officer who fired the fatal shots will be placed on administrative duties and temporarily taken off the streets. Sources indicate that the officer has been a member of the Santa Clara police force for two years.
This incident, while harrowing, raises a few interesting issues about DUI arrests. First, since police officers never know the mindset of the person they are pulling over, they often approach even routine traffic stops with a heightened level of awareness.
As a result, drivers should refrain from making sudden movements, or taking any steps that might make it appear like they are reaching for a weapon.
In addition, drivers are cautioned to pull over in a relatively non-busy and well-lit location, both for the protection of themselves and the officers.
Moreover, when an officer approaches your vehicle after you have been pulled over, keeping your hands on your steering wheel shows the officer that you are not dangerous and allows them to approach your car with a greater degree of comfort.
Finally, and this seems like an obvious statement but it must be emphasized, drivers who are pulled over, especially on suspicion of drunk driving, should remain polite and relatively cordial during their discussion with police.
Any aggressive words, even if they are not supported by violent actions, could be interpreted by police as a sign of hostility, which could lead to further criminal charges, or, in the worst case, unwanted violent action.
By guest-writer
In a typical DUI case, the suspect is apprehended by police officers who are wearing uniforms, or are otherwise obviously licensed police. Rarely are people suspected of DUIs arrested by civilians.
A recent incident, however, in Bassett, California illustrated what happens when good Samaritans take the law into their own hands.
According to a recent story in the San Gabriel Tribune, the suspected drunk driver—a man in his mid-40’s whose name has not yet been released—tried to flee the scene of a crash on a California freeway but was thwarted by concerned citizens.
The driver had caused a crash around 5 a.m. that clogged morning traffic on the 605 Freeway for more than an hour, according to logs from the California Highway Patrol.
The crash involved the driver’s Honda Pilot and another vehicle and, despite the driver’s high level of intoxication, the crash did not cause any serious injuries, according to an interview with CHP Officer Luis Mendoza.
In the interview, Officer Mendoza said that the drunk driver tried to flee the scene immediately after the accident. In addition, Mendoza admitted that he could not verify some reports that suggested the driver tried to steal another car when he was running away from the scene of the crash.
According to Mendoza, other drivers “saw him kind of staggering, walking away from the scene.” When they tried to hold in place, the drunk driver reportedly became “a little aggressive.”
Despite the driver’s aggressive stance, one passerby was able to handcuff the man with flexcuffs, and then forced the man to sit down. Once the man was handcuffed and seated, several citizens kept an eye on him to ensure that he wouldn’t try to flee again.
Of course, after all this effort, the driver remained uncooperative when police arrived, as he refused to take a sobriety test and did not answer the officers’ questions. Nevertheless, because of his behavior and other obvious signs, the police concluded that he was under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
When CHP officers arrived, the suspect was not cooperative and refused to submit to sobriety tests, the officer said. Officers determined he appeared to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Now, the driver will face potential fines, a suspended license, or even jail time as a result of his transgression. If he had injured any of the other motorists, or if he had injured a police officer, the possible sentence he would face would be much worse.
And despite the courage of the other drivers who detained the drunk man, people who are not trained police officers are typically discouraged from taking the law into their own hands, particularly if the situation involves a dangerous person.
Of course, this advice didn’t stop a few brave motorists in California from detaining an obviously inebriated driver.
By guest-writer
An Idaho politician who was involved in a DUI arrest last Father’s Day claims that he cannot remember many details about his arrest, which has troubled skeptical voters and members of his own party in the Idaho Senate.
According to a recent report from the Idaho Press-Tribune, which recently interviewed Rep. John McGee about his DUI arrest, McGee’s arrest came after his erratic driving caused him to jackknife an SUV and its cargo trailer.
After McGee was arrest, police discovered that his blood alcohol level was almost twice the legal limit, although the politician still contends that he remembers nothing from that night. McGee said he remembers having a few “celebratory drinks” after winning a golf tournament, but that the rest of the night was a blur.
For his actions, McGee pleaded guilty to the charge of a DUI, but police later dropped their charge that he was driving the car without the owner’s consent.
After his guilty plea, McGee spent 36 hours in jail (which was a far cry from the possible 180 days he could have spent behind bars), and performed 24 hours of community service. He was also fined $1,000 and, because it was his first offense, under Idaho DUI law, the arrest may be removed from his record if he follows the terms of his probation.
Of course, while his criminal record may eventually be clear, his record in the court of public opinion may have suffered long-term damage.
This week, the senator will learn whether he will retain his position as the Republican Senate Caucus chairman, or if his party will remove him from the position for fear of a public outcry.
Too be fair, McGee certainly isn’t the first politician who has recovered his position after a DUI accident, but the Idaho public remains skeptical about his ability to serve as a senator.
Nevertheless, McGee continues to fight for his position in the senate, and pictures he showed the Idaho Press-Tribune seem to support his claim that the injuries he suffered in the accident have fogged his memory of the events that led up to the crash.
Sources indicate that these photos reveal discoloration and a wide scab on the top of his head, as well bruises and deep abrasions on his waist, left knee, and torso.
And, despite McGee’s poor decision—which he readily admits was wrong—he may offer a good example of an otherwise responsible person who made one terrible decision.
Many DUI arrests, in fact, involve responsible members of the community who don’t know their own limits. In order to avoid making a similar mistake, other drivers should remember that getting behind the wheel after a few drinks is never worth the risk to one’s reputation.
By guest-writer
A California driver who was arrested for a DUI faces additional criminal charges after he fled his hospital room, where he was being treated for injuries caused by his negligent driving, in order to evade police.
52-year-old James Thomas Miller, a resident of Santa Rose, California, was arrested last week on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol after allegedly causing a crash on Highway 1 near Sebastopol, California, according to a report from the Press Democrat.
When police officers responded to the scene of the accident, they discovered that Miller had driven his Ford pickup truck off the road, which caused the car to strike an embankment. The force of this collision sent the truck spinning back onto the road, where it eventually overturned.
Emergency personnel who responded to the accident sent both the driver, Miller, and his passenger to a hospital to be treated for their wounds. This is where events grew even more interesting.
When police arrived at the hospital to question the driver, they discovered 46-year-old Kimberley Turpen, who was being treated for injuries to her head and arm. Turpen told police that she had only been a passenger, and that Miller had been driving the truck at the time of the accident.
To the officers’ chagrin, when they tried to locate Miller, hospital officials told them that he had fled the premises before the police arrived.
Fortunately for police, though, the injured driver did not get very far. They soon discovered Miller at a nearby bus stop, where he was seen stumbling around a road.
When police arrested Miller at the bus stop, they determined that he was drunk because he failed a field sobriety test, and Miller was arrested for drunk driving and other charges.
Miller faces a long road to freedom, as this is not his first DUI offense. Sources indicate that Miller has been arrested for three prior DUI offenses, as well as seven suspended license infractions. Miller was also on probation at the time of the accident.
And, under California DUI laws, Miller may face an addition felony charge for being arrested for his fourth DUI within a span of 10 years.
While most states’ DUI laws are different, almost every state punishes repeat DUI offenders more harshly than people who have only committed one offense.
Possible additional punishments for repeat DUI drivers include steeper fines, longer jail sentences, possible prison sentences, and suspended licenses. If they are allowed to driver in the future, drivers with multiple DUIs may have to use breathalyzer devices in their cars to ensure that they are sober every time they drive.
After a few DUI convictions, many drivers lose their license to drive for significant periods of time, and DUI drivers may spend up to several years in prison for their transgressions.
By guest-writer
While a driver may be arrested for a DUI, there are several obstacles that the prosecutor must overcome before successfully convicting that driver on official charges.
Potential errors made by police officers during a DUI arrest include failing to follow standard police procedures, conducting an illegal search or seizure, or giving a faulty breathalyzer test.
Errors such as flawed breathalyzer tests can be a legal nightmare for police departments, as evidenced by a recent incident in Kentucky in which several alleged DUI drivers may be set free after the police made a very technical mistake.
According to an investigative report from Louisville’s Courier-Journal, the results from alcohol breath tests that were used against roughly 600 drivers may be inadmissible in court after police discovered that four lab technicians had let their licenses lapse.
In what the local prosecutor called a “very unfortunate situation,” hundreds of breath test results have been challenged because they were performed by lab technicians who were working with expired certifications.
The inadmissibility of these breath tests could lead to dropped cases against hundreds of suspected DUI drivers because the breath tests are often the best evidence police can present against people suspected of drunk driving.
According to a Jefferson County Attorney Mike O’Connell, whose cases will be weakened if the breath tests results are thrown out, these tests represent “the single most important piece of evidence at trial.”
He also observed that the results of portable breathalyzer tests, which are used in the field as a first line of detection by police officers, are not admissible in court because of their unreliability.
Thus, police typically rely on blood or breath tests that are administered at the police station after the arrest. These tests, it appears, are much more reliable than the portable units used by police officers.
O’Connell expects that many DUI lawyers will try to reverse convictions for their clients that were supported by faulty tests.
He fears that many convicted drunk drivers may be released, unless state authorities can support their convictions with other compelling evidence, such as video of the driver during the arrest, witness testimony, or the results of field sobriety tests.
And, even if the defendants are able to escape DUI charges, prosecutors may still try to convict them on other charges, like public intoxication, disturbing the peace, alcohol intoxication, and wanton endangerment, none of which require breath tests at trial.
Despite these potential alternatives, though, Louisville police are embarrassed by the incident, which they claim is very rare and hasn’t happened before in Jefferson County.
Of course, while the police and state attorneys may be upset, there are hundreds of suspected drunk drivers in Louisville who can’t believe their good fortune.
By guest-writer
The potential costs of a DUI arrest can be very high, as drunk drivers often face large fines, possible jail time, or a suspended license. The costs of a DUI, however, often extend beyond these immediate losses.
For example, many people who are convicted for a DUI find that their insurance premiums rise dramatically. Insurance companies, quite naturally, are more reluctant to insure drivers with a history of drunk driving.
According to a recent report from Fox Business, insurance premiums for drivers with a DUI on their driving record could rise anywhere from 30 to 100 percent.
In Colorado, for example, rates may jump by 30 percent, while North Carolina residents could face a staggering spike of 340 percent on their next car insurance bill. Some insurance companies may drop customers altogether, depending on the severity of the drunk driving incident.
While insurance rates may spike after a DUI, this rise is not necessarily permanent. The length of time rates will rise depends on your insurance company’s own policies, but it is common for your record to be wiped clean (in the insurance agency’s eyes) after about three years.
However, many states keep DUI convictions on a driver’s record for much longer periods of time, which could result in a driver facing higher premiums for up to a decade.
In California, for example, drivers are prevented from receiving a safe-driver discount for at least 10 years after a conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol.
In addition to increased insurance rates, drivers also have to complete an SR-22 form, which is a certificate of responsibility that many states require drivers to complete after they have been convicted of a DUI.
This certificate of responsibility must be carried by the driver for a certain period of time (usually three to five years) after the driving incident that created the need for the special license. Again, this certificate is just another hurdle for drivers after a DUI.
Of course, the statistics showing insurance rate spikes after a DUI serve as evidence that people who are arrested for a DUI should take the charges very seriously. And just because a person is arrested for a DUI does not mean that he or she will be convicted.
A number of things can go wrong during a DUI arrest that may hurt the prosecutor’s case, and a DUI attorney may help you understand more about your legal rights after drunk driving arrest.
And, if you are able to defeat your DUI charges, your insurance company may never learn about the incident, and insurance premiums may stay put.
While this may not always be the case, it is certainly worth your time to research your legal options after a DUI arrest, because these incidents do not always have to be fatal to your reputation or your finances.
By guest-writer
After a DUI arrest, suspected drunk drivers have several options. They can take a breathalyzer test or refuse to do so, they can bail themselves out or spend the night in jail, and they can determine how they behave in front of the police.
Rarely, though, do DUI suspects take the ill-advised choice of running from the police. This practice, however, seems to be growing more popular, particularly in the town of Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
According to a recent report from Sioux Falls’ newspaper, The Argus Leader, local police have had a difficult time with runners, or people who sprint out of the police station while waiting for the results of a blood or breathalyzer test.
The problem is particularly acute in the case of convicted DUI drivers who must return to the police station for a daily blood alcohol test.
After a DUI conviction, South Dakota often orders offenders to participate in a 24/7 sobriety program. For a period of a few months, the offenders must have a blood test taken every day at the police station.
If the individuals pass the exam, they are free to go, and eventually graduate from the program after a certain period of documented sobriety. If, however, the individuals fail the exam, they are immediately placed into jail because they violated the terms of their DUI probation.
One hole in this system in Sioux Falls, though, is that a test-taker must wait in the police department for 15 minutes while the police officer attempts to determine the validity of the initial test.
During this waiting period, the offender waits in the lobby, which is not staffed by a security guard, and the only officer in the room is behind a desk tinkering with blood tests. In other words, it is an invitation for a concerned offender to run.
This occurs fairly frequently in Sioux Falls, according to the report, and recently happened in the case of Brad Lehrkamp. The 28-year-old Lehrkamp was waiting in the lobby and he feared that he had “blown hot,” or failed his blood test.
Lehrkamp’s fears proved accurate, and so, fearing the prospect of going back to jail, Lehrkamp bolted out of the lobby and made a run for it.
His attempt to flee, however, was quickly thwarted when he broke his leg leaping down the police department’s stairs. After being treated at a nearby clinic, a gimpy Lehrkamp was promptly delivered to a local jail.
Of course, dramatic attempts to flee are not the only possible method of escaping South Dakota’s 24/7 sobriety program. Other defendants simply refuse to show up for their appointments, which voids the terms of their probation and also leads to further jail time.
These 24/7 programs have been very popular in many states, because they save the costs of jailing a DUI offender, but also allow law enforcement officials to keep close tabs on people who may act as a danger to others.
The programs, however, also have their critics, many of whom claim that daily blood tests are too intrusive, and that they may not prevent future DUI accidents if they are too loosely enforced.
By guest-writer
A recent DUI arrest in Missoula, Montana, spun out of control when the driver began attacking local police, who responded to the abuse by tasing the man twice and hauling him off to jail after his fourth DUI arrest.
Police arrested 40-year-old Roy Vincent Adams on suspicion of drunk driving after they perceived that his car driving erratically, according to a recent report from The Missoulian.
Sources indicate that, immediately before the arrest, police noticed Adams gunning his engine on slick, icy roads, which caused his car to swerve wildly and almost led him to crash his vehicle directly into a police cruiser.
When police officers, who were trailing Adams, turned on their lights, Adams attempted to flee by speeding in an opposite direction. His efforts, however, were to no avail, as Adams simply ran his truck into a curb.
According to the police report filed after the incident, Adams left his car after being pulled over and started pacing back and forth, in what police deemed a threatening and erratic manner.
When Adams allegedly ignored an officer’s demand to sit on the curb, the arresting officers grabbed Adams and a fight ensued. Adams allegedly struck one officer in the chest, and was able to continue fighting even after the police tased him twice.
The police report also indicates that Adams continued screaming obscenities at police officers after he was handcuffed and incapacitated. Sources say that Adams, who has been held in a local jail on a $15,000 bail, has been convicted three times before on DUI charges.
Adams is facing a litany of charges, including felony DUI, assault, resisting arrest and attacking a police officer, and reckless driving.
Interestingly, police were able to obtain a blood sample from Adams via a mandatory blood test, rather than a breath test, which Adams refused to give.
The administration of “no refusal” blood tests has recently gained traction in several states, as police officers have looked for an alternative method of determining a suspect’s blood alcohol level when the driver refuses to give a breath test.
The use of the blood test has drawn the ire of civil rights attorneys who criticize law enforcement officials for using the remarkably invasive method of drawing blood from noncompliant suspects.
In the absence of a less-invasive blood alcohol testing method, however, it seems that police will continue to rely on mandatory blood tests when DUI suspects refuse to breath into breathalyzer devices.
Of course, as technology continues to grow at an exponential pace, there may soon be a DUI testing method that allows police to determine a suspect’s blood alcohol level without touching him or her at all.
This method, though, will raise new concerns about privacy, as police could theoretically administer such a non-invasive test to everyone, regardless of their level of suspicion.
These issues serve to highlight an inescapable reality of modern DUI law: as technology continues to give police more enforcement options, defendants will keep arguing that the new tactics give police too much control over civilian drivers.
By guest-writer
After a long legal battle, which included the resolution of a dispute about the validity of the charges at the Illinois Supreme Court, a woman finally pleaded guilty this week to an aggravated DUI after causing a multiple-car accident that killed two motorcycle drivers.
According to the Chicago Tribune, 27-year-old Alia Bernard recently pleaded guilty to the charge of aggravated felony DUI after she admitted to having marijuana in her system when the fatal crash occurred.
Sources indicate that the fatal accident occurred in May 2009, when Bernard apparently bent over to grab her sunglasses and lost control of her vehicle.
When Bernard, a resident of Aurora, Illinois, was reaching for her glasses, she rear-ended a stopped car on an Illinois state highway at a very high speed. The collision sent the stopped car flying forward, and it then struck another car that was waiting to take a left turn.
When this second collision sent the turning car further into the intersection, the car created an obstacle for two motorcyclists who were lawfully traveling through a green light. The force of the collision killed both motorcyclists.
In all, the accident that was started by Bernard’s negligent driving involved nine different vehicles, injured 12 people, and resulted in the death of Wade and Denise Thomas, who were 44 and 45 years old, respectively.
Originally, prosecutors alleged that Bernard was texting when the accident occurred, although she and her DUI lawyer offered a different story.
According to Bernard’s lawyer, “[i]t was sunny and the sun was bouncing off the chrome of the motorcycles and she went to get her sunglasses and when she looked up, there was a car in the road.”
In addition, even though tests showed that Bernard tested positive for marijuana, she claims that she had not smoked pot for three or four days before the accident and was completely sober when the collision occurred.
Despite this claim, though, prosecutors raised her charges from the lesser crime of reckless homicide when the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that any amount of an illegal substance in a driver’s system during a fatal accident warrants the charge of aggravated DUI.
This news has upset some legal experts in Illinois, as it suggests that, for example, drivers who smoked marijuana several days before getting into even a minor accident could still be liable for an aggravated DUI charge.
In response, supporters of the decision say that a zero-tolerance policy will deter drivers from getting behind the wheel if they have a shred of doubt about their sobriety.
Regardless of the validity of the decision, Bernard has admitted responsibility and pleaded guilty to the charges. Sources indicate that Bernard, who has no past criminal record, could face six to 28 years in prison.
