By Mary Ann
By Mary Ann Pekara
Were you already convicted of DUI in Georgia and convicted for a 2nd time? Watch out! Things could be getting more strict for you.
The Georgia Senate has approved a more strict punishment for driving under the influence convictions for multiple time offenders.
Anyone convicted of more than one DUI in a 5 year period could be looking at a longer relationship with their breath-test lock on their car ignition.
The bill has to go to the House before the law can be revised but offenders may see an increase from an 8 month probationary license to one year.
Currently, after 120 days without a valid license, a probationary license can be obtained (for 8 months) as long as their car is equipped with the ignition lock that tests the driver’s blood alcohol content before starting.
Share this with your friends
Copyright © 2013 TotalDUI, LLC. All rights reserved.
By johnclark
By John Clark
Peter Murphy, the legendary goth-rocker who was the lead singer for Bauhaus three decades ago, was arrested for a DUI this weekend, according to a report from the Los Angeles Times.
Sources say the 55-year-old performer allegedly rear-ended a Mercedes with his Subaru Forester in Glendale, California, which reportedly injured the driver of the other car. But Murphy didn’t stop there.
According to the police report, Murphy fled the scene of the accident, driving into Los Angeles, where an alert eyewitness blocked Murphy’s path after following the singer from the scene of the drunk driving accident.
Sources say one eyewitness capture a photograph of Murphy’s license plate as he was speeding away from the accident.
In addition, a Good Samaritan reportedly followed Murphy in his pickup truck, which blocked Murphy’s path until police officers arrived on the scene.
At the time of his arrest, Murphy reportedly looked “very confused,” and issued a weak attempt at an excuse for his behavior by claiming that he was suffering from jet lag.
The singer also swore that he had not had any alcohol before driving, and said the only substance in his system were prescription pills for depression, according to the police report.
Police, however, claim they found a bag of methamphetamine in the squad car where Murphy had been detained after his arrest. Prosecutors plan to argue that the bag belonged to Murphy, although the singer denies that he owned the drugs.
Sources do not say whether Murphy has a prior history of drunk driving, but even if he did have a former DUI conviction on his record, he could have avoided significant legal trouble by simply waiting at the scene of the accident until police arrived.
Courts view DUI accidents with disdain, but they’re certainly less likely to take pity on defendants who flee the scene of an accident, especially if the innocent party is injured.
Of course, fleeing the scene of an accident is also a separate offense, so Murphy has exposed to himself to a significantly longer jail sentence and higher fines.
According to sources, Murphy was formally charged this week with causing injuries while driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, possessing methamphetamine, and engaging in a felony hit-and-run.
Murphy, who currently lives in Turkey and was only visiting the United States, is being held on $500,000 bail after a Los Angeles judge decided he was a legitimate flight risk, according to court reports.
Share this with your friends
Copyright © 2013 TotalDUI, LLC. All rights reserved.
By johnclark
By John Clark
An Arizona court has upheld a decision that allows the state to prosecute Arizona drivers for driving under the influence of marijuana even if there is no evidence that they have been smoking pot, according to a report from the Arizona Republic.
Sources say the ruling, which was issued by the state’s Court of Appeals, addressed a complicated issue relating to the chemical compounds in marijuana.
When drivers are subjected to blood and urine tests after an arrest, two different pieces of evidence related to marijuana use emerge.
The first chemical compound provides evidence that the driver is actually impaired, while the other chemical compound is something that remains in a smoker’s system for weeks after he or she has smoked marijuana, but it doesn’t impair the average person’s driving ability.
Common sense would suggest that police officers should only use the first compound as evidence of intoxicated driving, but to the dismay of some state DUI attorneys, the Arizona court decided otherwise.
According to sources, the court claimed that both compounds apply to drivers under Arizona DUI laws. So if drivers have any evidence of marijuana in their system, they can be arrested for a DUI, even if they are in a perfectly suitable driving condition.
The court said the state’s legislature created the state’s DUI laws to “protect public safety,” so the court claimed it had a responsibility to interpret the statute “broadly,” and thus include both inactive and active chemical compounds found in marijuana.
The case initially arose from a traffic stop in Maricopa County that took place in 2010. During that incident, the arrested driver’s blood test only showed trace amounts of the chemical compound that is usually found well after marijuana is inhaled, according to sources.
According to one expert who testified in the case, the particular compound found in the driver’s blood doesn’t impair driving skills, and it may remain in the bloodstream for up to four weeks.
The driver’s DUI attorney said that only the chemical compound that impairs drivers’ ability to safely navigate roads is illegal, but the appellate court disagreed with this argument.
Despite the court’s decision, the original driver’s attorney is planning to file an appeal. He believes that the testing issue should be resolved because several surrounding states have legalized marijuana.
His concern is that residents of Washington and Colorado, where marijuana will soon be legal, will have to avoid driving through Arizona in order to avoid the state’s bizarre laws, which could have a negative impact on the state’s economy.
Share this with your friends
Copyright © 2013 TotalDUI, LLC. All rights reserved.
By johnclark
By John Clark
The mayor of Grand Island, Nebraska was arrested this week for drunk driving, continuing a long history of public officials who have stepped behind the wheel after having too many drinks.
According to a report this week from the Grand Island Independent, the town’s mayor, Jay Vavricek, was arrested this weekend for driving under the influence of alcohol.
Reports indicate that Vavricek, a 60-year-old politician, was booked into the Valley County Jail on Saturday night, but was released shortly thereafter after posting his bond.
In a statement released earlier this week, the mayor was he was “sorry and embarrassed for the events that have occurred in the last 24 hours.”
“I apologize to my family, those dependent on me, and my community, and will take corrective action so they will never be affected like this again,” concluded the mayor.
The mayor’s new need for a personal DUI attorney comes as a surprise after he had developed a great deal of trust among the community, according to sources.
Sources note that Vavricek had released his personal cell phone number on flyers last week that were sent to several residents of Grand Island. The flyers had encouraged town residents to become more involved in local government decisions, sources say.
Of course, the mayor has been arrested, but he hasn’t yet been convicted on a DUI charge. Sources say the results of a blood test, which could exonerate the mayor, have yet to be released.
City officials, however, have refused to further address Vavricek’s arrest. In a written statement, city officials said “city staff have no comment” since the arrest “is a personal matter.”
One city official, though, did briefly express disappointment in the mayor’s actions. Bob Niemann, the president of the city council, said the mayor sees the incident as “unfortunate, and so do I.”
Only time will tell whether the DUI arrest will strike a fatal political blow for Vavricek, who was first elected mayor in Grand Island in 2002, when he served a four-year term that was widely viewed as a success.
After leaving the mayor position voluntarily, Vavricek ran for a state congressional seat, which he lost. After a four-year absence from political office, Vavricek was elected to his second term as Grand Island’s mayor in 2010.
But the second term hasn’t gone as smoothly as the first, sources say. Vavricek was formally censured by the city council last summer after firing the city’s administrator, and a movement to recall the mayor a few months ago gained widespread support before eventually failing.
Share this with your friends
Copyright © 2013 TotalDUI, LLC. All rights reserved.
By johnclark
By John Clark
This week, the Montana Supreme Court upheld the drunk driving conviction of a man who was initially pulled over by police because snow was covering his license plate, according to a report from the San Francisco Chronicle.
Sources say Mark Haldane was stopped by police in Bozeman, Montana, in January 2011 simply because the police were unable to read the entirety of Haldane’s license plate due to the accumulation of snow and the presence of a poorly placed trailer hitch.
The police were acting pursuant to a Montana state law that requires cars to have “license plates conspicuously displayed.” The law also notes that license plates in Montana “may not be obstructed from plain view.”
As a result, the police had a “particularized suspicion” to pull him over, which is the threshold police must meet before they seize someone’s vehicle by pulling it over.
Haldane challenged the validity of the stop because of the consequences that eventually ensued. After police pulled him over, they noticed that Haldane had “red, bloodshot eyes” and asked Haldane to take a field sobriety test.
Unfortunately for the driver, Haldane failed the field sobriety test and admitted to officers that he had consumed a few beers before getting behind the wheel.
At trial, Haldane was found guilty of a misdemeanor DUI, and was sentenced to a year in jail. The judge, however, suspended most of the sentence except for three days and ordered Haldane to pay a $935 fine.
While Haldane did not challenge the fact that he was drunk, he and his DUI attorney believed that challenging the validity of the stop would invalidate the DUI arrest.
The Montana Supreme Court, however, said that Haldane’s violation of the law prohibiting the concealment of license plates, even if such concealment is unintentional, gave the police enough suspicion to pull him over.
One judge, however, had noted in previous decisions that the simple fact of an obstructed license plate, standing alone, did not give police officers enough suspicion to stop a vehicle. But his judge apparently changed his mind during Haldane’s appeal.
Despite the loss on this count, Haldane did succeed in convincing the court that his inability to pay his fine promptly led to a longer jail sentence.
Sources say the justice told the Bozeman Municipal Court to revisit Haldane’s sentencing because its first decision violated the constitutional principle that “indigency or poverty not be used as the touchstone for imposing the maximum allowable punishment.”
Share this with your friends
Copyright © 2013 TotalDUI, LLC. All rights reserved.
By johnclark
By John Clark
Drunk driving is never a good idea, but if you do get behind the wheel after a few drinks, the most reasonable course of action is to avoid driving directly into a parked police car. Alas, some drivers fail to follow this simple advice.
An Illinois driver was arrested for a DUI this week after crashing into the back of a police cruiser, injuring two police officers, according to a report from the Chicago Tribune.
Source say 47-year-old Christopher Slotwinski, a resident of Chicago, drove his car into the back of an unmarked police vehicle early Saturday evening on a busy surface street on the south side of the city.
The two officers who were in the vehicle both suffered injuries, although sources say their conditions were stabilized shortly after being treated at Advocate Christ Medical Center. The driver of the car that caused the accident was also treated at the same hospital.
According to sources, Slotwinski was driving relatively fast when he struck the police car. The impact of the collision sent a headlight flying at least a block away from the collision, sources report.
In addition, the accident reportedly caused extensive damage to the rear of the unmarked police car, which was forced onto the sidewalk and completely off the road due to the impact of the collision.
Not surprisingly, Slotwinski’s car, a four-door sedan, also suffered extensive damage to the front end of the vehicle, although sources suggest that the driver’s injuries are not life-threatening.
Recent reports also indicate that debris from the accident flew across a broad stretch of the road on which the accident occurred.
But while Slotwinski will likely survive the accident, he and his personal DUI lawyer will have a difficult task ahead of them in criminal court.
Sources say the driver has been charged with misdemeanor drunk driving, driving with a suspended license, driving without insurance, and reckless driving, according to Lauras Kubiak, a spokesperson for the Chicago Police Department.
According to the police report, alcohol “may have been involved” in the high-speed accident, although the fact that the driver has already been charged with a DUI suggests that prosecutors are fairly confident that the drunk driving charge will stick.
And the prosecutors are likely to pursue the strictest possible punishment against Slotwinski, who did not have a sterling driving record even before he made the ill-advised decision to slam directly into the back of a police car.
Share this with your friends
Copyright © 2013 TotalDUI, LLC. All rights reserved.
By johnclark
By John Clark
Randy Travis will reportedly avoid a stint in jail after pleading guilty to drunk driving this week, according to a report from the Los Angeles Times.
Sources say the country music legend was arrested by police officers near Tioga, Texas, last August after crashing his Pontiac Trans Am into a construction site.
According to the police report, the 53-year-old entertainer had a blood alcohol level of 0.21 percent at the time of his arrest, which is more than twice the legal limit in Texas of 0.08 percent.
The police report also alleged that Travis was “belligerent” at the scene of the accident. Specifically, Travis initially refused to take a breathalyzer test and he also threatened to shoot the officers who worked on his case.
Even more bizarre, the incident reportedly started after a witness called 911 and told the dispatcher that a naked man, presumably Travis, was lying in the road.
For his antics, Travis was charged with “retaliation and obstruction,” in addition to the DUI charge that was leveled against him after the accident.
Sources say that Travis was able to drop the retaliation and obstruction charge by pleading guilty to driving under the influence.
Under the terms of his plea bargain, Travis will have two spend two years on probation, perform 100 hours of community service, attend an alcohol treatment facility, and pay a $2,000 fine.
In addition, the court will install an ignition interlock device on any car Travis drives. These instruments prevent drivers from starting their cars if they are intoxicated, according to sources.
However, if Travis fails to abide by the terms of his probation, he will likely be sent to jail. And local sources have been quick to note that the celebrity did not receive any favors from Grayson County officials.
According to Joe Brown, the local district attorney, Travis received a sentence that was “considerably” more strict than the sentence that is “typically received” for similar DUI cases.
Brown also said that first-time DUI offenders are “rarely forced into in-patient treatment,” and noted that the singer’s “fine and community service requirements are more than double what is usually received.”
Finally, Brown also noted that the relatively high level of punishment given to Travis was “appropriate in light of his behavior with the officers.”
To his credit, Travis thanked the court for its “courtesy” before his sentencing, and expressed gratitude to the responding officers for “taking care of me that night.”
Share this with your friends
Copyright © 2013 TotalDUI, LLC. All rights reserved.
By johnclark
By John Clark
Despite the modern trend against drunk driving, a rogue county in southwest Ireland has passed a law that will allow some rural drivers to drive while intoxicated, according to a report from the Huffington Post.
Sources say the Kerry County Council voted this week to pass a measure that would let rural drivers apply for special permits allowing them to drive while drunk.
Five council members voted to support the controversial measure, while only three council members voted against it, according to local sources.
According to Danny Healy-Rae, the council member who promoted the resolution, rural Irish drivers have “never killed anyone” because the areas through which they drive are so sparsely populated.
In addition to the safety argument, Healy-Rae also peddled a mental health argument, although it may not be what one would expect. Sources say the councilman claimed the law would help keep a lot of rural drinkers “from falling into depression.”
Elaborating on his bizarre claim, Healy-Rae said people in isolated rural areas have no public transportation options, and new DUI laws have kept them “at home looking at the four walls, night in and night out, because they don’t want to take the risk of losing their license.”
Of course, while Healy-Rae may have legitimate concerns about the social lives of rural folks in Kerry County, he is also the owner of a local pub, and thus may have a conflict of interest.
The plan, which would allow rural residents to drive after having two or three drinks, according to the law’s proponents, has also drawn criticism from Noel Brett, the chief executive of Ireland’s Road Safety Authority.
According to Brett, it is “unthinkable” that Ireland would reverse its course on drunk driving after making “substantial progress in Ireland in reducing deaths and injuries on our roads, particularly in rural areas which are hardest hit by road fatalities and injuries.”
The proposal has also drawn sharp criticism from Alcohol Action Ireland, a nonprofit organization that has warned Kerry County officials that almost one in three automobile deaths in Ireland are related to alcohol.
Conor Cullen, a spokesman for Alcohol Action Ireland, also questioned Healy-Rae’s appeals to the mental health of rural residents, claiming such a view is far from the truth.
In Cullen’s words, “the link between alcohol use and suicide has been well established and alcohol will exacerbate” the depression experienced by the residents of Kerry County, not reduce it.
Share this with your friends
Copyright © 2013 TotalDUI, LLC. All rights reserved.
By admin
By Mary Ann Pekara
Many people don’t know that in some states APC is the same as DUI. What is APC? APC stands for actual physical control.
Essentially what this means is that in some states, you can get a driving under the influence charge while not driving. In other states, such as California, there must be “volitional movement” for DUI.
DUI attorney, Jeff Yeh says, “If you feel it is necessary to pull over and rest, find a legitimate parking space instead of pulling over by the side of the road, which invites suspicion. An even better idea would be to move to the passenger’s seat to sleep. Moreover, make sure the engine is turned off, and preferably the keys are not in the ignition.”
The definition of actual physical control differs by state but the basic understanding centers on whether or not you have the ability (or control) to operate the vehicle.
Factors that are considered when determining actual physical control include:
- If you’re awake
- If your headlights are on
- Where the ignition key is
- If the vehicle is legally parked or in the roadway
- If your vehicle’s engine is running or the ignition is on
- Where and in what position you are found in the vehicle
As mentioned above, the laws in every state differ and each case is looked at on a case by case basis but here are some examples of cases where people have been charged with DUI and were not driving.
- Someone sleeping in the drivers’ seat of their car with the car off and their keys in their pocket.
- Someone sitting in the drivers’ seat with the keys in the ignition, just listening to music.
- Someone stumbling up to their car fumbling their keys to open the door.
- Someone walking from their car to their front door that had been seen previously drinking.
The bottom line is if you’re under the influence and in physical control of your vehicle, you may be arrested for DUI depending on what state you’re in.
After that, it will be up to the courts to decide, but hiring a competent DUI attorney to defend your case probably in your best interest.
Share this with your friends
Copyright © 2013 TotalDUI, LLC. All rights reserved.
By johnclark
By John Clark
Just one month after one his teammates was killed in a drunk driving crash, Dallas Cowboys defensive lineman Jay Ratliff has been arrested for driving while intoxicated, according to a report from the Dallas Morning News.
Sources say Ratliff, widely renowned as one of the top nose tackles in the National Football League, was arrested on Tuesday just after midnight following a two-car accident in Grapevine, Texas.
According to sources, Ratliff was driving west on a state highway when his Ford F150 truck ran into a tractor trailer. After striking the large truck, Ratliff’s car reportedly spun into a highway barrier.
Remarkably, no one was injured in the crash, so Ratliff was very fortunate to have escaped the deadly consequences suffered by his deceased teammate, 25-year-old Jerry Brown Jr.
Last month, Brown was a passenger in a vehicle driven by Josh Brent, another defensive lineman for the Cowboys, who crashed and flipped his car while driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.189, which is more than twice the legal limit in Texas.
Brown tragically died shortly after the accident, and Brent, his longtime friend and teammate, will soon face trial on a charge of intoxication manslaughter, a second-degree felony.
Fortunately, Ratliff escaped the fate of his teammates, although the 31-year-old player will likely face serious legal consequences for his actions.
According to sources, Ratliff failed a field sobriety test at the scene of the accident, although he refused to take a breathalyzer test after being booked in jail. He was, however, released from county jail Tuesday morning, after posting a $500 bond.
Under Texas law, police are allowed to obtain a warrant to draw the blood of potential drunk drivers if they refuse to take a breathalyzer test. Sources say this practice was used to draw blood from Ratliff, although police are still awaiting the results of his toxicology report.
Neither the Cowboys nor Ratliff’s agent had released a statement at press time, as both parties are likely waiting for the legal system to play its role before they jump to any conclusions about the incident.
If Ratliff is suspended by the league for any period of time, it could hurt the Cowboys in 2013. Sources say Ratliff has played in four Pro Bowls during his eight-year tenure in Dallas.
In 2011, Ratliff signed a $40 million contract extension that will pay him handsomely until 2017. Of course, the Cowboys could void his contract if he suffers a serious injury, but $18 million of the contract is guaranteed, so Ratliff has plenty of financial security.
Share this with your friends
Copyright © 2013 TotalDUI, LLC. All rights reserved.
By johnclark
By John Clark
A 15-year-old resident of Reno, Nevada, was arrested for a DUI this week in addition to a grab bag of several other charges after rolling a vehicle on a state highway, according to a report from the Las Vegas Sun.
Sources say the teenager, whose name has not been released due to his status as a juvenile, was driving a 2005 Ford Focus on a Reno highway when he started veering into the right edge of the roadway.
There is no indication of how the teenager obtained the services of a vehicle, although sources do not say the car had been stolen.
After veering too far to the right, the teenager’s car reportedly hit a drainage culvert, which forced the vehicle into a wild spin, according to sources.
The Ford rolled several times before miraculously coming to a stop on its wheels about 40 feet from the road, sources say. The accident reportedly happened at 6:20 a.m.
When officers arrived at the scene of the accident, which, fortunately, only involved the teenager’s car, the driver showed “several signs of intoxication,” which prompted officers to quickly give a breathalyzer test.
After the teenager failed the breath test, he was reportedly taken to a local hospital, where he was treated and released for minor injuries. Of course, after he was released, he was immediately arrested by Reno police.
However, due to his juvenile status, the teenager was taken due to a juvenile detention center, rather than a regular county jail. At the detention center, the driver was charged with drunk driving, possessing alcohol as a minor, failing to maintain a travel lane, and driving with a license or proof of insurance.
At first glance, it may seem odd that a person who was too young to drive could be charged with actual traffic offenses.
When a driver takes to the road, however, despite his age, his is subject to the rules of the road, even if he isn’t aware of them when he takes the wheel.
As a result, this teenager will likely have a lengthy history of driving violations before he is even old enough to be eligible to legally drive.
Remarkably, despite his foolish decision to get drunk and then drive without a license, the teenager did show some foresight by driving with a seat belt on.
According to local police officers, the teenager’s decision to wear a seat belt dramatically reduced his risk of injury, and may have even saved his life.
Share this with your friends
Copyright © 2013 TotalDUI, LLC. All rights reserved.
By johnclark
By John Clark
A former police officer in Newport Beach, California, was sentenced this week to nine years in prison after causing a fatal accident while under the influence of alcohol, according to a report from the San Jose Mercury News.
Sources say Katherine Ann Heinzel, a 51-year-old resident of Winchester, California, was convicted a few months ago for gross vehicular manslaughter after causing a fatal DUI accident in November 2011.
As is customary, however, Heinzel had to wait several weeks for her sentencing hearing, which finally happened this week and revealed that Heinzel would have to spend nearly a decade behind bars to pay for her actions.
The former police officer’s legal saga started on November 19, 2011, when Heinzel slammed her 2003 Nissan Altima into the back end of Davionne Kelly’s 1991 Toyota Camry while traveling 90 miles per hour on Interstate 15.
The wreck caused Kelly’s car to flip end-over-end down a 350-foot hill. Kelly, who was only 20 years old at the time of the accident, died shortly after the accident.
In addition to Kelly’s tragic death, two passengers in the fallen car were also injured. Sources say Kris Walker, 21, suffered relatively minor injuries, while his companion, Brian Morast, suffered broken ribs, a collapsed lung, and a severe brain injury.
Remarkably, Walker was able to escape the wreckage of Kelly’s car through a window and quickly climbed up the hill to seek help.
When he reached the road, Walker heroically pulled an injured Heinzel from her car, which had become engulfed in flames. Later, Walker and a passerby returned to Kelly’s car to hear the driver’s last words and to help the injured Morast.
The accident was also notable due to the nature of Heinzel’s former profession. From 1986 to 1994, the convicted drunk driver had served as a police officer. One of her primary duties was investigation traffic accidents, including drunk driving collisions, according to sources.
At the time of the tragic accident, during which her blood alcohol level was reportedly 0.14 percent, which is well above the legal California limit of 0.08 percent, Heinzel was working as a private investigator.
Heinzel requested a simple probationary sentence, but the judge denied her request. Before she was sentenced, Heinzel made an emotional apology to Kelly’s family.
According to sources, Heinzel said she was “so sorry for the lifetime of pain” she had caused the family, and emphasized that her “words of remorse” were completely “genuine.”
Share this with your friends
Copyright © 2013 TotalDUI, LLC. All rights reserved.
By admin
By Mary Ann Pekara
Driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol is a common issue faced by many countries all over the world. When looking at international legalities, it seems tougher laws allowing for extensive fines and penalties upon conviction do play a role in reducing the number of DUI related fatalities.
United States
In the United States, a federal law, The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, does not prohibit minors from drinking. Instead, it prohibits the purchase and “public possession” of alcohol by anyone under the age of 21. There are some exceptions to this rule.
For instance, drinking is allowed for an established religious purpose when the minor is accompanied by a parent or guardian who is at least 21 years old. When prescribed by a doctor or other medical professional, alcohol consumption is allowed.
Minors may drink in private clubs and establishments. Minors may also consume alcohol as part of employment when required by an appropriately licensed manufacturer, wholesaler, or retailer.
Many states have legally prohibited youth consumption, but some have exceptions in place for consumption on private property, though the definition of private property may vary.
The legal limit in the United States is .08. The penalties vary from state-to-state, and range from fines to license revocation and community service or jail time. Repeat offenders may have to have an interlock device installed, which requires the driver to blow into a breathalyzer before the car will start.
Some states have a zero-tolerance policy for drivers under the age of 21, and commercial drivers have a legal limit of .04.
In 2010, the rate of driving fatalities involving alcohol-impaired drivers per 100,000 population was 3.3, representing a 64% decrease since record keeping began in 1982.
Canada
Canada allows citizens who are 18 (19 in some provinces) to legally consume alcohol. DUI is a serious offense; so serious, in fact, that Canada prohibits some Americans with a DUI conviction from entering their country.
The nationwide legal limit is .08. For novice and young drivers, there is a nationwide zero-tolerance policy. For those under restriction because of administrative sanction, there is a .05 limit.
Canada uses a tiered system to determine the minimum and maximum punishments for DUI based on BAC, with tougher punishments for those who cause bodily harm because of DUI, and even tougher punishments for those who cause death because of DUI. Penalties and laws may vary by province.
First-time offenders who have BACs higher than .08 face a $1,000 fine, with a minimum of 30 days imprisonment, and a maximum of 5 years in prison. If this is a second offense, offenders face a minimum of 120 days and a maximum of 10 years in prison.
If the DUI causes bodily harm, first-time offenders with BACs higher than .08 face a $1,000 fine, with a minimum of 30 days imprisonment, and a maximum of 10 years in prison. If this is a second offense, offenders face a minimum of 120 days and a maximum of 10 years in prison.
If the DUI causes death, first-time offenders with BACs higher than .08 face a $1,000 fine, with a minimum of 30 days imprisonment, and a maximum of life in prison. If this is a second offense, offenders face a minimum of 120 days and a maximum of life in prison.
Between 1999 and 2009, it’s estimated that 13,174 deaths occurred because of DUI in Canada. In 2009, there were only 1,074 fatalities because of DUI.
Belgium
In 2001, Belgium saw 145 million DUI-related deaths, and through legislative changes was able to reduce the number to 89 million in 2009. Even with the great reduction, it is still a far cry from the national goal of no more than 750 DUI-related deaths per year.
The legal limit in Belgium is .05. Belgium allows citizens who are 16 to consume alcohol, though some beverages cannot be consumed until a person turns 18.
Legislation as of January 2011 provides a tiered penalty structure based on the BAC of the offender.
Offenders found with a BAC between .05 and .08 are banned from driving for three hours, immediately fined 137.50 Euros, and may face an additional fine anywhere between 137.50 and 2,750 Euros and a revocation of driving privileges when they make a court appearance.
Offenders found with a BAC between .08 and .12 are banned from driving for six hours and immediately fined 400 Euros. In the case of dangerous driving, offenders are required to immediately surrender their license for a minimum of 15 days. Offenders face an additional fine anywhere between 1,100 and 11,000 Euros and a revocation of driving privileges when they make a court appearance.
Offenders found with a BAC between .12 and .15 are banned from driving for six hours and immediately fined 550 Euros. In the case of dangerous driving, offenders are required to immediately surrender their license for a minimum of 15 days. Offenders face an additional fine anywhere between 1,100 and 11,000 Euros and a revocation of driving privileges when they make a court appearance.
Offenders found with a BAC of .15 or higher are banned from driving for six hours. In the case of dangerous driving, offenders are required to immediately surrender their license for a minimum of 15 days. Their case is immediately sent to a judge, where offenders face an additional fine anywhere between 1,100 and 11,000 Euros and a revocation of driving privileges.
Police have the right to randomly test any driver, and while the driver cannot refuse the test, they can request to wait 15 minutes before being tested.
Italy
In Italy, people who are 16 years old can legally consume alcohol. In 2002, the Italian government issued a National Road Safety Plan (PNSS) to reduce the number of road fatalities by 40% by 2010, though this was later revised to meet the European target of 50%.
By 2009, Italy had only reduced the number of deaths by 43%, with 4,050 deaths that year. In 2010, the Italian government approved new legislation to reduce the legal BAC down from .05 to .00 for new, young, and professional drivers.
The zero-tolerance policy lead to fines and five penalty points for drivers found with a BAC between .00 and .05; in the case of accidents, the penalty points double. The legislation also requires new and professional drivers who have had their license revoked to wait five years before applying for a new license.
For the rest of the driving population in Italy, the BAC limit remains at .05, but fines have been increased by 33%, as well as the number of penalty points and the minimum jail time required upon conviction. Drivers who are found with levels at 1.5 g/l may now serve a minimum of six months in jail, compared to the previous three months.
In addition, there are provisions for alcohol and drug testing a person must pass in order to receive a driver’s license. Drivers who have three or more serious offenses—offenses carrying five or more points each—within a two-year period are required to retake the theory test to receive their license again.
While laws and penalties vary worldwide, the end goal is clearly the same everywhere: preventing accidental death on the highway. With tougher laws in place, citizens are deterred from getting behind the wheel while intoxicated.
Share this with your friends
Copyright © 2013 TotalDUI, LLC. All rights reserved.
By johnclark
By John Clark
A former Pennsylvania legislator was sentenced this week to a minimum of three months in prison after he was convicted for assaulting his wife and driving under the influence, according to a report from the Allentown Morning Call.
Sources say former Rep. Joseph Brennan, a Democrat from the town of Fountain Hall, was arrested in August after he reportedly punched his wife and drove away while under the influence of alcohol.
The incident forced Brennan, who won his first term in 2006, to drop his campaign for re-election. In addition, Brennan’s DUI arrest was his second in the past two years, according to sources.
Following his arrest, Brennan pleaded guilty to two charges: simple assault and drunk driving. After a request from his wife, Brennan was able to avoid a jail sentence for the assault charge, but faces a severe penalty for his second DUI arrest.
Sources note that Brennan asked his judge for home confinement, rather than a prison term, because he was scheduled to start a new position as a research analyst for the House Democratic Caucus. Surprisingly, the prosecutor in the case agreed with the proposal.
The judge, however, was not amenable to the idea, and he promptly ordered the former lawmaker to head to prison for a minimum of three months. According to sources, Brennan could ultimately serve up to 23 months for his actions.
The judge has little sympathy for Brennan’s claim that imprisonment would be a financial hardship. According to the judge, who admirably refused to give the legislator special treatment, prison is “a hardship for every defendant who stands before me.”
The common perception in the DUI cases of celebrities or political figures is that judges often give such defendants some leniency, particularly if the arrest is their first offense.
But the fact that Brennan has been arrested for drunk driving twice in the past two years, as well as the unseemly allegation that he punched and choked his wife, likely added to the judge’s frustration with Brennan’s pleas for clemency.
One can only hope that the prison sentence will help Brennan gain some control over his life. After his drunk driving arrest in 2011, the former lawmaker admitted to local reporters that he had experienced a “long and personal struggle with alcohol.”
This struggle may see some progress while Brennan in prison, although he will certainly be under some financial stress. Sources say Brennan has been placed on unpaid leave from his new job, and a spokesman for the House Democratic Caucus said has status “will be reviewed” after his release.
Share this with your friends
Copyright © 2013 TotalDUI, LLC. All rights reserved.
By admin
By Mary Ann Pekara
Law enforcement officers are on the lookout for drunk drivers. Part of their training involves learning the Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) through a program administered and accredited by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP).
Developed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Association (NHTSA), the SFST is a collection of three tests designed to help officers determine whether or not someone is driving under the influence of alcohol.
The three tests are: Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN), Walk-and-Turn (WAT), and the One-Leg Stand (OLS).
HGN
HGN is an involuntary eye jerking movement that occurs at the extreme periphery of the eye. When a person is intoxicated, HGN is present at lesser angles. Officers use a small object, such as a pen or flashlight, to test for intoxication.
The suspects are required to follow the object as they slowly move it in front of the suspect’s eyes. While conducting this test, officers look for three key signs:
- Is the subject able to follow the object smoothly?
- Does the subject show HGN at maximum deviation?
- Does the onset of HGN occur within 45 degrees of the center?
If the officer sees for or more signs between the two eyes, it is likely the suspect has a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08 or higher.
The NHTSA has found this test has an 88% accuracy rate, primarily because HGN can be an indication of factors other than alcohol consumption.
HGN also occurs with the consumption of seizure medications, various inhalants, phencyclidine, barbiturates, and other depressants.
WAT
The WAT test is a divided attention test because it aims to see how well a suspect can do two things at once. When conducting this test, the officer asks the suspect to walk a straight line. Suspects are asked to take nine heel-to-toe steps, while keeping their arms down to their side. Suspects are then asked to turn on one foot, and take another nine heel-to-toe steps in the opposite direction.
The officer looks for eight signs of intoxication:
- Does the suspect start walking before instructions are finished?
- Does the suspect maintain balance during the instruction?
- Does the suspect stop to regain balance?
- Does the suspect touch heel-to-toe?
- Does the suspect step off the line?
- Does the suspect use their arms to balance?
- Does the suspect make an improper turn?
- Does the suspect take the correct number of steps?
If the suspect displays two or more of these signs, it is likely they have a BAC of .08 or higher.
The NHTSA has found this test has a 79% accuracy rate.
OLS
The OLS test is another divided attention test, aiming to see how well a suspect can do two things at once. When conducting this test, the officer asks the suspect to stand with one foot about six inches off the ground, and count out loud by thousands, until asked to put their foot down.
Suspects should count like this: “One thousand-one, one thousand-two, one thousand-three,” etc. until the officer tells them to stop. The officer will observe the suspect for about 30 seconds and watch for the following signs of intoxication:
- Does the suspect sway back and forth?
- Does the suspect use their arms to balance?
- Does the suspect hop to maintain balance?
- Does the suspect put their foot down?
If the suspect displays two or more of these signs, it is likely they have a BAC of .08 or higher.
The NHTSA has found this test has an 83% accuracy rate.
Disclaimer: This information is not intended to promote drunk driving. Do not attempt to beat these tests.
Share this with your friends
Copyright © 2013 TotalDUI, LLC. All rights reserved.
