The St. Louis Post-Dispatch is reporting that Newton Keene had avoided severe repercussions for DUI convictions in the past. Keene, however, was convicted and sentenced for three counts of aggravated drunken driving resulting in death and one count of drunken driving causing bodily harm. The sentence included a plea bargain negotiated by Keene which resulted in the dropping of lesser charges.

The 28-year sentence represents the maximum penalty for the crimes in question. Keene has to serve at least 85 percent of the term, which comes to about 24 years, before he can be eligible for parole.

Keene was driving the wrong way on the Interstate at 2 a.m. in the morning when he struck and killed Tawanda Jackson, her friend Jon Moss and her son Arnold. Her daughter, Takia, who was eleven-years-old at the time, survived the crash. They were returning home from the funeral of Jackson’s grandmother.

Keene registered a blood-alcohol content of .24 percent, which is three times the legal limit. Takia was very emotional as she listened to the charges announced at the sentencing. Keene declined to make a statement.

When the accident occurred, Keene had already been convicted and jailed for his fifth DUI. He was arrested twice after that, though police did not seek felony charges in those cases. He went to prison in 2000, on a five-year felony DUI sentence, but was released after just 120 days.

Speaking of the maximum penalty in the case, Madison County State’s Attorney William Mudge said, “This is the only way to keep the public safe from Mr. Keene.”

A relative of the victims, Thomas Marble, had consented to the plea deal. The family did also, however, express their discontent that the maximum penalty was not higher for such an offense.

The Post-Dispatch has featured a series of investigations last year highlighting the problem of repeat offenders slipping through the cracks. According to the article, these investigations led to improved legislation to close that gap.

But a recent turn has taken Lohan from the world of L.A. gossip to serious legal tangle, as she had to appear in court after pleading guilty to misdemeanor drug charges and no contest to three driving charges in 2007. She was given probation at the time.

Now, a judge has ordered that Lohan must wear an alcohol-monitoring bracelet, and submit to drug testing in the L.A. every week, the San Jose Mercury News is reporting.

At first, Lohan’s lawyer attempted to contest the ruling that her client had to wear a bracelet. The judge responded that she would be happy to spend the next half an hour listing reasons that she is requiring Lohan to wear the bracelet tracking her blood alcohol content. The lawyer accepted that as basis enough to continue without further challenge.

The judge also ordered an alcohol education program for the starlet.

Her appearance in court recently was to address the fact that Lohan, had missed an appointment to appear in court last week for a progress report on her probation. On the day that she was supposed to be in Beverly Hills for that progress report, she was actually in Cannes, France, partying at the Cannes Film Festival. A warrant for her arrest was sent out, though it was recalled after Lohan posted bail.

Lohan’s lawyer claimed that her passport had been stolen while she was in France, and that it prevented her from getting on a flight from France.

The weekly drug testing could jeopardize a movie project that Lohan was scheduled to film in Texas. When presented with this information, the judge suggested that the project would have to wait.

Lohan spent several hours after the court session, waiting to have the alcohol-monitoring bracelet put on. She will have to wear the bracelet at least until her next hearing, which will take place in July.

While ignition interlock devices are common penalties for a DUI arrest, alcohol monitoring bracelets are less common. However, this high-profile case has brought them to the attention of the public at large, and even some mothers have an interest in using them to keep tabs on their teenagers.

Steps such as these are still a ways off, however, as the bracelet is not widely available.

According to law enforcement, at least 82 blood tests since January 2009 have registered higher blood-alcohol contents than they should have. These flawed tests were exposed as a result of internal investigations of the blood tests at the Metro Crime Lab.

As a result of these findings, more than one thousand drug tests from past cases are being retested. The new results will be sent to the county’s district attorney’s office and the Department of Revenue.

These offices will study the impact of the errors on any pertinent criminal cases and driver’s license revocation cases.

“We understand how regrettable this and we’re owning up to our own error,” said police spokesman Dave Whitlock. “We’re still getting our arms around the totality of it.”

The lab discovered the errors through its built-in checks and balances and quality assurance measures. According to Whitlock, officials do not believe that all of the tests that came out of the lab are in error.

Police are investigating whether the mistakes were a result of procedure or of human error. Changes have already been made to ensure that the tests will be more accurate in the future.

There is also an investigation underway by the Colorado Bureau of Investigations, the state’s main law enforcement agency, according to the AP.

The AP also attempted to question the district attorney’s office about how past defendants are being notified about the potential for errors in DUI cases. The office was unavailable for comment, however.

A representative of area defense attorneys raised her doubts about the process. Sandy Mullins, executive director of the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar, told the AP, “It puts a lot of things into question. We take a lot of these tests as fact, when in fact these are being administered by people and systems. Just like any system, they can be faulty.” Where often it’s assumed that a machine-rendered test is undeniable fact, Mullins said, “this proves that tests do lie sometimes.”

The data was released on Monday, July13 from a survey conducted in 2007. The survey showed that 2.2% of drivers were legally driving drunk, with a blood alcohol level of .08% or higher.

The first time this survey was conducted was in 1973, where the data showed 7.5% of drivers had a blood alcohol level of .08% or higher. This survey was also conducted in 1986 and 1996.

Although the Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is pleased to see the drunk driving battle is successful, he point out that “alcohol still kills 13,000 people a year on our rads and we must continue to be vigilant in our efforts to prevent drunk driving.”

The same survey also found that 16.3% of drivers on the road on weekend nights tested positive for drugs. This was the first time the survey checked for drug use while driving.

The most commonly used drugs by drivers were marijuana at 8.6%, cocaine at 3.9% and over-the-counter and prescription drugs at 3.9%.

“This troubling data shows us, for the first time, the scope of drugged driving in America and reinforces the need to reduce drug abuse,” said Gil Kerlikowske, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

The 2007 survey included the answers of almost 11,000 drivers who entered random survey sites set up across the country to questions drivers who agreed to participate.

Source: CNN

House Bill 152: Increased Fines and Jail Time

House Bill 152 increases DUI fines for subsequent offenders, especially drivers with five previous DUI convictions. The bill also called for increased jail time for subsequent DUI offenders and creating a felony DUI for drivers with six and seven DUI convictions.

Last year there were approximately 6,916 DUI arrests, of which 59 people had been previously arrested at least five other times for drunk driving. Since January of this year, 3,213 drivers have been arrested for DUI, with 40 of those people having five or more previous DUI arrests.

House Bill 177: Strict Penalties for First DUI Offense

The second bill signed into law strengthens penalties for a first time DUI offense if the driver has a blood alcohol level of .15% or higher.

If convicted of a DUI with a BAC of .15%, the period of hard revocation for those who are mandated to have an ignition interlock device is increased from 30 to 45 days.

The driver’s license is suspended for six months instead of three, and the ignition interlock device must be used for six months.

The bill limits driving authority of an ignition interlock device licensed driver to work, home, school, alcohol treatment programs and interlock service provider appointments.

Source: Sussex Countian

The North Carolina Senate approved a bill that would allow repeat DUI offenders with suspended driver’s licenses a chance to earn a permit back.

If the bill is passed, people convicted of habitual impaired driving will be able to ask the Division of Motor Vehicles to be reinstated if they have had a clean criminal and traffic record for 10 years.

For those who are able to obtain a license, the law wouldn’t allow them to be driving with a blood alcohol level of any level within the next seven years.

Those who favored the bill said it’s only fair that repeat DUI offenders have a chance to get their licenses restored since others who have licenses revoked for other reasons can.  But critics felt that it wasn’t right to give these types of offenders another chance.

Source: The News & Observer ]]> http://www.totaldui.com/blog/nc-dui-offender-may-earn-license-back/feed/ 3 http://www.totaldui.com/blog/469/ http://www.totaldui.com/blog/469/#comments Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:50:51 +0000 Morgan Brickley http://www.totaldui.com/blog/?p=469 Many of us dread work meetings and may need a little pick-me-up to help get us through like a soda or afternoon coffee.

For the most part, the meeting is over in an hour or two and we move on about our day. That was not the case for one Lehigh Valley, Pa. government official.

According to police, elected Plainfield Township Supervisors Chairman Tim Frankenfield passed out drunk at a public meeting with a bottle of whiskey next to him.

Frankenfield, who had a blood alcohol level of more than twice the legal driving limit of .08%, was taken to the hospital before the meeting was over.

The police cited Frankenfield for public drunkenness. He was fined $119.50 as a penalty.

According to court records, Frankfield was cited for public drunkenness before. In December 2006 he was fined $219.50 for public drunkenness at a liquor store in Lower Nazareth Township.

Source: LA Times

• How could I be arrested if my BAC was below .08?
• How could I get suspended from work for being under the influence if my BAC was below .08?
• How could I have gotten arrested?
• How could I have gotten kicked out of the high school basketball game?

These questions reflect a common but serious misunderstanding of the meaning of the .08 “legal limit.” In every state, a person may face a DUI conviction for operating a motor vehicle “with a blood alcohol level of .08% or greater” (language varies from state to state).

That means it’s a crime to drive with a BAC of .08% or greater. And that’s all it means. States are free to pass DUI laws that also make driving under the influence a crime, and allow for conviction with a blood alcohol level lower than .08% if you show signs of impairment.

States are free to make it a crime to drive with a lower BAC if you’re a minor. States are free to make it a crime to drive with a lower BAC if you’re driving a commercial vehicle. And many do all three.

Outside the legal arena, the .08% “limit” has no application at all unless specifically adopted for some other purpose. Employers aren’t bound by it. Schools aren’t bound by it. And even the criminal justice system isn’t bound by it outside the specific statutes that refer to it.

For instance, the crime of “public intoxication” is not, in most states, dependent upon a blood alcohol level of .08% or greater.

Under the new provision, either 2 days in jail or a minimum 120 hours of community service will be mandatory for DUI offenders who cross that threshold.

In addition, the driver’s license suspension is increased to one year for these drivers.

Specific DUI laws vary from state to state, but there are at least two possible reasons that someone could be charged with a DUI despite a blood alcohol content of less than .08%.

One is that the driver might be under the age of 21. In many states, the “legal limit” for a driver under the age of 21 is significantly lower than .08%. In fact, in some states any trace of alcohol is sufficient to convict an underage drinker of driving under the influence.

Another possibility is that the driver had a blood alcohol content (BAC) reading somewhat lower than .08%, but also showed signs of impairment. The “legal limit” is simply the number above which a driver is automatically guilty of driving under the influence (or some related statute) without any other evidence.

However, many states also allow for a DUI offense and conviction when a driver has a slightly lower BAC reading but also fails field sobriety tests, drives erratically or otherwise shows signs of being impaired.