According to the Courier-Journal, a judge found Bertrand Howlett not guilty of DUI because the judge had a personal recollection from his experience as a prosecutor of DUI cases years ago that a burp at the wrong time could skew the results of a Breathalyzer test.

Based on that recollection, Howlett was acquitted of the charge that stemmed from when police pulled him over after, according to officials, he was seen speeding and almost driving off the road. Police said he smelled like booze and that he failed a field sobriety test, and they charged him with DUI.

However, Howlett claimed that he had burped just before his blood alcohol content was tested back at the jail—a test in which he blew a 0.15. That burp, he contended, was enough to skew the results of the test. The judge in the case agreed. Police had not, in the judge’s mind, waited long enough after Howlett’s burp for the test to be accurate.

In testimony, Howlett said that the burp wasn’t a loud one, and that in fact no one may have been able to hear it. The machine used to measure his blood alcohol content stated in the manual that police should observe a suspect for 20 minutes before a test is given, in order to make sure that the only substance tested is air from the lungs.

If the test subject regurgitates, for example, police should wait 20 minutes before proceeding.

The DUI case in Kentucky was without a jury, so the judge was left to decide on the matter. He sided with the idea that the burp had skewed the test results, based on his time as a DUI prosecutor for six years while he was an assistant county attorney.

That decision has since moved to the Supreme Court of the state, not to appeal the DUI case decision, but to question whether a judge can admit as evidence a piece of his or her own knowledge. The county attorney’s office called the judge’s use of his own personal knowledge a “manifest injustice.”

Clearly Howlett wasn’t the only one left with a bad taste in his mouth.

According to the Washington Post, police nabbed the two men on what they thought was a routine suspicion of drunk driving stop. When the police officer searched the men, though, he found several $100 bills that didn’t look quite right.

What tipped him off was a message written next to Benjamin Franklin’s head that read “BILLETE DE LA SUERTE ALASITAS.” According to the Washington Post, it denotes the bill as a good luck ticket for the festival of Alasitas, which is a festival held every year in Peru and Bolivia. At the festivals, bills of this kind are handed out widely in casinos and elsewhere.

Apparently these bills are available on eBay, from a seller operating out of England.

The officer determined that the bills were counterfeit, and police investigated the strange bills further. They found that the driver’s friend had even more of the bills, and when they searched his house they found 59 more.

According to the U.S. Secret Service, these bills have appeared in the Federal Reserve Bank 125 times. In other words, someone has accepted this type of bill as real currency at least 125 times over the years.

Federal prosecutors were not interested in pursuing the case of the drunk drivers who were caught with counterfeit cash, so instead the county will handle the case. County police were not aware of the bills actually being passed as real anywhere.

One man, Jose Portillio, got charged with drunk driving, refusal to take a Breathalyzer test, possession of fictitious bank notes and possession of a false work card. The other man, Ronald Virto, was charged with possessing more than ten fictitious bank notes, passing fictitious bank notes, and drunk driving charges.

Many times DUI arrests lead to additional charges. This appears to be one of those cases, when one offense clues police onto another and a DUI suspect must answer additional charges, too.

As a result, Gov. John Lynch removed Simard from the liquor commissioner’s office, according to an article in the Concord Monitor.

While Lynch agreed that Simard was innocent until proven guilty, his refusal to submit to testing was not appropriate. “It is simply unacceptable for a liquor commissioner, stopped by the police on suspicion of driving under the influence, to refuse a Breathalyzer test,” he said in an email statement. “Under the circumstances, Richard Simard’s continued presence on the Liquor Commission would compromise the integrity of the Commission.”

When Simard was stopped by officers at 11:30 on a Saturday night, they smelled alcohol coming from his BMW. Officers had received a tip that a drunk driver might be headed their way, and they pulled the car over when it matched the description provided. Officers followed the car and noticed that it was being driven erratically, so they pulled it over.

They asked Simard to perform a field sobriety test, and after he refused to take the Breathalyzer they arrested him on charges of DWItitle. He was charged with speeding and released on $1,000 personal recognizance bail.

Police also noted that Simard did not answer any of their questions during the arrest.
Simard had been on the Liquor Commission since July of 2008 to fill the term of a commissioner before him who had retired. That initial term expired in 2009, but Simard remained in holdover status. This status allowed the governor to remove him from office at any time.

The New Hampshire Liquor Commission, according to the article, “regulates the manufacture, sale and consumption of alcohol in the state and operates the state stores that sell wine and spirits. It also enforces the state’s liquor laws.”

Sales of alcohol through the commission reached almost $500 million, and provided more than $100 million in profit to the state of New Hampshire.

Simard has owned several businesses in New Hampshire, and said at the time of taking office that he hoped to streamline distribution networks, improve stores and raise profits on alcohol sales.

According to a report from the Illinois News Tribune, as much as 20 percent of a DUI fine goes to the arresting county’s police department, while the rest of the fine is distributed to other funds – some of which include new police cruisers and new breath test equipment.

It’s just one more reason to be extra careful on the roads this holiday season – if you don’t get a ticket, you won’t be contributing to state police funding!

The ignition interlock law campaign is gaining momentum. The federal transportation funding bill that will be discussed by Congress this fall requires every state to mandate DUI offenders install ignition interlock devices. It states don’t pass such a law, the state governments may lose federal highway funding.

An ignition interlock device requires a driver blow into a breathalyzer before the car will start. It will stop the engine from starting if alcohol is detected on the driver’s breath.

Currently, 47 states and Washington D.C. require ignition interlock systems for some offenders. Alabama, South Dakota and Vermont are the only states to not have any such law.

Supporters of the law point out that New Mexico was one perennial national leader in alcohol-related crashes, but when the state launched a campaign and passed an ignition interlock law, there was a 35% drop in DUI deaths.

Today, there are 150,000 vehicles that have ignition interlock systems installed. If every driver with a DUI conviction were required to install the divorce, there would be close to 1 million.

Source: USA Today

The face scanning kiosk machines will be at local grocery stores and be used by customers looking to buy a bottle of wine. Using your driver’s license, the wine kiosk will use face recognition software to check if the picture matches your face.

It may be possible that a breathalyzer will be added to make sure the customer isn’t too drunk to “match your wine with your meal.”

Originally, the wine kiosks were suppose to be put in stores over the next couple months, but Gov. Ed Rendell has put a hold on the project to make sure the technology will work correctly. The Governor wants to prevent minors from being able to fool the system.

Currently the machines are being used successfully in Japan to monitor beer and cigarette sales.

Source: Digital City

According to Ontario Court Justice Randall Lalande, Harvey Whidden’s constitutional rights were violated when he was pulled over on June 13, 2008.

Whidden had been waved into a vehicle safety inspection lane operated by the police because his windshield had a crack in it.

When Whidden pulled over, police noticed empty beer bottles in the bed of his pickup truck. Police also noticed he smelled like alcohol, and his speech was slowed.

The police asked Whidden to take a breath test, but the officer didn’t have a breathalyzer with him. While they waited for a breathalyzer to be brought from the station, the police officer didn’t allow Whidden to use his cell phone to call a DUI attorney.

The judge ruled that since the officer knew Whidden had a cell phone, he should have allowed him to use it to call an attorney.

According to the judge, the police waited about three hours when Whidden was at the police station and formally issued a demand for a breathalyzer before allowing him to call a lawyer.

Source: The Sadbury Star

If a person refuses a breathalyzer today, he or she may face a 180 day driver’s license suspension. The new DUI laws Burns is purposing would suspend a driver’s license for one year for refusing a breathalyzer test the first time.

The bill has been passed by Louisiana lawmakers and is waiting Governor Bobby Jindal’s signature. The law would become effective Sept. 1.

“The tide has really shifted in this issue,” Burns told the press. “It wasn’t that long ago that you could have open containers in the cars, and that’s slowly been gotten rid of, and I think as we move to a society and a state that’s more conscious of this issue, it’s just trying to provide for the public safety of it’s citizens.”

The bill has been criticized by some for infringing on people’s civil liberties, but it is receiving support in most communities.

A response was sent by Mothers Against Drunk Driving, MADD, supporting the bill. MADD expressed that eventually, the group would like to see breathalyzer refusal a criminal offense.

From the story:

“Among the general public, the refusal rate is about 50 percent, but at the Capitol, the refusal rate is about 100 percent,” said Shannon Edmonds, governmental relations director for the Texas District and County Attorneys Association.

Police and prosecutors say politicians fall into a larger category of savvy citizens — such as Longhorn baseball coach Augie Garrido, who declined to give a breath sample when he was arrested Jan. 17 on suspicion of DWI — who know that while there technically are consequences to saying no, they are often mitigated with skilled legal advice.

In Texas, just like in most states, there are penalties for refusing to submit to a breathalyzer test. Typically, refusal results in an automatic driver’s license suspension. But simply refusing doesn’t mean a driver is off the hook for DWI.

Police can obtain a search warrant to force DWI suspects to give blood, considered the gold standard for proving intoxication. In recent years, some jurisdictions have begun hauling detained drivers to hospitals or jails for blood draws.

Since 2005, Dalworthington Gardens, outside of Fort Worth, has trained its police officers to draw blood from DWI suspects. Last week, Williamson County announced it had hired full-time phlebotomists for that purpose. This evening, Austin police are enforcing their third “no refusal” initiative, for which a magistrate and nurse will be on standby for DWI arrests.

Keep in mind: The statues in every state are different. If you’ve been charged with a DWI or DUI, or you lost your license because of a breathalyzer refusal, you may want to speak with a DUI lawyer. A lawyer can help explain the specifics of your case, answer your questions and tell you about the DUI laws in your state.

Early, we told you about a judge in Florida that threw out hundreds of DUI cases because the manufacturer of the breathalyzers wouldn’t release the source code.

If you’re interested in reading more about this story, check out Houston DUI attorney Paul Kennedy’s blog. He does a good job of bringing together some analysis from attorneys across the country.

For more info on how breathalyzers work, Georgia DUI blog points us to a helpful explanation.

All these posts bring up a few points:

1. DUI law is complex. Just because you’ve been charged with a DUI doesn’t mean you will automatically be convicted.

2. DUI lawyers follow not only the law, but the technology and the trends behind DUI arrests.

So if you’ve been arrested for a DUI, with so many factors at play and so much at stake, you may want to speak with a DUI lawyer. To find an attorney near you, simply fill out this free case evaluation.