By Guest Attorney
Kiefer Sutherland, star of the controversial hit show ‘24’, faces up to 18 months in prison after being charged with DUI and violating his probation from a 2004 DUI.
The L.A. Times reports that Sutherland was arrested for driving with a blood alcohol level (BAC) over the 0.08 percent legal limit for DUI in California. A Los Angeles City Attorney’s spokesman said prosecutors would seek to revoke Sutherland’s probation stemming from his 2004 plea to DUI.
The actor faces a year in jail if convicted on this new DUI charge plus six months for violating his probation. At the least, if convicted under California DUI law, Sutherland would have to serve a minimum of 96 hours in jail.
By Guest Attorney
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports that prosecutors in Spokane, Washington are playing down the significance of improper breathalyzer calculations, leading to hundreds of faulty alcohol test readings.
The State Crime Lab in Cheney, Washington recently announced that it had been using an erroneous spreadsheet formula to record lab test results for 584 defendants between February 2006 and January 2007. The lab said eight defendants who were harmed by the error have notified.
The Post-Intelligencer reports that a BAC of 0.79 would be elevated to 0.08 percent and 0.149 would read as 0.15. The Director of the Washington State Patrol Forensic Laboratory Services Bureau, Dr. Barry Logan, said 584 cases involved faulty test results, but 576 of the results could not have effected a defendant’s guilt or punishment.
The story appears to allege that the lab’s spreadsheet only showed Breathalyzer results to two decimal places. I tested Microsoft Excel. Breath alcohol level (BAC) results from 0.075 and 0.084 would all show as 0.08 percent, equal to the presumptive BAC level in all states. BAC results from 0.145 to 0.154 would show as 0.15 percent, requiring stiffer penalties under Washington’s excessive DUI law.
KNDO Television said Logan explained that the miscalculations occurred after software used to calibrate breath alcohol instruments was amended late in 2005 produced an error at the fourth decimal place in test readings.
Can this be right? An error in the fourth decimal place would not effect a value to only two decimal places.
My simple test, in Excel, showed that either the reporting was simplistic or many more cases should be re-examined.
By Editor
The Fort Leavenworth Lamp reports that penalties for DUI in Kansas increased on July 1st. A first DUI offender with a blood alcohol level (BAC) below 0.15%, will have his or her license suspended fort 30 days, with a work and school license only, for an additional 330 days.
A second, third, or fourth time DUI offender will suffer a one year license suspension. For a fifth DUI conviction, a driver will have his or her license permanently revoked.
A driver under 21 years of age will have her license suspended for a year for the first DUI offense.
A DUI driver, with a BAC of at least 0.15%, will have her license suspended for a year for his or her first conviction. Following the suspension, he or she will be restricted to another year of driving with an ignition interlock.
Additional 0.15 percent DUI offenses will increase the length of a driver’s license suspension. On a fifth offense, the driver’s license will be permanently revoked.
In Kansas, a third DUI conviction has been and continues to be a felony DUI.
By Editor
Many have argued that DUI should be just one reason to cite a driver for driving when he shouldn’t be. Over-the-road truck driving have long been required to get enough sleep.
Now, states are considering laws against using technology while driving.
According to USA Today, states across the country are passing bills banning the use of technology, such as fax machines, DVD players, and video games, while driving. Most bills mandate a fine between $50 and $600.
In California, 3,200 drivers have been pulled over for watching DVDs and TVs since 2003.
Washington recently banned texting while driving. “TWD” carries a $101 fine. Several months ago, in Colorado, a bicyclist was killed by a driver who was texting. Strangely enough, the Colorado legislature has not passed a no texting bill.
By Editor
Tank Johnson, the troubled Chicago Bears player, will not be charged following his DUI arrest in Gilbert, Ariz. A blood test showed Johnson to have a blood alcohol level of 0.072 percent, slightly below Arizona’s presumptive BAC level of 0.08 percent.
Johnson had been suspended for the first eight games of the upcoming NFL season. The Bears waived him following his DUI arrest. Johnson could still have been charged with DUI, regardless of a BAC below the presumptive level.
Arizona’s DUI law states that is unlawful for someone to drive “if the person is impaired to the slightest degree.” ARS 28-1381(A)(1).
The Associated Press reported that Gilbert police spokesman Sgt. Andrew Duncan declined to elaborate on the reason for not charging Johnson in the matter.
By Editor
The New York Supreme Court threw out a driver’s conviction for DUI caused by “huffing.” According to the New York Daily News, the Court said gaps in New York’s DUI laws prevent the defendant from being charged with DUI for an accident that caused the death of a teenager.
Huffing is inhaling chemicals given off by glue, aerosols, and other substances. The chemicals replace oxygen in a user’s lungs and act as a stimulant.
The Court said New York’s 1910 DUI law, called Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) in New York, does not define “intoxication.”
Courts, today, rely on a 1919 appellate court ruling that said “one is intoxicated when he has imbibed enough liquor to render him incapable of giving that attention and care to the operation of his automobile that a man of prudence and reasonable intelligence would give.” The Court indicated it would be up to the Legislature to address huffing and other new ways of getting high.
In this case, Vincent Litto was also charged with manslaughter, vehicular manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, reckless endangerment, assault and other charges. The Daily News did not indicate whether the criminal charges against Litto will go ahead.
By Editor
New York lawmakers reached a deal with Governor Eliot Spitzer to pass tougher penalties for drivers convicted of DUI causing a death. Called “Katie’s Law,” the new law would create the crime of aggravated vehicular homicide.
The new DUI law would carry a sentence of at least 1 year in prison and a maximum of 25 years when a driver is convicted of DUI causing a death and one of these other factors: a second death or serious injury, a prior DUI (DWI in New York) conviction, a blood-alcohol level of 0.18 percent or higher, or driving with a suspended or revoked license.
Currently, a driver who has caused a death while DUI can only be charged with second-degree manslaughter, a crime that carries a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison.
The increase from a maximum of 15 years to 25 years is not likely to prevent a severally intoxicated person from DUI.
By Editor
The Arizona Legislature may be backtracking on its new law mandating ignition interlocks for all drivers convicted of DUI. Governor Janet Napolitano signed Arizona’s interlock law during the current legislative session.
The DUI law has yet to even take effect. Now the Arizona House of Representatives has given preliminary approval to a bill to repeal the interlock requirement. The Senate may not agree to a repeal, but could allow modifications to the law.
Currently, Arizona’s pending DUI laws require all people with a first DUI offense to install and use an ignition interlock for one year. Compromise between the state Senate and House may result in a shorter time period or only requiring the interlock for drivers with a blood alcohol level (BAC) of 0.10 percent or more. Arizona’s BAC limit for DUI is 0.08 percent.
The interlock law is set to take effect 90 days after the current legislative session ends. Regardless of whether and how the legislature and the governor amend Arizona’s pending law, interlocks will still be mandated for repeat and extreme DUI offenders.
By admin
Being convicted of DUI may now carry penalties that you would have never expected. If you’ve read the news lately, it seems like breath alcohol ignition interlock devices are all the rage in terms of fighting drunk driving.
For those unsure what this device does, an ignition interlock is installed in the vehicle of a DUI offender and requires a person to blow into a breathalyzer in order for the car to start. If any or a certain amount of alcohol is detected, the car will not start. With that said, three states currently have ignition interlock legislation waiting to be signed by their respective governors.
Illinois and South Carolina have recently “turned over” ignition interlock legislation to Governors Rod Blagojevich and Mark Sanford, respectively. The Illinois legislation would require people with a first DUI offense to install an ignition interlock if they wanted to drive to work while their driver’s licenses were suspended.
A Springfield Journal Register story added that this legislation would apply to anyone who is pulled over on suspicion of DUI and fails or refuses a breath test. It is unknown whether Blagojevich will sign this legislation, but he has a little less than 60 days to do so.
Hours before the legislature adjourned for 2007, the South Carolina General Assembly passed legislation that would require repeat DUI offenders to pay for the installation of ignition interlock devices in their vehicles.
South Carolina was thinking about requiring ignition interlock devices for first-time extreme DUI offenders (with a BAC of 0.15 percent or more), but that measure garnered too much opposition.
Underage drinking would also be especially targeted in this current proposal headed to Governor Sanford’s desk. Specifically, police would be allowed to find out who bought kegs at parties where minors were drinking while minors would be allowed to buy alcohol during police stings of bars and liquor stores.
In Oregon, a bill that would require offenders with a first DUI to install ignition interlock devices for at least a year after they resumed driving is sitting on the desk of Governor Ted Kulongoski. Oregon currently requires first-time offenders to use ignition interlocks for six months after regaining their driving privileges.
In addition to this legislation, Governor Janet Napolitano signed legislation on May 18th that will now require all Arizona DUI offenders in the state to install ignition interlock devices for at least one year. A similar law was enacted in New Mexico in 2005.
This prevalence on the use of ignition interlock devices is another example of how legislators are constantly looking for new means to curb DUI and how DUI penalties nowadays are getting much more creative and far-reaching as compared to years past.
By Guest Attorney
South Carolina’s new DUI law failed to pass through the state’s legislature this year. The Governor says he hopes to take it up again in January, 2008.
Among other things, the South Carolina bill would create an extreme DUI law, where a driver convicted of DUI with a high blood alcohol level (BAC) would receive stiffer DUI penalties than someone who just breaks the BAC limit of 0.08 percent.
By Tiffany Sanders, ESQ.
The Illinois DUI law change that took effect in January made all DUI offenses felonies if committed by a driver who lacked either a valid driver’s license or valid automobile insurance at the time of the offense. And now, the criminal court is flooded with new charges.
Lake County anticipates that felony DUI charges in 2006 will double the number filed in 2005 and has hired additional staff to handle the increased caseload.
Other counties have seen similar increases, but have thus far been able to handle the cases by reassigning employees and redistributing the workload.
The full impact of the increased caseload isn’t yet apparent, but Rep. William Black (R-Danville), who sponsored the bill, told the Chicago Tribune that he would ask for revisions if enforcement proved too difficult for judges and prosecutors.
By Tiffany Sanders, ESQ.
More than one question has been posed about what constitutes “driving” under DUI law. The answer, of course, is that it varies from state to state.
However, the one thing that is clear and consistent is that you can’t count on “driving” meaning what we typically think of as driving. That is to say, “driving” doesn’t necessarily mean steering a car that’s moving down the road under its own power.
For instance, in at least one state, steering a car in tow has been held to be “driving” for purposes of a DUI conviction.
Many states consider a person “in control of” a motor vehicle if the person is sitting in the driver’s seat and the car is running–or even, in some states, if the keys are in the ignition and the car isn’t running.
In fact, there’s been at least one case in which the “driver” was convicted of a DUI committed while his keys were in his pocket.
There are too many variations in statutory language and in the interpretations of various courts to attempt to advance any kind of blanket definition.
The bottom line is that “driving” doesn’t necessarily mean what you think it does, and it’s best to find out how it’s defined in your state before it becomes an issue–or a criminal conviction.