Virginia Traffic and DUI Defense

DUI Crash Leaves Two Bystanders Dead

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Battle) — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 04:26:00 +0000

The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports that two people were dead after a May 24 crash in South Richmond that resulted in a 28-year-old man being arrested for driving under the influence and felony manslaughter.

Authorities say that shortly after 11:00 p.m. on the night of the crash, truck traveling eastbound on Snead Road ran off the road and struck a parked vehicle. The impact spun the car around, causing it to strike two people standing beside it.

Police say that Carmen Alejandro Garcia-Hernandez, the driver of the truck, attempted to flee the scene on foot, but witnesses detained him until the arrival of the police.

Police say that the victims, 40-year-old Joseph Owens and 44-year-old Catherine Jones, received transport to VCU Medical Center, but were pronounced dead at the hospital shortly after 1:00 a.m.

Former Virginia Tech Quarterback Marcus Vick Arrested For DUI

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Battle) — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 04:15:00 +0000

The Associated Press reports that on June 13, former Virginia Tech quarterback Marcus Vick was arrested on charges of driving under the influence and eluding police.

Police said that on the morning of the incident, a uniformed bicycle patrol officer spotted an altercation between Vick, 24, and a female in a car around 2 a.m. The officer asked the pair if assistance was needed then asked to see Vick's license. Police say he sped away, but was stopped not long after.

The police gave Vick a field sobriety test, which he failed, before charging him with driving under the influence, misdemeanor eluding police, reckless driving, driving on the wrong side of the road, and driving on a suspended license. Miami, Florida resident Delicia Cordon, Vick's passenger, was charged with being drunk in public.

Vick was kicked off the Virginia Tech football team after multiple brushes with the law and a reputation of misbehavior on and off the field. His college career ended after pleading guilty to traffic violations in Hampton, as he was under a "zero tolerance" policy at the time.

'Baby DUIs' To Receive Harsher Penalty In Virginia

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Battle) — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 04:00:00 +0000

The Washington Times reports that a new Virginia law will be one of the harshest in the country on minors caught driving under the influence.

Drivers who are caught with a "baby DUI" (being caught with a blood-alcohol content of 0.02 while under the legal drinking age) will face a a mandatory 12 month driver's license suspension, a jail sentence of up to 12 months, and a $2,500 maximum fine. The new law goes into effect July 1. The previous penalty is a minimum fine of $500 or 50 community service hours.

Delegate William Janis (R-Glen Allen), who introducted the bill, said, "Harsher penalties should go to those who choose to act recklessly."

Supporters of the new law noted that the old penalties were lighter than those for mere possession of alcoholic beverages. Under the new law, the penalties for both will be the same. Drunken driving (DUI) will be elevated to a Class 1 misdemeanor like underage possession.

Maryland and 12 other states have also adopted zero-tolerance policies.

NFL Receiver Dwayne Jarrett Pleads Guilty To DUI

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Battle) — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 03:53:00 +0000

North Carolina's WRAL TV-5 reports that NFL receiver Dwayne Jarrett of the Carolina Panthers entered a plea of guilty to driving under the influence, minutes before his trial was scheduled to start.

After appearing at the District Court of Mecklenburg County, N.C., Jarrett surrendered his license and was ordered to pay court costs of $420 and perform 24 hours of community service.

Jarrett is also to enter the first stage of the NFL's substance abuse policy, meaning that he is to be subjected to more frequent testing for drugs and alcohol.

Jarrett, 21, was arrested on March 11 in the Charlotte, N.C. suburb, Mint Hill. According to police, he crossed the center line and ran a red light. The police report says that his blood-alcohol level was .12, above the legal limit of .08.

Florida Man Sentenced to Five Years for Multiple DUI Offenses

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Battle) — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 04:09:00 +0000

Ocala.com reports that on Tuesday, March 18, a 37-year-old man from Florida was sentenced to five years in prison as punishment for his fourth conviction of driving under the influence within the past decade.

The state sought a sentence of 10 years for Michael Douglas Duncan, who attempted to flee from the Ocala, Florida Police officer who tried to pull him over for operating his motorcycle while drunk. In February, he was found guilty of two third-degree felonies, one count of DUI and one count of trying to elude and resist the officer.

After his three previous convictions for driving under the influence, Duncan was labeled as a habitual felony offender and faced a potential maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. Circuit Judge David Eddy gave him the five year sentence, in addition to permanently revoking his driver's license.

Duncan pleaded with the judge, mentioning the his various losses he incurred due to incarceration, including a new home, a business, and time spent with his children. However, the judge dismissed his pleas, saying that he should have considered his children before choosing to get drunk, operate his motorcycle, and flee a Police officer.

Duncan will also have to pay a $2,500 fine in addition to court expenses. He also has to serve three more years in prison for a previous conviction for unemployment fraud.

Connecticut Lawmakers Hope Placing Breathalyzers In Bars Will Reduce DUI Offenses

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Battle) — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 03:46:00 +0000

Connecticut's the News Times reports that state lawmakers in Connecticut are hoping for a reduction of DUIs with legislation currently under consideration which would provide incentives for bar and restaurant owners to install Breathalyzers in their establishments. If the legislation is passed, it would be the first of its kind in the U.S.

State Sen. Arthur O'Neill (R-Southbury) said he believed the idea to be "very interesting" and said that it could reduce the likelihood of someone drinking and driving.

In the case of a patron getting into an accident due to driving under the influence, the proposed incentive would cut the maximum liability of a liquor permit holder from $250,00 to $100,00. However, the breathalyzer's use would be voluntary and results would not be permitted in criminal or legal proceedings.

According to O'Neill, it would allow for bartenders to deny patrons further drink service until the test is taken. He noted that they are supposed to be trained to be able to tell when a patron has had too much, but when busy, that can be difficult.

Bar and restaurant owners with liquor permits would also be required to post signage which would notify patrons that the establishment would arrange transport for patrons who need a ride home at the customer's expense.

Bethel, Connecticut restaurant owner Dan Mottola says that he has always made it a point to find transportation for customers who have drank too much, even it requires that he has to drive the person himself. He says that monitoring drinking is easier for smaller bar areas like his, but the legislation would be helpful in larger establishments in which monitoring alcohol consumption is more difficult.

Mottola said the legislation would be worth considering if it prevents people from driving drunk, getting into wrecks, and causing harm to others "as long as it doesn't become invasive of personal rights."

Virginia Legislature Revives Bill To Install Ignition-Interlock Devices In Vehicles Of First-Time DUI Offenders

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Battle) — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 02:44:00 +0000

The Henrico Citizen reports that the Virginia Senate Courts of Justice Committee recently reconsidered and revived legislation which would require all offenders of driving under the influence, even if it is their first offense, to have ignition interlock devices installed in their vehicles. The legislation was passed by both chambers.

On March 3, the Senate Courts of Justice Committee reconsidered House Bill 1442, which the House had already passed. The following day, the Senate passed the bill with substitute legislation and the House passed it unanimously a day later.

The revised bill not only requires the implementation of ignition interlocks after the first DUI conviction, the administrative fee is also raised from $20 to $75.

If the convicted driver is indigent or prohibited from driving a school or commercial vehicle, the bill also allows for the device's cost to be paid out of the criminal fund.

Also added to the bill, which will go into effect on October 1 of this year, is that a $30 monthly fee will be mandatory for the DUI offender.

Delegate Salvatore Iaquinto (R-Virginia Beach), the sponsor of the bill, says that ensuring DUI offenders do not repeat the offense is the only way to ensure that convicted offenders no longer harm people. He believes the legislation will fill that purpose and make Virginia's roadways safer.

The alcohol-ignition interlock device is essentially a Breathalyzer linked to a vehicle's ignition system. The vehicle will not start until the driver blows into the device. Then, the driver's blood-alcohol level must be below the set limit of 0.02 for the vehicle to start.

Under current Virginia law, ignition interlocks are required to be installed in the vehicles of multiple DUI offenders or first-time offenders whose blood-alcohol level registers above 0.15, which is nearly twice the legal limit of 0.08.

Evidence from a "Forced" Blood Test Tossed by Massachusetts Judge in DUI Case

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Battle) — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 20:19:00 +0000

A Fitchburg, Mass. police officer faced a mountain of incriminating evidence in a May 2007 drunk-driving arrest: a wrecked pick-up truck that he crashed into a telephone pole, a BAC reading of .168, slurred speech, red, glassy eyes and breath that smelled of alcohol.

But the only thing District Court Judge Andrew Mandell was concerned with was how the BAC was obtained. When attorneys filed a motion to suppress the breath test results because blood was taken in a hospital without the defendant’s consent, the judge agreed.

So James Scesny, a police officer with the Northborough Police Department, was found not guilty of the charges and since has applied to rejoin the force.

"Ouch, You Can't Do That"

On the night of the accident, Scesny was transported to Clinton Hospital, where nurses drew his blood. At the time, the officer did not consent to the blood test since he maintained it violated federal, medical privacy laws, according to the Metro West Daily News.

Lawyers for Scesny argued, "When hospital staff mentioned blood alcohol testing to the defendant, he stated he wanted to think about it and that he wanted to contact a lawyer," the motion stated. The attorneys also argued, "Any results from blood drawn by hospital staff for medical purposes is shielded by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)."

Clinton District Court Judge Martha Breenan agreed with Judge Mandell that, without the BAC test, remaining evidence was insufficient to convict. The defendant was left with a $250 fine for negligent driving. DUI offenders in Texas and New Jersey wouldn’t have shared the good fortune of Scesny.

Texas, New Jersey Law Not as Sympathetic to DUI Suspect

In Texas, the court authorized police to draw blood by force from motorists suspected of DUI. In New Jersey, an appellate court approved the use of “extreme force” in drawing the blood of a motorist suspected of DUI. The Minnesota Appeals Court ruled the practice is allowable only when a search warrant is obtained from a judge.

Ex-St. Louis Cardinals' Scott Spiezio Charged with DUI

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Battle) — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 22:38:00 +0000

Like manager, like player.

One year after St. Louis Cardinals’ manager Tony LaRussa was arrested for DUI, the team’s utility infielder, Scott Spiezio was arrested for DUI and charged with five other counts.

The Orange County Superior Court in California issued a warrant charging Spiezio with DUI, DUI with a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent or more, hit and run, aggravated assault, battery and assault. If convicted, Spiezio faces a maximum sentence two years in prison, according to halosheaven.com.

DUI Charge Just a Part of Spiezio's Problem

Irvine, Calif. police said Spiezio was speeding, cutting across lanes, crossing through the oncoming traffic lanes, driving over a curb and crashing into a fence. When he crashed into the fence, it felled a fence pole. He then exited the vehicle and ran from the scene.
Halosheaven.com reported Spiezio wound up at a friend’s condominium, where he allegedly vomited. When the friend made a comment, Spiezio allegedly punched the man and threw him against a wall.
This isn’t Spiezio’s first problem with alcohol. He left the team in August for outpatient drug and alcohol abuse treatment, before returning to the club late in the season.

LaRussa Pled Guilty to DUI in November

Last March, LaRussa was arrested in Jupiter, Fla., when police found him asleep in his vehicle in the middle of an intersection. LaRussa failed field sobriety tests and was taken into custody. He pleaded guilty to DUI in November and will serve six months’ probation, pay a $678.50 fine, take classes in a DUI offender program and perform 50 hours of community service.

Roanoke Officer Wrecks His Police Cruiser And Is Charged With DUI

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Battle) — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 06:02:00 +0000

According to Virginia State Police, an officer from Roanoke is facing charges of driving under the influence after he wrecked his police cruiser in Pulaski County on the night of Saturday, February 23.

Shortly after 10:00 p.m. Saturday night was when the wreck took place. Sgt. Mike Conroy, a spokesman for Virginia state police, says that approximately six minutes before the crash happened, they received a 911 call concerning an erratically driven vehicle.

According to Conroy, Officer Andrew Page hit a guard rail after running off the road. The wreck caused his marked Roanoke police car, a 2005 Ford Crown Victoria, to be totaled. Conroy said that Page, in plain clothes at the time, gave investigators his full cooperation. According to court documents, he took a breathalyzer test and was shown to have a blood alcohol content of 0.16, double the legal limit of 0.08.

Page suffered minor injuries in the wreck and required no medical attention, according to Conroy.

Aisha Johnson, a Roanoke police spokeswoman, said that Page received a suspension for the crash and that the department had begun an internal investigation.

Two Residents Of Roanoke County Charged With DUI After Fatal I-81 Crash

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Battle) — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 05:56:00 +0000

After a chain-reaction crash at a road construction work zone that caused the death of an employee of a paving company, two Roanoke County residents have been accused of driving under the influence.

Early on the morning of Wednesday, February 20, 46-year-old Richard Sloan was killed as he was working with S.R. Draper Paving Company in the Cave Spring area.

Roanoke County police say that 42-year-old Tracie Nininger was being held without bond after being charged with involuntary manslaughter and driving under the influence. A second driver, 32-year-old Jeffrey Dupree, was released on bond after he was also charged with DUI.

Within Same Weekend, Virginia Man Receives Two DUIs

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Battle) — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 05:40:00 +0000

An Abingdon man who crashed into a state trooper in Smyth County on Friday, February 1 and received charges of drunken driving as a result was placed under arrest a second time two days later, on Sunday, February 3, and charged with intoxication in public and possession of drugs, the Virginia state police said.

A police officer from Chilhowie pulled a vehicle in which Barry Dean Marshall II was a passenger over shortly after 2:00 a.m. Mike Conroy, a spokesman for the Virginia State Police, says that the officer stopped the car because he had earlier received a notification from the Sheriff's Office of Smyth County of an erratically driven vehicle. According to what the arrest warrant said, the vehicle was spotted heading north on Interstate 81 by the officer.

The driver, 21-year-old Traci Peake, was arrested by Chilhowie police and charged with driving under the influence.

Deputies from Smyth County assisting with the stop arrested 32-year-old Marshall during the incident and charged him with public intoxication and possession of drugs with intent to manufacture or sell, according to the arrest warrant.

Conroy said that recently before this arrest, Marshall received DUI charges after striking trooper K.S. Chapman with his vehicle only a few miles down the road from where the second incident took place.

Washington State Crashes Roadblocks

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Battle) — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:43:00 +0000

Roadblocks have hit the skids in the Washington state legislature.

Lawmakers in Olympia, Wash. rebuked Gov. Christine Gregoire’s push to follow the lead of 41 other states’ measure to allow roadblocks in stemming drunk driving. Rep. Steve Kirby, D-Tacoma voted on behalf of his constituents, who thought such a measure was invasive and illegal. “To me, this is a step away from letting the police stop us on the streets and search our pockets and our backpacks,” Kirby said.

Instead, Washington State will rely on its state constitution, which is more concerned with protecting the privacy rights of its citizens than catching potential drunk drivers.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

That is from the Fourth Amendment, what keeps the police from entering your house for no apparent reason. The police can in fact enter your house and conduct a search but they first need a court order signed by a judge.

You would assume the Fourth Amendment would apply to people’s cars and you would be right. The police cannot legally search a car for no reason in a parking lot, unless they have “probable cause.” If police notice a car with a marijuana leaf painted on the hood, and the license plate reads “DRUGDEALR,” and there is funny-smelling smoke coming out of the windows, that is probable cause. But if the car is a minivan with nothing strange about its appearance, the police can’t search it because they feel like it.

Supreme Court Has Its Own Interpretation

The United States Supreme Court in Michigan v. Sitz found while sobriety checkpoints were apparent violations of the Fourth Amendment, they were only ”minor” violations. Permitting police to stop citizens without reason to believe they had done anything wrong, Chief Justice Rehnquist said, was permissible in view of the government’s ongoing “War on Drunk Driving.”

The dissenting opinions, led by Justice Brennan, stated that "the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative." So aside from not really working, they also violate our fourth amendment rights.

As stated by Justice Brennan: "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving ... is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion.”

As constitutionally correct as Justice Brennan was, he was still in the dissenting opinion, so on a federal level, sobriety checkpoints are okay. But there are still states that view sobriety checkpoints as unconstitutional. Unfortunately, Virginia isn’t one of them.

Va. House Passes Ignition Interlock Law

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Battle) — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:52:00 +0000

Vehicle ignition interlock devices for those convicted of DUI offenses in Virginia moved halfway to reality after the House of Delegates passed the measure by an 80-28 margin this week.

But that is only part of the predicament for DUI offenders.

Since the Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP) contracts only with Draeger Safety Inc. to supply the device, violators could be waiting forever to get their vehicles back from the shop. But if the General Assembly forced ASAP to open the bid process, interlock installation costs likely would decrease.

Free Enterprise Seems Missing from Ignition Interlock Sales in Virginia

Draeger is the world's-largest manufacturer of breath alcohol analyzers, including the ingnition interlock device. Numerous manufacturers offer similar products and want to conduct business in Virginia. But for now, ASAP is honoring its exclusive contract with Draeger.

The ignition interlock is a breath alcohol analysis device that prevents an "alcohol-impaired" individual from starting the vehicle ignition, according to Draeger's web site. Furthermore, re-tests are randomly required during operation of the vehicle. The Interlock system records comprehensive information on the operation of a vehicle equipped with such a device. The data is provided to authorities which verify motorist compliance with the law/Interlock program.

House Bill 1442 -- sponsored by Del. Sal Iaquinto (R-Va. Beach) -- now goes to the Senate. Twenty-eight delegates cast "nay" votes, including 14 from Northern Virginia.

If the bill becomes law, it would require the ignition interlock following a first DUI conviction and raise the administrative fee from $20 to $75. The cost of the device would be paid from the criminal fund for indigent offenders. Violators also would be prohibited from driving a school bus, school vehicle or any vehicle transporting 15 or more passengers.

Virginia Counties

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Battle) — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 23:26:00 +0000

Map Courtesy of Digital Map Store

Free Consumer Guide "How to Choose a DUI Lawyer in Virginia"

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Battle) — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 18:40:00 +0000

Richmond Virginia DUI Lawyer Bob Battle has written a free Consumer Guide to help those charged with DUI/DWI in Virginia to make the critical decision of who they will hire to represent them at trial. To learn more, watch the video below. To instantly receive your free copy, go to www.VirginiaDUIlawInfo.com.

Bob Battle adds new Virginia DUI Blogs

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Battle) — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 18:11:00 +0000

Bob Battle has added a new Virginia DUI blog at a new web address- the new website is hosted by the amazing internet geniuses at ClarisLaw.com. Click here to visit "Virginia DUI Lawyer"

Sneak Preview of Most Highly Anticipated True Crime Novel of 2007

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Battle) — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 17:29:00 +0000

Everyone who had the pleasure of watching him in the courtroom knew that Kevin Flynn was an outstanding trial lawyer. In fact, he quickly rose to be chief of the homicide section in the D.C. U.S. Attorney's office and had an amazing string of convictions that led to him being named that office's top trial lawyer. I knew that Kevin was also an outstanding writer but he will now have something other than Editor-in-Chief of the Bishop Ireton High School "BI Word" at the top of his writing resume! The entire world is about to see Kevin's amazing debut which has already become the most highly anticipated true crime novel of the year.

My good friend, Kevin Flynn has written a true crime novel to be released March 1, 2007,by the major publishing company G.P.Putnam's Sons. His book is already getting rave reviews from the big shots of this genre Jonathan Harr (author of “A Civil Action” -movie starred John Travolta and Robert Duvall) , George Pelecanos (best-selling crime novelist and writer/producer of HBO’s “The Wire”) and Ronald Kessler (prolific writer with books about the FBI, CIA, Joseph Kennedy, the Bush administration, etc.), to name a few.

Book Description

If One L is the book to read before law school, Relentless Pursuit is the book to read after- a real-life legal thriller that shows, from the inside, a prosecutor's quest to deliver justice to a family devastated by murder.

What happened to Diane Hawkins and her daughter Katrina- a brutal double murder in which the girl's heart was cut from her body- devastated a Washington, D.C., community and left its mark on everyone involved in the subsequent investigation. Especially moved was federal homicide prosecutor Kevin Flynn. He had handled any number of grisly murders, and was no stranger to the depravity of the human soul. Yet the way Hawkins's family and friends rallied together to help each other through the tragedy- and the generosity they extended to Flynn, whose own father was dying of cancer at the time- turned this case into a personal mission. He was determined to use his position to effect real closure, to right a wrong- to bring justice on behalf of the victims and their families.

Relentless Pursuit is the story of that journey to justice, an intensely gripping beat-by-beat reconstruction of the events as they unfold-the murder, the arrest, the trial, the verdict-told with astonishing candor, and providing a behind-the-scenes glimpse into the life of a dedicated prosecutor. Above all, it's about healing and community, a story in which, in the end, the system works and justice prevails.

About the Author
Kevin Flynn has been a prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office since 1987 and recently served as chief homicide prosecutor. More importantly, he is godfather to Conor Battle and father of Bob Battle's godson, Connor Flynn.

Because of my obvious inside connections, I was able to obtain a pre-release copy of this riveting thriller (feel free to use that quote, Kev!) and was able to work out a deal to offer the book for sale at a discount for all pre-release purchases at Amazon.com.

Pre-Order Today (Release Date 3/1/07)

Former University of Virginia Football Coach George Welsh Charged with DUI in Virgina

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Battle) — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 03:58:00 +0000

Former University of Virginia football coach George Welsh faces a charge of driving under the influence (DUI) in Albemarle County Virginia.

Welsh's first appearance in Albemarle County General District Court is scheduled for tomorrow morning.

The news reports stated that Welsh, age 73, failed a field sobriety test and that he also was charged with Refusal to take a breath test. Expect the prosecution to have a very difficult time proving their case if Welsh was only given one field test. For example, if the test Welsh failed, was the field alcosensor, this result is not admissible at trial. If he failed the walk-and-turn or the one-leg stand, the instructions for these tests say that they should not be given if the accused is 50 or more pounds overweight, suffers from a disablility, or is over age 60. Thus, an experienced defense attorney who is aware of the insructions, will be able to keep the results of these tests out of evidence.

Just today, Bob Battle obtained an acquittal on a DUI in Arlington, Virginia, for a client who was more than 50 pounds overweight and was still asked by the officer to try the one-leg stand and heel-to-toe tests. This is another great example of 1 of the 8 secrets Bob Battle Reveals in his article, "Ex-Prosecutor Bob Battle Reveals: 8 Secrets Your Prosecutor Doesn’t Want You To Know About Your Virginia DUI"- The police officer did not follow proper procedures for the field sobriety tests.

Perhaps Welsh will offer a novel defense at trial- he has to drink heavily to try to forget that the coach who replaced him, Al Groh, is making millions to field a team that is not even bowl eligible!

For more about George Welsh's case, click here.

Media Coverage of Richmond New Year's Eve Drunken Driving Tragedy

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Battle) — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 04:10:00 +0000

On New Year's Eve in Richmond Virginia, a 16-year-old girl, who had been drinking, was involved in an accident and killed another motorist; the cruel irony is that the deceased was a popular bartender known to be vigilant about not letting his customers drive home drunk.
Richmond Times-Dispatch columnist Ray McAllister has written two columns on the deadly incident.
"Deaths from drunken driving preventable"
and "Snapshot: Underage Drinking in Virginia"

Kansas City Chiefs Defensive End Sentenced to Jail for DUI

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Battle) — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 03:53:00 +0000

Kansas City Chiefs defensive end, Jared Allen, will spend 48 hours in jail after a municipal judge revoked an agreement for Allen to participate in a DUI diversion program and found him guilty of DUI. Allen was stopped for DUI in Overland Park Kansas in May 2006. He was granted diversion in July, but was arrested for DUI, again, in September. Because he violated the terms of the program, the judge revoked his diversion agreement. Allen pled to DUI and the judge sentenced him to 48 hours in jail, a $500 fine, and a 90 day suspended sentence.

Allen must still face a judge in February for the September DUI arrest.

The Chiefs' season ended yesterday with a playoff loss to the Indianapolis Colts.

Erosion of Rights for DUI Defendants is Dangerous Precedent for American Judicial System

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Battle) — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 03:39:00 +0000

In his outstanding DUI Blog, California DUI lawyer Lawrence Taylor describes the danger of the continued erosion of rights for DUI defendants with respect to the overall American criminal justice system.

"A majority of the U.S. Supreme Court has been consistent in depriving the accused in DUI cases their constitutional rights.

So...we have seen a steady flow of appellate decisions at all levels taking away the constitutional rights of those accused of DUI. Again, so what?

Again, precedent: What happens today to a citizen accused of DUI can happen tommorrow to a person accused of any other offense. If police can set up roadblocks to check everyone for intoxication, they can set them up to search for drugs (which, incidentally, has already happened). If a citizen accused of DUI has no right to a jury of his peers, then the precedent exists to deny the right to citizens accused of any other crime."

To read Taylor's entire post, click here.

"Merry Christmas! You're Under Arrest!" A History Of Sobriety Checkpoints

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Battle) — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 15:07:00 +0000

The holiday season brings with it times with friends and family, beautiful decorations, well cooked meals with loved ones, and the joy of giving gifts to those that you love.

It’s also the season of quasi-constitutional things like roadblocks.

You’ve seen the commercials and heard the warnings on the radio, and perhaps you have even been stopped and been made to blow into a breathalyzer, or made to do that strange ballet where you have to close your eyes, stand on one leg, and throw your head back, which is practically impossible to do even if you haven’t been drinking.

As you are being made to breathe into a tube or play hopscotch on the side of the road, a few questions might occur to you, the first one being “Is this even legal? Isn’t there something in the Constitution about probable cause or search and seizure or something?”

The answer is yes.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

That is from the Fourth Amendment, and this is the sort of thing that keeps the police from entering your house for no apparent reason and rooting through your belongings. The police CAN in fact enter your house and root through your belongings, but they have to go to a judge and present a lot of good and solid legal reasons as to why they want to.

You would assume that the Fourth Amendment would apply to people’s cars, and you would be right. The police cannot legally search a car for no reason in a parking lot, unless there is something called “probable cause.” For instance, if the police see a car in a parking lot with a marijuana leaf painted on the hood, and the license plate reads “DRUGDEALR,” and there is funny smelling smoke coming out of the windows, that is a fine example of probable cause. But if the car is a minivan with nothing strange about it, the police cannot search it just because they feel like it.

So how on earth are DUI checkpoints legal, where they can stop every car that comes down the road? Or every second or third car? How did they manage to hang an asterisk on the fourth amendment? Why are you freezing on the side of the road, or, even worse, why is your life being ruined because of the two glasses of wine that you had with your Christmas Dinner?

Michigan Checkpoints

In 1986, the Michigan State Police announced that they were going to start placing well publicized and well staffed sobriety checkpoints on some roads that had experienced high levels of drunk driving accidents. Before the checkpoints were even put into action, a Michigan citizen named Rick Sitz filed suit to stop it. It should be mentioned that Rick Sitz did not do this because he enjoyed drinking and driving, but because he quite rightly thought that stopping everyone at random to see who had been naughty or nice was a gross violation of privacy and fourth amendment rights.

The lower courts of Michigan agreed with Mr. Sitz, but the case was appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz was heard in 1990. In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that the roadblocks did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court noted that "no one can seriously dispute the magnitude of the drunken driving problem or the States' interest in eradicating it." The Court then found that "the weight bearing on the other scale--the measure of the intrusion on motorists stopped briefly at sobriety checkpoints--is slight." Perhaps the justices had been chauffered around DC for so long that they forgot what it was like to be arbitrarily pulled over and told to blow in a tube. The Court also found that empirical evidence supported the effectiveness of the program.

What was the empirical evidence that supported it? According to the brief:

The first - and to date the only - sobriety checkpoint operated under the program was conducted in Saginaw County with the assistance of the Saginaw County Sheriff's Department. During the 75-minute duration of the checkpoint's operation, 126 vehicles passed through the checkpoint. The average delay for each vehicle was approximately 25 seconds. Two drivers were detained for field sobriety testing, and one of the two was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. A third driver who drove through without stopping was pulled over by an officer in an observation vehicle and arrested for driving under the influence.

Out of 126 vehicles, they got two guys. One made it obvious by trying to run the stop, and the other was given the field sobriety test, which is, as mentioned before, difficult to complete even when you are sober. While groups like MADD make it seem like you can’t go out to get the newspaper without coming across a highway full of drunken drivers, the numbers simply don’t back up this supposed need for draconian measures like roadblocks.

The dissenting opinions, led by Justice Brennan, stated that "the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative." So aside from not really working, they also violate our fourth amendment rights. As stated by Justice Brennan: "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving ... is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion.”

As constitutionally correct as Justice Brennan was, he was still in the dissenting opinion, so on a federal level, sobriety checkpoints are okay. But there are still states that view sobriety checkpoints as unconstitutional. Unfortunately, Virginia isn’t one of them.

I’m at a checkpoint. Now what?

As with any routine stop, you are required to provide identifying information such as your name, address, driver's license, and registration. By law, you do not have to say anything. But what you should do is say as little as possible. Anything you say could potentially be used against you. Admitting to drinking or consuming drugs (even in small amounts: “I just had one!”) can be construed as admitting guilt.

And always remember, don’t give up. A DUI conviction can absolutely ruin your life.
It costs you time, money, and freedom. A skilled attorney could get the charges reduced, or even get the charges thrown out.

If you or a loved one is facing a DUI charge, contact Bob Battle for a free legal consultation today.

Visit Bob Battle's Website

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Battle) — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 04:46:00 +0000

Get my banner code or create your own banner

Marlins' Willis Arrested for DUI and Refusal

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Battle) — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 15:50:00 +0000

Florida Marlins pitcher Dontrelle Willis was arrested Friday on a drunken driving charge along a Miami Beach street lined with nightclubs, police said. A police officer saw Willis get out of his Bentley and urinate in the street arounf 4:30 a.m. The officer noted that Willis failed a sobriety test, could not keep his balance, and had a "strong smell of alcohol." (Note- alcohol has no odor.)
Willis later refused a breath test.
To read more click here.