Kentucky DUI Defense Lawyer

Welcome visitors to the 2010 World Equestrian Games in Lexington KY

2010-09-06T21:00:00-04:00

Isaacs Law Office welcomes the visitors to Lexington Kentucky for the 2010 World Equestrian Games. The local Lexington and Fayette County Police Officers are very strict and stop vehicles when they suspect a driver is impaired. Therefore, please drink responsibly and have a sober designated driver operate your vehicle.

Post by Kentucky DUI attorney Stephen Isaacs.

DUI While Driving Barbie Electric Toy Car

2010-05-20T06:05:00-04:00

Essex, England - In an unusual DUI, the Telegraph reports that a man received a DUI and a three year driving ban for operating a child’s Barbie electric toy car.

Paul Hutton, 40, received the three-year driving ban as an enhancement to the DUI conviction because he had previously received a DUI conviction within the past ten years. Mr. Hutton admitted to operating the toy car while drunk. Hutton further stated: "I was very surprised to get done for drink-driving but I was a twit to say the least."

The electric Barbie toy car, which reportedly has a top speed of 4 miles per hour and which was designed for 3 to 5 year old children, can be easily overtaken by a walking pedestrian. Mr. Hutton had been working with his son on the car as part of his son’s mechanics class project, and could not resist the urge of taking the toy car out for a test drive.

Post by Lexington Kentucky DUI Attorney Stephen J. Isaacs of Isaacs Law Office.

Criminal Lawyer Defense Lawyer Strategies

2010-05-19T08:00:00-04:00

As a Kentucky criminal defense lawyer, I am occasionally asked how I can represent a defendant who must be guilty because they were arrested by the police. I note that to be an effective criminal defense lawyer I take the viewpoints that my client is innocent, that the police make errors, that the police have a tendency of overcharging the defendant, that evidence may be wrong, that witnesses err in their recall or that they may provide untrustworthy testimony, and more.

This response occasionally leads to the next question, how can I represent someone who I must know is guilty? Well, I usually state that I don’t know that my client is guilty. I go on to explain that as part of my defense strategy, as a rule, I avoid asking my client questions which elicit answers wherein they state they are guilty of the crime(s) charged: all I want to know are the facts and the evidence which the officers and the prosecutors collected from my client so I can plan a suitable and aggressive defense.

I further explain that at least one United States Supreme Court Justice commented on the role of law enforcement, the role of the criminal defense attorney, and the strategies used by criminal defense attorneys. In commenting on the role of law enforcement officers and the defense attorneys, United States Supreme Court Justice White stated:

Law enforcement officers have the obligation to convict the guilty and to make sure they do not convict the innocent. They must be dedicated to making the criminal trial a procedure for the ascertainment of the true facts surrounding the commission of the crime. To this extent, our so-called adversary system is not adversary at all; nor should it be. But defense counsel has no comparable obligation to ascertain or present the truth. Our system assigns him a different mission. He must be and is interested in preventing the conviction of the innocent, but, absent a voluntary plea of guilty, we also insist that he defend his client whether he is innocent or guilty. The State has the obligation to present the evidence. Defense counsel need present nothing, even if he knows what the truth is. He need not furnish any witnesses to the police, or reveal any confidences of his client, or furnish any other information to help the prosecution's case. If he can confuse a witness, even a truthful one, or make him appear at a disadvantage, unsure or indecisive, that will be his normal course. Our interest in not convicting the innocent permits counsel to put the State to its proof, to put the State's case in the worst possible light, regardless of what he thinks or knows to be the truth. Undoubtedly there are some limits which defense counsel must observe but more often than not, defense counsel will cross-examine a prosecution witness, and impeach him if he can, even if he thinks the witness is telling the truth, just as he will attempt to destroy a witness who he thinks is lying. In this respect, as part of our modified adversary system and as part of the duty imposed on the most honorable defense counsel, we countenance or require conduct which in many instances has little, if any, relation to the search for truth. United States vs. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 256-259 (1967).

For example, on May 13, 2010, I watched TNA wrestling wherein the police arrested the wrestler called "the monster" Abyss. At the beginning of the show, the facts presented to the viewing audience indicated that Abyss had assaulted Chelsea - a model who acts as a valet for the wrestler Ric Flair. The accused, Abyss, claimed innocence. Throughout the program the viewers were fed pieces of information about the assault. However, it was not until the end of the program and after the arrest of Abyss that the viewers were presented with "hidden" camera video evidence showing how another wrestler and Chelsea framed Abyss by planned the assault, making false statements regarding the assault, and how they falsified the evidence of the assault - in this case the ripped dress, water, and tears. While the viewing audience may have believed that Abyss was guilty of the assault, but I would not have based on how I represent my clients.

Post by Lexington Criminal Defense Attorney Stephen J. Isaacs, Isaacs Law Office.

Possible DUI Sentencing Alternatives in Kentucky

2010-05-18T10:50:53-04:00

Kentucky DUI Attorney Stephen Isaacs of Isaacs Law Office has learned that some Kentucky courts are considering sentencing alternatives to jail for DUI offenders. One such alternative involves continuous alcohol monitoring using a bracelet attached to an offender's leg.

Evidenced-Based Continuous Alcohol Monitoring with a SCRAM bracelet allows those accused or convicted of DUI to maintain their sobriety and possibly avoid jail, while increasing public safety, along with:

Helping lower recidivism (by 45% in repeat DUI offenders who wore SCRAMx for 90 days or more)
Providing better responses to treatment when combined with SCRAMx
Letting offenders maintain family obligations, hold jobs, and contribute positively to the community

SCRAMx is more commonly used with repeat DUI/DWI offenders, but can also ordered on first-time offenders who have aggravated circumstances like an extremely high blood alcohol content (BAC). Courts may order DUI/DWI offenders on SCRAMx to not only deter them from drinking – and driving – for a specified time period, but also to assess their alcohol dependency levels to recommend individualized courses of treatment.

Key objectives of the SCRAMx DUI/DWI Program include:

Protecting the public by monitoring DUI/DWI offenders 24/7
Ensuring compliance with court-ordered terms of alcohol abstinence
Promoting enforceable accountability
Providing evidence-based data to support abstinence
Assessing the offender’s alcohol dependency and drinking patterns
Detecting if the offender drinks prior to trial to facilitate early intervention
Helping offenders prove extended sobriety to be considered for driver’s license reinstatement
Allowing the offender to maintain job and family obligations, and contribute positively to the community while awaiting trial

With regard to placing DUI/DWI offenders under house arrest in addition to alcohol monitoring, data from NHTSA’s Traffic Safety Facts 2008 shows how this approach makes perfect sense from a public safety standpoint. According to NHTSA, the prime hours for alcohol-impaired fatal crashes are between 9:00 pm and 6:00 am – the highest (64%) being from midnight to 3:00 am. Knowing that some of their higher-risk offenders may backslide during the evening hours, judges can impose curfews during that time to keep them off the roads and better protect the community. The SCRAMx monitors the DUI offender's compliance with the court imposed curfew.

What should you do when you've been stopped by the police for suspicion of driving under the influence

2010-01-25T17:49:53-05:00

In Kentucky, Police stop vehicles for many reasons, not just for suspicion of DUI. But if you had been drinking or under the influence of a drug, then you need to do several things to increase your chance of being found innocent.

First, call a criminal defense attorney if possible. Some officers will cooperate with you and allow you to speak with an attorney if you inform the officer that you need to understand your rights.

Listen to the instructions from the officer and do not be rowdy, disruptive, aggressive or physical towards the officer. Do not give the officer grounds to arrest you because of your behavior. Be polite and respectful (they will appreciate the respect and may return the favor).

Do as little as possible and do not volunteer information. You will have to provide your name and present your drivers license, registration and proof of insurance. But you can stop there. Note that anything you say before the officer places you in custody can and probably will be used against you. According to the court in Miranda v Arizona, you have the right to ask for an attorney and remain silent when in police custody. Miranda applies ONLY if the officer asks you questions when in police custody. Note that not all traffic stops rise to the level of being in police custody: in these cases, the police may ask you questions without having to invoke your Miranda rights and then can use your statements as evidence against you. If the officer follows procedure, they will probably write down everything you say for the prosecutor to use. Therefore, be safe and invoke your right to remain silent: you do not have to answer questions such as how much you had to drink or if you had been smoking marijuana. You do not need to confess to the officer that you believe you are intoxicated or impaired.

Furthermore, the officer may demand that you take several “field sobriety” tests if the officer suspects you of driving under the influence. The officer intends to collect evidence against you using the field sobriety tests. The field sobriety tests commonly administered in Kentucky include the walk and turn test, the one leg stand, the horizontal gauze Nystagmus test, and a portable breath test. However, in Kentucky, these tests are voluntary: you can refuse to take these tests. A word of caution: be polite and respectful to the officer should you decide to refuse these tests.

In Kentucky an officer can arrest you based solely on his opinion as to whether you drove the vehicle under the influence. Should the officer decide to arrest you, they will transport you to a detention facility. There exists a good chance that the officer will record your voice during transit. Be aware of this fact and do not answer any questions in the police cruiser. You need to remain calm and quiet even if you believe the officer wrongly arrested you.

Once at the detention facility, the officer will again request that you submit to a test of your blood, breath or urine. All drivers operating a vehicle in Kentucky impliedly consent to submit to these tests. The officer should thereafter read you an implied consent form, which essentially states that that you have 20 minutes or less to contact an attorney for legal advice and that he will permit you to obtain an independent blood test (at your expense) if and only if you cooperate and submit to the requested blood, breath or urine tests. Should you decide to refuse to take the test, Kentucky law will presume guilt and increase the penalties levied against you should you later decide to plead guilty or if a jury finds you guilty. Remember, do not volunteer any information to anybody except for your attorney. Some Kentucky jailers record all conversations inside the detention centers and on the telephone. Any statements you make against your interest may be used against you at a trial of the matter.

Post by Lexington Criminal Defense Attorney Stephen J. Isaacs, Isaacs Law Office.

The United States Court in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) held that statements made by a defendant during interrogation and while in police custody are admissible at trial only if the police had previously informed the defendant of his right to counsel with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination before questioning by the police. The prosecutor could thereafter use at trial any voluntary statements made by the defendant. The Miranda court based its decision on the Fifth Amendment right to counsel and the right to remain silent.

Costs of a DUI - 2010

2010-01-10T23:40:00-05:00

The costs of a DUI are increasing. Everybody knows that a DUI charge and conviction can devastate most people financially. MSN Money reports that a typical first time DUI costs around $10,000 after court costs, fees, towing, and increases in insurance, assuming there was no collision at the time of the DUI stop.

So How Did They Arrive at This Figure?

Bail. In order to be released after arrest and after the sobering up, the offender should plan on paying between $150 to $2500 for bail. Note that in Kentucky, after an interview by pretrial services, the offender could be released on their own recognizance or find themselves paying up to $2500 for bail, assuming there were no additional charges besides the DUI.

Insurance. As attorneys and DUI offenders know, a DUI stop can drastically affect the price of auto insurance. Some insurance companies will drop offenders upon learning of the charge – even before a conviction. Yet others will place the convicted offender in the high-risk category and increase their premiums. MSN Money estimates the insurance cost to be $4,500 or more on a national basis. It could take between three to eight years of “clean” driving for premiums to go back to a preferred status. In Kentucky, this attorney is aware of at least one insurance company which does not raise rates for a DUI-1st conviction.

Fines. For a DUI 1 st conviction, the fines and court costs will vary, ranging between $600 to $1,200. In Kentucky, based on the county, the fines and court costs for a DUI 1 st conviction are $718.00.

Alcohol Education and Treatment. Upon conviction, states require alcohol assessment and attendance at an education or treatment program. The costs vary. MSN estimates the costs to range from $150 to $2000.

Legal Fees. Then there are the legal fees to consider. MSN Money reports attorney fees ranging from $250.00 to enter a guilty plea, up to $25,000 for a complex and rigorous defense. Note that this does not include investigators to review witness and any other case related expenses.

Detention Center / Jail Fees. In Kentucky, plan on spending additional money for booking fees. Additionally, some Kentucky jails charge a per day fee. If you are lucky enought to be granted home incarceration to serve your time, then plan for additional monitoring fees.

Ignition Locks. In some states, a court may order the installation of an ignition lock to prevent convicted offenders from driving if intoxicated. According to MSN Money, these costs can cost between $75 to $1290 / month, plus an installation fee.

License Reinstatement Fee. According to MSN Money, this fee averages $75.00. In Kentucky, this fee is $40.00.

Blood Testing. In Kentucky, prior to providing evidence for the state in the form of your blood, breath or urine, you have the option of selecting to later have a blood test, which must be paid for at the time of the test. The test costs around $400.

Towing. If the officer choses to have your vehicle towed, it could cost the offender between $100 to $1,200 to reclaim their vehicle. Apparently Chicago charges $1,200 to tow the vehicle.

Intangible Expenses. Then there are the intangible expenses to consider:

Lost time from work while in jail.

Loss of license resulting in lost time in getting around.

Possible loss of job and income.

Cost to obtain new job.

Possible loss of professional license.

Breakup of families (and associated divorce costs).

Stigma of being a drunk driver.

Increased life insurance premiums.

Post by Lexington Kentucky Attorney Stephen J. Isaacs, Isaacs Law Office.

Stay informed: add this blog to your Technorati Favorites, . . .

DUI Offenders Subject to Identity Theft

2009-09-16T17:10:49-04:00

September 15, 2009 - The Department of Justice announced it has charged Donald Stoner, of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, with conspiracy to commit identity fraud in a scheme wherein he targeted DUI offenders in Lancaster and York Counties.

According to the press release by Dennis C. Pfannenschmidt, United States Attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Stoner would target DUI offenders who hired private attorneys, reasoning that they would have money to steal in contrast to those DUI offenders who used public defenders. Stoner obtained the names of the DUI offenders using the internet, and would then obtain the DUI offender’s personal information directly from the court files in the clerk’s office using an accomplice. From the court files, Stoner and his accomplice obtained the DUI offender’s social security number, drivers license number and other identifying information disclosed in the court documents. Stoner and his accomplice thereafter opened fraudulent bank accounts, created phony email addresses, and applied for loans in the victim’s name.

As a result of this type of identify theft scheme, the clerk of court for York and Lancaster County were asked to redact identifying information from court documents prior to release to the public.

Stoner agreed to plead guilty to the charge. He faces up to five years’ imprisonment and $250,000 in fines upon conviction of the offense.

Post by Kentucky Attorney Stephen J. Isaacs, Isaacs Law Office.

Stay informed: add this blog to your Technorati Favorites, . . .