DUI Help and Advice

Making the DUI process easier

Probation

Conviction overturned because of misleading admonition

On April 18, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of a California man who had been convicted on a charge of refusal to submit to a test to determine blood alcohol content. The ruling was reversed because the man had been repeatedly informed by government officials that his refusal to submit was not a criminal act when he was taken into custody.

The case began on June 10, 2011, when a federal park ranger found the defendant alone in his car in a restricted area of Yosemite National Park. The vehicle’s lights were on, and the driver was allegedly drunk and argumentative. Reports say that he refused to submit to a field sobriety test and later rejected blood alcohol content tests. When he was taken to the police station, he was read a California admonition, suggesting that he would face additional penalties for the refusal if he was convicted of DUI. However, under federal law, a refusal is a misdemeanor violation.

Later, the defendant pleaded guilty to an open container charge and a marijuana possession charge. A DUI charge was dismissed, and the man was only tried for the refusal. He was found guilty and sentenced to 120 days in jail. However, the Ninth Circuit reversed the ruling on April 18. A senior judge wrote the opinion for a three-judge appeals panel, noting that the actions of the federal park rangers violated the due process rights of the defendant. The judge suggested that the conviction would be unfair because the defendant had been misled about the consequences of his actions when the incorrect admonition was read.

This case shows how errors made by officers conducting an arrest might invalidate the charges levied against a defendant. An individual facing allegations of DUI might work with a DUI lawyer who could determine if a similar breach of due process result in dropped charges in that client’s case.

Woman faces charges after death of Louisiana pedestrian

According to the Louisiana State Police, Meraux woman was struck and killed by an allegedly impaired driver in St. Bernard Parish on March 10 around 8:30 p.m. The incident occurred to the west of Judy Street on Louisiana 46 as the driver was headed east on the road in a 2008 Mazda 3. The pedestrian, who was crossing the road in Meraux when she was struck, was rushed by emergency personnel to a New Orleans hospital where she was pronounced dead.

The driver was reportedly cooperative and submitted to a breath test, which revealed that her blood alcohol content was above the legal limit. Officers took the driver into custody on charges of driving with an expired license, careless operation of a vehicle, DUI, and vehicular homicide. Police are continuing their investigation of the incident.

A person convicted on serious charges such as DWI and vehicular homicide may face severe penalties, including time in prison, hefty fines, mandatory alcohol education, community service, restricted driving privileges, and probation. In addition, individuals who have a DWI conviction on record may face setbacks in their careers and personal lives.

In some situations, a medical condition such as diabetes or acid reflux disease might result in a false positive on a breath test. An attorney may look for such mitigating circumstances or other issues, such as improperly maintained testing equipment, in order to develop a defense strategy on a defendant’s behalf. Information such as the police report and a defendant’s recollection of events may help an attorney create a solid DUI defense argument.

If the defendant and attorney agree that the state’s evidence may be solid enough to win a conviction, a plea bargain might be another option. If the defendant acknowledges that he or she might have an addiction problem and is actively seeking treatment, the prosecutor might be willing to reduce the penalties or combine some of the charges. Alternatively, the defendant may agree to plead no contest or guilty as part of a plea deal.

New York man pleads guilty to felony DWI charge

A 56-year-old Ravena resident pleaded guilty to a felony DWI charge in Albany County Court on Feb. 4. The defendant reportedly drove 82 mph in a 55 mph work zone before he was arrested in September of 2013.

Officers reported that the driver displayed visible signs of intoxication as they interviewed him. Police administered several field sobriety tests, which the defendant failed. After he was taken into custody, a test revealed a BAC level of .17, which is more than two times the New York state limit of .08. According to a spokeswoman for the district attorney, the defendant has prior alcohol-related offenses, including a 2003 conviction for felony DWI.

When he is sentenced on April 1, he will face 10 months in jail in Albany county plus a $1,000 fine, a one-year license suspension and five years of felony probation. The prosecution of the case is being handled by the Bureau Chief of the Vehicular Crimes Unit.

The man may have pleaded guilty in an attempt to plea bargain for a lower sentence. There are several reasons why a defendant might choose a plea deal over going to trial.

One reason is that there is always a risk inherent in a trial. A defendant may be found guilty by a judge or jury and then subjected to the maximum penalties allowed by state law. If a defendant does not wish to take that risk, a plea deal can be a way to avoid a trial.

In many ways, a plea deal is simply a negotiation. The prosecution may offer some concessions, such as dropped charges or reduced penalties in exchange for a guilty plea. Through negotiations, the defense and prosecution may arrive at an agreement that both sides can accept.

Teen ordered to rehab by judge for fatal DUI crash

Colorado readers may already be aware of the high-profile case of a wealthy Texas teen who was given — what many consider — a light sentence in connection with an accident that killed four people and injured two others. The case made national headlines when an expert witness described the defendant as a victim of “affluenza.” In other words, he was a privileged and wealthy teenager who had lived without parental limits.

On Feb. 5, a judge ordered the teen to a locked residential treatment facility. Last year, a state district judge made the decision not to sentence him to jail and instead gave him 10 years’ probation. The conditions of the teen’s probation prohibit him from using alcohol or drugs. In addition, he is not permitted to drive. If he violates his probationary terms, he may be facing as much as 10 years in prison. The prosecution and the victims’ families expressed disappointment that the penalties were not more severe.

The accident occurred in June of 2013, when the teenager drove his pickup into a group of four pedestrians in Burleson, Texas. All four were killed in the collision. There were two passengers in the back of the pickup, and both were severely injured. The teen had a blood-alcohol level of .24 three hours after the accident occurred.

The media has focused attention on the catchy term “affluenza” to describe a culture of wealthy children who act irresponsibly or dangerously because they lack parental discipline and have been sheltered from the consequences of their behavior. The teen’s defense attorney testified that the teenager was emotionally delayed as the result of his upbringing and home environment. His emotional impairment may have interfered with his ability to understand the potentially harmful consequences of drinking and driving. The judge agreed and chose rehabilitation for the young man, rather than incarceration, in the belief that this would be in the defendant’s best interest.

Texas high school coach charged with DWI in fast-food drive-thru

According to police records, a Texas high school’s athletic director and football coach allegedly passed out inside his vehicle in the drive-thru of a fast-food restaurant around 3:20 a.m. on Jan. 12. He was taken into custody and charged with driving while intoxicated. The coach reportedly refused to submit to a field sobriety test. He was booked on DWI charges, and the officers obtained a warrant for a blood test.

Employees reportedly called for police assistance after being unable to rouse the coach, whose truck was idling at the drive-thru window of the fast-food restaurant. Officers claim that when they arrived, they opened the door of the coach’s truck and turned the engine off. While they did this, the officers reportedly smelled alcohol inside the vehicle. They also allegedly observed that the coach had put his sandals on the wrong feet. The coach was placed on administrative leave with pay and was released on a bail of $1,000.

A DWI conviction can be extremely disruptive to a person’s life and future. The coach in this story has been placed on administrative leave, which may signal a career setback for him. In addition to personal and career setbacks, a conviction for drunk driving might result in a prison sentence, high fines, mandatory alcohol education, lost driving privileges and probation. In Texas, a refusal to submit to a breath test may be used against a defendant in court and might result in an 180-day license suspension.

Defense strategies may be based on a plea agreement or a defense argument presented at trial. A DWI defense lawyer may review a defendant’s case and make a recommendation regarding which strategy seems most appropriate.

One reason to choose a trial is if there appears to be a weak area in the prosecution’s case. For example, if the officer stopped a driver without probable cause, any DUI evidence may be inadmissible in court, and the case might be dismissed. In a case in which police did have probable cause, such as a driver passed out in a drive-thru window with the engine running, a better option might be a plea agreement that could result in reduced charges or penalties given the circumstances and the fact that nobody was injured or killed.