Wednesday, August 26, 2009

DUI Trial by Machine — But How Good Are the Machines?



Posted by Lawrence Taylor on August 25th, 2009 www.dui blog.com

All states now have two drunk driving laws: (1) driving under the influence of alcohol (aka “DUI”, with local variations, such as “driving while intoxicated” or “DWI”), and (2) the so-called per se law of driving with .08% or higher blood-alcohol concentration (BAC). Unless you refuse to take a chemical test, you will be charged and prosecuted for both offenses — and can be convicted of both.

The breath machines (commonly — and inaccurately — referred to as “Breathalyzers”) used to obtain the BAC are, obviously, critical to the drunk driving case. As for the per se offense, the only evidence of the crime is the machine: if the thing says .08% or higher and the jury believes it, the defendant is guilty. In effect, if you are accused of driving with .08% BAC, you will face "trial by machine" — and you will not be able to confront your accuser.

It gets worse….Even as to the DUI charge, the readings will be considered presumptive: if the BAC is .08% or higher, the jury will be instructed by the judge that the defendant is presumed to be guilty: he must be found guilty unless he can prove his innocence. See “Whatever Happened to the Presumption of Innocence?”.

These machines are all-important: they determine guilt or innocence. But despite the manufacturers refusing court orders to disclose the software that runs the machines, they continue to assure us that the things are “state of the art”. So how accurate are they?

I’ve posted repeatedly in the past about the continuing refusal of the manufacturers of various breath-testing machines to devulge the secret software used to run them. The readings of these devices are, of course, critical: tens of thousands of citizens continue to be accused and convicted based based upon them.

What are they hiding?

The courts in a number of states have ruled that the defense has a right to know whether the code — critical to the accuracy of the machines’ readings — is reliable and accurate. See Judge Orders Secrets of Breath Machine Revealed, Judge: Divulge Breathalyzer Code…or Else , Secret Breathalyzer Still Secret, Second Manufacturer Must Reveal Secrets. Yet, the corporations manufacturing these highly profitable machines refuse to comply. In only once case, where the New Jersey Supreme Court ordered the manufacturer of the Alcotest 7110 to turn over the code, experts found the software running the machine to be antiquated, unreliable and inaccurate. See Secret Breathalyzer Software Finally Revealed.


Judge: Prosecutors Must Get DUI Breath-Test Software Code

Tucson, AZ. Oct. 27 - A judge ordered the Pima County Attorney’s Office to ask a leading manufacturer of alcohol breath-test machines to reveal its software code.
Superior Court Judge Deborah Bernini noted Monday that Owensboro, Ky.-based CMI Inc. so far has refused to divulge its source code to defense attorneys, despite a previous order.
"Every lawyer in this room should be concerned about CMI’s unwillingness to follow the court’s order," Bernini said.
Bernini said CMI must hand over its source code in electronic form by Nov. 10…
Defense attorneys asked for – and Bernini ordered – the source code in electronic form so they can test its veracity.
"This information would be available with ease in an email," Bernini said Monday.
She noted that she even allowed extra time for CMI to give the code to lead defense attorney James Nesci.
"They had all the time in the world to comply with the order and/or suggest why the order was in error," Bernini said. "They have chosen not to do so."
Bernini set a Nov. 24 hearing for CMI President Toby Hall to explain why he and CMI shouldn’t be held in contempt of court for not following her order.
Deputy County Attorney Robin Schwartz told Bernini that she isn’t sure prosecutors can get CMI to divulge the source code either.
Defense attorneys in the 23 alleged drunken-driving cases before Bernini want the source code so they can check for accuracy of breath tests for alcohol.
"I don’t think CMI will ever turn over the source code," Nesci told Bernini. "I think CMI is hiding something in the source code," Nesci said.
Nesci said the Intoxilyzer 8000, which is used by Tucson police, isn’t as effective as CMI claims it is and divulging the source code would prove it.
"If they’re found to be untruthful to the people who have spent millions of dollars for their equipment, they could be sued into oblivion," Nesci said.
Nesci said absent the source code, the defense wanted Bernini to dismiss the cases or suppress the breath-test evidence.
What are they hiding?

Editorial: MADD benefits from drunk driving


duiattorney.com

The line between courts, police, jails and Mothers Against Drunk Driving is blurring even more these days. MADD now has court watchers and advocates planted in DUI courts across the nation. They stage demonstrations outside courthouses where DWI trial are going on, and expose jurors to their messages during trials.

For years, as part of DUI sentences in many states, judges have ordered drunk driving convicts to participate in MADD victim impact panels as part of their sentence, often under the threat of additional jail time if they don't participate.

In many ways, MADD dictates the legislative and judicial agendas when it comes to the way drunk driving cases are handled.

Reports have surfaced that DUI convicts in Bristol, Tennessee, are doing car washes to benefit MADD. One was held at an Auto Zone store last Saturday (below).

DUI offenders to wash cars for MADD

BRISTOL, Tenn. (AP) — The folks in the orange- and white-striped jump suits washing cars in Bristol will be DUI offenders helping MADD.

The car wash at an Auto Zone parts store on Saturday costs $10 and the money goes to benefit MADD.

The Bristol Herald Courier reports the Sullivan County Sheriff's Office will transport offenders to the store, where their volunteer labor counts double toward their jail hours.

Sheriff Wayne Anderson said drunken driving offenses run the social and economic spectrum. He said there are between 50 and 100 inmates on any given day who are DUI offenders.

Anderson said a similar project has been done before, and the inmates "really enjoyed it. They felt like they were giving back."

Perhaps being outside doing something is better than being inside a jail?

The notion of volunteer inmate work is not new. In Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio runs volunteer chain gangs, where inmates from the county jail in Phoenix work outdoors, literally chained together with armed guards watching over them. And they wear traditional prison stripes too.

But directly benefiting a political organization such as MADD rubs some people the wrong way. Critics argue that MADD pushes greater penalties and then financially benefits from those penalties in the form of events like car washes and victim impact panels.

NOTE: The above is the opinion of the author and does not necessarily reflect the views of every attorney and author associated with this site.

Friday, August 21, 2009

New Law Allows Admission of Blood Alcohol Test Results Regardless of Defendant's Consent


Posted On: August 20, 2009 by Baker Associates

Under current DUI law, the introduction of the results of a blood alcohol test cannot be admitted into evidence without the defendant’s consent if blood was taken from the defendant while he or she was incapable of refusing the test (e.g., the defendant was unconscious).

The new law adds an exception to the blood alcohol test consent requirement. Enacted into law in May of 2009, the new law requires a law enforcement officer to cause the driver of a vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury or death to another to be tested to determine the alcohol or drug content of the driver's blood, but only if the officer had probable cause to believe that the defendant driver had committed one of the following offenses:

  • Driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol;
  • Vehicular assault and aggravated vehicular assault; or
  • Vehicular homicide.

The new law also explicitly states that the results of the test will be admissible as evidence in any court or administrative hearing relating to the accident or the offense. Consequently, results from a blood alcohol test can be admitted into evidence even if the defendant was unconscious or otherwise incapable of giving consent at the time the blood alcohol test was administered.

Blood Alcohol

A blood alcohol test measures the amount of alcohol (ethanol) in your body. Alcohol is quickly absorbed into the blood and can be measured within minutes of having an alcoholic drink. The amount of alcohol in the blood reaches its highest level about an hour after drinking. But food in the stomach may increase the amount of time it takes for the blood alcohol to reach its highest level. About 90% of alcohol is broken down in the liver. The rest of it is passed out of the body in urine and your exhaled breath.

Alcohol has a noticeable effect on the body, even when consumed in small amounts. In large amounts, alcohol acts as a sedative and depresses the central nervous system.

A blood alcohol test is often used to find out whether you are legally drunk or intoxicated. If this test is being done for legal reasons, a consent form may be required, but refusing to take the test may have legal consequences.

Why It Is Done

A test for blood alcohol level is done to:

  • Check the amount of alcohol in the blood when a person is suspected of being legally drunk (intoxicated). Symptoms of alcohol intoxication include confusion, lack of coordination, unsteadiness that makes it hard to stand or walk, or erratic or unsafe driving.
  • Find the cause of altered mental status, such as unclear thinking, confusion, or coma.
  • Check to see whether alcohol is present in the blood at times when the consumption of alcohol is prohibited-for example, in underage people suspected of drinking or in people enrolled in an alcohol treatment program.

How To Prepare

No special preparation is needed before having a blood alcohol test.

Many medicines may change the results of this test. Be sure to tell your doctor about all the nonprescription and prescription medicines you take.

How It Is Done

The health professional drawing blood will:

  • Wrap an elastic band around your upper arm to stop the flow of blood. This makes the veins below the band larger so it is easier to put a needle into the vein.
  • Clean the needle site with a non-alcohol solution such as povidone-iodine or antiseptic soap.
  • Put the needle into the vein. More than one needle stick may be needed.
  • Attach a tube to the needle to fill it with blood.
  • Remove the band from your arm when enough blood is collected.
  • Put a gauze pad or cotton ball over the needle site as the needle is removed.
  • Put pressure on the site and then put on a bandage.

How It Feels

The blood sample is taken from a vein in your arm. An elastic band is wrapped around your upper arm. It may feel tight. You may feel nothing at all from the needle, or you may feel a quick sting or pinch.

reference: webmd.com

Thursday, August 13, 2009

DUI is a SCAM

Shakaama Live: DUI is a Scam

DUI is a Scam

I'm sure you've heard of the sad stories MAAD [mothers against drunk drivers] tells you of poor little Timmy that was killed by a drunk driver and for poor Timmy's sake we need tougher laws. While I can feel sorry for little Timmy and his family, I'm not so sure about the logic behind tougher DUI laws.

So, I did some checking.

You know me, I have to see the numbers and the facts. Throw some numbers in front of me or some facts and I'll skip meals reading it.



The Facts Behind DUI Arrests




The average American thinks that the police are here to protect us. Surely stopping vehicles that exhibit "signs of erratic driving" is well within the duty of a police officer. But... what if i told you:

  • Police get federal funding for every "DUI arrest" they make.
  • States get federal funding for every "DUI arrest" made in their state.

Hmmm, are you reconsidering your position yet? Well let's think about those.

Police get federal funding for every DUI arrest - not conviction, they make. That means they get paid to make DUI arrests. Now I'm sure you've seen the policeman's ball, it's held once a year or more to raise funds for the police in the city. I'm sure you've seen cops, once a month, sit at a sweet spot and write ticket after ticket to meet their monthly quota for funds.

Can anyone say that if you knew that you were to get funding for just MAKING a DUI arrest, wouldn't you have a tendency to lean toward making those arrests? Heck, I'm not even a police officer, but i guarantee if someone paid me to do it, I'd park right at the corner of Walgreens at 1 a.m. and go to town arresting people for DUI.

"oh you tripped, clearly a DUI."

"oh you slurred that 'S', clearly a DUI."

"I smell alcohol, clearly a DUI, Calvin Klein perfume, alcohol, whatever, it's a DUI, and don't argue with me."

The state gets federal funding per each DUI arrest made. Now, you're a smart person. Do you think if the state gets federal funds to make DUI arrests, that maybe, just maybe, they might suggest, encourage, DEMAND police officers make DUI arrests?

The number 1 cause of all traffic accidents is "driver inattentiveness". That is: cell phones, noisy kids, putting on make-up, fiddling with he radio. Those, and more, take up the top 10 causes of accidents and vehicle deaths. DUI doesn't even enter the picture until way down the list.

So why do we need these tougher DUI laws? Hmmm, is there something behind that rhetoric? Federal funding! Wait, you mean the U.S. government gives federal funding to MAAD? LOL no, not the U.S. government. That's silly, tin foil hat, stuff there. No it's the states that do. Oh, bet you didn't see that switch. Yes, the states schmooze the organizations like that, and get them all riled up. Why? So the states can get more federal funding.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration - says that the field sobriety says that first of all things like the field sobriety test has to be administered correctly by a police officer. This is usually found to not be doing accurately. Even if they are, they find that only 60% of the time is even suggest a possible DUI. Things like field sobriety tests never take into account that the person taking the test may not be able to do the test, regardless of sobriety.

Finally a breath machine "DOES NOT MEASURE ALCOHOL". It measure the methyl group. It then assumes the methyl group is from alcohol, but you could be diabetic and found to be a DUI.

Sunday, August 9, 2009

Home detention reduces jail crowd - Saves Taxpayers Money


South Sound - The Olympian - Olympia, Washington

Home detention reduces jail crowd

Public Safety: State saves money with electronic monitoring

Tacoma – Mary Ness is wearing a special ankle bracelet while she awaits a September court date for allegedly driving under the influence of alcohol. It’s not her first DUI arrest.

The 41-year-old nurse, who lives on Fox Island, isn’t particularly happy about being on electronic home monitoring, but it beats the alternative.

“I could be sitting in jail right now, waiting for my court date,” Ness said. “But I have a lot of stuff to do in my life.”

So, Ness got a $10,000 bond through ABC Day-n-Night Bail Bonds and Electronic Home Monitoring. She also has been paying the Tacoma firm $14.50 a day since mid-July to keep an eye on her for Pierce County District Court.

The ankle bracelet has a global positioning satellite device that, coupled with a cell phone she must carry, lets ABC track her movements. In addition, the device has a sensor that will indicate whether she drinks any alcohol, which is prohibited under the terms of her pretrial release.

“I can’t be running around at night. I can’t be going to clubs. I can’t be partying and I can’t drink,” Ness said. “But it’s definitely worth it.”

Cash-strapped county governments are using the practice, also known as “home detention,” more and more to hold down the cost and populations of their often overcrowded jails.

And the state is about to launch a major home-monitoring program for many former prison inmates. The program is aimed at “violators” – offenders who have violated terms of their release to the community after serving their sentences in prison or jail.

The Department of Corrections expects eventually to have an average of 300 to 400 former prisoners on home monitoring on any given day when its home detention program starts, probably in October.

The state hopes to save $11 million over the next two years because it will pay about $17 a day for electronic monitoring instead of an average of $67.50 a day to rent a local jail cell to house offenders.

The idea came up after legislators cut about $4 billion in state spending from the overall $70 billion, two-year state budget and more than $100 million in cuts were made to the prison system’s $1.8 billion budget.

The 2009-11 state budget assumes the Corrections Department will use home monitoring for 25 percent of its “violators” for a net savings of $11 million over those two years.

On any given day last year, the state had 1,324 violators in jail or prison, most serving a 20- to 60-day additional sentences for violating conditions of their releases. The overall prison population is about 18,500.

Some offenders were sent to the minimum security unit at the state prison in Monroe, but most went to local jails.

It’s rental costs for jail cells that the state hopes to save by paying the much lower home-monitoring costs and pocketing the difference.

Scott Blonien, a DOC assistant secretary, said the program is still a work in progress.

“We have a dollar target (for savings) to hit without negatively impacting community safety,” he said. “But we have not yet come down to any hard and fast criteria.”

Corrections officials will take into account the crimes offenders have committed, their reporting history and the nature of their most recent violations in deciding who gets to stay at home with an ankle bracelet and who will be placed back in jail, he said.

The Legislature gave the department three months to implement the home-detention program, he said.

The Corrections Department will pay the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs to provide the monitoring for what eventually will be about 350 offenders a day.

WASPC is a nonprofit organization that competes with private companies that also provide electronic monitoring services to local courts.

LAWS HELP SPUR USE

Pierce County District Court Judge Jim Heller, who’s been on the bench for more than 20 years, said home detention took off after the Legislature overhauled drunken-driving laws in the late 1990s.

Home monitoring is used for other cases, but its main use remains DUI offenses.

Since 1998, drunken drivers have been sentenced to a combination of jail incarceration and home detention, particularly if they are convicted of a second or third time, or if the blood-alcohol content is double the 0.08 threshold.

Judges have some discretion in sentencing, but state law mandates many terms. For instance, a third DUI conviction carries a sentence of 120 days in jail and 150 days on electronic monitoring, for a total of 270 days.

In cases where he can adjust sentences, Heller said he looks at a defendant’s record to see whether he or she is a candidate for electronic monitoring.

“It depends on what they have done in the past and how often they have reoffended,” he said. “If this person is working, we want to keep them working and the electronic home monitoring clearly fits that purpose.”

Home detention is not for everyone. Some offenders prefer jail time, he said.

“I’ve had prisoners who say it’s harder than jail,” Heller said. “Sometimes, they get random calls at night to check on them. And they say they’d rather just do their sentence in jail.

“They don’t earn ‘good time’ on electronic monitoring, either. So they might want to spend 20 days in jail instead of 30 days on home monitoring.”

Heller said he’d much rather put a defendant on home monitoring for a few months than sentence him to jail custody, especially since there’s a good chance he’ll be released right away from an overcrowded jail.

“To keep the jail population down, they will let people out early,” Heller said. “He might be sentenced to 180 days but will get out after one day.”

Fewer than half of a jail’s inmates are serving a sentence, he said. About 60 percent are defendants awaiting trial on felony charges, Heller said.

HOW IT WORKS

If a judge approves home monitoring, it’s up to the defendant to make the arrangements.

Pierce County District Court gives out the names of two such firms now, but is setting standards for home-detention companies and plans to add more private firms to the list, said Chuck Ramey, district court administrator.

ABC Day-n-Night Bail Bonds/EHM is monitoring 17 people for various regional courts, including those in Fife and Puyallup, said owner Connie Taylor.

Generally, a family member contacts her company to make arrangements, she said.

“We pick them up and put the (ankle) bracelet on them right there at the jail, take photos of them and get them on their way,” Taylor said. “And we let them know the rules.”

The company charges a $75 setup fee and $14.50 a day, regardless of the kind of monitoring required. That includes monitoring for alcohol use. The technology she uses shows real-time location of defendants. Other devices show only where a person has been, after the information is downloaded the next day.

Steve Hopkins, owner of Stay Home Monitoring Inc. in Montesano, has been in operation for a dozen years, has 15 employees and is overseeing 175 people today.

Terms and duration of monitoring are set by the courts, he said.

“It could be anywhere from one day to a couple years,” Hopkins said. “Normally, it’s for about 55 to 60 days.”

Restrictions are tailored to each defendant, Taylor said. Defendants can leave their homes, but must remain within certain boundaries or on approved routes to and from work, or to and from Alcoholics Anonymous meetings.

Hopkins offers services that range from $14 to $20 a day, depending on whether he is tracking only when a defendant leaves his home, whether he is testing for alcohol use, actively following a defendant’s movements with GPS tracking devices or some combination thereof.

If a defendant deviates, a computer at ABC sends an alert and Taylor contacts the person for an explanation.

“If they are not home when they should be, if they show positive for alcohol, we report the violations to the courts,” she said.

A serious violation prompts an arrest warrant, Heller said.

Today, hundreds of offenders and defendants would be serving time in county jails or state prisons if not for the home-detention programs throughout the state.

“It’s one of those alternatives to incarceration that in many situations makes very good sense,” Heller said. “It makes good sense to the taxpayers. It gives us the structure that we want. It works for the individual in maintaining their lives and staying with their families. A lot of times, it really fits the bill.”

Friday, August 7, 2009

Cycle Law: Should Bikes Be Treated Like Cars?


Gadget Lab | Wired.com

Even this 3 wheeler that looks like a car is considered a bike.

One of the beauties of bike riding is the freedom. You buy one, or find one, and just jump on. There are no taxes, no fuel to buy and almost anything that goes wrong can be fixed by the rider. They’re also cheap enough that anyone can own one.

But should bikes be treated more like cars? Further, is it even possible to do so? Bike riding seems to be getting more and more popular, a result of green concerns, money concerns and the attentions of politicians. London Mayor Boris Johnson plans to spend £111 million on cycling infrastructure in the capital in the coming year. It might not surprise you to learn that Johnson is a keen cyclist.

So as the use of bikes explodes, and bike-sharing schemes in many European cities bloom, are we heading for a changes in the law?

Taxes

One way to pay for bike lanes is to levy a tax. This could be on sales, or something like the vehicle tax on cars. Many drivers like this idea, as they bemoan that they are giving cyclists a free ride. But road tax doesn’t exist, and there are many other taxes which pay for their upkeep, including the vehicle license of cyclists who own cars.

Also, once bike lanes are built, they require little maintenance other than stopping cars from parking in them. It’s also likely that taxation would be impossible to enforce. How would you know who had paid for what? Bikes would need to carry registration plates, and that seems unlikely. A sales tax on new bikes would slow sales and be, in these times of peak oil, political suicide. It looks like we’re safe for now.

Insurance

Car-advocates often propose mandatory third party insurance for cyclists. It is available, and it’s cheap — a testament to the difference in damage-causing capability beween a two wheeled, human powered bike and a two-ton, gas-fuelled monster.

As bikes become more common in cities, it is likely that pedestrians will start to sue cyclists for crashing into them, so insurance could be useful. But again, how would you possibly police mandatory insurance without registering all bikes and making them carry license plates? Add to this that most policies would be void the moment that a rider runs a red light of hops onto a sidewalk and you’re looking at a whole mess. Which brings us to:

Road Laws

Cyclists flout the law. We run stop lights, drive on the pavement (legal here in Barcelona, although wearing an iPod will get you a fine) and head in the wrong direction down one-way streets. All clearly illegal, but all, at times, the safest thing to do. Sure, a bad cyclist will likely do all three at once, at top speed, and give some poor grandmother a heart attack. But for the more careful rider, a slip down a one-way street can avoid a dangerous junction, for example.

It has been argued that red lights and street directions shouldn’t apply to cyclists anyway, as they are not inventions for safety but inventions to lubricate traffic-flow, specifically motor-traffic. As a bike, carefully and sensibly ridden, cannot cause a traffic jam, it follows that they should not have to abide by these traffic schemes. With the exception of driving on the correct side of the road, why should bikes obey car laws?

Roadside Assistant

As easy as bikes are to fix, not everybody want to repair a flat or gets their hands dirty on their way to work. Roadside assistance for cyclist has just been announced for AAA members in Oregon and Southern Idaho. The catch is that you’ll have to have a car to get it, as there is no standalone package for cyclists: It’ll come as part of the Plus, Plus RV and Premier packages. These start at $105 per year.

Neither will the mechanic fix it for you. He will give you a lift, for up to 25 miles, but apparently it is too hard to mend a bicycle. Marie Dodds of the AAA told Oregon Live that “There are a million sizes of tires and tubes. Our people are not prepared to repair bikes.”

This seems like an excuse: apart from removing the bottom bracket of my bike, I can repair everything on it with a multi-tool, a 15mm wrench, a pump and a puncture repair kit (slipped into a pocket made from an old inner-tube section). I can true a wheel, break and remake the chain and swap in a new saddle, all with a kit that fits into a pocket. I’m sure that an AAA van could carry everything needed in a small tool-box, and how much space does a box of different sized tubes take up?

Still, late night rescue in the rain is still a nice service to have. Or you could try the Better World Club, which has offered a bike assistance scheme for some time. It’ll cost $40, and they will even fix a puncture for you.

What do you all think? Should bikes be, legally, treated like cars, or should cars be penalized further to push people onto bikes? There are plenty of opinions, and we haven’t even started on the savings in health costs made by riding instead of driving. Have at it in the comments, and keep it clean.

Monday, August 3, 2009

DUI on a Horse? The Law Unbridled


DUI on a Horse? The Law Unbridled


Take a brief break from worrying about insuring all the uninsured or trying to stimulate the economy and let your brain play with the news that a grand jury in Whitfield County, Georgia, has ruled that operating a horse while legally drunk (the rider, not the horse) is not against the law, at least not in Tunnel Hill, Georgia.

In a July 31 Dalton Daily Citizen article, Mark Millican reports that the grand jury “no-billed” or dropped the case against two men arrested for riding a horse while twice over the legal limit for DUI in Georgia.

“It was no-billed because it’s not illegal to be intoxicated on a horse,” District Attorney Kermit McManus told the Daily Citizen. “The legal distinction is that the charge of DUI is defined as operating a vehicle. Basically, to be in violation of the driving under the influence statute you have to be in a vehicle. A vehicle is defined as a ‘device,’ not a horse. A horse does not fit the definition of a vehicle.” The more you know, right?

The DA’s legal logic failed to convince Tunnel Hill Police Chief Roy Brunson. “The way we look at it, they put themselves in danger, they put other people in the roadway in danger, and the horses, too,” Brunson is quoted as saying in the Daily Citizen article. “If they get that horse in front of a car, we’ve got a serious situation.”

Another Opinion:

While the idea of a DUI on a horse may seem ludicrous, the main concern from a law enforcement point of view is public safety. Someone riding a horse or bicycle while intoxicated could potentially be a risk to others. Drivers, for example, might get in an accident because of the erratic riding pattern of the drunk individual. In the case of a horse, animal endangerment is also an issue. Several states have documented cases in which a horse died or was severely injured as a result of an intoxicated rider.

The procedure for citing and punishing a DUI on a horse is usually the same for that in a motor vehicle. A law enforcement officer stops the rider or cyclist because the officer suspects that the rider may be under the influence. If a test such as a breathalyser indicates that the rider is intoxicated, the officer will issue a citation for a DUI on a horse. In many states, the lawbreaker's license will be immediately revoked, and he or she will have to go to court to get it back. While in court, fines may be imposed, along with public service.