New anti-DUI campaign takes different approach

kvbc.com

Drunk driving kills: People have been hearing this message, or one like it, for decades.

But while the number of people arrested for DUI in Nevada continues to rise, a new anti-DUI campaign is taking a different approach.

This new campaign is spearheaded by the Safe Community Partnership and includes law enforcement, law makers, and the business community.

Outdoor Promotions, a local company, donated advertising space in bus shelters to parody a well-known credit card advertisement:

"A beer: $2.50. A margarita: $4.50. A DUI: $13,000. A designated driver: Priceless."

Those behind the campaign hope that $13,000 figure grabs people's attention and echoes in the brain when they make plans for a night out.

Assemblyman Mark Manedo helped write some of Nevada's DUI laws, which have cost beyond $13,000.

"If someone were to get arrested for DUI, they're facing fines, they're facing jail time, they're facing a 12 hour mandatory hold at jail, they're facing a live victim impact panel. (This is a) significant cost to people. It's the laws that we have in place that gets you to the $13,000. And that's if you haven't caused any bodily harm or property damage."

Officers from Metro and the Nevada Highway Patrol say DUI arrests are increasing while the number of fatalities and the number of crashes involving alcohol are declining.

This means law enforcement is doing its part.

Officers, however, wish more drivers would do their part by making sure they have a safe way home.

In addition to advertising in bus shelters, the campaign will hang posters in local bars to hopefully get the message out to people before they leave.

OPINION: Scarlet Letter DUI punishment violates freedoms of a liberal society

duiattorney.com

California is considering legislation to require DUI offenders to use special license plates that brand them as convicted criminals.

Ohio, Minnesota and Iowa already have laws requiring DUI offenders to display license plates that immediately signify their transgression. The concept behind this punishment goes back to the "Scarlet Letter" idea: forcing a person to face the judgement of a community of peers each day is much worse than forcing that person to face the judgement of a courtroom for just one day.

This type of punishment is meant to be a deterrent as well as to help officers take notice of potentially dangerous drivers. This second part is where the question of personal rights really comes into play. Theoretically, criminal sentences are designed in the United States so a person can serve time and penalties in accordance with the crime committed. Once that sentence has been fulfilled, a person is supposed to be able to carry on with life as usual.

In this case, a person would be routinely targeted by police officers for a past transgression. The theory behind this is that DUI offenders are often habitual. Particularly in those with alcohol abuse problems, repeat DUI offenses are not uncommon. In fact, many offenders will fulfill an entire sentence, get back on the road drunk, and cause destruction or - worse- death.

The use of a Scarlet Letter concept for DUI offenders is not unlike Megan's Law for sexual predators. Those convicted of a sex crime must warn a community where they are living; child sexual predators may also have restrictions on living close to places where children gather. In one community in Florida, convicted sex offenders were forced to live underneath a causeway because it was the only location that kept them at an appropriate distance from children.

While there are many sexual predators who have patterns of behavior that make them dangerous, not all sex offenders are violent criminals. Some persons may be convicted for a sex crime for urinating in public, or for having consensual sex with a person only 2 years younger than them. These persons are punished by the same laws that force them to carry their status as sex offenders with them throughout the remainder of their lives.

Just as there are varying degrees of sex offenders, there are varying degrees of DUI offenders. Some may be habitual violators with problems avoiding alcohol or making responsible decisions. Others, however, are just people who have one lapse in judgement. One case reported on through this site just yesterday showed a man who received a DUI for riding a toy motorcycle through a vacant lot at 4 mph.

Does this man need a special license plate when he drives to work or a client meeting?

The concept of a Scarlet Letter punishment comes from a novel about 17th century Puritanical Boston. Our nation has advanced well-beyond the belief a person should be cast out of the community for committing a transgression against the norms of that society.

Before voting on this type of legislation, representatives should consider whether it is in contrast to the basic principle that a person can serve a just sentence then move forward with life. They should also consider how the gray area of who would be required to use the plates would be answered.

DUI Charges: When Homicide by DUI Doesn't Add Up

Since 2005 in Colorado, nearly a third of those convicted in deadly drinking and driving crashes were incarcerated for two years or less — and 13 of them spent no time behind bars at all.
Drunken drivers kill more than 100 people each year in Colorado, and a Denver Post examination of every vehicular homicide-DUI case in the state from 2005 through early 2009 found that the typical sentence for those who were sent to prison was six years. But the same analysis found that nearly a third of the cases — 55 of 185 — resulted in jail, community corrections or work- release terms of 24 months or less. Included in that tally were more than a dozen instances in which defendants were allowed to plead to misdemeanor

charges. Some of those who ended up with little or no prison time had prior drug and alcohol convictions, including one man with four prior drunken driving arrests before killing a passenger in his car in a police chase. He was sentenced to two years of work release.

A number of others got jail terms of between 30 and 60 days. And one man got 10 days in jail in Larimer County after pleading guilty to careless driving causing death, a misdemeanor, after a crash that killed a 38-year-old woman.

State Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Yuma, who plans to introduce legislation in January to make a repeat drunken driving arrest a felony, said some of the sentences stunned him.

"We've got to address those areas where the law isn't treating offenders as seriously as it needs to in order to prevent it from happening again," Gardner said.

But the reality is that unlike some crimes, which carry specific sentences, fatal drunken driving crashes can yield a variety of actual charges and a wide range of sentences.

"Every case is different," said Denver defense attorney Charles Elliott, "so in a way it is kind of heartening that there is a wide range."

The Post examined all 202 Colorado cases in which motorists were charged with vehicular homicide-DUI from 2005 through early 2009. Drivers in their 20s accounted for more than half the cases. In a handful of all cases, drinking, driving and death resulted in big headlines and long sentences.
Patrick Strawmatt, a former police officer, was sentenced to 72 years after killing two teenagers while fleeing from police in western Colorado. And Lawrence Trujillo was sent to prison for 48 years after mowing down Frank and Becca Bingham and their children, Macie, 4, and Garrison, 2. Only Frank Bingham survived.
Two other cases resulted in sentences of 48 and 54 years.

Sentences weave all over

But those high-profile cases, The Post found, were anomalies. Not every drunken driving crash ends in criminal charges. In many instances, the drunken driver dies. But in those that did result in charges, The Post found:
• Sentences varied widely from one jurisdiction to another. In Denver, a drunken driver who killed someone was typically sent to prison for eight years. In Boulder, that typical sentence was less than 2 1/2 years. Statewide, the typical sentence was six years.
• Sentences varied even in seemingly similar crimes. In one El Paso County case, a man charged with killing a passenger in his car during a police pursuit — his fifth DUI case — ended up with a two-year work-release sentence. In an Arapahoe County case, a man who killed a passenger in his car in

Sharon Watkins sat through the Jefferson County courtroom sentencing of Shane Hoffart, the motorcycle driver whose crash killed her daughter, Natasha Michaud. "Whose daughter is he going to kill next time?" she asked. Hoffart was sentenced to four years in prison but could be out in less than two. ( John Prieto, The Denver Post )

a police pursuit — also his fifth DUI case — was sentenced to 36 years behind bars.

• In 13 cases, the drivers who killed spent no time in jail, and in others they received sentences of as little as 10 days.

• Probation also varied widely — from as little as one month to as much as 10 years.
• Of the 185 cases that have been adjudicated, 73 were settled with plea agreements that saw the defendants walk away with convictions to lesser charges. In seven cases, for example, defendants pleaded guilty to careless driving causing death and driving while under the influence of alcohol — two traffic misdemeanors.
The Post also found 33 cases in which defendants left court with convictions that show no alcohol violation.
That's different from what is supposed to happen in a drunken driving case. Under Colorado law, a defendant cannot plead to a non-alcohol charge unless prosecutors tell a judge they cannot prove the case.
But Ted Tow, executive director of the Colorado District Attorneys Council, found "there is no such restriction in the plea bargaining in the vehicular homicide-DUI area."
The 33 cases included ones in which defendants pleaded guilty to charges such as careless driving causing death, leaving the scene of an accident, manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide. Among those cases were 20 instances that ended in convictions of vehicular homicide-reckless. That is a lower-level felony than vehicular homicide-DUI.

Emotions run high in court

No matter the facts of a case, sentencing hearings in fatal drunken driving crashes are fraught with emotion.
On Sept. 18, that emotion played out in the Jefferson County courtroom of District Judge Jane Tidball in case No. 2009-CR-198, the People of the State of Colorado vs. Shane Allen Hoffart.
Pictures of Natasha Michaud slowly moved across the video screen next to Tidball. There was Natasha as a little girl with red hair standing with her family in front of a Christmas tree. In a white gown at graduation. Getting married outdoors.
The final photos showed her with her three young sons, ages 1 to 7.
The pictures stopped at age 25.
That's when Michaud died instantly after being thrown from Hoffart's motorcycle in a drunken driving crash. It was the fifth time in the past decade Hoffart had been charged with drinking and driving.
An hour later, Tidball sentenced Hoffart to four years in prison. It was the longest term she had handed out in any of the five vehicular homicide cases she handled the past four years. Even so, Hoffart probably will be out in less than two years, said Jefferson County District Attorney Scott Storey.

"I wish the sentence was longer," Storey said.

Natasha's mother, Sharon Watkins, was more blunt.
"Whose daughter is he going to kill next time?" said Watkins, wearing a purple ribbon.
On Aug. 23, 2008, as he sped toward the foothills on U.S. 285 with Michaud on the back of his bike, Hoffart lost control. The motorcycle went down in a curve, throwing Michaud into a pole.
Testing problems led to contradictory blood-alcohol test results, prosecutor Jacque Russell said. The first test found alcohol in Hoffart's system, but not enough to prove he was legally drunk. Two subsequent tests found he was drunk. Hoffart pleaded guilty to vehicular homicide-reckless driving.
During the two-hour sentencing hearing, tears flowed in the courtroom. Russell asked for the maximum six years in prison. Defense attorney Kelly Burgett sought intensive supervision probation.
On the right side of the courtroom sat Watkins with Natasha's sister, brother and husband. On the left sat Hoffart's friends, boss and minister.
Watkins, between tears, talked for more than 30 minutes about the daughter who called her almost daily, about a woman who "would light up the room" when she entered.
She said she couldn't accept her death. On the anniversary of the accident, she sat by the telephone all day and through half the night waiting for a call to tell her it had been a mistake.

"The phone call did not come," she said.

Andrew Michaud, Natasha's husband, talked of his three children.
"I have to look into their eyes every day and see that missing piece of her life that will never be given back," he said.

Defendant apologizes

Then it was Hoffart's turn. Dressed neatly in slacks and a blue striped shirt, he grasped several white notebook pages filled with single-spaced writing in blue ink.
He turned to the family to read the letter he wrote, he too sniffling back tears.
"I apologize," he said, "for your loss. You lost a beautiful member of your family."
Sharon Watkins put her hand to her face as Hoffart described his love for Michaud.
"The world's a darker place without her," he said. "I wish I could trade places."
Tidball handed down the sentence quickly, noting that Hoffart's sentences and treatment for his past DUIs had not had much of an impact.
"They obviously have not worked for him."
Andrew Michaud had spent the first eight months of the year in Army Reserve training, an absence that had strained his marriage. He had been home about 24 hours when his wife was killed.
After the crash, Andrew walked along the highway, past the places accident investigators had marked with orange spray paint. He saw the skid marks, the furrows where a stretcher had rolled through the gravel. He looked at the surgical gloves left at the scene, the footprints around one spot.
It wasn't hard to tell precisely where his wife died.

"I walked up and down that stretch so many times," he said.

In an interview, he spoke slowly, evenly, in the tone of a man who has struggled for a year to contain his anger and grief.
"There's not enough that they can take from him to undo what he did," he said.

Who is Liable if Someone becomes Infected with Cop's Needles?

advancedtitan.com
Imagine being pulled over because a police officer suspects that you are driving drunk, and the officer pulls out a needle at the traffic stop to determine your blood-alcohol content. Does this sound like an extreme measure? In some states this scene can be a reality.

According to an article in the Sept. 14 issue of The New York Times titled “Police Officers Getting New Tool Against D.W.I.: Syringes,” a select group of police officers in Idaho and Texas have received training which allows them to draw blood at the site of the traffic stop of those accused of driving under the influence.

In Idaho, police are trained under a highly compressed version of the training other phlebotomists receive. Officers practice on each other, learning to draw blood from the elbow crease, forearm and back of the hand. Once they have taken 75 successful blood draws from fellow trainees, their training is considered complete, The Times reported.

After they finish the training, officers will be able to draw blood from any suspected drunken driver who first refuses breathalyzer tests. They are also instructed to use necessary force, including getting help from another officer to pin the suspect down, a phlebotomy instructor at the College of Western Idaho told The Times.

If, after a year or two, the results seem promising, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will encourage police officers nationwide to undergo this training, according to The Times.

Should this program catch on nationwide, one could reasonably expect the debate to be especially large here in Wisconsin. Drunken driving is considered a huge problem here, and state media reports in the past year, such as the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s “Wasted in Wisconsin” series have brought the issue to the forefront of public debate.

Most recently, the state Assembly unanimously passed a bill that sets tougher standards for repeat offenders, expands treatment programs and imposes stiffer penalties for those convicted of driving while intoxicated.

Currently first-offense drunken driving is legally the same as a traffic ticket, but this new bill makes the first offense a misdemeanor if a child under the age of 16 is in the car. The new bill also will make fourth-offense operating while intoxicated a felony (currently it isn’t a felony until the fifth) It will also expand statewide a pilot drug and alcohol treatment program practiced in Winnebago County that allows judges the option of offering reduced jail time to offenders who successfully complete the program, in addition to other provisions included in the bill.

Funding will be provided through money collected through beer and liquor taxes, according to a Sept. 23 article in the Journal Sentinel.

This bill still has to pass the state Senate to become law, and Gov. Jim Doyle has also been quoted saying he supports changes to stiffen drunken driving laws in Wisconsin.

Certainly the issue of drunken driving is a serious one in Wisconsin. The Department of Transportation reports that more than 26 percent of Wisconsin adults surveyed admitted to driving while under the influence in the previous year. Additionally, there were also more than 42,000 convictions for drunken driving offenses last year. In 2008, alcohol-related crashes killed 234 and injured more than 4,000 people in Wisconsin alone.

Drunken driving is a serious issue, and the lower the number of alcohol-related crashes, injuries and deaths, the better; few will dispute that. But is it really necessary for police officers to carry syringes?

The law already allows for blood testing of those suspected of operating while intoxicated. The Times article states that the Supreme Court ruled in 1966 that the police could forcibly order blood tests on a suspected drunken-driver without a warrant, as long as they were based on a reasonable suspicion that the suspect was intoxicated, the suspect had been arrested, and the tests were carried out in a medically approved manner.

However, this testing should be done in a medical facility. Hospitals and clinics have safeguards in place to ensure that the blood is drawn in a sanitary manner, properly stored and unlikely to be mixed up.

The police will most likely have their own set of safeguards in place to prevent mix-ups: yet in the back of a police car, it is more likely that preservative levels in the tubes used to collect the blood may be skewed or the blood could be stored improperly, causing it to ferment and have a higher alcohol content, The Times pointed out.

Another problem with this scenario is hygiene. The nature of the job alone makes it nearly impossible to ensure police cars can be kept sterile at all times. When needles are used to puncture skin, and the person holding the needle comes in contact with blood, keeping a sterile environment is crucial. Should someone accused of a D.U.I. contract a disease or infections during one of these stops, the liabilities for the police department are huge.

And both of these situations assume the police officers involved are acting ethically. With few witnesses at most traffic stops, there is also the potential for that one rogue officer to tamper with the blood evidence collected.

While few dispute the need to reduce drunken driving, allowing officers to carry syringes to take blood samples during traffic stops is the wrong way to go about it. The possibilities for error through mix-ups or skewed readings are just too high. The difficulty in keeping a sterile environment in a police car also opens up the door for many potential lawsuits. There has to be a better way.

DUI has NO Right to Jury Trial?

Ok, so it has been said by the cop that I looked bad on the field sobriety tests, but I know myself that I’m not guilty: I only had two drinks and I have got the witnesses. It doesn’t matter what the arresting police officer is saying, I can tell my side of the story to my fellow citizens and then let them decide. Right?

Well that is not necessary. This right to jury trial, had been handed down centuries ago from England’s Magna Carta, it was considered so fundamental to the framers of our Constitution that it had been included by them in the Bill of Rights? This is what we call Sixth Amendment. So it makes no exceptions to this sacred right to trial by a jury of peers.


So why is this happening that some states today are denying jury trial to a person who is accused of drunk driving? Why is that, for instance, an American citizen who has been arrested in New Jersey is forced to accept the decision of a politically-appointed judge? After all, on that subject the Sixth Amendment is pretty clear:


“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed…”

How did it happened that the government has taken away this fundamental right from its citizens? Well, here once again if this question is asked by them they just started whittling away by playing around with words.


This has been started some years ago when it has been decided by the federal courts that the framers of the Constitution didn’t actually mean “in ALL criminal prosecutions”. So they changed one little word in that. So now it has been said by them that what the framers actually meant was that there was a right to jury trial in “serious” criminal prosecutions, not in “petty” ones. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968).


So Now there is a question that what is “serious”? Well, a couple of years after that change has been made, it has been decided by the Supreme Court that there was no right to a jury trial if the maximum authorized prison sentence did not exceed six months. Isn’t that amazing that a person that is going to jail for one-half year was not enough to justify giving a citizen a right to trial by his peers. And than the court further added that, however, a defendant could have a right to jury trial “only if he can demonstrate that any additional statutory penalties, viewed in conjunction with the maximum authorized period of incarceration, are so severe that they clearly reflect a legislative determination that the offense in question is a “serious” one”. Baldwin v. New York 399 U.S. 66 (1970).


Well, Now what about DUI cases? Usually they involve maximum sentences of six months in jail and a bunch of other allegations: These are fines, license suspensions, DUI schools, ignition interlock devices, 3-5 years of probation. And there is also a possibility that if the crime is repeated then even stiffer punishment can be given. Doesn’t that seems that knowing all these DUI consequences lawmakers should think drunk driving is pretty serious?


Inevitably, a citizen who has been accused of DUI and (inevitably) convicted by a judge in Nevada took the case up to the U.S. Supreme Court. Having all the additional punishment over and above the six months in jail, it has been argued by his attorney, that wasn’t it “serious” enough to get a right to a jury? The court replied in negative and it had been stated by the court that considering the additional statutory penalties as well, it is not believed by them that the Nevada Legislature has clearly indicated that DUI is a “serious” offense. Blanton v City of North Las Vegas 489 U.S. 538 (1989).

So now drunk driving looks like “serious” enough offense to justify ever-harsher DUI laws because of the oft-mentioned “carnage on the highways” but apparently they are not “serious” enough in the eyes of Law makers to give a citizen his constitutional right to a jury trial.

So now we have passed a long way since those historical words “In all criminal prosecutions…”
resource: dwiblog.org

Police Trained to Draw Blood on DUI Suspects

blog.taragana.com

Police say syringes will help stop drunk driving

BOISE, Idaho — When police officer Darryll Dowell is on patrol in the southwestern Idaho city of Nampa, he’ll pull up at a stoplight and usually start casing the vehicle. Nowadays, his eyes will also focus on the driver’s arms, as he tries to search for a plump, bouncy vein.

“I was looking at people’s arms and hands, thinking, ‘I could draw from that,’” Dowell said.

It’s all part of training he and a select cadre of officers in Idaho and Texas have received in recent months to draw blood from those suspected of drunken or drugged driving. The federal program’s aim is to determine if blood draws by cops can be an effective tool against drunk drivers and aid in their prosecution.

If the results seem promising after a year or two, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will encourage police nationwide to undergo similar training.

For years, defense attorneys in Idaho advised clients to always refuse breath tests, Ada County Deputy Prosecutor Christine Starr said. When the state toughened the penalties for refusing the tests a few years ago, the problem lessened, but it’s still the main reason that drunk driving cases go to trial in the Boise region, Starr said.

Idaho had a 20 percent breath test refusal rate in 2005, compared with 22 percent nationally, according to an NHTSA study.

Starr hopes the new system will cut down on the number of drunken driving trials. Officers can’t hold down a suspect and force them to breath into a tube, she noted, but they can forcefully take blood — a practice that’s been upheld by Idaho’s Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court.

The nation’s highest court ruled in 1966 that police could have blood tests forcibly done on a drunk driving suspect without a warrant, as long as the draw was based on a reasonable suspicion that a suspect was intoxicated, that it was done after an arrest and carried out in a medically approved manner.

The practice of cops drawing blood, implemented first in 1995 in Arizona, has also raised concerns about safety and the credibility of the evidence.

“I would imagine that a lot of people would be wary of having their blood drawn by an officer on the hood of their police vehicle,” said Steve Oberman, chair of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers’ DUI Committee.

The officer phlebotomists are generally trained under the same program as their state’s hospital or clinical phlebotomists, but they do it under a highly compressed schedule, and some of the curriculum is cut.

That’s because officers don’t need to know how to draw blood from a foot or other difficult sites, or from an infant or medically fragile patient, said Nicole Watson, the College of Western Idaho phlebotomy instructor teaching the Idaho officers.

Instead, they are trained on the elbow crease, the forearm and the back of the hand. If none are accessible, they’ll take the suspect to the hospital for testing.

In a nondescript Boise office building where the Nampa officers were trained, Dowell scanned his subject and prepared to draw blood. Chase Abston, an officer taking his turn playing a suspect, recoiled a bit, pressing his back deeper into the gray pleather chair.

Dowell slid a fine-gauge needle into the back of Abston’s hand. Abston, who had been holding his breath, slowly exhaled as his blood began to flow.

All the officers seemed like they’d be more comfortable if their colleagues were wielding sidearms instead of syringes. But halfway through the second day of training, with about 10 venipunctures each under their belts, they relaxed enough to trade barbs alongside needle jabs.

They’re making quick progress, Watson said. Their training will be complete after they have logged 75 successful blood draws.

Once they’re back on patrol, they will draw blood of any suspected drunk driver who refuses a breath test. They’ll use force if they need to, such as getting help from another officer to pin down a suspect and potentially strap them down, Watson said.

Though most legal experts agree blood tests measure blood alcohol more accurately than breath tests, Oberman said the tests can be fraught with problems, too.

Vials can be mixed up, preservative levels in the tubes used to collect the blood can be off, or the blood can be stored improperly, causing it to ferment and boosting the alcohol content.

Oberman said law enforcement agencies should also be concerned “about possible malpractice cases over somebody who was not properly trained.”

Alan Haywood, Arizona’s law enforcement phlebotomy coordinator who is directing the training programs in Idaho and Texas, said officers are exposed to some extra on-the-job risk if they draw blood, but that any concern is mitigated by good training and safe practices.

“If we can’t get the evidence safely, we’re not going to endanger the officers or the public to collect that evidence,” he said.

The Phoenix Police Department only uses blood tests for impaired driving cases. Detective Kemp Layden, who oversees drug recognition, phlebotomy and field sobriety, said the city now has about 120 officers certified to draw blood. Typically, a suspect is brought to a precinct or mobile booking van for the blood draw.

Under the state’s implied consent law, drivers who refuse to voluntarily submit to the test lose their license for a year, so most comply. For the approximately 5 percent who refuse, the officer obtains a search warrant from an on-call judge and the suspect can be restrained if needed to obtain a sample, Layden said.

Between 300 to 400 blood tests are done in an average month in the nation’s fifth-largest city.

During holiday months that number can rise to 500, said Layden, who reviews each case to make sure legal procedures were followed.

Outside of Arizona, some law enforcement agencies in Utah have officer phlebotomists, and police in Dalworthington Gardens, Texas are cross-trained as paramedics and have been drawing blood for about three years. The NHTSA is in talks with Houston, Texas about doing the phlebotomy training there, he said.

They’re all attracted by Arizona’s anecdotal evidence.

“What we found was that the refusal rates of chemical testing lowered significantly since this program began,” Haywood said. “Arizona we had about a 20 percent refusal rate in 1995, and today we see about an 8 to 9 percent refusal rate.”

BAC CALCULATOR Now on DUI Charges

The DUI-USA.Drinkdriving.org Blood Alcohol Calculator

The DUI-USA.Drinkdriving.org BAC calculator is based on the widmark method of calculating blood alcohol content. The BAC calculator provides an accurate estimation of an individuals BAC at a certain period in time. Like any other online BAC calculator it cannot provide results with 100% accuracy due to the many variables that come into play (see below) that can affect an individuals BAC level. While the calculator takes into account age, gender, weight, drink amount, alcohol percentage and the period of time over which any alcohol has been consumed it, it is based on the consumption of alcohol by an average healthy human being.

What is Bac - Blood Alcohol Content?

Blood alcohol content is a measure of the amount of alcohol present in a certain amount of blood. It is usually described as the the amount of alcohol in mg per 100ml of blood. The prescribed legal drink driving limit in the USA is 80mg/100ml blood or 0.08%.  It is a criminal offence to drive above the prescribed legal limit.

FACTORS THAT AFFECT YOUR BAC - Blood Alcohol Content

Numerous factors can affect an individuals BAC, these include:

• The amount of alcohol a person consumes, the more they drink, the higher their BAC will become
  
  
• The speed at which a person consumes alcohol, the faster a person drinks, the faster their BAC will rise
  
  
• A persons gender. Alcohol is highly water soluble and a persons BAC is directly proportional to their total body water content. Females generally have less water in their bodies than males, this means that a female who drinks exactly the same amount of alcohol as a male, in the same space of time, will generally have a higher BAC.
  
  
• A persons weight. The more a person weighs generally means the more water they will have in their bodies, meaning any alcohol ingested will produce a lower alcohol to blood ratio than that of a person weighing less. This is because the alcohol is "spread out" more "thinly".
  
  
• A persons fat/muscle content. Fatty tissue does not absorb alcohol very well, alcohol will be absorbed a lot more into other tissues which are rich in water such as muscle. If two people weighing 90kg, one a tall thin person and the other a small fat person consumed the same amount of alcohol, the small fat person would have a higher BAC than the thin person.
  
  
• A persons metabolism (the rate at which alcohol is processed and eliminated by the body). This can vary from person to person, however, the average person will eliminate 15ml of alcohol per hour. Heavy drinkers may have more active livers and can therefor eliminate more alcohol than average. People with liver disease may have less active livers and will therefor eliminate alcohol slower. Medication and the amount of food in the stomach can also have an effect on the rate at which alcohol is absorbed into the body and subsequently eliminated. Younger people also tend to metabolise alcohol more quickly than older people.
  

BAC levels and the predictable effects on driving skills- Click Image to Enlarge

See BAC Calculator Below.

Midwest DUI Crackdown

suntimes.com
Police agencies throughout the Midwest completed a first-of-its-kind multi-state, multi-jurisdictional impaired driving crackdown Thursday night, making 10 DUI/DWI arrests in the course of eight hours.

Preliminary arrest data from the four-state effort included 10 DUIs and DWIs and 12 open intoxicants in vehicles, according to a press release from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The effort, called Reducing Auto Crashes through Corridor Enforcement, featured high-visibility enforcement activity by multiple law enforcement agencies along a specific corridor, according to the release.

The effort took place on US Highway 41 from 7 p.m. Thursday through 3 a.m. Friday. State, county and local law enforcement agencies from Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin participated, according to the release.

The primary focus was to arrest impaired drives, but unbelted motorists, speeders and other violators were cited or ticketed, the release said.

There were 255 speeding, 92 seatbelt and three reckless driving citations. In addition, there were three felony arrests, nine motorists apprehended for arrest warrants, four drug violations, 39 drivers without licenses and 19 drivers without insurance (Illinois only), according to the release.

US 41, which runs about 800 miles from the upper UP in Michigan, through Wisconsin, into Illinois, then straight through Indiana had been identified as “an enforcement priority due to the volume of crashes and subsequent injuries that have resulted,” Michael Witter, Midwest Regional Administrator for NHTSA, said.

The RACCE initiative was conducted in conjunction with the 2009 “Drunk Driving. Over the Limit. Under Arrest.” impaired driving crackdown, the release said.

Holiday highway safety focus on DUI program - Hands Across the Border

ALBANY - Motorists who plan to travel this Labor Day holiday will see more blue lights and uniforms along Georgia highways as law enforcement from six states join together for the 18th Annual Hands Across the Border DUI enforcement initiative, according to Governor's Office of Highway Safety Information Officer Jim Schuler.

Hands Across the Border is an annual campaign in which law enforcement officers from neighboring Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, and North and South Carolina join together with Georgia officials in initiating checkpoints along the borders of the states. "All the law enforcement agencies across the state and surrounding states join in the fight to prevent drunk driving," said Schuler. "Law enforcement is having to do more and more with less and less, and this campaign is a man-power multiplier."

Schuler said that during Hands Across the Border, law enforcement officers from across the state will be available to assist smaller police forces with sobriety checkpoints. "Officers will be out doing sobriety checks," he said. "They will also be checking for valid licenses, tags, insurance and seatbelt checks." Schuler said this Labor Day holiday will also have more law enforcement on the road than usual due to two other campaigns overlapping with the Hands Across the Border campaign: Operation Zero Tolerance and the 100 Days of Summer H.E.A.T. Operation Zero Tolerance, which also concentrates on removing drunk drivers from the road, and 100 Days of Summer H.E.A.T., a campaign in which H.E.A.T. teams and law enforcement officers throughout Georgia target aggressive speeders, will also continue during the Hands Across the Border DUI initiative. "It was just how the calendar year fell," said Schuler. "We didn't plan on all these campaigns to fall on the same weekend." He said the hope is that the increased presence of law enforcement on the roads will deter drivers from making unsafe decisions. "OZT is about catching drunk drivers in the state, while Hands is about catching them whey come in through the state borders," said Schuler.

He said that all three programs focus on reducing the number of crashes, fatalities and serious injuries on Georgia highways. "Georgia is the state with the largest land mass east of the Mississippi and has the second-largest number of counties in the nation, second to Texas," said Schuler. "It's a big state, and the 16 traffic enforcement networks the Governor's Office of Highway Safety has set up across the state will hopefully help reduce the number of traffic crashes this year over the Labor Day holiday." He said that motorists should have their driver's license and insurance cards ready when they reach a checkpoint while traveling. "As long as you are following the traffic laws and have valid insurance and licenses, then it should only be a five-minute delay," said Schuler. resource: albanyherald.com

San Diego DUI Attorney Challenges Marijuana DUI Laws

SAN DIEGO, Sept. 3 /PRNewswire/Reuters -- San Diego DUI lawyer Lawrence Taylor claims
that California DUI laws should not be applied to marijuana usage. Unlike
alcohol and many drugs, he says, marijuana probably does not impair driving.

Taylor, known nationally as "The Dean of DUI Attorneys," argues that although
it has always been assumed that cannabis, like alcohol, affects the ability to
safely operate a motor vehicle, the studies do not support that.

On the one hand, the California Department of Justice has found that marijuana
impairs psychomotor abilities that are functionally related to driving,
particularly at high-dose levels or among inexperienced users. ("Marijuana and
Alcohol: A Driver Performance Study," California Office of Traffic Safety
Project No. 087902)

However, the San Diego DUI defense attorney points out, two federal studies
contradict this.

In one, the U.S. Department of Transportation conducted DUI research with a
fully interactive simulator on the effects of alcohol and marijuana, alone and
in combination, on driver-controlled behavior and performance. Although
alcohol was found consistently and significantly to cause impairment,
marijuana had only an occasional effect.

Accidents and speeding tickets reliably increased with alcohol, but no
marijuana or combined alcohol-marijuana influence was noted. ("The Effects of
Alcohol on Driver-Controlled Behavior in a Driving Simulator, Phase
I"(DOT-HS-806-414).)

Taylor, who heads a large firm of DUI attorneys with offices in Los Angeles,
San Diego, Orange County, Riverside and San Francisco, points to another more
recent report. Entitled "Marijuana and Actual Performance" (DOT-HS-808-078),
it also found that "THC is not a profoundly impairing drug....It apparently
affects controlled information processing in a variety of laboratory tests,
but not to the extent which is beyond the individual's ability to control when
he is motivated and permitted to do so in driving."

The researchers found that it "appears not possible to conclude anything about
a driver's impairment on the basis of his/her plasma concentrations of THC and
THC-COOH determined in a single sample."

THC, Taylor explains, is the intoxicating ingredient in marijuana, and is
fairly quickly converted by the body into inactive metabolites -- which can
stay in the body for hours or even days. But it is these metabolites that
police are measuring in blood tests taken after drunk driving arrests.

In other words, the San Diego DUI lawyer says, (1) marijuana may not impair
driving ability at all, and (2) the blood "evidence" only measures an inactive
substance which may have been there for days. 

Auto Insurance Premium Skyrocket after a DUI/DWI

duiattorney.com

Statistics show DUIs will cost drivers as much as $2,500 per year in auto insurance premiums.

Insurance.com, the largest online auto insurance agency in the US, has produced a 2009 RateWatch report regarding nationwide costs for car insurance premiums. The report is specifically urging drivers to used caution during the Labor Day period as law enforcement cracks down on DUIs.

The largest increases top out at around 40%, according to the study. These increases do not always take into account he severity of the charges against a driver. Even a first-time offense will be very costly. If a DUI driver causes an accident, rates increase on average $650 per year.

Drivers cannot typically avoid informing their insurance companies of the incident. First, insurance companies are entitled to periodic access to motor vehicle reports. As soon as the insurance company notices a license suspension, the rates will increase or a driver may be dropped from the insurance carrier.

Some drivers may be able to escape the watchful eye of the insurance company for a period of time. Others, however, will have their DUI hit their report within weeks of an insurance company's routine scan of the report.

Furthermore, a number of states require an SR-22 be filed with the DMV in order to reinstate a driver's license. This document is a verification of auto insurance after a DUI/DWI. Some insurance companies will not provide SR-22s; this means the driver will have to seek alternate insurance if he or she wishes to get a license reinstated. Most drivers will be required to file these for up to three years following a DUI conviction.

All told, a DUI costs a driver thousands of dollars a year beyond court fees and penalties in insurance premiums and administrative filings.

Texas Front and Back Seat Seatbelt Law - Who's Covered in Your State?

Along with other laws, Texas puts into law today one of the toughest primary seatbelt laws in the nation today. Under the law all passengers; front seat and back must be buckled up or the driver faces stiff penalties.

The law also requires that any child under age 8 be restrained in an approved child passenger safety seat, unless the child is at least 4 feet 9 inches tall. Additionally, the law now allows fines collected for these violations to be used by TxDot to purchase safety seats for families that cannot afford them.

The law also requires that any child under age 8 be restrained in an approved child passenger safety seat, unless the child is at least 4 feet 9 inches tall. Additionally, the law now allows fines collected for these violations to be used by TxDot to purchase safety seats for families that cannot afford them.

Statewide in 2008, 183 back-seat passengers who were not wearing seat belts died in car wrecks, and 4,046 were injured, according to the Texas Department of Transportation. This points to how short sighted some states are in enacting their own primary seatbelt laws. Here in Florida it’s front seat passengers only, yet we hear about deaths from being ejected from vehicles all the time. It is usually true that compromises have to be made to get bills passed, but compromise=needless death, something lawmakers don’t seem to get. We applaud Texas for the courage in making the law for all passengers.

Anyone who wants an up-to-date list of state seatbelt laws can use the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s interactive map and comprehensive list here

Alabama
Primary enforcement:
yes; effective 12/09/99
Who is covered:
15+ years in front seat



Alaska
Primary enforcement:
yes; effective 05/01/06
Who is covered:
16+ years in all seats



Arizona
Primary enforcement:
no
Who is covered:
5+ years in front seat; 5 through 15 in all seats



Arkansas
Primary enforcement:
yes, effective 06/30/09
Who is covered:
15+ years in front seat



California
Primary enforcement:
yes; effective 01/01/93
Who is covered:
16+ years in all seats



Colorado
Primary enforcement:
no
Who is covered:
16+ years in front seat



Connecticut
Primary enforcement:
yes
Who is covered:
7+ years in front seat



Delaware
Primary enforcement:
yes; effective 06/30/03
Who is covered:
16+ years in all seats



District of Columbia
Primary enforcement:
yes; effective 10/01/97
Who is covered:
16+ years in all seats



Florida
Primary enforcement:
yes; effective 6/30/09
Who is covered:
6+ years in front seat; 6 through 17 years in all seats



Georgia
Primary enforcement:
yes; effective 07/01/96
Who is covered:
6 through 17 years in all seats; 18+ years in front seat



Hawaii
Primary enforcement:
yes
Who is covered:
8 through 17 years in all seats; 18+ years in front seat



Idaho
Primary enforcement:
no
Who is covered:
7+ years in all seats



Illinois
Primary enforcement:
yes; effective 07/03/03
Who is covered:
16+ in front seat; 18 and younger in all seats if driver is younger than 18 years



Indiana
Primary enforcement:
yes; effective 07/01/98
Who is covered:
16+ years in all seats



Iowa
Primary enforcement:
yes
Who is covered:
11+ years in front seat



Kansas
Primary enforcement:
no (yes for children <18; effective 07/01/07)
Who is covered:
14 through 17 in all seats; 18+ in front seat



Kentucky
Primary enforcement:
yes; effective 07/20/06
Who is covered:
6 and younger and more than 50 inches in all seats; 7+ in all seats



Louisiana
Primary enforcement:
yes; effective 09/01/95
Who is covered:
13+ years in all seats



Maine
Primary enforcement:
yes; effective 09/20/07
Who is covered:
18+ years in all seats



Maryland
Primary enforcement:
yes; effective 10/01/97
Who is covered:
16+ years in front seat



Massachusetts
Primary enforcement:
no
Who is covered:
13+ years in all seats



Michigan
Primary enforcement:
yes; effective 04/01/00
Who is covered:
16+ years in front seat



Minnesota
Primary enforcement:
yes; effective 06/09/09
Who is covered:
7 and younger and more than 57 inches in all seats; 8+ in all seats



Mississippi
Primary enforcement:
yes; effective 05/27/06
Who is covered:
7+ years in front seat



Missouri
Primary enforcement:
no (yes for children <16)
Who is covered:
16+ years in front seat



Montana
Primary enforcement:
no
Who is covered:
6+ years in all seats



Nebraska
Primary enforcement:
no
Who is covered:
18+ years in front seat



Nevada
Primary enforcement:
no
Who is covered:
6+ years in all seats



New Hampshire
Primary enforcement:
no law
Who is covered:
no law



New Jersey
Primary enforcement:
yes; effective 05/01/00
Who is covered:
7 years and younger and more than 80 pounds; 8 through 17 in all seats; 18+ in front seat



New Mexico
Primary enforcement:
yes
Who is covered:
18+ years in all seats



New York
Primary enforcement:
yes
Who is covered:
16+ years in front seat



North Carolina
Primary enforcement:
yes (secondary for rear seat occupants)
Who is covered:
16+ years in all seats



North Dakota
Primary enforcement:
no
Who is covered:
18+ years in front seat



Ohio
Primary enforcement:
no
Who is covered:
8 through 14 in all seats; 15+ years in front seat (effective 10/07/09)



Oklahoma
Primary enforcement:
yes; effective 11/01/97
Who is covered:
13+ years in front seat



Oregon
Primary enforcement:
yes
Who is covered:
16+ years in all seats



Pennsylvania
Primary enforcement:
no
Who is covered:
8 through 17 years in all seats; 18+ years in front seat



Rhode Island
Primary enforcement:
no (yes for children <18)
Who is covered:
18+ years in all seats



South Carolina
Primary enforcement:
yes; 12/09/056
Who is covered:
6+ years in front seat; 6+ years in rear seat with shoulder belt



South Dakota
Primary enforcement:
no
Who is covered:
18+ years in front seat



Tennessee
Primary enforcement:
yes; 07/01/04
Who is covered:
16+ years in front seat



Texas
Primary enforcement:
yes
Who is covered:
7 years and younger who are 57 inches or taller; 8+ years in all seats



Utah
Primary enforcement:
no (yes for children <19 years)
Who is covered:
16+ years in all seats



Vermont
Primary enforcement:
no
Who is covered:
16+ years in all seats



Virginia
Primary enforcement:
no
Who is covered:
16+ years in front seat



Washington
Primary enforcement:
yes; 07/01/02
Who is covered:
16+ years in all seats



West Virginia
Primary enforcement:
no
Who is covered:
8+ years in front seat; 8 through 17 years in all seats



Wisconsin
Primary enforcement:
yes; effective 06/30/09
Who is covered:
8+ years in all seats



Wyoming
Primary enforcement:
no
Who is covered:
9+ years in all seats

1Arkansas rewards belt use by reducing the fine for the primary violation by $10.

2This state assesses points for violations.

3In Georgia, the maximum fine is $25 if the child is 6-18 years.

4Drivers in Massachusetts may be fined $25 for violating the belt law themselves and $25 for each unrestrained passenger 12-16 years.

5New York only assesses points when the violation involves a child under 16.

6Police are prohibited in South Carolina from enforcing safety belt laws at checkpoints designed for that purpose. However, safety belt violations may be issued at license and registration checkpoints to drivers cited for other offenses.

7Drivers 18 and older in Tennessee who choose not to contest the citation pay a $10 fine by mail; $20 for drivers who are 16 and 17 years old.

8Wyoming rewards belt use by reducing the fine for the primary violation by $10.

DUI Lawyer

Did you get stopped by the police and are now facing a driving under the influence charge (DUI)? My best advice is to find an experienced DUI lawyer to help you through the DUI juridical confusion.

DUI or to some DWI or driving while intoxicated are acronyms we are well aware of due to the familiarity of this growing problem. Every day you will hear of someone being arrested on television or in your local newspaper. DUI lawyers know the laws in your state and understand the complexity of the consequences you are facing. DUI is a serious infraction each year at least half a million people are injured in a DUI related accident in the United States. This cost taxpayers over 114 billion dollars.

A DWI lawyer knows that the public offender may have their driver’s license suspended, have their vehicle impounded, face fines and court costs, jail time or house arrest and probation. Reputable DUI defense lawyers know all the ins and outs involved with DUI charges. DUI lawyers know the laws and will take you step by step though the process explaining the testing, sentencing, jury trends and offer information involved with your case.

Driving under the influence is a severe crime in every state. PA DUI lawyer, Steven E. Kellis has over 13 years of jury trial experience. He served for five years as a Senior Assistant District Attorney and DUI Prosecutor and knows all the tricks and tactics prosecutor and police officers use in Pennsylvania DUI cases. Like other PA DUI lawyers he has handled more than 100 DUI trials. The Law Office of Steven E. Kellis is located at Two Penn Center Plaza, 1500 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 900, Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: 215-940-1200.

Broward County DUI lawyer William Moore has been attacking mistakes made by police officers in DUI arrests over a decade and posts the more successful cases on the internet every few months so that they may be reviewed by potential clients. Mistakes made by police officers during the investigative process of a DUI can be devastating to the prosecutor's case. Most often this is the result of an illegal stop of an individual's automobile, excessive force, and/or the length of and reason for a stop. It is important to remember that a police officer must have probable cause before an arrest is made and that failure to follow strict guidelines leading up to and following that arrest may result in an outright dismissal of your case. The Broward DUI lawyer number is: 1-954-523.5333. Mr. Moore also is a South Florida DUI lawyer in the following counties; Dade and Palm Beach with he’s main office; One Financial Plaza, 100 SE 3rd Ave, Suite 2500, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394

The consequences of a conviction are life-altering and can last for years. You need to find a DUI lawyer to protect your rights or you may face; jail time, job loss, driver’s license suspension, increase in insurance premiums, ignition interlock device, community service, alcohol education and may be restricted interstate or international travel. In addition, MADD is trying to change the law so every driver convicted of a DUI has an ignition interlock device in their car. An ignition interlock device won’t allow you to start your car unless you blow into a device and it registers no blood alcohol and you might have to repeat the process every ten minutes of driving.

If this is your second DUI expect stiffer penalties and longer jail time. Lawmakers are contantly introducing new bills that tighten up penalties for DUI charges. Just this week in Utah if you are caught driving while texting (DWT) you will be charged with the same penalties as a DUI. It can be very intimidating facing constant threats by lawmakers, police and prosecutors and that is why you need an experienced, professional DUI lawyer like William Moore in Broward Co., Florida. A DUI specialist can minimize your serious charges, or have them completely dismissed. If you have recently received DUI charges…find a DUI lawyer today.

Top DUI attorney says laws discriminate against women

Well-known California Defense Attorney Lawrence Taylor is supporting the opinion that current DUI laws discriminate against women, citing multiple studies.

Taylor, whose law office specialized in DUI defense, is the author of Drunk Driving Defense and is a DUI defense advocate. He has issued memos citing a study at the University School of Medicine in Trieste, Italy. There, researchers found women have less of a key enzyme that breaks down alcohol in the stomach.

The enzyme, dehydrogenase, is essential to lowering blood alcohol levels. Without it, women's bodies will have a much higher level of alcohol after the same amount of consumption as their male counterparts. In fact, scientists believe women will get to the "legal limit" after drinking about 60% as much as men.

The scientific journal Analytical Toxicology has produced another study drawing the attention of Taylor and DUI defense attorneys. This study shows women have lower partition ratios than men, meaning their apparent blood alcohol count will be higher even if the level of alcohol in the blood does not vary. The study claims a level of .06% for a woman could show a .09% on a breath test due to lower partition rates.

Further aggravating the case to enforce separate laws for women is the issue of the affect of birth control on blood alcohol levels. A 1982 study by the Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal founds that peak alcohol levels occur much faster in women taking oral contraceptives. The sex steroids also produce a higher level of acetaldehyde, which may register as alcohol on a breath test.

The role of women's DUI defense has grown tremendously in the past decade. As DUIAttorney.com has reported, DUIs in women have risen 30% while the counts for men have dropped about 8%. Many defense attorneys and women's rights activists claim this was the natural progression resulting from the lowering of BAC legal limit to .08%, which may be as little as one drink for some women.

A further question raised by prosecutors, however, asks whether the number of drinks truly matters or if the BAC is a fair measure of intoxication. If a woman needs to consume 30% less alcohol than a man in order to stay under the legal intoxication limit, then women may need to consider this before getting behind the wheel.

The issue for defense attorneys, however, is not always the true alcohol levels in a client but rather the levels a breath machine registers. If breath machines truly are being thrown off by birth control and lower partition rates in women, a breath test may not be sufficient to measure a woman's true alcohol level.

The New England Journal of Medicine has suggested legislation should be considered to provide for sex differences in DUI laws. While many like to argue for gender equality across the board, this may be one area where the physical consistency of a woman's body sets forward a case for different laws for men and women.

Choosing a DUI Lawyer

When someone is arrested on a drunk driving charge, one of the first things they think about is do I need to hire a lawyer to represent me in court and how do I go about hiring the right lawyer? The first and probably the most important thing you need to understand is that not all lawyers are created equal. What do I mean by that statement?

Just because a person is a lawyer does not necessarily mean they are the right lawyer for your case. Say for instance if you needed to hire a lawyer to represent you against tax evasion charges from the IRS, you most certainly are not going to hire a divorce lawyer to handle your case just because they quoted you a low price, that would be crazy.

The same thing holds true when it comes to choosing a DUI lawyer to represent you in court. Just because a person is a lawyer, doesn’t mean they know the DUI laws in your state or for that matter have ever defended someone in court against a DUI charge.

In this series we are going to cover the various types of lawyers you will more than likely come into contact with during your search and the things you need to be aware of when it comes to these different types of lawyers. Lets start by talking about Public Defenders.

Public Defenders

Not everyone will be eligible to have a public defender represent them in their DUI case, you have to qualify financially to be eligible to have the option to have a public defender represent you in court. There are some problems with having a public defender represent you that you need to be aware of before you decide to go this route.

The reason most public defenders are in the job they are in is because they were not able to get hired by say a law firm that specializes in DUI defense. It does not mean that these people are not smart, far from it. It just means that they were probably not smart enough to get hired by a law firm or do not possess the business knowledge required to open their own practice.

There are of course a lot of lawyer’s who decide early on in their careers that they want to serve the public and they feel that becoming a public defender is a good option. Which is fine, it’s the career path they chose, I think a lot of them would make a different choice knowing what they know now about being a public defender.

Public defenders specialize in nothing! A public defender will handle all types of cases, they may represent a person against a murder charge one day and a DUI charge the next. There is just no way for these people to become experts in any area of law when they are forced to bounce from one unrelated case to the next.

Public defenders are very overworked and have no time to spend on your case coming up with a solid defense strategy. The court system is not paying these individuals to have the charges against you dismissed or lowered. The courts do not provide public defenders with any additional funding to be able to mount a successful defense.

If the public defender is extremely busy, which all of them are, you may never actually get to meet your public defender in person until the day of your trial. If you are eligible for a public defender and decide to go this route, be prepared to come up with your own defense strategy and present it to your public defender before you trial date, if you get the chance. Like I said, they have no time for you.

Public defenders are basically there to hold your hand and walk you through the court system. In most cases, the only thing they will do for you is to plead you guilty.

The bottom line is that public defenders are really just a general law practitioner who is extremely overworked without the money or competence. If you decide to go with a public defender in your DUI case, don’t expect to see any reduction in the charges against you or for that matter to have the charges against you dismissed, it’s just not going to happen.

Underage Drinking and DUI Charges

For some under the age of 21 it is a big deal to party and drink alcohol. Through peer pressure and wanting to be in what they consider the ‘in’ crowd they take the risks involved with a grain of salt. The ‘I’m young, nothing will happen to me’ attitude and disregard for rules and laws unfortunately can easily end in disaster when mixing alcohol with driving. Many young adults are not aware of over consuming alcohol and how it impairs their judgment and reaction time.

Driving under the influence (DUI) or driving while intoxicated (DWI) is defined as an operator is driving a vehicle with an excessive about of alcohol or any kind of controlled substance that is present in his/her body. All states currently charge anyone with a DUI if their blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is .08% or higher. For those under the age of 21 that percentage is .02% or higher and may vary from state to state. Since the law is different from state to state there are still sentencing guidelines each still follow; fines range from $100-$2,500, car is impounded, drug/alcohol class are required, 30-60 days of community service, suspension of driver’s license from 90 days to 3 years, additional court costs and lawyer fees, jail time ranging from 2 days to a year and probation for a period of 3-5 years.

Also underage DUI charges not only for the driving impairment but also for the underage drinking which include; minor possession of alcohol, soliciting alcohol from an adult, distributing alcohol to other minors (if present in auto), Child Endangerment Law violations and possession of a false ID, if found

DUI statistics show that 28% of 15-20 year old drivers die in traffic accidents that involve drinking in which 24% were males and 12% were female. In a poll taken of high school students 28.5% admit to riding in a car with a driver that was intoxicated. Of the drivers that die, 74% were not wearing seatbelts.

Since DUI laws have become stricter there have been nearly 25,000 lives on the road, but drinking is still a problem for those under age. 41% of students tried alcohol by the 8^th grade in which 20% of 8^th graders admitted to being drunk at least once. 75% of seniors tried alcohol and 58% of them admitted to over indulging.

A fun night at a friend’s house sneaking their parent’s liquor cabinet can become a disastrous situation. Once charged with a DUI especially one that caused harm or death to a friend are left with the memory forever. If no one was injured the DUI conviction has repercussions for years to come; a criminal record, license suspension, jail time, probation and higher automobile insurance premiums for at least 5-7 years. A criminal record could hurt their chances of getting into college, a scholarship or acquiring certain licensing required for certain jobs such as insurance, financing or medical fields.

If you are under 21 you should avoid drinking, but if you do…don’t mix drinking and driving. Have a designated driver, take a taxi, use the public transportation system in your town, stay overnight at a friend’s house or call a family member. Dealing with a family members concern or risk of punishment is a much better alternative than having a criminal record. Think about it.