Articles Posted in DUI

drinks-300x165
After a tough day at the office or an exhausting work week, you may decide to head to the bar for some drinks and unwinding. Speaking of drinks, altercations are common. This means there may be criminal charges involved depending on what happens during the fight, resulting in charges like disorderly conduct, disorderly intoxication, or aggravated battery, for example.

Disorderly conduct is a way of saying the peace has been breached. When you are out in public, you’re expected to behave in a way considered decent. Because bars are public places, becoming involved in a bar fight means it is possible to be charged with disorderly conduct for disturbing the peace. This second-degree misdemeanor charge may result in fines and a jail sentence.

When an individual consumes an excessive amount of alcohol and becomes belligerent to those around them, it may result in disorderly intoxication. Bar owners and law enforcement officers have the authority to ask a person to leave if they believe a situation may escalate. Should the situation turn physical and an injury occurs, a second-degree misdemeanor may be charged.

law-blog-300x200
Our cell phones contain a lot of personal information, from credit card numbers to our bank info, photographs, text messages, call logs, and more. Should all of this information fall into the hands of the wrong person, it may be used against an individual.

A part of the Miranda rights states a suspect has the right to remain silent. But what about smartphones? Can your phone “speak on your behalf”? Are law enforcement officers allowed to force you to turn over your phone and online records?

The simple answer to this is no, a police officer cannot simply seize your phone. Since your phone belongs to you, a warrant is required for an officer to seize it or look at it. The same thing applies for access to phone records from your wireless provider.

INTRODUCTION

At 4:20 pm, on a warm South Florida evening, a trooper stops a vehicle driven by Mary Wanna. Her vehicle had a broken tail light. When the trooper approaches, he smells the odor of marijuana emanating from inside the vehicle. Mary appears to be lethargic and has the odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from her breath. Her eyes are glossy and bloodshot and her movements are slow. The trooper asks the driver if she has been drinking. The driver responds, “No, not recently.” The trooper requests that the driver exit her vehicle. Mary slowly exits and seems to have difficulty standing without swaying. The trooper requests that she perform some “field sobriety exercises,” (also known as “roadside tests”). The trooper concludes that Mary “failed each and every test given.” He places her under arrest for DUI (Driving Under The Influence). Back at the station, Mary is asked to blow into the breath machine and blows a .000, indicating that no alcohol is present in her system. The officer then requests that Mary provide a urine sample. Several weeks later, the lab report is made available and it reveals the presence of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. Can prosecutors prove their case?

ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you now know that Tiger Woods was arrested for DUI (Driving Under The Influence) in South Florida this Memorial Day weekend. Many in the “court of public opinion” have been speculating about the case. The on-air “talking heads” have been at it and many are getting it wrong. Since I’ve practiced criminal work in Florida for 25 years both as a defense attorney and a prosecutor, having handled thousands of DUI cases, I feel compelled to set the record straight. Also, as a fellow “talking head” with extensive experience defending and prosecuting these types of cases in South Florida, I’d like to give you my assessment as to how I think Tiger’s matter will be resolved.

ALLEGED FACTS

INTRODUCTION


The highest court in the land is currently deciding a case that can have an enormous impact on Driving Under The Influence (DUI) cases in Florida and twelve other states. Each of those thirteen states makes it a misdemeanor criminal offense to refuse to blow into a breath machine while under arrest for DUI. The Court is reviewing whether it is unconstitutional to charge someone with a crime for refusing to blow. In their discussions concerning this case, it appears that the Court is looking at DUI breath cases as a whole and wondering whether police should have to first secure a warrant to begin with before requiring someone to blow into the machine.

ANALYSIS

If you’ve got a pulse, you’ll be angered by this one.  Milwaukee County Sheriffs Deputy Joseph Quiles alleges in his official report that he was driving his squad car when he came upon a stop sign.  He claims that he stopped his vehicle and then looked both ways before pulling out.  He then claims that he never saw any headlights when he suddenly struck a car driven by Tanya Weyker.  What happened next is nothing short of unbelievable.

Cops arrested her for five separate charges, including drunk driving resulting in injury.  The injury was actually  to Ms. Weyker, who suffered a fractured neck as a result of the February 2013 crash.  The injuries she sustained were too severe to allow her to perform field sobriety tests and/or even provide a breath sample.

Without any independent witness and/or video evidence, Ms. Weyker would be in a horrible predicament.  Her serious criminal case would be based almost exclusively on the words of law enforcement officers.  Fortunately, more evidence surfaced recently.

Broward Medical Examiner Craig Mallak told State Attorney Mike Satz on Tuesday that his office improperly validated its drug testing procedures in all DUI cases in which Medical Examiner’s office performed the testing, before Aug. 24, 2012.

Officials have no way of knowing at this stage how many cases may be affected by the improper drug testing procedures. Prosecutors have already been instructed to review their pending cases to make sure issues are resolved before trial. Satz said his office will have to review successful prosecutions on a case-by-case basis. Defense lawyers as well are preparing to review hundreds of criminal and civil cases due to the flaw in testing procedures.

The improper procedure was performed when testing for drugs including, but not limited to, hydrocodone, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, oxycodone, amphetamines, Valium, Xanax, sleeping pills and other over-the-counter medications that impede a persons ability to drive.

Posted in:
Updated:

A 47-year-old man in Tacoma, Washington mistakenly pocket-dialed 911 twice while driving drunk in what authorities suspected to be a stolen car. Police have not released his name and will not do so until he is charged, but say he is homeless.

The first 911 call came at approximately 11:30 p.m. on Tuesday. Police said their dispatcher heard a screaming woman in the background and a man telling her to stop. According to authorities, the call was traced to a street where officers saw a car run a red light.

Police tried to pull the car over. The driver did stop momentarily, and the woman passenger got out of the car and ran. The man then drove away, with police in pursuit. Police say the suspect eventually stopped the car and ran on foot. A police dog on the scene was unsuccessful in finding the man.

Posted in:
Updated:
Contact Information