Glendale Court | As everyone knows, each state has the right to enact DUI laws it feels appropriate for its citizens. The federal government has no authority to dictate to the state legislatures what those laws should be. Maricopa County Court – http://maricopacountycourt.net/

(DNAinfo/Shayna Jacobs) By Shayna Jacobs MANHATTAN CRIMINAL COURT — East Harlem Assemblyman Adam Clayton Powell IV's drunk-driving trial was delayed once … See all stories on this topic

Glendale Court | Drunk driving is bad. It's potentially dangerous to human life. It should be punished. So, many years ago a law was passed: “Thou shalt not drive drunk”. It was a fair law and it addressed the problem. So…what happened? Maricopa County Court – http://maricopacountycourt.net/

A police officer attached to the Inter Agency Task Force officer was granted bail yesterday in the Tunapuna Magistrates' Court after pleading not guilty to … See all stories on this topic

It is an unfortunate fact that law and politics repeatedly trump science when it comes to prosecuting citizens accused of drunk driving….. In People v. Bransford , to cite one notable example, the California Supreme Court was confronted with a defendant who was challenging his DUI conviction on the grounds that he was not permitted to offer scientific evidence to the jury. Specifically, he was not permitted to offer the testimony of recognized experts that the breath machine’s computer was programmed to assume that there were 2100 parts of alcohol in his blood for every 1 part it measured in his breath. He was also prevented by the trial judge from offering further evidence that this 2100:1 ratio was only an average — and that the actual ratio varied widely from person to person, and within one person from moment to moment. (If, for example, a suspect’s ratio had been 1500:1 at the time he blew a .10% on the machine, his true blood-alcohol would have actually been .07% — that is, he?would have been?innocent.) The Supreme Court of California affirmed the conviction, however, ruling that such scientific facts are irrelevant: the law was recently re-written in a way that concerned?the amount of alcohol in the blood?” as measured on the breath ”. In a display of either twisted logic or ignorance of the scientific facts?involved, the Court simply said that the crime consisted of the amount of alcohol in the blood — but only as measured on the breath . In other words, although the crime is having .08% alcohol in the blood,? you can’t offer evidence about the amount of alcohol actually in the blood ! An amazing decision. More interesting, perhaps, is language in the opinion — an opinion which gives us a window into the justices’ minds. In what must have been a complete failure to appreciate the significance of what?they were writing, the Court justified its ruling in a rather frank — and incredible — admission of its?hidden agenda: It will increase the likelihood of convicting such a driver, because the prosecution need not prove actual impairment…Adjudication of such criminal charges will also require fewer legal resources, because fewer legal issues will arise. And individuals prosecuted under such a statute will be less likely to contest the charges.? People v. Bransford , 8 Cal.4th 894 (1994). In other words,?preventing?an accused?from defending?himself with scientific truth serves justice by making it easier to get convictions! Are all judges oblivious to the truth? Not entirely. One judge, Justice Joyce Kennard, dissented from the majority opinion. Recognizing the truth, she wrote in a dissenting opinion:?? The majority…has on its own created the new crime of driving with alcohol in one’s breath. She was dead right. ?

More information on DUI laws and the court with a lawyer in DUI After reading a few weekly updates to learn more about the different areas of DUI law , you may. HottestTrendz.com – http://www.hottesttrendz.com/

Christopher Hedges: New Developments in DUI Law · U.S. Supreme Court Delivers Major Blow to Miranda … Consumers Beware: Insurance Carriers Not Liable fo… Indiana University School of Law Hosts Moot Court . … NWI Lawyer – http://nwilawyer.blogspot.com/

In Rhode Island, DUI, DWI, Driving Under the Influence, and Drunk Driving cases seem to provide motorists with minimized constitutional protections under the law. Most police agencies now take the position that the court-recognized … Kevin Hagan's DUI, Criminal Defense,… – http://kevinhaganlaw.wordpress.com/

When a person is arrested for DUI, his driver’s license is confiscated by the arresting officer and he is given a notice of “administrative suspension”. He is also given a citation to appear in court to face criminal drunk driving charges. These are usually two very different procedures: (1) the administrative suspension for driving with?blood-alcohol of .08%, in most states administered by its department of motor vehicles, and (2) the criminal prosecution for the two separate offenses of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI or DWI) and driving with .08%,? which takes?place in the courts. Let’s take a closer look at that second?proceeding, the criminal charges?in the courts….The accused allegedly engaged in a single act of driving.? Yet, he is being?prosecuted?in court for two different crimes: DUI and driving with a .08% BAC. He can even be convicted of both offenses (although he can only be punished for one). How is this possible? But what about that first proceeding? The driver has already been punished by another state agency (the DMV) for driving over .08% by having his license suspended (or for refusing to take a chemical test). If he is later convicted in the state’s criminal court of driving over .08% (and/or driving under the influence), he will be punished a second time . The sentence may involve jail, fines, DUI schools, ignition interlock devices, community work, probation — and a second?restriction or suspension of his license. How many times can the state?prosecute and punish a person for a single crime? Our Constitution says only once. The Fifth Amendment specifically provides that no person shall ” be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life and limb”. So is this another example of ” The DUI exception to the Constitution “? Let’s first take the question of charging defendants with both DUI and .08%. The courts in the different states wrestled with this one for awhile, coming to different conclusions, but eventually reached a consensus that the driver actually commited two different crimes. As an Indiana court reasoned, “The test to be applied to determine whether there are two different offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not”. Sering v. State , 488 N.E.2d 369 (1986). The .08 statute required proof of blood-alcohol concentration; although blood-alcohol evidence was used to prove the DUI crime as well (a person is usually presumed to be under the influence if his BAC is .08% or higher), the offense could be proved without it. So it’s ok to prosecute and convict him for both crimes – so long as you?don’t?punish him for both.? Hmm….isn’t that just word?games?? Defining a single act in different ways?? Couldn’t you define it ten different ways and get ten different crimes to?charge the citizen with?? And what about that first license suspension???What about punishing the driver by suspending his license when he’s arrested — and then punishing him again in court? In fact, punishing him in court with a sentence that?probably includes another license suspension? This one caused the?appellate courts a bit more trouble. This wasn’t a case where the person was committing two different crimes: he was being punished by two different state agencies for the same crime: driving with .08% BAC. But there had to be some way to get around that pesky?Constitution. The courts could not agree. Some said that there was no double jeopardy or double punishment since the DMV license foreiture was not really a punishment, but only a civil sanction . Others took the position that this was, in fact, a violation of the Fifth Amendment, and they relied upon a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court decision ( U.S. v. Halper , 490 U.S. 435) which involved civil forfeitures and criminal punishments for selling marijuana. In that case the Court held that a “civil sanction’ was actually a punishment? ‘and thus double jeopardy’ if (1) the clear focus of (the statute) is on the culpability of the individual, and (2) the legislature “understood these provisions as serving to deter and punish”. The Court added that “the historical understanding of forfeiture as punishment” weighs heavily in favor of the conclusion that forfeiture continues to serve punitive purposes. Well, relying upon the Supreme Court’s ruling, an alarming number of courts around the country were throwing out criminal DUI charges on double jeopardy grounds. This, of course, infuriated MADD, legislators, prosecutors, law enforcement and pretty much everyone else who did not take the Constitution too seriously. But?help arrived? from a more conservative U.S. Supreme Court. In 1997, Chief Justice Rehnquist revisited the forfeiture-punishment problem and did something that is rarely ever done: he criticized and flatly rejected the earlier Supreme Court’s ruling: “We believe that Halper ’s deviation from long-standing double jeopardy principles was ill-considered.? Halper ’s test for determining whether a particular sanction is “punitive”, and thus subject to the strictures of the Double Jeopardy Clause, has proved unworkable.” Hudson v. U.S ., 592 U.S. 93 (1997). Unworkable? Since then, the courts have had little trouble finding that a police officer who confiscates and suspends the driver’s license of a drunk driving suspect is merely administering a civil sanction, not punishment, and that when he is later convicted in court and is fined, jailed and has his license suspended again, well, that’s not really double jeopardy or multiple punishment. It just looks an awful lot like it. Somehow, the words of Lewis Carroll keep coming to mind: ? “When I use a word”, Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” “The question is”, said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is”, said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master, that’s all.”

… San Diego DUI (2), San Diego DUI law (1), San Diego Records – San Diego Criminal / Court Records (1), Sobriety Checkpoints (3), SR-22 DUI Insurance (2), Unconstitutional Checkpoints (2), Washington State DUI law (3) … LIVE UPDATED SOBRIETY CHECKPOINT – http://www.sobriety-checkpoint.net/