 |
Office of Public Safety - Equipment Repair Center - Frequently Asked Questions Search DCJS Advanced Search About DCJS DCJS Home Page Welcome About DCJS Contact DCJS News Recent News Events Publications Statistics For the Community Missing Children Sex Offender Registry Operation SAFE CHILD Criminal History Records Criminal Justice Agencies Most Wanted Legal Resources For Law Enforcement Training Accreditation Public Safety Services Incident Based Reporting Forensic Services / DNA Technology Resources Strategic Initiatives eJusticeNY ePagesNY Law Enforcement Links Funding Grant Information Grant RFP's Grant Forms Grants Management - GMS Public Safety Public Safety Home Accreditation Training Catalog Police Officer Registry Peace Officer Registry Security Guard Training Media Resource Center Equipment Repair Police Officer Memorial Police Officer of the Year Publications / Reports Contact Us Sidebar content Return to: ops home | equipment repair center Frequently Asked Questions These FAQs provide general information about DWI and the new .08% BAC Law. If you do not find the answer to your question, please email or call us at 518-457-2667. What is "DWI"? What are the penalties for DWI or DWAI? What is "Implied Consent"? What is a "BAC"? What does Prompt Suspension" mean? What is the Zero Tolerance Law? What is the new .08% minimum per se law? What is "DWI"? DWI is an acronym for driving while intoxicated. A similar acronym, DUI, is used in other states which stands for driving under the influence, and yet another acronym, DWAI, may be encountered which signifies driving while ability impaired. Under section 1192 of the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law (VTL), the prohibitions against a motorist's consumption of alcohol or drugs include: Driving while ability impaired: "No person shall operate a motor vehicle while the person's ability to operate such motor vehicle is impaired by the consumption of alcohol" (VTL §1192[1]). A first violation of this DWAI provision is a traffic violation. Driving while intoxicated; per se: "No person shall operate a motor vehicle while such person has .08 of one per centum or more by weight of alcohol in the person's blood as shown by chemical analysis of such person's blood, breath, urine or saliva. . . ." (VTL §1192[2]). A first violation of this DWI provision is a misdemeanor. Driving while intoxicated: "No person shall operate a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition." (VTL §1192[3]). A first violation of this DWI provision is a misdemeanor. Driving while ability impaired by drugs: "No person shall operate a motor vehicle while the person's ability to operate such a motor vehicle is impaired by the use of a drug. . . ." (VTL §1192[4]). A first violation of this DWAI provision is a misdemeanor. Other provisions of VTL §1192 prohibit the operation of certain commercial vehicles at stated levels of alcohol concentration percentages lower than those specified in VTL §1192(2). Top What are the penalties for DWI or DWAI? All alleged violations of section 1192 of the VTL are prosecuted as criminal offenses and conviction subjects the motorist to specified penalties that vary according to (a) the seriousness level of the particular offense, which ranges from a traffic infraction to a class D felony, and (b) the motorist's record of certain prior driving-related convictions. Upon conviction, the court must always impose a fine (the lowest of which for the least serious offense is presently $355.00) and may, in addition, impose a period of incarceration (the longest of which for the most serious DWI offense is presently 7 years of imprisonment at a State correctional facility). In addition, a violation of any provision of section 1192 of the VTL or a refusal to submit to a properly requested chemical test automatically initiates separate administrative proceedings before the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles where determinations of a violation or a refusal result in a mandatory suspension or revocation of a motorist's driving privileges for stated periods of time. Lastly, apart from these court and administrative proceedings, a motorist's record of DWI or DWAI may also trigger substantially higher automotive insurance premiums. Top What is "Implied Consent"? Under circumstances set out in VTL §1194, a police officer is authorized to request a motorist to submit to a chemical test and the law provides that "[a]ny person who operates a motor vehicle in this state shall be deemed to have given consent to a chemical test of one or more of the following: breath, blood, urine, or saliva, for the purpose of determining the alcoholic and/or drug content of the blood. . . ." When an authorized request is made, a motorist is then said to have given his or her "implied consent" to submit to the chemical test. A refusal to submit to a test after a proper request carries mandatory administrative consequences involving the loss of driving privileges and a civil fine (regardless of the outcome of any related DWI or DWAI charges in court) and in the event of such a refusal the police officer or District Attorney may apply to a court asking it for an order to compel the motorist to submit to a chemical test Top What is a "BAC"? A BAC is an acronym standing for Blood Alcohol Content; the amount of alcohol in a person's body measured by the weight of the alcohol in a certain amount of blood. Breath analysis is the primary method most frequently used statewide by law enforcement agencies to determine BAC, but a direct analysis of blood for this purpose is also a common practice. The first practical breath analysis device was designed in the 1930s by Dr. Rolla Harger of the Indiana University School of Medicine and was known as the Harger Drunkometer. This device was widely used for many years until the Breathalyzer, which was designed by Dr. Robert Borkenstein in 1954, replaced it. The Breathalyzer uses the relationship between a person's alveolar (deep lung) air and blood . This system collects a fixed volume of alveolar air and passes it through an alcohol- sensitive chemical reagent. Alcohol in the sample produces a color change in the reagent which is measured by a photometric system and yields a resulting BAC. While the Breathalyzer has been and continues to provide an accurate BAC, technology advancements have produced new and improved methods of analyzing breath to determine BAC. All of the newer evidential breath analysis devices employ infrared technology to measure alcohol in the person's blood by calculating the amount of infrared energy absorbed by the alcohol contained in the person's breath sample. These newer instruments are microprocessor-based, enabling faster, and easier operation, as well as having the ability to record and print breath test results. Top What does Prompt Suspension" mean? A court is obliged to suspend the license, pending prosecution, of a motorist who has been charged with a DWI violation of VTL §1192(2) or 1192(3) at arraignment (initial court appearance) if: The results of a chemical test show that the defendant had a BAC level of .08% or more; and The court finds reasonable cause to believe that the defendant operated the motor vehicle while having a BAC level of at least .08%; and The court finds that the accusatory instrument (formal statement of charges) is sufficient on its face. Top What is the Zero Tolerance Law? It is unlawful, under VTL §1192-a for a person under the age of 21 years to operate a motor vehicle after having consumed alcohol as shown by a BAC (blood alcohol content) level of .02% or more. While drivers under 21 remain fully subject to all of the DWI and DWAI charges and penalties for violating VTL §1192, a violation of VTL § 1192-a is not a criminal offense and subsequent findings and penalties for violation are administrative in nature. These penalties can consist of a civil fine and a license suspension or revocation action. Top What is the new .08% minimum per se law? In December, 2002, Governor George Pataki signed into law a measure which took effect on July 1, 2003, under which it is a DWI violation of VTL § 1192(2) for a person to operate a motor vehicle while such person has .08 per centum or more by weight of alcohol in such person's blood. Laboratory and field research shows that the vast majority of drivers, even experienced drivers are significantly compromised at .08% BAC with regard to critical driving tasks such as braking, steering, lane changing, judgment and divided attention. Research also suggests that the most critical aspect of diminished performance is reduction in the ability to handle several tasks at once - the precise skill needed to safely operate a motor vehicle. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety research indicates that the relative risk of being killed in a single vehicle crash for drivers with BACs between .05% and .09% is 11 times that of drivers free of alcohol. For more information about .08% laws, please visit: www.nhtsa.dot.gov . Top ©2004 NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services Privacy Policy Site Map
|
|
OUILMichigan Drunk Driving Defense Lawyer | OUIL DUI DWI OWI MIP Defense Law Attorney | Possible Defenses to the Breath or Blood Test Get Help Now! Greater Detroit Area " Greater Detroit Area Greater Detroit Area "Patrick T. Barone Site Navigation Return Home DUI Defenses DUI Sample Cases DUI Attorney Info DUI Resources DUI Courts Info DUI Driver License DUI Links You made me feel comfortable from the start and made me feel that you had a high level of interest in my case, and I think that was key in my decision to retain your services.I felt like you had time for me. DUI Defenses Possible DUI Defenses Possible Defenses to the DUI Breath/Blood Test (see below) Beating the DUIBreath/Blood Test Successfully Challenging the Blood Test (.pdf) DUI Exception to the United States Constitution (see below) Prosecutor's Guide to Drugs (.pdf) Some of these documents require Adobe's FREE Acrobat Reader . Lawrence Taylors Speech on "The DUI Exception to the Constitution" "Mediocrity finds safety in standardization." - Frederick Crane [The following lecture, given to a group of businessmen in Washington state several years ago, is ADAPTED (with some minor editing) from the web site of the "Dean" of DUI defense, Lawrence Taylor of Long Beach, California. It is re-printed here with Larrys express permission.] See < www.duicentral.com >. I hope to convince you in the next hour, some of you, convince some of you, in the next hour that the greatest single threat to our freedoms, the freedoms set forth in our Bill of Rights to our Constitution. The single greatest threat is not from China. I dont think its from Afghanistan. I dont think its from the extremists of the Muslim world. The threat as it has always been throughout history is internal . It is from within . I do not think it is from the American Communist party or extremists on the right. I hope to convince a few of you the greatest single threat to our freedoms today is a group of American housewives. They call themselves the Mothers Against Drunk Driving, MADD. I am fully aware that some of you belong to MADD. And I am certainly not here to make fun. Many of you who are in MADD are--have had tragic losses at the hands of drunk drivers. Others of you here do not belong to MADD, but you have contributed to MADD and many more of you here, perhaps most of you here, are in complete sympathy with their goals and their activities. But I hope to convince you after one hour that you might want to reassess your view of that particular organization. And I do not take them lightly in terms of their intentions. But we know that throughout history it is the well-intentioned zealots--those who believe strongly in the rightness of their cause--that are most willing to impose those ideas upon others. I do not, by the way, for a moment suggest that we should legalize drunk driving. I'm going to make that clear at the outset. But it is the true believer who is the greatest threat. And I should at the outset acknowledge my tremendous debt to Mr. Eric Hoffer who wrote the book, The True Believer . He was a longshoreman when I was going to school at Berkeley in the 60s. He did not have a high school education, but was teaching Philosophy at the University of California Berkeley and wrote this tremendous little jewel of a book that has been terribly influential in my own thinking. I would like you to imagine for a moment that youve gone to a friends house for dinner. In the course of a very good dinner youve had a couple of glasses of a good Shiraz and it is now time to drive home. I would like you to imagine that you are on your way home--and, I will tell you parenthetically, by the way, that two glasses of wine will not, in any state, put you under the influence of alcohol or over the legal limit of .08, or .10 depending on your home state. As you are driving along the highway, you see ahead of you some flashing lights and barricades and police cars accordioned across the highway, with flashing lights directing you into an increasingly small channel. And, as you go in, you are stopped and two police officers approach you and stick a flashlight in your face and say, "Breath on me. Have you been drinking tonight? Please step out of the car." Some of you say, "Well that cant happen in the United States. We have the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which says, 'police officers have to have probable cause to stop you. They have to have a reason to believe youve done something criminal before they can stop and detain you.'" And so said the Michigan Supreme Court in the case of Sitz versus Michigan . The Supreme Court of Michigan said, "The Fourth Amendment does not permit these types of roadblocks." And reversed the DUI conviction. They went up to the United States Supreme Court, unfortunately, and that august body decided 5 to 4 that somewhere in the Constitution there is something called a DUI Exception. And in a 5 to 4 vote sent it back to Michigan saying there is no violation here. Whats interesting is the Michigan Supreme Court; bless them, for there are fewer and fewer of them, said, "Well, if you will not protect our citizens in the state of Michigan from this kind of police conduct, we will. And we again reverse the conviction and this time we rely upon our own state constitution." The state of Washington and three other states have followed suit. In 46 states today it is legal to stop you for absolutely no reason other than the fact that you are driving a car. The only purpose is to check you out for drunk driving. You have been stopped, you have been taken out of the car and you have been handcuffed. You are placed in a police vehicle and you are on your way back to the police station. About this time youre probably wondering--Ive seen this TV show somewhere--theyre supposed to read me something arent they? Something called Miranda? Arent I supposed to have a right for an attorney? Dont I have the right to remain silent? That becomes an issue because, as youre being driven to jail, the officer's asking you all kinds of questions. Like, "Where have you been?" "Where are you coming from?" "How much have you had to drink?" "How long ago was it?" "When was the last drink?" "Do you feel the effects?" "Where are you now?" "What time of day is it?" Well, again, a state Supreme Court said, "Hey, this persons handcuffed and under arrest, youve got to advise him of his constitutional rights under Miranda." And again, it went to the United States Supreme Court in the case of Berkemer vs. McCarty in 1984. The Michigan vs. Sitz case was 1990, by the way. In Berkemer vs. McCarty , the United States Supreme Court fooled around for about 20 or 30 pages of opinion and finally concluded that there was a DUI exception to the constitution. And that, "Well, we really cant tell you when youre supposed to give Miranda in a DUI case. We do know that it is later than in other types of criminal investigations." So, U.S. Supreme Court has told us we dont know when Miranda is supposed to be given in DUI cases, but it is clearly some time later. Well, about this time you arrive at the police station and the officer takes you into a room and there is this little metal box about the size of an IBM typewriter. Some of you may remember those. And he says breathe in here. And you say, "Wait a minute, I have a right to an attorney. Can I make a phone call?" "No", says the officer. And, hes right. However, this denial of access to an attorney is only applicable in DUI cases. Hes right. Youre about to give the most incriminating evidence possible to give in a DUI case and you have no right to seek the advice of an attorney as to whether to breathe into that machine or to agree to submit to a urine or a blood test, in the alternative. And Im only touching on a few of the problems. In California, for example, and in many other states, the law says you have a right to choose between breath, blood and urine. It is your choice. We have discovered in California, however, through our own Supreme Court that when the officer doesnt give you that choice--just makes you breathe into that little black box--thats okay. Theyre not supposed to do it, but theres no remedy. Theres nothing that can be done about it, so says the California Supreme Court. You cant suppress the evidence. Police are not stupid, so now about half of them simply dont give you that choice, since nothings going to happen if they dont. So, you find out that you have no right to consult with an attorney. Your next thought is, "I dont know if I trust that little machine. Maybe I should refuse to breathe into it. I think Im okay because, because as I remember, theres a Fifth Amendment right in the United States Constitution that I dont have to incriminate myself, and, not only that, but if it goes to trial, the prosecutor cannot even refer to the fact that Ive exercised my Fifth Amendment right." The South Dakota Supreme Court, in Neville vs. South Dakota agreed a few years ago and they said, "This gentleman refused to incriminate himself by breathing into that machine and it was reversible error for the prosecutor to comment upon that to the jury and tell them that he refused, because he knew he was guilty." Now youre probably ahead of me, guessing the outcome here. It went to the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court, in South Dakota vs. Neville in 1983 said, "Theres a DUI exception to the Fifth Amendment. There is no right to refuse and the prosecution can comment freely in trial upon that refusal." And they sent it back to South Dakota. And South Dakota said, "If you in Washington, DC will not protect our citizens, we will rely upon our own state constitution," and they reversed it again based upon the South Dakota constitutions provisions against self-incrimination. Unfortunately, thats the last story I have of the State Supreme Court exercising protections of its own citizens. So, you decide youre going to breathe into that machine. And you do. You breathe into one end and out comes a piece of paper at the other end that says your blood alcohol concentration is 0.13. Now, at this point, in most states, the police are supposed to give you a choice as to whether you want urine or a blood saved as well, so that you have something for your defense attorney to examine with an independent analysis rather than rely upon a crime lab of that very same law enforcement agency. This is called the Trombetta Advisement. They dont give it usually. Theyre supposed to, but if they dont, no harm, no foul and so it is rarely done. Its called the Trombetta Advisement because a few years ago, in 1984, a defendant in California said, "Wait a minute, that machine captured my breath and minutes after analyzing it, just purged it into the room air. It could have saved the breath. (Very easy to do. Costs about $1.50 per sample utilizing a special kit to just preserve it.) It could have saved the breath and then my attorney could have had it analyzed by a separate laboratory by a more exact and reliable testing method. You have destroyed evidence that I could have analyzed and may have been exculpatory." This went to the United States Supreme Court and in 1984 in the landmark case of Trombetta vs. California , the Supreme Court found yet another DUI exception to the Constitution and said "Well, it would be nice if they saved the breath, but theres no obligation to do so. And, destruction of that evidence, unless you can prove that it would have been exculpatory, has no impact." So, today it is all right to destroy the evidence after you get your own results and make sure the defense doesnt get access to it. Finally, youre rather outraged because you know youre not under the influence. You know youre not over .08, which is the California standard and the standard in about a third of the states today. And in 5 years will be the standard in all of your states because the federal government is telling you thats what its going to be. And the Mothers Against Drunk Driving are ensuring that happens. You decide to go find one of these people completely without any social value and ask them to represent you in trial. You want to tell a jury of 12 of your peers what happened. You want to give your version. So you tell your attorney, "I want a jury trial." Your attorney says, "I am really sorry, but you cant have one. You see we dont have jury trials for DUI cases in this state, because in 1989 the United States Supreme Court in Blanton versus North Las Vegas , a DUI case, said, "There is no Constitutional right to a jury trial in a DUI case, so long as its not punishable by more than six months in jail." So, in several states today, including Nevada, Louisiana, New Jersey and Hawaii you have no right to a jury trial. And the Mothers Against Drunk Driving and a few other organizations are doing everything they can to make sure there are no jury trial rights in other states as well. All right, weve taken a look at what happens to you as you go through the process in terms of any Constitutional rights you thought you had. And if youd been charged with burglary, murder, rape, you would have had those rights. At least for now, until THOSE rights are taken away, utilizing the same "necessity" argument used for DUI prosecutions. Now, lets take a look at what the crime or DUI really is. What is the offense you just committed? I will tell you, that when I have clients come in the door, almost none of them know what the crime is, and probably half of them dont know if theyre guilty or not. In the beginning there was a law. That law said thou shalt not drive under the influence of alcohol. Period. It was a good law. We need it. It addressed the problem. It was fair. Unfortunately, there were some defendants being acquitted, after they sought trial with a skilled trial attorney. And so an inventor came along and said, "Well, Ive got this super neat little gizmo here. I will call it the Breathomatic. Its a box and if you breathe in this end, out the other end comes this piece of paper and itll tell you exactly how much alcohol is in the persons blood, which is telling you about impairment of the brain." Well, that sounded pretty cool. And so legislators and prosecutors and MADD approached the American Medical Association and said, "Weve got this great machine. Can you tell us at what level of alcohol concentration a person is impaired in their ability to drive a vehicle?" And the AMA said, "After extensive research it is 0.15 grams percent." This was about 30 years ago... 0.15 percent. Well, that was okay for a while, but a whole lot of people STILL were not getting convicted. Part of the problem was there was only a presumption that you were under the influence. In other words, the jury could accept if you were over a .15 that you were under the influence, or they could reject it and say other evidence shows that he wasnt under the influence. Second problem is that a lot of people were coming in at 0.13, 0.14, 0.12. Third problem is, you were 0.15 at the time of the test in the station, but what were you an hour earlier when you were driving? So, those organizations went back to the AMA a few years later and said, "Are you sure about that 0.15. Couldnt it really be a little lower?" And the AMA said, "You know, youre right. Its a 0.10." Now, the human body, to my knowledge, had not changed in those 20 years, but certainly the American Medical Associations research did. And replied to considerable political pressure. So, now jurors were told that they could presume guilt if there was a .10%. A dramatic change in "the number". Unfortunately, there were still skilled criminal defense lawyers out there and there were still acquittals, and the Mothers Against Drunk Driving, a very effective, very well financed organization, as some of you here know, was very successful by working through a federal agency called National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in putting pressure on states to FURTHER drop it to .08%. And I indicated earlier, about a third of the states have done exactly that, the others are following suit. Well, theres no question, there are fewer acquittals now and the prosecutors were increasing their conviction rate. But, there were still some acquittals. And so MADD and the other federal agencies decided to change the law further. More accurately, MADD came up with another law. This is called the per se law . If we cant convince jurors that a person is under the influence over .08 we can make it a crime to merely drive while having a BAC over .08. The crime is being over .08 per se. We dont care if theyre intoxicated or impaired. If the person has a BAC level over .08%, or .10% blood-alcohol perhaps, in your state; that is a crime. Not only that, lets keep the original law. So, now we give the prosecutors two shots to obtain a conviction whenever a test is taken by a suspect. If they cant convince the jury hes under the influence, well then maybe they can convince them he was over .08, even though he was not under the influence and visa versa. Well, this once again certainly increased the conviction rate, and the number of acquittals continued to drop. But there was a problem. Acquittals were still happening. New, creative and detailed attacks began challenging the technology involved in breath alcohol analysis. The gist of the attacks by criminal defense lawyers was based on the machine, to put it simplistically, assuming that you are an average person. Okay? It is measuring the breath. It is supposed to be measuring the alcohol in the vapor of the alveolar air in the deep lungs that you expel, and is analyzed in the machine. The machine is telling you how much alcohol is in the blood. Not in the breath. There is what we call a partition ratio . To put it simplistically, the machine has a very primitive Z80 computer inside it. There are different machines, but the computers will all report, "Well, if youve got this "result" from the breath, there must be 2100 times as much in the blood!" Using a multiplier inside the little computer, thats what it prints out. But the computer is assuming that your partition ratio is 2100. Problem? Very few people have a partition ratio of 2100 to 1. It ranges anywhere from about 1100-to-one up to 3500-to-one and higher. And there is no way of knowing at the time of testing what your partition ratio was because medical studies have shown that the partition ratio changes within an individual all the time. One person is going to be very different than the person sitting next to him. Your partition ratio tomorrow is going to be different than what it is right now at this hour. Well, what does that mean? It means if you blow, let's say, a 0.11 and you have a 1300-to-one partition ratio, that 0.11 is really 0.07. Youre innocent. Your crime, unfortunately, was not being average. Well, a few defense attorneys were able to master the technology involved and attorneys usually go to law school because they failed physics, chemistry and so on in college. But, a few of these defense attorneys were actually learning how this machine worked. And they thought, "Whoa! Theres an assumption here, 2100-to-one," and they cross-examined the expert from the law enforcements crime lab and said, "Isnt it a fact?" And the guy would hem and haw and so on, and say, "Well, yeah." Acquittal . The 2100 to 1 ratio issue is still a viable defense in a lot of states. Not in California anymore. In California, our Supreme Court, which is slightly to the right of the U.S. Supreme Court, said, "No, not really because see what youre doing is youre measuring the alcohol on the breath. Youre not measuring the blood directly, youre measuring on the breath, and therefore we dont have to have a partition ratio." Now, you probably dont appreciate the complete idiocy of that statement, because the California Supreme Court did not understand the technology involved. And it was an eight-to-one decision. The dissenting justice said, Joyce Kenner had said, "Do you realize that we just created a new crime called driving with "alcohol on your breath"? And she was absolutely right. Thats what the Supreme Court of California did. Result? If I now ask a law enforcement crime lab expert on the stand in front of a jury, "Isnt it a fact that the partition ratio you used assumes an average of 2100-to-one?" I will be held in contempt of court and jailed by the judge. If I try to bring out the truth, I will be jailed as a criminal defense attorney. Im not exaggerating. And Im telling you that this is true in approximately four other states. I have lectured in 36 states to lawyers' groups, bar associations, and so on, so Im somewhat familiar with the different states and their different approaches. All of which are becoming much more standardized as the Federal Government continues to step in. Well, that made things a lot easier for prosecutors to convict in California. Again, the conviction rate continued to go up. It became more and more difficult to defend people accused of drunk driving. I did not say "guilty". Accused of drunk driving. Well, but theres still lots of defenses left, because, as I will I hope I will have time to get into, this machine is, to say the least, unreliable. But one of the problems is called retrograde extrapolation . And I alluded to it earlier. And that is, well its all well and good, he was a 0.11 at the time that he breathed into the machine at the police station. But its not against the law to be over a 0.08 in a police station. Its against the law to drive a car over 0 .08. What was it at the time he was driving? Well, that caused prosecutors a lot of problems. And so most states, almost all states, passed a new law with the assistance of the Mothers Against Drunk Driving. And that law said, "Any test within three hours that results in a blood alcohol reading, it shall be presumed that it was the same at the time of driving." Even though we know absolutely, as a matter of science, fact, that that is not true. Well, that again raised the conviction rate, except it was a rebuttable presumption. In other words, you could introduce evidence that that simply wasnt true. And so now, to make a depressingly long story short, some states are beginning to pass laws saying that the crime is having over .08 at the time you breath into the machine. And they dont care what you were when you were driving the car. Notice how weve gotten further and further and further away from the evil we were trying to cure. And that is: "Were you impaired by alcohol when you were driving your car?" Okay. Lets take a look at this machine. The vast majority--in most states there is no urine test, and if there is a blood test, youre usually not going to have access to it for later, independent analysis. In the vast majority of cases, because its cheap, easy and fast, youre going to be breathing into one of these machines. Let me just give you a real quick rundown on breath test device "theory". Incidentally, the book I wrote on Drunk Driving is about 1200 pages in length, of which nearly 400 pages are just on the technology of breath machines, so this is going to be very cursory. But, I think, for purposes of illustrating some of the problems, it will help. Basically just taking, as I said, the alveolar air, injecting it through a tube into a sample chamber and capturing it in that chamber. Its a little 81 cc tube. Nickel-plated in most of the machines. And, by the way, there are a lot of different manufacturers of these different machines, different types, but well get into that in a moment. These machines rust and corrode inside. The sample chamber gets pitted, it absorbs or retains in these "pockets" alcohol from previous subjects, and so on. But lets just say for purposes of theory it captures a sample, a given volume of lung air, alveolar air. At one end it has a projector that projects infrared energy, infrared light, a beam through the chamber. The light passes through your breath that is passing through that little chamber. Now, at the other end of the chamber is a detector that "receives" the light from the other side. It then measures how much of this infrared energy gets ABSORBED and does not reach the other side of the chamber, where the detector is located. It "measures" this DIMUNITION of light by comparing the original intensity of the light to the diminished intensity of the light, multiples it by 2100, and spits out "a number". Now the theory of infrared spectroscopy, as applied to DUI cases, states that there is a part of a compound called the methyl group and that any compound containing the methyl group, will absorb the energy from this light wave that is traveling at 3.61 microns. The theory further holds that one of those compounds is ethanol , ethyl alcohol. Molecules of ethyl alcohol contain the methyl group as part of its structure. It is resonant with this particular frequency of light wave. So, the more ethyl alcohol in the sample chamber, the more energy is going to be absorbed, the less will get through to the receptor, the higher the blood-alcohol reading will go. Actually, the CONCEPT is fairly simple. Except, again, it is absorbed not only by ethyl alcohol, but also by the methyl group in any similar compound. In other words, it is a stupid machine. It does not differentiate between ethyl alcohol and any other compound. It is what we call "non-specific" for ethanol. Any compound on your breath that contains the methyl group will be detected as alcohol, and reported as alcohol. If you happen to have 32 different compounds containing the methyl group on your breath, it not only will report them all as alcohol, it is cumulative. It will add all of those, including any ethyl alcohol, and then report it in "a number" as ethanol. So, do any of these methyl groups exist in the human breath? There are a number of scientific studies--one of which indicates that there are 102 different compounds found in the human breath that can contain the methyl group. So what you are getting is not necessarily alcohol. What you are getting is some unknown cumulative reading of any of these compounds on your breath. If you had been painting a house yesterday, today you would be registering alcohol on our breath machine. If you had been using solvents, or thinners or glue or anything like this, same result. If you had pumped gasoline into your car and inhaled any of the fumes, hours, even days later, you could be breathing out vapors containing compounds with the methyl group in it. Now the second major problem Ive already mentioned or alluded to, and that is the partition ratio. It is becoming less of a problem as the legal system chooses to pass laws or make rulings that outlaw, essentially, science. A third, and this is just the last example I will give you, is called the mouth alcohol phenomenon . The machine assumes that the alcohol, or whatever it is measuring comes from your breath, and thats why it's multiplying by 2100. Obviously, if it is getting alcohol directly from your stomach or your throat or your mouth, its going to fool the machine and the results are going to go extremely high. It would take a minuscule amount of alcohol in your mouth, throat or stomach to fool the machine and create a pretty high BAC reading. This is called the trapped alcohol or mouth alcohol problem . So, if for example, you burp or belch, and any gases from your stomach, or you have reflux condition, or a hiatal hernia, and any of those gases or liquids "come up" your esophagus, and remnants of the saturated gas will stay there for about 15 to 20 minutes before saliva dissipates it. It will be breathed into the machine, if you are being tested. The machine will report an unknown amount, which will be falsely high. It does not mean youre under the influence. It does not mean youre REALLY an 0.08. Its simply that you had alcohol in your mouth, your throat or your stomach. The police officers are supposed to guard against this by observing you for 20 minutes. They are supposed to sit down and watch you for 20 minutes before giving the test. In all the years that I have been defending, or for that matter prosecuting, DUIs, I dont think Ive ever encountered an officer who actually did that. They are far too busy to fool around with things like that. They will check the box, and SAY they did, but it does not happen and Im not sure they could even tell if a belch DID happen. The 20-minute OBSERVATION period is a safeguard, but one that the police ignore. So, these are just three examples. There are hundreds of things wrong with these machines, not just theoretically, but applied to the machines themselves. How accurate are they? Theyre accurate-- they're close enough for government work. In California, for example, the standards of accuracy---by law---are that you MUST have duplicate analysis (two sequential tests) and each result must be within 0.02% of the other. That means you'd have to take two tests. If the first one, just to use a number to make it mathematically easy, if the first one is 0.10%, the next one has to be 0.08, 0.09, 0.10, 0.11 or 0.12. Think about it: a 40% range of error is scientifically accurate in a case where the State must prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In most states, a 40% range of error is considered to be "acceptable accuracy". Good enough for GOVERNMENT work. The people that make these machines---and I have never referred to them as instruments--- the people that make these machines keep coming out with new models. Theyll come out with a model and call it "state-of-the-art", "foolproof", "fail-safe", and then two years later they come out with a new model that takes care of all of the problems found to have existed with the first model. Meanwhile 100,000 people have been tested on the "old" device (which is quietly "retired" from service), yet none of those convicted can re-open their guilty pleas, or undo the damage done to their lives and careers by the MACHINE. Then a competing breath manufacturing company comes out with a new and improved model that takes care of the "problems" with their competitors new model. And this is a fairly regular battle of the manufacturers, year after year. If you look at the warranties---it is sort of interesting---none of the breath machine manufacturers warrant these things to actually test blood alcohol. If you read the warranties, there is no warranty for "fitness for a particular purpose". That's a legal phrase. Basically it means they dont want to get sued by somebody if there is a false reading. So they will not even warrant these things to do what theyre selling them to do. The standard warranty, for a total breakdown of the device, is about one year--about what your toaster is warranted for. Similar warranty periods. The difference between the two machines? Your toaster is warranted to toast bread. Okay. Science and law. Right off the bat weve got a problem. Science, if you can define it, would be, I would say, the systematic pursuit of truth. The objectives of law are very different. It is a governmental mechanism for imposing order, structure, predictability, security, and confidence of the public in its institutions . The law is not concerned with truth. It is important to understand the entire DUI field. To understand it you must understand the difference. Hundreds of years ago a guy named Galileo said, "the universe is really not FLAT, the way the Vatican says it is". You saw what happened to Galileo. The government, for saying such things, based on SCIENCE, executed him . Have we progressed? Not if a lawyer tries to tell the truth to a jury about the LIMITATIONS of a breath machine, and, in doing so, is thrown in jail for properly and zealously representing his/her client. I would say we have not come all that far since Galileos days. Now lastly, as to what youre looking at as you imagine going through these different procedures, I would just very briefly, as to punishment, rather than going through all the horrors of DUI punishment today, complexities of punishment today, other than to say in California youre better off as a first offense burglar or for committing felony grand theft than you are as a first time misdemeanor DUI offender. At least as a felon, you can request "first offender treatment", or possibly "conditional discharge" for some fairly serious crimes, but such a "record-clearing" solution is UNAVAILABLE for all DUI offenders. In closing, I will comment on two things. The Mothers Against Drunk Driving have been very active recently in trying to get "Scarlet Letter" laws passed. They almost did it two months ago in California. Came close. The Scarlet Letter law is: if you are convicted of a DUI, you must have a big bright red license plate saying the big scarlet letter "DUI" on it. Your wife has to drive it. Your kids have to drive it. You would not be able to rent a car, whatsoever, because the tag would be lacking your "badge" of dishonor. You must carry that brand on you, says MADD. It must remain with you for as long as you drive a car for whatever period of time. It did not pass last time. But, as MADD knows, there is NEXT YEAR. The other comment is about a case many of you may have heard about in North Carolina. Now, we have never executed people, weve never, until recently, given the death penalty for a crime unless there was pre-meditation of the offender. Intention to kill and time to reflect upon that and then to carry out the plan and cold-bloodedly murder. Some exceptions have been added: Killing a police officer; multiple murders; murder by torture; murder for ransom. In North Carolina this year there was a DUI case involving an accident. Another person died. It would, in any other case, in another state, likely be a vehicular manslaughter case. It was not an intentional act. It was negligent; it may have been reckless. And the prosecutor sought the death penalty. The death penalty. Fortunately, they didnt get it. My understanding is that the defendant was convicted of MURDER and only received LIFE IN PRISON, but I dont know. So, in the DUI field you have unfair procedures. You have false evidence. You have wholesale erosion of rights. But, some may rationalize, "at least the DUI-caused fatalities are falling correct?" If you believe the statistics from the Mothers Against Drunk Driving and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, that would be correct. If you look at it more closely, youll find they start using terms like "alcohol-involved", "alcohol-related", and those statistics start changing to justify what they have been doing for the last few years. The numbers have been gerrymandered so that if ANY person involved in ANY way in the "accident" had ANY alcohol in his/her system (even 0.01 per cent), MADD counts that (and our federal government counts that) as an "alcohol-related" death. So, what is happening in the DUI field? Same thing thats always been happening. The real danger to your lives, to my children and your childrens lives, are from recidivists. Statistically overwhelmingly, the risk lies with recidivists. People that have driven drunk repeatedly. Which is a relatively, despite what MADD says, a relatively small percentage of those who are arrested. Problem? How do you reach those people? Can you affect the incidence of death caused by DUIs by increasing the punishment? As to those recidivists, and I tell you--no. You are trying to use the legal system to address what is at least a medical, perhaps psychological, but in my opinion, absolutely a genetic problem. Now that sounds like an easy cop-out for me. I wrote a book about 15 years ago called Born to Crime, The Genetic Causes of Criminal Behavior, so I suppose that I am a little bit biased, but Im basing what I say upon defending thousands and prosecuting thousands of DUIs and Im absolutely convinced that it is genetic in origin. And I think the studies, and one of the chapters of that book Born to Crime was devoted to alcoholism--the studies are overwhelming. If my own experiences with clients have not been, those studies certainly are. And so long as you have a system that is geared to behavioral modification--that is, "were going to change his drinking habits by putting him in jail for six months", or deterrence"were going to stop other recidivists from driving drunk because of the deterrent effect", then youre fooling yourselves. Do I have an answer? No, I dont. But I know that system isnt working, and in the meantime you are destroying the Constitutional rights that weve all previously enjoyed. Since 1979, when Candy Lightner started MADD, those all-important rights have taken a blood bath. Again, the legal system is not concerned with truth. And it may come as a shock, but it is not. It is concerned with order, stability. If the legal system were seeking truth, the government would not falsely assume that theres a 2100 to 1 partition ratio. If the legal system cared about truth, they would not conclusively presume that your blood-alcohol was the same "number" three hours earlier, when the government knows it is not. If they sought truth, they would recognize that these machines are non-specific, among other problems. The legal system is not concerned with justice, either. It is concerned with expediency, not justice. If they were concerned with justice, they would not permit roadblocks. They would not presume guilt. They would not pass laws refuting scientific truth. I just said, "They would not presume guilt." That was another DUI exception to the constitution that I didnt tell you about. One other thing the police officer does after he has you breathe into that machine, if youre over .08, is that he immediately grabs your license and confiscates it. This is another contribution from MADD. Immediate seizure of the license in about 48 of the states today. On the spot. Justice administered by the police officer. No judge. No jury. You are presumed guilty. Your license is confiscated and you are given a notice of suspension. What happened to the presumption of innocence? Well, its that DUI exception again. You are presumed guilty. To make matters even worse, about 5 years ago a California "proposition" was placed on the ballot. The question: "Should we, the people of California, eliminate our STATE constitutional rights, and only retain those constitutional rights REQUIRED to be kept by the United States Constitution?" Amazingly, after a well-financed television campaign by ultra-right groups who found the Constitution to be a shield for criminals, the people of California voted to NOT HAVE ANY STATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS! For the first time in recorded human history a democratic group abandoned hard-earned rights and legal protections that their forefathers has sweated, bled and died to obtain. Welcome to America! Welcome to "the land of the free and the home of the brave." Return Home
|
|
Blood alcohol level is The University of Florida Police Department - Safety Tips - Alcohol Safety ALCOHOL SAFETY Increased public attention to driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) has resulted in tougher penalties for drivers in Florida. The following information is provided to help explain the law in Florida and provided information for the public to make informed decisions about drinking and driving. ALCOHOL LEVELS AND PRESUMED IMPAIRMENT Blood alcohol level is a measure of the amount of alcohol a person has in the bloodstream. Breath alcohol level is a measure of the amount of alcohol vapor a person has in their breath. Blood and breath alcohol levels have become a standard indicator of intoxication. It is difficult to prove that a persons driving ability is impaired without the definition by law of a blood or breath alcohol level. Therefore, the interpretation of evidence in cases of driving under the influence of alcohol is supported by the legal definition of a 0.08 or more blood or breath alcohol level. Blood alcohol is measured in terms of weight of alcohol compared to volume of blood. A 0.08 blood alcohol level indicates 0.08 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood. A 0.08 breath alcohol level indicates 0.08 grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. According to the National Highway Safety Traffic Administration, extensive research shows that alcohol impairs driving-related tasks such as divided attention, comprehension, reaction time, and coordination. As alcohol levels increase, performance decreases; there is no minimum threshold for alcohol effects. Some performance degradation is observed at any measurable alcohol level. Under Florida law, a blood or breath alcohol level of 0.08 is prima facie evidence that a person is under the influence of alcohol to the extent that normal faculties are impaired and, therefore, is guilty of DUI, regardless of the persons actual degree of intoxication or impairment (s.316.1934 (3), F.S.). It is not necessary for the prosecutor in a DUI case to prove that the persons driving ability was impaired by alcohol at the time of the arrest; it is necessary only to prove that the persons blood or breath alcohol level was above the 0.08 threshold. The 0.08 level only establishes a legal presumption of impairment. Some individuals would be considered impaired at a lower blood or breath alcohol level, while other individuals may have a greater tolerance and not be as impaired at a higher level. Conversely, the 0.08 level does not establish a legal limit for drinking. A person may be convicted of DUI with an alcohol level lower than 0.08 if a prosecutor can show that the persons driving was impaired by alcohol, though proving impairment is more difficult than proving blood or breath alcohol level. The alcohol level threshold simply establishes a level above which most individuals driving would be considered to be impaired. The assumption is that any individual driving with that much alcohol in their blood or breath presents a danger to others. IMPLIED CONSENT By accepting and using a Florida driver license, a person agrees to submit to a chemical or physical test of their blood or breath alcohol level and a urine test for drugs and other controlled substances when arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (s.316.1932, F.S.). A person may refuse to take the tests; however, this will result in a one-year suspension of the persons driver license for the first refusal or an 18-month suspension for subsequent refusals. These suspensions are in addition to any revocations that may be imposed by the court upon a DUI conviction. An individual who is unconscious or otherwise incapable of refusal is deemed not to have withdrawn consent. Non-residents and others who do not have to obtain Florida driver licenses are considered to have expressed consent to the tests by the act of driving in Florida. Tests must be conducted according to procedures established by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Blood samples for testing may be drawn only by licensed medical practitioners or laboratory technicians. Individuals who are tested by the police may, at their own expense, have an independent test conducted. Drivers in crashes which result in death or serious bodily injury to a human being may be compelled by the investigating officer to submit to tests for alcoholic content and the presence of chemical or controlled substances. In this case, the law enforcement officer is permitted to use reasonable force, if necessary, to obtain a sample for testing (s.316.1933, F.S.). 0.02% THRESHOLD FOR PERSONS UNDER 21 Due to the increasing numbers of alcohol-related crashes involving drivers under the age of 21, additional restrictions have been imposed (Chapter 96-272, Laws of Florida). Effective January 1, 1997, anyone under 21 years of age with an alcohol level of 0.02 or above found driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle will lose their driving privilege for six months, or one year for a second or subsequent alcohol-related suspension. Refusing to be tested results in a license suspension of one year, or 18 months for a second or subsequent refusal. A violation of this section is not a criminal offense, but will result in an administrative suspension administered by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. When a driver under 21 years of age receives an administrative roadside suspension for an alcohol level of 0.02 or above, the drivers license is confiscated and a ten-day temporary driving permit is issued along with the notice of suspension. The driver then has ten days to request either a formal or an informal review by the Division of Driver Licenses. DUI PENALTIES The penalty for a first DUI conviction is: * A fine from $250 to $500, * Imprisonment for up to six months, * Monthly reporting probation for a period not exceeding one year and with a requirement for a minimum of 50 hours of community service work (the total period of imprisonment plus probation may not exceed one year). * Completion of an approved substance abuse course specified by the court. A referral to substance abuse treatment may be required in some cases. * Revocation of the driver license for at least 180 days and up to one year. * If the offender has an alcohol level of 0.20 or greater, the possible fine is doubled to between $500 and $1,000 and the imprisonment increased to a period of up to nine months. Subsequent DUI convictions result in increased fines and prison terms. In addition, for a second conviction within five years, the court is required to sentence the violator to at least ten days in jail and revoke the offenders driver license for at least five years. For a third conviction within ten years of the first, the required sentence is at least ten years. A person who is convicted of a fourth and subsequent DUI may be charged with a third degree felony. Multiple DUI felony convictions may subject the individual to the provisions of the habitual offender law (s.775.084, F.S.), resulting in a longer prison term. If a DUI offenders behavior results in injury to, or damage to the property of, another person, the offender may be found guilty of a first degree misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for up to one year and a fine of up to $1,000. A DUI offender who causes serious bodily injury to another person may be found guilty of a third degree felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000. If the DUI offenders actions cause the death of a human being, the offender may be found guilty of DUI manslaughter, a second degree felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000. In the course of making an arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol, a law enforcement officer is authorized to suspend immediately the driver license of any individual who either refuses to submit to a breath, urine, or blood test or is tested and has a blood or breath alcohol level of 0.08 or greater. If the result of the test is not immediately available, the Division of Driver Licenses will suspend the license upon receiving notice that an arrest for DUI was made. When a driver receives a roadside suspension for DUI, the drivers license is confiscated and a 30-day temporary driving permit is issued along with the notice of suspension for six months for the first offense and one year for subsequent offenses. The driver then has ten days to request either a formal or informal review by the Division of Driver Licenses. ALCOHOL POSSESSION AND OPEN CONTAINER LAWS Florida Law prohibits the possession of open containers of alcoholic beverages by the driver and passengers of most motor vehicles. An open container is defined as "any container that is immediately capable of being consumed from, or the seal of which has been broken". Open containers must be carried in a locked glove compartment, locked trunk, or other locked non-passenger area of the vehicle. The driver of a vehicle with an open container anywhere else in the vehicle, yet not in the physical control of the container, is guilty of a non-criminal moving violation and subject to a fine. A passenger found in possession of an open container of alcohol is guilty of a non-moving violation, punishable by a fine. According to Gainesville City Ordinance, it is unlawful for any person to consume or be in possession of any alcoholic beverage in an open container on any public street, sidewalk, or publicly owned parking facility in the city. The same holds for private property when the owner has not given consent to consume alcohol or have an open container on the property. It is also unlawful to consume or be in possession of any alcoholic beverage in the stands, stadium, or grounds of Florida Field on the University of Florida campus. Florida Law prohibits anyone under the age of 21 from possessing an alcoholic beverage. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $500 and/or sixty days in jail. For further information on this or others safety topics please contact the University of Florida Police Departments Community Services Division at 392-1409.
|
|
DWI lawyers, attorneys, and DWI DUI OWI OUI Driving in Delaware DUI DWI: International Referral Database of DUI, DWI, Impairedand DrunkDriving, Drinking and Driving, Lawyers & Attorneys State orProvince | County | Region | Attorneys | Courthouses | License & Traffic Offices | Legislation | Instruments | Standards | Experts | Articles Add Attorney | Add Courthouse | AddDMV Office | Add Legislation | AddInstrument | Add Standards Home | Debate | AddingYour Firm | Words are used in Canada? DUI | DWI | DrunkDriving | Drinkingand Driving | DUI Laws | DWILaws | Ontariodui | Ontario dui laws | ImpairedDriving | TorontoDUI | BramptonDUI | MississaugaDUI DUI : Driving Under the Influence; DWI : Driving While Intoxicated;OUI: Operating Under the Inflence; OWI: Operating While Intoxicated; ImpairedDriving: Impaired in Canada to Slightest Degree; Over 80: Excess BAC alcohol inCanada over 80 mg/100mL; Care or Control: Occupy seat normallyoccupied by operator in Canada, act or series of acts involving useof car , fittings or equipment This is a database of Delaware dui laws information that has been contributed by dui attorneys in Delaware . All Delaware dui defense counsel are welcome to join the International Referral Database of DUI, DWI, Impaired and Drunk Driving, Lawyers & Attorneys . A Delaware attorney is your best source of legal information about dui law in Delaware . Delaware legislation respecting dui can be found by clicking on "DUI and DWI Legislation" below. Delaware dui attorneys attend dui court at the dui "DUI Courthouses and DWI Courthouses" Directory link below. Breath instruments used in Delaware dui investigations are also linked at "BAC Instruments Used in DUI Court and DWI Court Cases" below as well as "DUI and DWI Breath and Blood Collection Standards", that is dui alcohol test standards for Delaware . The "Summaries of Delaware dui Law" page contains short summaries of Delaware dui laws on a single page provided by each Delaware attorney who has chosen to participate. This is an excellent DUI page to print. The Delaware "First Appearance in dui Court" page contains basic information about what to do before and at dui Court in Delaware . It is a good idea to "Be Early for dui Court in Delaware for the reasons linked below . Find out "What to Wear to Delaware dui Court". Information is also provided respecting government dui DMV MOT facilities in "Directory of Motor Vehicle Offices" for Delaware . If you have been charged with dui in Delaware , please consult a Delaware dui lawyer or Delaware dui attorney forthwith . Delaware attorneys who wish to participate in this database should visit the AddingYour Firm page. We welcome DUI lawyers, attorneys, and barristers who speak languages other than English as well as DWI lawyers, attorneys, and barristers who practise outside Canada and the United States. In the future we hope to provide this database in French, Polish, Spanish and other languages. Please provide your suggestions to biss@lawyers.ca . Delaware DWI DUI OWI OUI Information Summaries of DUI Law DWI Law for Delaware What to Do On DUI Court DWI Court First Appearance What to Wear to DUI Court DWI COurt Being Early for DUI Court and DWI Court Directory of DUI Courthouses and DWI Courthouses in Delaware Directory of Motor Vehicle Offices BAC Instruments used in DUI Court and DWI Court Cases DUI and DWI Breath and Blood Collection Standards and Departments Responsible DUI and DWI Legislation in Delaware Substantive DUI/DWI/Excess Alcohol Offense DUI DWI Refusal Offense/Presumption DUI DWI Administrative Driver's License Suspension Drinking and Driving Procedure/Evidence DUI DWI Penalties Suspension on Conviction, Prohibition DUI DWI Drive While Suspended Offense Immigration, Exclusion of Visitors resulting from DWI DUI Reciprocal DUI DWI Agreements Constitutional Rights in DUI DWI Cases Other Criminal Non-DUI Non-DWI Legislation DUI Attorneys DWI Attorneys - Lists by County in Delaware List of DUI Attorneys DWI Attorneys and Practice Descriptions Avocats DUI,DWI, droit criminel Adwokaci DUI,DWI, prawo kryminalne List of DUI Forensic Experts, DWI Forensic Experts and Practice Descriptions State/Province DUI DWI Data and Links to DUI DWI Statutes The Impaired Driving Checklist The Drinking Driver's worksheet DUI DWI and Criminal Defense Character Reference Letters Articles and Writings Delaware DUI Attorney DWI Attorney Articles and Writings Delaware DUI Lawyer DWI Lawyer Articles and Writings Delaware Drunk Driving Attorney Articles and Writings Delaware Drunk Driving Lawyer Articles and Writings AddDL Click Here to Contact a DUI-Help.com Attorney in Delaware Now Lawyers and DUI Information in Delaware Cities and Towns Sponsored by: dui DUI-Help Delaware dui Attorney DUI Attorneys in Arden , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Arden, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Ardencroft , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Ardencroft, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Ardentown , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Ardentown, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Bear , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Bear, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Bellefonte , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Bellefonte, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Bethany Beach , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Bethany Beach, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Bethel , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Bethel, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Blades , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Blades, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Bowers , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Bowers, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Bridgeville , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Bridgeville, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Brookside , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Brookside, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Camden , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Camden, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Cheswold , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Cheswold, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Claymont , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Claymont, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Clayton , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Clayton, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Dagsboro , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Dagsboro, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Delaware , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Delaware, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Delmar , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Delmar, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Dewey Beach , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Dewey Beach, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Dover , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Dover, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Dover Base Housing , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Dover Base Housing, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Edgemoor , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Edgemoor, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Ellendale , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Ellendale, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Elsmere , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Elsmere, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Farmington , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Farmington, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Felton , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Felton, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Fenwick Island , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Fenwick Island, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Frankford , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Frankford, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Frederica , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Frederica, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Georgetown , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Georgetown, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Glasgow , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Glasgow, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Greenville , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Greenville, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Greenwood , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Greenwood, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Harrington , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Harrington, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Hartly , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Hartly, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Henlopen Acres , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Henlopen Acres, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Highland Acres , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Highland Acres, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Hockessin , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Hockessin, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Houston , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Houston, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Kent Acres , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Kent Acres, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Kenton , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Kenton, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Laurel , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Laurel, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Leipsic , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Leipsic, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Lewes , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Lewes, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Little Creek , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Little Creek, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Long Neck , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Long Neck, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Magnolia , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Magnolia, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Middletown , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Middletown, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Milford , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Milford, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Millsboro , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Millsboro, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Millville , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Millville, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Milton , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Milton, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in New Castle , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys New Castle, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Newark , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Newark, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Newport , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Newport, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in North Star , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys North Star, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Ocean View , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Ocean View, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Odessa , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Odessa, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Pike Creek , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Pike Creek, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Rehoboth Beach , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Rehoboth Beach, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Rising Sun-Lebanon , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Rising Sun-Lebanon, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Riverview , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Riverview, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Rodney , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Rodney, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Seaford , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Seaford, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Selbyville , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Selbyville, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Slaughter Beach , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Slaughter Beach, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Smyrna , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Smyrna, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in South Bethany , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys South Bethany, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Townsend , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Townsend, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Viola , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Viola, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Wilmington , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Wilmington, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Wilmington Manor , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Wilmington Manor, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Woodside , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Woodside, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Woodside East , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Woodside East, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Wyoming , Delaware DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Wyoming, DE DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers 1873 | DUI DWI Practice Descriptions, Links, andProfiles | DUI DWI Summaries of Law | Searchby Region, County, City | First Appearance inDUI Court DWI Court | MembersOnly | AddYour Firm | Delete | Privacy | For Ontario DUIDWI impaired driving criminal law information please visit www.lawyers.ca See also TorontoDUI For more information respecting this database or to report misuse contact: AllbissLawdata Ltd. , 303-470 Hensall Circle, Mississauga,Ontario, Canada, L5A 3V4. Theauthor and the participants make no representation or warranty whatsoeveras to the authenticity and reliability of the information contained herein.Advertisement.Theselawyers do not practice in association. WARNING: All informationcontained herein is provided for the purpose of providing basic information onlyand should not be construed as formal legal advice. The authors disclaim any andall liability resulting from reliance upon such information. You are stronglyencouraged to seek professional legal advice before relying upon any of theinformation contained herein. Legal advice should be sought directly from aproperly retained lawyer or attorney.
|
|
DUI / DWI, Drinking 
