DUI Insurance

Field Sobriety Testing In

Field Sobriety Testing In Illinois - Science V. Law - DUI Attorney Illinois                            Name:       Email:       Tell us about your problem                                     Or click here for a   more comprehensive form RAMSELL & ARMAMENTOS, LLC MEMBER, AMERICA'S TOP DUI & DWI DEFENSE ATTORNEYS TM      1-800-DIAL-DUI© ILLINOIS DUI DEFENSE CASES            ILLINOIS CRIMINAL DEFENSE CASES   Hyperlinking widget for 1-800-Dial-DUI and dialdui.com DUI Field Sobriety Testing In Illinois - Science V. DUI Laws By Donald J. Ramsell In People v. Bostelman (2d Dist. 2001) 2-00-0850, the Second District Appellate Court was called upon to decide whether field sobriety tests were admissible in the absence of evidence that the tests were generally acceptable under scientific principles or in the particular field in which they belong, as recognized by Frye v. United States , 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C. Cir. 1923). The Bostelman court, in holding that field sobriety tests need not comply with Frye , stated that the field sobriety tests “measured abilities that are tested innumerable times throughout the average day of the normally active person”, and therefore are not subject to attack under Fyre principles. The fundamental problem in the Bostelman decision is that it implicitly holds that police officers may create any number of physical or mental “exercises“ and then refer to them as “sobriety tests”. In fact, two of the “tests” given by the officer in Bostelman , namely the alphabet test and count backwards test, have never been validated as reliable indicators of intoxication. The three remaining tests in Bostelman , i.e., the One-Leg Stand test, the Walk-and-Turn test, and the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test have only been validated as reliable indicators of intoxication when they are properly administered and properly scored in strict compliance with National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) standards. According to NHTSA, the failure of an officer to comply with proper administration and scoring compromises the validity of these tests entirely. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration “DWI Detention and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing Student Manual, Section VIII, 2000, AVA 20839-BBOINA, National Technical Information Service, Washington, D.C. 2000. In the late 1970's, NHTSA was called upon to develop a battery of reliable standardized field sobriety tests to aid in the detection of drunk drivers. The result was the One-Leg Stand test, the Walk-and-Turn test, and the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test. According to NHTSA, laboratory research revealed that the One-Legged stand test was 65% accurate in identifying subjects whose blood alcohol concentrations were 0.10 or higher, the Walk-and Turn was 68% accurate, and the HGN was 77% accurate. A large scale field valuation study was then performed in 1982 and 1983. As per NHTSA, this large scale validation study was the first significant assessment of the “workability” of the standardized field sobriety tests (SFSTs) under actual enforcement conditions, and it was the first time that completely objective clues and scoring criteria had been defined for the tests. U.S. Department of Transportation, N.H.T.S.A., US DOT HS 178 r10/95, “DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing, Student Manual”, Section VIII Page 11 (1995). If field sobriety tests simply “measure abilities that are tested innumerable times throughout the average day of the normally active person”, as suggested by the Bostelman decision, then why is the error rate as high as the 35% reported by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration? The problem with the Bostelman decision rests truly not with the Court, but with the record on appeal upon which the Court was required to rule. The Bostelman appeal centered on the defendant’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for not seeking to exclude, as lacking foundation, the arresting officer’s testimony concerning the field sobriety tests defendant underwent and the arresting officers subsequent opinion concerning defendant’s state of intoxication. The recitation of the trial court proceedings by the Bostelman court suggests that the types of tests given and the procedures employed by the officer were virtually uncontested by his trial attorney. No evidence was introduced about the fallibility of field sobriety testing or about the manner in which these tests were administered. Had the record contained evidence gleaned from field sobriety student manuals, published scientific studies or testimony from experts on field sobriety testing, perhaps the Bostelman Court would have rendered a different decision. Two recent decisions from other jurisdictions did have adequate records on appeal with which to rule regarding the admissibility of so-called field sobriety tests; State of Ohio v. Homan (2000) 89 Ohio St. 3d 421 and U.S. v. Horn (2002 U.S. Dist. Ct. Maryland) 00-946-PWG. In State of Ohio v. Homan , supra , the Ohio Supreme Court held that in order for the results of a field sobriety test to serve as evidence of probable cause to arrest, the police must have administered the test in strict compliance with standardized testing procedures. The Homan court noted that “when field sobriety testing is conducted in a manner that departs from established methods and procedures, the results are inherently unreliable”. Unlike Bostelman , the Supreme Court of Ohio acknowledged that “experts in the areas of drunk driving apprehension, prosecution and defense all appear to agree that the reliability of field sobriety test results does indeed turn upon the degree to which police comply with standardized testing procedures.” Citing from the extensive study performed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Homan court stated: “The NHTSA concluded that field sobriety tests are an effective means of detecting legal intoxication “only when, the tests are administered in the prescribed, standardized manner, . . . the standardized clues are used to assess the suspect’s performance [,and] . . . the standardized criteria are employed to interpret that performance.” It would seem that if, as Bostelman implicitly suggests, performing sobriety tests is simple, then an officers ability to administer and score the tests in a standardized manner should be equally as simple. Requiring the use of validated, standardized field sobriety testing in Illinois in order to avoid the possibility of erroneous arrests for drunk driving is a concept whose time has arrived, especially in light of the heightened penalties that have been attached to drunk driving convictions. The Bostelman decision actually took a step backwards. Whereas prior caselaw had suggested that the officer must receive formal training in the administration of field sobriety tests ( People v. Sides 199 Ill. App. 3e 203 (1990)), the Bostelman court stated that no such training is necessary. Rather, Bostelman states that “so fundamental are such exercises of balance, coordination, and basic recognition to the activity of the average person that ‘even a layperson is competent to testify regarding a person’s intoxication from alcohol, because such observations are within the competence of all adults of normal experience,’ (citing to) People v. Workman , 312 Ill. App. 3d 305, 310 (2000).” In the Northeast Multi-Regional Training (NEMERT) Alcohol and Drugged Driver Detection Manual, used to train many of the patrol officers in the Chicagoland area, it states that: “The recommended test battery consists of the nystagmus gaze test , the walk and turn test , and the one leg stand test . The administration and scoring of these tests have been standardized so they can be used in the way that makes them as sensitive as possible in detecting alcohol impairment. If the standardized administration and scoring procedures presented in this manual are not followed, then the decision-making guidelines are no longer accurate”. The devoid record presented to the Bostelman court left it uninformed on the science behind SFSTs, and left the court in the untenuous position of either affirming the trial court’s guilty verdict or establishing a far-reaching decision in DUI cases in Illinois in the face of a defendant who did virtually nothing to prove that the tests given to him were somehow unfair or improperly administered and scored. As stated in U.S. v. Horn , 00-946 PWG (2002 U.S. Dist. Ct. Maryland) “this highlights an inherent limitation in the process of judicial evaluation of the reliability and validity of any scientific or technical evidence: the court must . . . act as “gatekeeper” to decide whether the evidence is reliable and admissible. The court, however, is limited in its ability to do so by the quantitative and qualitative nature of the evidence produced by the parties, whatever research the court may do, and any help it may derive from courts that have addressed the issue before it. This process unavoidably takes place on a continuum, and a court faced with the present task of deciding the admissibility of scientific evidence must exercise care to consider whether new developments or evidence require a reevaluation of the conclusions previously reached by courts that did not have the benefit of the more recent information. In short, neither science and technology may rest on past accomplishments – nor may the courts.” U.S. v. Horn , id at p. 12-13 fn. 15. In United States v. Horn , supra, the District Court of Maryland reviewed extensive caselaw, received a multitude of studies and medical articles, and heard testimony from a variety of experts on both sides regarding the validity and reliability of standardized field sobriety testing. After hearing, the Court ruled that: The results of properly conducted SFSTs may be considered for probable cause or at trial; The results of SFSTs cannot be used to prove a specific blood alcohol concentration; There is a well-recognized causal connection between the ingestion of alcohol and exaggerated H.G.N.; A police officer trained and qualified to perform SFSTs may testify to his observations, if properly administered, but may not use value-added descriptions to characterize the subject’s performance, such as saying the subject “failed the test” or “exhibited” a certain number of “standardized clues” during the test; If the Government introduces evidence of nystagmus, the defendant may bring out either during cross-examination or by asking the court to take judicial notice of the fact that there are many causes of nystagmus other than alcohol ingestion; and If otherwise admissible, the police officer may give lay opinion testimony that the defendant was Driving Under the Influence, but he may not bolster the testimony by reference to any scientific, technical or specialized information learned from law enforcement or traffic safety instruction. U.S. v. Horn , id at pp. 3-5. In many respects, Horn follows Bostelman’s theory that a police officer may testify (just as any other layperson) that someone is under the influence of alcohol. Horn , however, makes clear that the police officer is not to be misrepresented to the jury or judge as some kind of expert, unless the government establishes that he is otherwise so qualified. Horn also recognizes the prejudice to the defendant that accompanies testimony regarding non-validated and non-standardized field sobriety testing by prohibiting non-standardized tests from being introduced into evidence. The Horn ruling is based upon and supported by a variety of scientific and technical resources, which will be further discussed in this article. As stated previously, the three SFSTs (HGN, One-Leg Stand, and Walk-and-Turn) were developed on behalf of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration beginning in the 1970's. Amongst the reports discussing the development of the SFSTs is a June 1977 final laboratory study of subjects dosed to varying blood alcohol levels prepared for NHTSA by Dr. Marcelline Burns and Herbert Moskowitz Ph.D. entitled “Psychophysical Tests for DWI Arrests”. DOT-HS-802-424, National Technical Information Service, Washington, D.C. (1977). This is the study which found the HGN 77% accurate, the One-Leg Stand 65% accurate, and the Walk-and-Turn test 68% accurate in detecting impaired drivers. A March 1981 final report prepared for NHTSA by Dr. Burns titled “Developments and Field Test of Psychophysical Tests for DWI Arrest” recommended the use of the present three test SFST battery. Tharp V, Burns M and Moskowitz H, DOT-HS805-864. National Technical Information Service, Washington, D.C., 1981. In 1982, a field evaluation of the three SFSTs was begun, where battery-trained police officers recorded data on 1,506 drivers stopped for “suspicion of DWI’, as well as a review of data recorded on an additional 1,000 drivers stopped for DWI in other states. The results of that field evaluation were reported in “Field Evaluation of a Behavioral Test Battery for DWI, Research and Development”, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA, D.O.T. HS-806-475 (Sept. 1983 NHTSA Technical Note). This study reported that the HGN test was 82% accurate, the One-Leg Stand 78% accurate and the Walk-and-Turn 83% accurate in the detection of DWI offenders. The authors of the 1983 report noted that there were significant reasons to be extremely cautious about the data collected and the conclusions drawn regarding the effectiveness of the field sobriety tests that were used. First, officers were not randomly assigned to different groups, so outcomes may have been affected by selection and assignment bias. Second, and most important, in the great majority of cases the drivers were given portable breath tests prior to the arrest decision, so the officers evaluation of the field sobriety tests may have been affected by this knowledge of the drivers reported alcohol concentrations prior to the arrest decision having been made. As a result of these studies, in 1984 the NHTSA published their first field sobriety testing manual, “Improved Sobriety Testing”, U.S. Department of Transportation NHTSA (1984) DOT HS-0-421-018. It stated that “if the standardized testing and scoring procedures in this Manual are not followed the decision making guidelines will not be accurate”. Amongst the important aspects noted in the 1984 NHTSA Improved Sobriety Testng Manual’s administration and scoring of the procedures, is that the officer is told to “be sure to mention [to the suspect] that part of your evaluation will be based upon how well he follows instructions and performs exactly as demonstrated”. With regard to the HGN test, officers are informed to “check yourself monthly with (a 45 degree template) to be sure that your accuracy has been sustained”. The manual also notes that, the onset point at a BAC of 0.10 is about 40 degrees (the 45 degree angle correlates to 0.05 BAC). For the Walk-and-Turn test, the manual notes that the instructions should be given “exactly” as contained in the manual. The manual further states that the officer should observe the suspect from three or four feet away and remain motionless during the suspects performance of the Walk-and-Turn test, because excessive motion will make it more difficult for the suspect to perform, “even if he is sober”. “People more than 60 years of age, over 50 pounds overweight, or with physical impairments should not be given this test”. Further, according to the manual, “the Walk-and-Turn test requires a line that the suspect can see”. The 1984 NHTSA Manual also notes that the One-Leg-Stand test requires adequate lighting. “In total darkness, the One-Leg-Stand is difficult even for sober people”. Again, the officer should be at least 3 feet away and remain relatively motionless. “Being too close – just as in the Walk-and-Turn Test – makes the test more difficult” states the manual. The officer is instructed to time the One-Leg-Stand Test and to terminate it after the end of the count by the suspect or after 30 seconds, if the person counts slowly. Since 1984, the essential ingredients of Standardized Field Sobriety Testing has remained unchanged. That is, field sobriety tests are only valid when properly administered and properly scored in strict compliance with NHTSA standards. The reason for this is obvious - the tests measure not just balance and coordination, as noted in Bostelman , but they also measure a person’s ability to follow instructions exactly, even when their balance is unimpaired from alcohol. Many studies have been published in scientific or medical journals which are highly critical of these Standardized Field Sobriety Tests. These studies either criticize an officer’s actual administration and scoring of the tests – i.e., “they don’t do them as trained and instructed”, or they are critical of the reported accuracy of the tests in gauging impairment. In a study written by Dr. Spurgeon Cole, Ph.D., Dr. Cole is highly critical of the reliability of the SFSTs when used to prove impairment or alcohol levels. In “Field Sobriety Tests: Are they designed for Failure?” Perceptual and Motor Skills (1994), Dr. Cole analyzed the 1977 NHTSA report, the 1981 NHTSA report and the 1983 NHTSA Field Evaluation report, and observed the following (as reported in the Horn decision supra ): 47% of the subjects in the 1977 NHTSA laboratory study who would have been arrested actually had BACs below 0.10; in the 1981 NHTSA report, 32% of the subjects were incorrectly judged to have BAC’s at or above 0.10; the accepted reliability coefficient for standardized clinical tests is .85 or higher, yet the reliability coefficients for the SFSTs as reported in the NHTSA studies, ranged from .61 to .72 for the individual tests and .77 for individuals that were tested on two different occasions while dosed to the exact same BAC. More alarming, inter-rater reliability rates (where different officers score each subject) ranged from .34 to .60, with an over-all rate of .57. As further stated in Horn : Dr. Cole’s study theorized that the SFSTs, particularly the Walk-and-Turn and One-Leg-Stand tests, required subjects to perform unfamiliar, unpracticed motions and noted that a very few miscues result in a conclusion that the subject failed and had a BAC in excess of 0.10. His hypothesis was that individuals could be classified as intoxicated/impaired as a result of unfamiliarity with the test, rather than actual BAC. He tested this hypothesis by videotaping twenty-one completely sober individuals performing either “normal-abilities tests” (such as reciting their addresses or phone numbers or walking in a normal manner) or the Walk-and-Turn and One-Leg-Stand tests. Id . The results of Dr. Cole’s study were that 46% of the officers that viewed the videotape of the sober individuals performing the SFSTs rated the subjects as having had too much to drink, as compared to only 15% reaching this decision after seeing the videotape of the subjects performing the normal-abilities tests. Horn , supra. Dr. Cole concluded: “[The SFSTs] must be held to the same standards the scientific community would expect of any reliable and valid test of behavior. This study brings the validity of field sobriety tests into question. If law enforcement officials and the courts wish to continue to use field sobriety tests as evidence of driving impairment, then further study needs to be conducted addressing the direct relationship of performance on these and other tests with driving. To date, research has concentrated on the relationship between test performance and BAC and officers’ perception of impairment. This study indicates that these perceptions may be faulty.” Horn , supra . In “End-position nystagmus as an indicator of ethanol intoxication”, Science and Justice 2001, Vol 41: pp 113-116, published by the Forensic Science Society, the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test was studied under clinical experimentation. The authors concluded that the HGN has a high baseline error and a dose/response relationship that varies greatly depending upon whether the subjects BAC concentration was rising or falling. Further, the officers noted that videotapes recorded by cameras in police vehicles revealed that police officers rarely comply with the minimum requirements of the nystagmus examination procedures for which they were trained and certified. The Science and Justice study further stated that fatigue testing determined that subjects had distinct nystagmus in one or both eyes after being awake for an average of 11.2 hours. Distinct nystagmus was noted in 55% of the group after being awake an average of 24.5 hours. In 52 videotapes of officers who arrested persons for Driving Under the Influence, only one officer conducted the HGN test in a manner consistent with the approved procedures. The study stated that “the HGN test has routinely been applied in situations where a high incidence of false positives is to be expected.” In a survey of police surgeons who attended a training seminar devoted to use of the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests pioneered in the United States (and are the subject of discussion herein), 44% of the police surgeons expressed reservations with the use of the SFSTs. “Drugs Driving - standardized field sobriety tests: a survey of police surgeons in Strathclyde” Journal of Clinical Forensic Medicine (2001) Vol. 8: pp 57-65. In an article entitled “Psychology, Public Policy and the Evidence for Alcohol Intoxication” American Psychologist 1070 (Oct. 1983) a series of experiments performed at Rutgers University’s Alcohol Behavior Research Laboratory to test the ability of social drinkers, bartenders and police officers’ abilities to estimate the sobriety of individuals was reported. Each group was charged with reliably judging an individual’s intoxication. All three subject groups – the social drinkers, the bartenders, and the police officers – correctly judged the subjects level of intoxication only 25 percent of the time. In other states, the laws regarding the admissibility of field sobriety tests (other than HGN) is largely unsettled. In Hawaii, the courts held that the One-Leg Stand and Walk-and-Turn are non-scientific in nature, but the prohibited the officer from testifying that a person “passed” or “failed” these tests without laying a proper foundation. State v. Ferrer 23 P.3d 744 (Hawaii Ct. App. 2001). Conclusion The Bostelman decision perpetuates an urban myth that sobriety tests– any sobriety tests whether nonvalidated or improperly administered by a police officer – are reliable indicators of intoxication. This decision passes to the jury the unenviable task of weighing upon the validity and reliability of field sobriety tests in the vacuum of the jury room. Had the Bostelman court been given the information that was received into the record by the Homan court or the Horn court, perhaps their decision would have been different. Defense counsel would be well advised to do their homework and be well prepared when defending a client charged with Driving Under the Influence when the testimony rests upon questionable field sobriety exercises or improperly administered or improperly scored Field Sobriety Tests. Further, even when performed properly, counsel should be prepared to establish that these tests are not foolproof, and have been the subject of criticism in the legal, scientific and medical communities. About The Author Donald J. Ramsell is the founding Director of Ramsell, Armamentos & Klis, L.L.C. in Wheaton, Illinois. His firm has defended over 7,000 DUI cases since 1986. Recently, Donald was certified as a field Sobriety Testing Instructor using NHTSA Standards. About Our Firm    About Our Attorneys    40 Ways to Beat a DUI    Illinois DUI Law Resources    DUI Articles and Information    DUI Case Highlights Criminal Defense    Criminal Case Highlights    Letters from DUI Clients    Free Case Review    Office Location    Contact Us National Attorney Directory    Free Case Review    Blood Alcohol Calculator    Nationwide DUI Attorney Directory    Home    Site Map © 2006 Ramsell, Armamentos & Klis, Attorneys At Law, L.L.C.

DUI Help - Drunk Driving Research - Study Says Health Insurance to Rise 30% Everything You Need to Know About First Offender DUI / DWI, Drinking Driving and Drugs Home | State By State Help | DUI Lawyers | Insurance Help | Breath Testers | DUI Videos Drunk Driving Research Google Search Results Study Says Health Insurance to Rise 30% NCPA: MANDATES INCREASE COST OF HEALTH INSURANCE BY 30% 08/13 1148 NEW ORLEANS, Aug. 13 /PRNewswire/ -- Mandates are increasing the cost of health insurance by as much as 30 percent, according to a National Center for Policy Analysis report released today at the annual meeting of the American Legislative Exchange Council. The analysis, prepared by the actuarial firm Milliman & Robertson, estimated the costs of 12 of the most common mandates and found that added together, those 12 mandates can increase the cost of a family health insurance policy by as much as $700 to $1,050 a year. "Based on the Milliman & Robertson estimates, a small business that employs 25 people, with a standard mix of 40 percent single coverage and 60 percent family coverage, could see its premiums rise by $20,000 a year," said Dr. Merrill Matthews, NCPA Vice President for Domestic Policy. The study analyzed the cost of health care policies when minimum stay maternity, speech therapy benefits, drug abuse treatment benefits, mammography screening, well child care, podiatry, pap smears, vision exams, chiropractic care, alcoholism treatment, infertility treatment and mental health care were included. Assuming that a mandate-free, basic health insurance policy costs a family about $3,500 a year, the Milliman & Robertson study found: Several of the mandates increase the cost of a policy by less than $35 each. Infertility treatment can increase the cost of a policy from anywhere between $105 and $175 a year. Mental health parity, which requires insurers to treat mental illnesses the same as physical illnesses, adds between $175 and $350 to the cost of a policy. While employees tend to like health insurance mandates regardless of cost, Matthews believes that's because the costs are hidden, while the benefits are apparent. "What people need to realize is that while mandates provide more options for those with health insurance, they also mean fewer people end up being insured," Matthews said. "A poll of employers who have canceled their employees' health insurance policies found it was because the price was no longer affordable." Matthews predicts problems with mandates will only get worse. In 1965 there were only seven state-mandated health insurance benefits. Today there are nearly 1,000. In addition, the federal government recently joined the states by imposing two mandates of its own, a ban on "drive-through" baby deliveries and a requirement that any cap on mental health benefits be the same as the cap on physical health benefit. "One or two federal mandates may not increase the cost of health insurance significantly, but, as the states have proven, it's almost impossible to stop with a few mandates," Matthews said. "When the dust settles, policies will cost more, employers and individuals will be canceling their polices and Congress will have to face an even bigger uninsured 'crisis.'" For a copy of the brief analysis "The Cost of Health Insurance Mandates" visit the NCPA Web site at http://www.ncpa.org or contact the NCPA. The National Center for Policy Analysis is a public policy research institute founded in 1983 and internationally known for its studies on public policy issues. The NCPA is headquartered in Dallas, Texas, with an office in Washington, D.C. Internet: http://www.ncpa.org SOURCE National Center for Policy Analysis -0- 08/13/97 /CONTACT: Katy Meaker Menges, Dallas, 972-386-6272, or Joan Kirby, Washington, 202-628-6671, both of the National Center for Policy Analysis/ CO: National Center for Policy Analysis ST: Louisiana IN: HEA SU: Home > Drunk Driving Research > Study Says Health Insurance to Rise 30% DISCLAIMER : This website provides only general information intended for those charged with drunk driving offenses. The information and news items on the site are for information only. This information is not legal advice, nor is it intended to create any binding advisory relationship. Do not take action based upon this information unless you consult with an attorney or other specialist. © 2005 Drivers Research Institute   All Rights Reserved   Send eMail   Advertise With Us

driving while intoxicated, police

Driving while intoxicated DWI in New Mexico- in depth report Contact Us | Register/Login | Site Map Search All Stories Reporters Photos Photographers Comments Commenting Readers ------ Archives Classifieds Jobs Display Ads Business Name Business Category Google Last Update Thu Jan 26, 2006 1:10 pm Subscribe Print or eNewMexican | NM Jobs | Real Estate - Virtual Tours | Display Ads | Directory | Classifieds | Advertise | Archives Online replica of the daily Paying subscribers: Click here to see the page-for-page replica of today's The Santa Fe New Mexican. HOME PAGE FIND IT FAST Most Read News Recent Comments Death Notices Crime / Police Notes Editorial Letters to Editor Columns Weather DWI Ballot & News Topic List SANTA FE GUIDES Visitors Guide Hotel Search Our Magazines Residents Guide Spirituality / Support Restaurants PHOTOS INTERACTIVE Forums Readers' News Blogs ARTS & LEISURE Music & Arts Musicians Directory Movie Times TV Listings Games & Puzzles NEWS Santa Fe / NM Nation / World Middle East Politics En Espanol Water / Fire Nature / Outdoors Education Health Science / Tech In Depth Reports Communities Sports Resource Guides Gen Next SHOP LOCALLY Display Ads Business Directory Real Estate/Virt Tours CLASSIFIEDS Jobs Real Estate Rentals Cars & Trucks Animals Personals Merchandise All Other Topic: DWI Ballot and News (Default story ordering) reorder --Choose Order-- by Most Commented by Most Read Today This week This month Continuing news coverage of DWI-related events and issues; also see our in-depth series on DWI reform from January 2004. DWI: your recommendations Files DWI Forum: readers' recommendations in print Links Solutions to Community Alcohol Problems--Marin Institute FreeNewMexican's DWI Resource Guide The death of Judith Scasserra-Cinciripini (see our stories of July 28 and July 29 ) is the latest addition to New Mexico's continuing, tragic legacy of DWI. This forum is for you to offer specific recommendations, proposals and ideas for effective change. What action do you want your elected officials (state Congress, the Governor, the courts) to take? If you were in office, what would you do for DWI reform? FULL STORY >> (253 comments;last comment posted august 19, 2005 9:23 am) DWI resource guide Files DWI Statistics and Recommendations--Dick Roth, ImpactDWI.org Save a life. Stay informed about the costs of intoxicated driving, and what you can do to stop it... FULL STORY >> States try to toughen penalties for refusing breath test Links FreeNewMexican's DWI Resource Guide COLUMBUS, Ohio - States are trying to toughen penalties for suspected drunken drivers who refuse to take a breath test, arguing motorists too often get a milder penalty than if they had provided evidence that could convict them. FULL STORY >> ( 9 comments; last comment posted january 20, 2006 11:57 am ) Santa Fe man faces eighth DWI charge SANTA FE - Santa Fe resident Moises Gonzales _ who in 1985 pleaded guilty to driving drunk in a crash that killed three teenage girls _ again has been charged with driving while intoxicated, police said. FULL STORY >> ( 59 comments; last comment posted december 4, 2005 11:18 am ) Governor signs DWI interlock measure Chris Romero hops into his 1990 blue-and-white Ford pickup, clicks the ignition on and then off again and reaches for what looks like a black cell phone hanging from his dashboard. FULL STORY >> ( 1 comments; last comment posted april 6, 2005 5:41 pm ) Lawmaker proposes alcohol sales ban for DWI offenders Links 2005 New Mexico Legislature Resource Guide SANTA FE - New Mexicans convicted of drunken driving could not buy beer, wine, whiskey or other liquor for five years under a proposal by a Republican lawmaker. FULL STORY >> ( 24 comments; last comment posted february 11, 2005 8:05 pm ) Richardson pledges more judgeships, more funding for prosecutors at DWI summit ALBUQUERQUE - Gov. Bill Richardson is pledging to push for more money to help fight a problem that has put New Mexico on the wrong end of national rankings for years. FULL STORY >> ( 1 comments; last comment posted january 18, 2005 9:21 am ) Albuquerque authorities want to take drunken drivers' cars after first arrest ALBUQUERQUE - The first arrest would be the only arrest police need to take a drunken driver's vehicle under an ordinance proposed by an Albuquerque assistant city attorney. FULL STORY >> ( 3 comments; last comment posted november 10, 2004 7:38 am ) DWI Center says offenders often need psychological help ALBUQUERQUE - An Albuquerque center plans to talk to New Mexicans convicted of drunken driving more than two decades ago to find out whether they've stayed away from drink and what helped them. FULL STORY >> ( 2 comments; last comment posted october 5, 2004 5:58 am ) Tougher penalties for repeat DWI reinstated for 2003 Links DWI resource guide DWI Special section SANTA FE - The state Supreme Court has ruled that tougher penalties for repeat drunken drivers were in effect in 2003 despite a glitch when the law was passed. FULL STORY >> ( 2 comments; last comment posted september 18, 2004 11:20 am ) Search engine optimization and website marketing provided by Trafficdeveloper Privacy Policy / Terms of Use | ©2006, Santa Fe New Mexican, all rights reserved. Opinions expressed by readers do not necessarily reflect the views of the management and staff of the Santa Fe New Mexican. Query Time Page Success Error select * from globalvars 0.001972 /DWIballot Y select * from `session` where `phpsessionid` = 'f0f14e4ad0973fe57506c31315140db6' 0.019650 /DWIballot Y insert into `session` (phpsessionid, useragent, remoteip, guid, userid, entryurl, referurl, created) values('f0f14e4ad0973fe57506c31315140db6', NULL, '70.190.129.133', NULL, NULL, '/DWIballot', NULL, NULL) 0.002335 /DWIballot Y insert into `event` (sessionid, siteid, userid, scriptname, querystring, created) values('9279521', '1', NULL, 'storylist.php', 'folder=DWIballot', NULL) 0.001246 /DWIballot Y select * from `section` where `foldername` = 'DWIballot' 0.003414 /DWIballot Y select * from `topic` where `foldername` = 'DWIballot' 0.002680 /DWIballot Y select hitid from hittoday where tablename='topic' and tableid=59 limit 1 0.009292 /DWIballot Y update hittoday set hits=hits+1 where hitid='1601220' limit 1 0.002431 /DWIballot Y select * from hitthismin where tablename='topic' and tableid=59 limit 1 0.003898 /DWIballot Y update hitthismin set peakminhits = if (currentmin='2006-01-26 13:13:00' and peakminhits =now() 0.002755 /DWIballot Y select story.storyid,story.headline,story.subhead,story.brief,story.sectionid,story.fromprint from story,storytopic where story.storyid=storytopic.storyid and storytopic.topicid=59 and (story.keepalive='Y' or (story.startdate ='2006-01-19 13:13:06')) and story.isactive='Y' and story.siteid=1 order by story.startdate desc limit 50 0.007669 /DWIballot Y select hyperlink.* from hyperlink, storypart where hyperlink.hyperlinkid=storypart.partid and storypart.parttype='hyperlink' and storypart.storyid in (38128,30707,30233,12321,10279,9346,6427,5099,4382,231) order by storypart.storypartid 0.001923 /DWIballot Y select storyid, count(commentid) as commentcount, max(created) as lastcomment from comments where storyid in (38128,30707,30233,12321,10279,9346,6427,5099,4382,231) and approved!='00000000000000' and deleted!='Y' group by storyid 0.014651 /DWIballot Y select sectionid, foldername from section 0.001234 /DWIballot Y select * from `anchor` where `tablename` = 'topic' and `tableid` = '59' 0.001435 /DWIballot Y select min(storypartid) as firststorypartid, storyid from storypart where storyid in (38128,30707,30233,12321,10279,9346,6427,5099,4382,231) and parttype in ('photo', 'gallery')group by storyid 0.002529 /DWIballot Y select sp.storyid, p.* from photo as pjoin storypart as sp on sp.partid=p.photoid and sp.parttype = 'photo'where sp.storypartid in () order by sp.storypartid 0.001770 /DWIballot N select sp.storyid, p.* from photo as pjoin storypart as sp on sp.partid=p.galleryidwhere sp.storypartid in () order by p.position 0.000960 /DWIballot N select sp.storyid, f.* from storypart as sp join file as f on sp.parttype='file' and sp.partid=f.fileid where sp.storyid in (38128,30707,30233,12321,10279,9346,6427,5099,4382,231) order by sp.storypartid 0.002775 /DWIballot Y select sp.storyid, h.* from storypart as sp join hyperlink as h on sp.parttype='hyperlink' and sp.partid=h.hyperlinkid where sp.storyid in (38128,30707,30233,12321,10279,9346,6427,5099,4382,231) order by sp.storypartid 0.003471 /DWIballot Y select sp.storyid, p.* from storypart as sp join poll as p on sp.parttype='poll' and sp.partid=p.pollid where sp.storyid in (38128,30707,30233,12321,10279,9346,6427,5099,4382,231) and p.active='Y' and p.startdate =now() order by sp.storypartid 0.017306 /DWIballot Y select topicid from topic where login='optional' and siteid=1 0.002719 /DWIballot Y select * from topic where topicid=59 0.004181 /DWIballot Y select name, httpequiv, content from metatag where tablename='topic' and tableid=59 0.003863 /DWIballot Y select adsid, groupsid from adsgroupspositions where topicid=59 and positionsid=1 0.008244 /DWIballot Y select adsid, views, viewed, clicks, clicked from ads where adtype='web' and startdate =20060126000000 and adsid in (28478, 35505, 29568, 38365, 39561, 39292, 39288) 0.003743 /DWIballot Y select adsid, groupsid from adsgroupspositions where topicid=59 and positionsid=2 0.003547 /DWIballot Y select adsid, views, viewed, clicks, clicked from ads where adtype='web' and startdate =20060126000000 and adsid in (30341, 39293, 39125, 39289, 46894, 62148) 0.003425 /DWIballot Y select viewed from ads where adsid=62148 limit 1 0.002862 /DWIballot Y update ads set viewed=488474 where adsid=62148 limit 1 0.000977 /DWIballot Y select width, height from positions where positionsid=2 0.002410 /DWIballot Y select adsid, url, alt, filename, width, height, thumbname, thumbwidth, thumbheight, uploaddate from ads where adsid=62148 0.003903 /DWIballot Y select adsid, groupsid from adsgroupspositions where topicid=59 and positionsid=3 0.008649 /DWIballot Y select adsid, views, viewed, clicks, clicked from ads where adtype='web' and startdate =20060126000000 and adsid in (38481) 0.006341 /DWIballot Y select adsid, groupsid from adsgroupspositions where topicid=59 and positionsid=4 0.002286 /DWIballot Y select adsid, views, viewed, clicks, clicked from ads where adtype='web' and startdate =20060126000000 and adsid in (38138) 0.003115 /DWIballot Y select adsid, groupsid from adsgroupspositions where topicid=59 and positionsid=5 0.002672 /DWIballot Y select adsid, views, viewed, clicks, clicked from ads where adtype='web' and startdate =20060126000000 and adsid in (37904) 0.002765 /DWIballot Y select adsid, groupsid from adsgroupspositions where topicid=59 and positionsid=6 0.001952 /DWIballot Y select adsid, groupsid from adsgroupspositions where topicid=59 and positionsid=7 0.002681 /DWIballot Y select adsid, views, viewed, clicks, clicked from ads where adtype='web' and startdate =20060126000000 and adsid in (37976, 54998) 0.003113 /DWIballot Y select viewed from ads where adsid=54998 limit 1 0.003008 /DWIballot Y update ads set viewed=1340117 where adsid=54998 limit 1 0.002793 /DWIballot Y select width, height from positions where positionsid=7 0.004530 /DWIballot Y select adsid, url, alt, filename, width, height, thumbname, thumbwidth, thumbheight, uploaddate from ads where adsid=54998 0.004634 /DWIballot Y select adsid, groupsid from adsgroupspositions where topicid=59 and positionsid=8 0.002793 /DWIballot Y select adsid, views, viewed, clicks, clicked from ads where adtype='web' and startdate =20060126000000 and adsid in (45592, 49271, 51809) 0.003826 /DWIballot Y select adsid, groupsid from adsgroupspositions where topicid=59 and positionsid=9 0.003690 /DWIballot Y select adsid, views, viewed, clicks, clicked from ads where adtype='web' and startdate =20060126000000 and adsid in (28532, 30558) 0.003458 /DWIballot Y select viewed from ads where adsid=30558 limit 1 0.003036 /DWIballot Y update ads set viewed=10024301 where adsid=30558 limit 1 0.002050 /DWIballot Y select width, height from positions where positionsid=9 0.002390 /DWIballot Y select adsid, url, alt, filename, width, height, thumbname, thumbwidth, thumbheight, uploaddate from ads where adsid=30558 0.003938 /DWIballot Y select adsid, groupsid from adsgroupspositions where topicid=59 and positionsid=10 0.003133 /DWIballot Y select adsid, views, viewed, clicks, clicked from ads where adtype='web' and startdate =20060126000000 and adsid in (26345, 53233) 0.004907 /DWIballot Y select viewed from ads where adsid=53233 limit 1 0.003034 /DWIballot Y update ads set viewed=4513993 where adsid=53233 limit 1 0.001318 /DWIballot Y select width, height from positions where positionsid=10 0.002747 /DWIballot Y select adsid, url, alt, filename, width, height, thumbname, thumbwidth, thumbheight, uploaddate from ads where adsid=53233 0.004974 /DWIballot Y

D.U.I.

DUI Professional Online Home | Products | Tour | FAQ | Users | Reviews | Order Now Last Updated March 17, 2005 Current Online Visitors: 1 DUI PRO , Blood-Alcohol Analysis for Window 95/98/NT 4.0/2000/XP $249.99 DUI PROFESSIONAL™, Blood-Alcohol Analysis for Window 95/98/NT 4.0/2000: DUI Pro alcohol analysis software is a pharmacology utility used to calculate blood alcohol content. DUI Professional alcohol analysis software uses a wizard-style calculator that prompts for input on type of drink, quantity, weight, time of consumption, gender and stomach contents. Using this data, DUI Professional alcohol analysis software calculates a range of expected blood alcohol levels based on the generally accepted scientific principles of Widmark, Dubowski, and Watson. We use your software almost everyday in our office and are quite pleased with it to say the least. Richard Essen Essen,Essen,Susaneck,Canet & Goodis P.A. South Florida's foremost authority in defending drunk driving cases, Richard Essen has been a featured guest on major nationally televised shows including 60 Minutes, Donahue, Oprah, Good Morning America, Geraldo, Larry King Live, Court T.V., Joan Rivers, NcNeil-Lehr, The Today Show, Cross Fire, Morton Downey, Jr., Maury Povich, The Regis and Kathy Lee Show, Rolanda, The Johnny Cochrane Show, Montage and Al Rantel. http://www.richardessen.com A drink database is included providing information on nearly 200 different alcohol beverages. The program provides extensive online help on both the technical functioning of the program as well as the background scientific basis for the calculations. Detailed charts and reports are generated from the calculations. DUI Professional Earns Highest Rating by Publishers of PC Magazine . DUI Professional™ Alcohol Analysis System has achieved a Five-Star Rating by ZDNet, the highest software rating awarded by the publishers of PC Magazine. Order the DUI Pro by: CD-ROM ; Immediate Download ; or Call 800-242-4775 (ext. 15607) for sales . DUI Pro is a registered trademark of Meta Progress ™ , Inc . 1998-2005 Meta Progress ™ Inc. DUI Professional Sales 800-242-4775 (ext. 15607) P.O. Box 21555 St. Petersburg, FL 33742 (727) 578-0303

DUI Attorney

Maryland Drunk Driving Lawyers Top( MD) Maryland Drunk Driving Lawyer, Leading Drunk Driving Lawyer Maryland (MD) Family Law Medical Malpractice Personal Injury Corporate Law Nursing Home Abuse Mediation Employment Criminal Law Maryland and D.C. Drunk Driving Lawyers Maryland (MD) & D.C. Drunk Driving DUI DWI MVA Lawyers FREE CONSULTATION * 301 738-5700 or click here for an inquiry. REAL LAWYERS-FOR REAL PEOPLE-WITH REAL PROBLEMS! IMPORTANT NOTICE: You have 10 days to notify MD Maryland motor vehicles, MVA or your license maybe be suspended-Call for assistance before it is too late! Our lawyers have been cited on television, radio and by major national newspapers. If you have been charged with A (MD) Maryland or D.C. drunk driving or DWI DUI criminal charge or drunk driving or DWI DUI criminal charge in the (DC) District of Columbia our experienced (MD) Maryland or D.C. criminal defense lawyers at Belli, Weil & Grozbean, P.C. will be by your side each and every step of the criminal trial process. Most people who are charged with a criminal offense do not realize that they can not wait until the last minute to hire a Experienced Drunk Driving Lawyer. Our lawyers at Belli, Weil & Grozbean, P.C. understand the motor vehicle laws whether in Maryland or the District of Columbia (DC) and know how to prepare you for trial and utilize resources such as private investigators, psychologist, forensic experts, drunk driving and drug evaluators and rehabilitation facilities. Being charged with a felony, dwi or drug charge can send you to jail and should not be taken lightly. You may not realize it, but you are facing a loss of your drivers license because of being charged with a Maryland (MD) or Distric of Columbia (DC) drunk driving, dwi, possession of drugs, driving while suspended, speeding or reckless driving to name a few? Then Belli, Weil & Grozbean, P.C. can help you thru the administrative hearing process. Most people do not realize how long they can lose their license to drive and they will be going before an Administrative Law Judge who has the power to keep them from Drunk Driving. Can you afford not to drive ? Will you lose your job ? REMEMBER THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR EXPERIENCED CRIMINAL LAWYERS ! You could be sentenced to time in jail for driving while intoxicated, possession of drugs or reckless driving. It is important to contact a Drunk Driving Lawyer or a Criminal Attorney in Maryland Immediately. WHEN EXPERIENCE COUNTS YOU CAN NOT AFFORD ANYTHING LESS!! Call 301 738-5700 FREE CONSULTATION* e-mail: shgroz@bwg-law.com __________________________________________________________________________________ We work with lawyers around the country to provide the very best representation. MAIN OFFICES IN: WASHINGTON, D.C. WITH AFFILIATE OFFICES ATLANTA & SAN FRANCISCO AND REFERRAL OFFICES FROM COAST TO COAST Maryland criminal defense lawyers Maryland dwi lawyers Maryland lawyers for MVA hearings HOME Maryland (MD) criminal law, criminal dwi lawyer (Attorney, Attorneys, lawyers, law firms, law firm, legal services) providing criminal defense for cds drugs, drunk driving, dwi dui motor vehicle and mva hearings and white collar crimes. Our law firm can assist you with your divorce, child support custody and domestic violence dispute criminal defense maryland (MD) Serving Maryland counties including montgomery county, frederick, prince george's, howard, anne arundel, aa county, rockville, silver spring, baltimore county, gaithersburg, bethesda, kensington, washington county, and rockville washingon (D.C.), District of Columbia (DC) USA Disclaimer/Privacy Policy 111 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 (301) 738-5700 (phone) (301) 738-5708 (fax) Home Belli, Weil & Grozbean, P.C. (c) 2002 All Rights Reserved Designed and Developed by Catalyst Solutions :: (MD) Maryland Divorce Lawyer :: Maryland Medical Malpractice :: Maryland (MD) Personal Injury Lawyer :: (MD) Maryland Drunk Driving Lawyer :: Maryland Legal Advice :: Maryland Mediation :: Maryland (MD) Divorce Lawyer :: (MD) Maryland Divorce Lawyer :: :: Maryland Divorce Lawyer :: Maryland Employment :: Criminal Attorney Maryland (MD) :: Belli, Weil & Grozbean, P.C. (c) 2002 All Rights Reserved Designed and Developed by Catalyst Solutions * Free consultation 30 minutes by phone or in person. To be determine by law firm.