 |
Fulton Daily News - Fulton, New York - Sheriff's Department 11/8/2004 Home Page News Sports Weather Entertainment Your News About Us Special Sections Send Us Your News All Stories Community Cop Log Obits Raidernet Daily Health Hannibal Ideas Good Kids Business Money TOOLS: TELL A FRIEND PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION Sheriff's Department 11/8/2004 On Oct. 29, Todd J. Shambo, 31, of Lee Road, Mexico , was arrested officers with the Oswego County Sheriff's Department and charged with driving while intoxicated, driving with a blood-alcohol content greater than 0.08 percent of alcohol or more and speeding after officers stopped him on state Route 104 in Mexico at 12:16 a.m. Shambo was issued tickets returnable to Mexico Town Court Nov. 18. On Nov. 5, officers with the Oswego County Sheriff's Department arrested Jeremy D. Raponi, 24, of 103 So. Sixth St., Fulton , and charged him with driving while intoxicated, driving with a blood-alcohol content greater than 0.08 percent of alcohol or more, second-degree aggravated unlicensed operation, no inspection certificate, operating a vehicle with a suspended registration and driving on the shoulder of the road after a one-vehicle accident that occurred on Honey Hill Road in Granby Oct. 27. Police said Raponi is scheduled to answer the charges in Granby Town Court Dec. 6. On Nov. 5, Paul L. Cote 2nd, 26, of 7 Oneida St., Cleveland , was operating a 2004 Dodge pickup truck eastbound on state Route 49 in West Monroe at 8:05 a.m. when he reportedly failed to stop at the red light at the intersection of the Interstate-81 northbound off-ramp and collided with a northbound 2000 Honda driven by Jennifer L. Laquidari, 24, of 103 Breman Ave., Mattydale. According to officers with the Oswego County Sheriff's Department, Laquidari was transported by ambulance to St. Josephs Hospital in Syracuse. Driver distraction appears to have been a contributing factor in the incident as an item was reportedly rolling under Cotes foot at the time of the incident, according to reports. Cote was ticketed for failure to yield the right of way at a green light. On Nov. 5, Albert L. Taylor, 55, of 129 Chester St., Syracuse , was traveling south on county Route 14 in Granby when he reportedly lost control of his 1993 Chevrolet, causing it to drive off the roadway and hit an earth embankment before overturning into a ditch, according to officers with the Oswego County Sheriff's Department. Police said the incident took place 1/8 of a mile north of King Road. Taylor, the sole occupant, was transported by ambulance to St. Josephs Hospital in Syracuse. Slippery pavement appears to have been a contributing factor with road conditions reportedly wet from rain, police reports said. On Nov. 5 at 11:30 p.m., Christopher J. Miller, 21, of 22 Pulaski St., Altmar , was arrested by officers with the Oswego County Sheriff's Department and charged with numerous traffic violations following a traffic stop that was initiated by officers in the town of Mexico. Miller was charged with unlawful possession of marijuana, third-degree aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle, unauthorized removal of a sticker, driving an unregistered motor vehicle, operating a vehicle without insurance and improper plates. He was arraigned before the Hon. James Gracey, Mexico Town Court, and remanded to the Oswego County Correctional Facility in lieu of $500 cash bail or $1,000 bond. He is scheduled to return to court Nov. 23. On Nov. 6 at 6:40 p.m., George E. Sheldon, 22, of 1085 state Route 176, Fulton , was arrested by officers with the Oswego County Sheriff's Department following a domestic incident that took place at a Granby residence. Police charged Sheldon with second-degree menacing, fourth-degree criminal mischief and endangering the welfare of a child, all class-A misdemeanors, after he allegedly threatened the resident with a knife while in the presence of a minor and then broke a window of the victims vehicle by throwing a car jack through the window. Sheldon was arraigned before the Hon. Luther Dennison, Hannibal Town Court, and remanded to the Oswego County Correctional Facility in lieu of $1,000 cash bail or $2,000 bond. He was scheduled to appear in Granby Town Court Nov. 8. On Nov. 6 at 11:20 p.m., while on routine patrol, officers with the Oswego County Sheriff's Department initiated a traffic stop on state Route 3 near Atkinson Road in Richland after reportedly observing a vehicle cross the fog line several times. The driver, Marshall L. Blodgett, 23, of 2285 county Route 22, Richland , was subsequently arrested and charged with third-degree aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle, failure to keep right and operating a vehicle with suspended plates, police said. Blodgett was released on appearance tickets returnable to Richland Town Court Nov. 22. While traveling southbound on county Route 17 in Amboy Nov. 7 at 1:47 p.m., officers with the Oswego County Sheriff's Department observed a vehicle pulled over on the east shoulder of the road and reportedly saw a spilled can of beer on the ground near the drivers door. Further investigation found the driver, Ralph J. Gardner, 24, of 506 Cable Road, Williamstown , to be under the influence of alcohol, which was later confirmed. He was subsequently arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated, driving with a blood-alcohol content greater than 0.08 percent of alcohol or more and consumption of alcoholic beverages in certain vehicles, police said. Gardner was released to a third party and is scheduled to answer the charges in Amboy Town Court Nov. 16. On Nov. 7 at 5:30 a.m., Oswego County Sheriffs officers investigated a stabbing that took place at a residence in West Monroe. Police said the investigation led to the arrest of Shane T. Andrews, 24, of 604 Montrose Avenue, Syracuse , who was charged with two counts of second-degree assault, a class-D felony, and fourth-degree criminal possession of a weapon, a class-A misdemeanor, after he was accused of stabbing a male victim in the chest with a knife and causing a two inch gash on the victims left bicep following a fight that took place outside the residence. The victim was transported by ambulance to State University Hospital in Syracuse for treatment. A second male, who tried to break up the fight, also received a wound from the knife on his hand, police said. Members of the New York State Police assisted when they stopped the vehicle Andrews had left the scene in, approximately two miles from the incident. Andrews was arraigned before the Hon. John Demong, West Monroe Town Court, and remanded to the Oswego County Correctional Facility in lieu of $2,000 cash bail or $3,000 secured bond. He was scheduled to return to court Nov. 8. MORE NEWS: Fulton Daily News Oswego Daily News B'ville Daily News Liverpool Daily News ALSO VISIT: Our Fulton Business Directory Our Oswego Business Directory Our B'ville Business Directory Our Liverpool Business Directory Our Amazon.com store Area Jobs Guide.com Area Food Guide.com Daily News Source for Fulton, New York This site and all of its contents © Dot-Publishing, Inc. | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy Phone: 593-2510 | Fax: 593-2515 | E-mail: fultoneditor@dailynewsdirector.com 117 Cayuga Street Fulton, NY 13069
|
|
Blood Alcohol Content By DUINetwork.com Maryland : Testing for Blood Alcohol Content MarylandDUI Home Important Checklist Maryland DUI FAQs DUI Penalties License Hearings Drivers Under 21 BloodAlcohol Testing Field Sobriety Tests WinningYour Case Common Mistakes DUI Terms Legal Process Costs of a Conviction • Travel • Employment • Immigration Federal Issues Boating Maryland Resources About DUINetwork Andrea Hayduk - Defending DUI clients throughout the state of Maryland (Greenbelt) We're prepared to take your case to trial. Free consultation. 800-256-8172 Testing for Blood Alcohol Content By driving a vehicle in the state you give your "implied consent" to submit to a chemical test for alcohol or drug content if suspected by a police officer of driving under the influence. In this state, the officer will only offer a breath test. If you refuse, you will lose your license. When state law talks about "Alcohol Content" or BAC, it refers to the number of grams of alcohol present per 100 milliliters of blood in the person's system. A BAC of 0.10 would mean that the person has 1/10 of a gram of alcohol per every 100 milliliters of blood. So when it comes to the legal limit of 0.08, we are talking about a small amount of measurable alcohol. Blood Tests Typically, when chemical evidence is admitted for use by the prosecution, there are more ways to attack the accuracy of a breath test than a blood test. Blood testing involves taking a sample of blood and directly measuring the alcohol content. A blood test also measures for the presence of prohibited drugs and their metabolites in your system. If you have been arrested for OUI in the state or already consented to a , breath test, you are permitted to have a second blood test conducted by an independent source, at your expense. While blood tests are the most reliable method of testing for BAC, they are by no means infallible. Typically, blood samples are drawn by hospital staff. (In some jurisdictions, a police officer might have sufficient training as a phlebotomist to draw your blood, but this is less often the case). In any event, the methods taken to draw blood can have a significant impact on test results and the admissibility of this evidence. Medical personnel must have appropriate credentials and follow precise procedures, otherwise, the test results may be subject to challenge. Contaminated samples or flawed procedures can influence and erroneously inflate BAC results. Provided below is a partial list of sources and examples of defense(s) related to blood tests: HIPAA: The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 is an evolving piece of legislation and area of healthcare law. Basically, any entity that has access to your medical records or produces any patient medical information (such as test results), must adhere to a strict set of complex guidelines in order to protect patient privacy. Noncompliance with HIPAA regulations by a healthcare provider can influence the admissibility of your blood test results and likewise the outcome of your case. Yeast: If introduced into the blood sample, can produce falsely high BAC readings. Yeast consumes blood sugars. The byproduct is alcohol - indistinguishable from alcohol whose source is an alcoholic beverage. Non-sterile tube: The top of the blood test tube has been contaminated or has not been properly sterilized. Administrative Errors: The lab or hospital has incorrectly identified your sample and your test results are from someone else’s blood. This can be definitively verified through a DNA test. Alcohol Swab: If the site of the needle puncture on your arm was first sterilized with any substance containing alcohol, this alcohol can be transferred to the needle and ultimately into the blood sample and generate erroneously high BAC results. Defective Vacuum: Tubes used to collect blood contain a vacuum that helps deposit blood into the tube. If this vacuum is damaged or does not function properly, contaminants can be introduced that could influence test results. Breath Tests A breath test measures only alcohol and is more error prone. Equations are used to gauge the relative amount of alcohol contained in a sample of deep lung (alveolar) air and law enforcement then has to calculate the amount of blood alcohol that should be present. Testing alveolar air has its problems, in that the sample does not necessarily remain constant. Temperature and breath patterns also affect the content of any given breath sample. Also, many common substances can register as alcohol when in fact they are not. There are several different breath test machines (commonly referred to as a breathalyzers) available on the market. They are manufactured by private companies and sold to law enforcement agencies. These different devices come with their own unique characteristics and requirements for proper use and care. The improper use, testing and/or maintenance of these various devices can play a significant role in your defense. Likewise, it is important to select an attorney with a high degree of familiarity with these machines. Even the most advanced breathalyzers, such as the Intoxilyzer, has its problems.The Intoxilyzer uses infrared spectrometry to measure the degree of alcohol in a breath sample. A quartz lamp inside the machine radiates infrared energy through the sample. The amount of energy that makes it through the sample (and is not absorbed by alcohol) is then measured and calculations are made. The greater the amount of alcohol present in the sample being analyzed, the greater the absorption. However, to deliver results admissible in court, the breath testing device must have been properly maintained and operated. Even when functioning properly, it has a modest but inherent margin of error. So, even if you've failed a chemical test, there are ways to challenge the results. A skilled attorney must be engaged to adequately assess how these test results may be successfully defended or thrown out altogether. Field Sobriety Tests Most OUI cases include evidence from field sobriety tests ("FST’s"). These tests, such as the One Leg Stand, Walk and Turn and Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (Eye Test) are used by law enforcement to establish probable cause and help secure DUI convictions. These roadside tests are completely voluntary. Refusing the submit to field testing will not result in the suspension of your driving privileges (unless you are on probation and/or have another case pending in which a Judge has ordered you are not to refuse to take these tests). The biggest drawback is that, typically, the prosecutor can use your refusal against you in court. It is important to understand that no studies conclusively link the roadside "Field Sobriety Tests", to a persons level of intoxication. Even when conducted under ideal circumstances, the best studies show less than an 80% rate of accuracy. Also, these tests results are influenced by how well the officer conducted the tests and in some instances, his or her own interpretation of your performance. These circumstances can lead to results that are unreliable or inconclusive – results that can be successfully defended more often than most defendants realize. Only three of the tests available to officers have sufficient merit to be recognized by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). These tests include Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test, the Walk and Turn Test and the One Leg Stand Test. No other tests given in the state have been validated in any official way. Examples include the Finger to Nose Test, the Rhomberg Balance Test, counting or saying the ABCs backwards, counting ones fingers, etc. There is no proven correlation to these test results and ones ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. The Arrest Process This section provides an overview of the process an officer will go through to determine whether to arrest you for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Signs of Impairment People operating a vehicle under the influence typically exhibit some symptoms of impairment. The vehicle might be going extremely fast or extremely slow. Officers look for a willingness to take risks, poor coordination, slowed reactions and impaired vision. Routine traffic violations are also used - violation of a posted control sign, a failure to use a turn signal, inappropriate use of high beams or other cues that alert the officer to a driver that might be influenced by intoxicants. An officer requires a reasonable belief that the driver was operating in an unreasonable manner, or a reasonable suspicion that a law has been broken, to justifying pulling a vehicle over. The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) has established specific visual cues that indicate a driver’s probability of being legally intoxicated. Officers often rely upon this information to establish a basis for stopping suspected drunk or drugged drivers. When the officer sees more than one cue, the probability rises. The probabilities listed below correspond to the officer observing only one cue: THE OFFICER'S VISUAL CUE CORRESPONDING PROBABILITY OF IMPAIRMENT Headlights off 30% Accelerating or decelerating rapidly 30% Turning abruptly or illegally 35% Stopping inappropriately (other than in the lane of travel) 35% A slow response to traffic signals 40% Driving into or crossing traffic 45% Erratic application of the brakes 45% Driving with tires on center or lane marker 45% Drifting 50% Following too closely 50% Stopping without cause in the lane of traffic 50% Driving slower than 10 miles per hour 50% Swerving 55% Driving on other than the designated highway 55% Weaving 60% Almost striking object or vehicle 60% Appearing to be drunk: (eye fixation; tightly gripping the steering wheel; gesturing erratically or obscenely; face close to the windshield; drinking in the vehicle; driver's head protruding from vehicle) 60% Straddling center or lane marker 65% Turning with wide radius 65% There is also an opportunity for the observation of several more cues of impairment when an officer initiates a traffic stop. These observations can be used to prove the driver was under the influence. Typical observations include a lack of response or a slowed response to flashing lights or sirens, pulling over suddenly or in an inappropriate place, abruptly swerving or attempting to flee, as examples. Prosecutors and officers also use this opportunity to look for signs of "divided attention", invoking a theory frequently used to explain impairment. It is based on the assumption that the ability to execute multiple tasks simultaneously is limited by alcohol or drugs in the system. Flashing lights, sirens and other distractions must be dealt with that a driver under the influence may have trouble handling. However, there could be other reasons why a driver experienced some difficulty in these situations. Making Contact with the Driver Once the stop has been completed, the officer begins the process of making personal contact with the driver. After an officer approaches the vehicle, they observe and interview the driver, usually while the driver remains in the vehicle. The officer typically asks the driver general questions while looking for evidence of impairment, such as an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, flushed face, slurred or impeded speech, etc. The officer will also note if the driver has any trouble retrieving their license and registration from a pocket or glove compartment. The officer will also look around the vehicle for any evidence in plain view, such as beverage containers or drug paraphernalia. The officer may also administer some simple verbal exercises or other preliminary, seated sobriety tests to help determine impairment. Next, the officer decides whether to request that the driver get out of the vehicle. Does the driver trip, stumble or use the door for support? The officer observes how a driver exits the vehicle. Screening Once the driver is out of the vehicle, the officer enters a pre-arrest screening phase of the DUI investigation. First, the officer administers field sobriety tests. These tests attempt to provide a judge (or jury) with clinical symptoms of impairment. They may also serve to reinforce the officers prior observations of the suspect. A skilled defense attorney will thoroughly scrutinize every detail of these tests. For example, the test results might be discredited by successfully asserting that: The officer didn't first properly demonstrate the test; The driver didn't under stand the test well enough to perform it; The lighting was insufficient; The road was uneven or otherwise unsuitable; The weather conditions were poor; That driver had a pre-existing physical condition which affected test performance... Even if an officer does everything possible to minimize these defense arguments, it can be difficult to conduct tests under flawless conditions. The "standardized" field sobriety tests that NHTSA recommends are Walk and Turn , One Leg Stand and Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus . Other, non-NHTSA standardized field sobriety tests include, among others, the Coin Toss Test , Finger To Nose Test and various Balancing Tests . Following the field sobriety tests, the officer's next task in a DUI investigation is typically to administer a preliminary breath test (PBT), which the police use to confirm the chemical basis for impairment. This test is performed with a hand-held device (often an Alcosensor III). This portable device generally does not have an attached printer. A preliminary breath test is for investigatory purposes only and results are not typically admissible in Court. If the officer has evidence of drug impairment, it will be necessary to seek out assistance from an officer who has been trained and certified as a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE). Note that the majority of law enforcement officers do not have DRE status. Likewise, most officers are not certified to administer a standardized drug recognition examination of a suspect. The arrest occurs at the conclusion of the pre-arrest screening process. If the officer decides to arrest the suspect, he must have probable cause that the driver is under the influence of alcohol or drugs. If mistakes or improper procedures by law enforcement occurred at any point along this process, a good OUI defense lawyer will make certain that these facts are appropriately used in your defense. Sobriety Checkpoints Sobriety checkpoints (police roadblocks) used to screen drivers for OUI are legal in the state. At a given location, these checkpoints provide a place where law enforcement can stop vehicles, question drivers and observe them for signs of intoxication. These checkpoints can result in a considerable number of DUI arrests each year. Driving makes you are subject to these DUI checkpoints. If you turn around prior to reaching the checkpoint, there is a good chance that you will be followed. If the officer notices a traffic violation or other driving behavior that provides just cause to pull you over, you will likely be stopped. If you fail to stop for a checkpoint, the police can pursue and pull you over. If you are at a OUI Checkpoint and the officer develops a reasonable suspicion that you are under the influence, you may be detained further. This detention might include requests for you to perform field sobriety tests, or to answer questions about your intake of alcohol or drugs. If the officer develops probable cause, you may be arrested and asked to perform a test of your breath, blood or urine to determine the presence of alcohol or drugs. There are a number of guidelines law enforcement must follow to properly conduct sobriety checkpoints. These exact procedures must conform to state regulations and also to avoid violating your constitutional protections from unreasonable search and seizure. For example, detentions must be brief and only long enough ensure you are not intoxicated, unless some other crime is observed or in progress. To adequately ensure that your rights have not been violated and all of your defenses have been thoroughly explored, consult an experienced drunk driving practitioner if you have been arrested at a sobriety checkpoint. The DUI Network Websites: Arizona Maryland Massachusetts Tennessee Texas
|
|
DWI lawyers, attorneys, and DWI DUI OWI OUI Driving in Nevada 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 Nevada dui laws information that has been contributed by dui attorneys in Nevada . All Nevada dui defense counsel are welcome to join the International Referral Database of DUI, DWI, Impaired and Drunk Driving, Lawyers & Attorneys . A Nevada attorney is your best source of legal information about dui law in Nevada . Nevada legislation respecting dui can be found by clicking on "DUI and DWI Legislation" below. Nevada dui attorneys attend dui court at the dui "DUI Courthouses and DWI Courthouses" Directory link below. Breath instruments used in Nevada 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 Nevada . The "Summaries of Nevada dui Law" page contains short summaries of Nevada dui laws on a single page provided by each Nevada attorney who has chosen to participate. This is an excellent DUI page to print. The Nevada "First Appearance in dui Court" page contains basic information about what to do before and at dui Court in Nevada . It is a good idea to "Be Early for dui Court in Nevada for the reasons linked below . Find out "What to Wear to Nevada dui Court". Information is also provided respecting government dui DMV MOT facilities in "Directory of Motor Vehicle Offices" for Nevada . If you have been charged with dui in Nevada , please consult a Nevada dui lawyer or Nevada dui attorney forthwith . Nevada 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 . Nevada DWI DUI OWI OUI Information Summaries of DUI Law DWI Law for Nevada 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 Nevada 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 Nevada 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 Nevada 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 Nevada DUI Attorney DWI Attorney Articles and Writings Nevada DUI Lawyer DWI Lawyer Articles and Writings Nevada Drunk Driving Attorney Articles and Writings Nevada Drunk Driving Lawyer Articles and Writings Nevada Drunk Driving Defense Affiliates AddDL Click Here to Contact a DUI-Help.com Attorney in Nevada Now Lawyers and DUI Information in Nevada Cities and Towns Sponsored by: dui DUI-Help Nevada dui Attorney DUI Attorneys in Battle Mountain , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Battle Mountain, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Beatty , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Beatty, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Blue Diamond , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Blue Diamond, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Boulder , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Boulder, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Bunkerville , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Bunkerville, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Caliente , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Caliente, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Cal-Nev-Ari , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Cal-Nev-Ari, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Carlin , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Carlin, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Carson , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Carson, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Cold Springs , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Cold Springs, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Dayton , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Dayton, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Elko , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Elko, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Ely , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Ely, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Enterprise , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Enterprise, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Fallon , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Fallon, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Fallon Station , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Fallon Station, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Fernley , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Fernley, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Gabbs , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Gabbs, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Gardnerville , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Gardnerville, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Gardnerville Ranchos , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Gardnerville Ranchos, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Gerlach-Empire , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Gerlach-Empire, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Goodsprings , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Goodsprings, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Hawthorne , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Hawthorne, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Henderson , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Henderson, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Incline Village-Crystal Bay , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Incline Village-Crystal Bay, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Indian Hills , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Indian Hills, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Indian Springs , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Indian Springs, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Johnson Lane , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Johnson Lane, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Kingsbury , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Kingsbury, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Las Vegas , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Las Vegas, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Laughlin , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Laughlin, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Lemmon Valley-Golden Valley , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Lemmon Valley-Golden Valley, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Lovelock , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Lovelock, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in McDermitt , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys McDermitt, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in McGill , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys McGill, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Mesquite , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Mesquite, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Minden , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Minden, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Moapa , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Moapa, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Moapa Valley , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Moapa Valley, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Mount Charleston , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Mount Charleston, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Nellis AFB , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Nellis AFB, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Nixon , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Nixon, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in North Las Vegas , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys North Las Vegas, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Owyhee , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Owyhee, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Pahrump , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Pahrump, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Paradise , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Paradise, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Reno , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Reno, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Sandy Valley , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Sandy Valley, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Schurz , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Schurz, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Searchlight , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Searchlight, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Silver Springs , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Silver Springs, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Smith Valley , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Smith Valley, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Spanish Springs , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Spanish Springs, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Sparks , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Sparks, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Spring Creek , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Spring Creek, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Spring Valley , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Spring Valley, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Stateline , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Stateline, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Summerlin South , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Summerlin South, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Sun Valley , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Sun Valley, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Sunrise Manor , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Sunrise Manor, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Sutcliffe , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Sutcliffe, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Tonopah , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Tonopah, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Verdi-Mogul , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Verdi-Mogul, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Wadsworth , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Wadsworth, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Wells , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Wells, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in West Wendover , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys West Wendover, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Whitney , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Whitney, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Winchester , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Winchester, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Winnemucca , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Winnemucca, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Yerington , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Yerington, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers DUI Attorneys in Zephyr Cove-Round Hill , Nevada DUI Lawyers , DWI Attorneys Zephyr Cove-Round Hill, NV DWI Drunk Driving Lawyers 2009 | 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.
|
|
California DWINHTSA Campain Safe & Sober Program Planner 21 Fact Sheet Contents | Planner Contents Key Facts Legislative Status Recommendations for Strengthening and Increasing the Use of Vehicle and Vehicle Plate Sanctions Research and Evaluation Regarding the Effects of Vehicle and Plate Sanctions Transfer and Grant Programs Information Sources Vehicle and License Plate Sanctions Revoking or suspending a motorist's operators license is now a common penalty for many traffic infractions, especially those related to impaired driving. Unfortunately, many of these offenders continue to drive. It is not unusual for suspended drivers to receive additional traffic citations or be involved in crashes during periods of license suspension. As a way of reducing this problem, many states have passed laws that directly affect the offender's vehicle or license plates as a sanction for the impaired driving offense or for driving with a suspended license. Some states now permit the vehicles of drivers convicted of certain impaired driving offenses to be impounded, immobilized (club or boot), or forfeited and sold. Other states allow the license plates to be removed and impounded. Still others allow for the use of specially marked license plates, or allow for the installment of alcohol ignition interlock devices. Key Facts In 1997, 1.5 million people were arrested in the U.S. for driving under the influence (DUI) or driving while intoxicated (DWI)–more than all other reported criminal offenses except larceny and theft. About one-third of all drivers arrested or convicted of DWI each year are repeat DWI offenders. Drivers with prior DWI convictions are also overrepresented in fatal crashes and have a greater relative risk of fatal crash involvement. Many second- and third-time convicted DWI offenders who had their licenses suspended accumulated traffic offenses or were involved in crashes during the suspension period. In one study, 32 percent of suspended second-time DWI offenders, and 61 percent of third-time offenders received violations or crash citations on their driving records during their suspensions. Many drivers do not reinstate their licenses even when eligible to do so. In one study involving first-time DWI offenders who had their licenses suspended for 90 days, 50 percent had not reinstated their licenses three years after they were eligible to be relicensed. Also, many of these offenders drive without auto insurance and do not attend treatment programs when required for reinstatement. | Back To Top | Legislative Status Forty-four states have laws that can affect the vehicles or vehicle plates of offenders. Vehicle Impoundment: Overnight impoundment of the vehicle of an individual arrested for impaired driving is a typical practice in most states. Thirteen states have laws which permit longer-term impoundments for certain offenses, usually for repeat DWI offenses or for Driving While Suspended (DWS) where the original offense was related to a DWI infraction. States which impound vehicles for these types of offenses include California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, Oregon, and Wisconsin. Suspension of Vehicle Registration: In 15 states, vehicle registration is withdrawn upon conviction of a DWI or DWS offense where the original licensing action can be related to a DWI offense. States which can withdraw vehicle registrations for a DWI or DWS offense are Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Virginia, and Wyoming. Some of these states have their own enforcement departments that send out investigators to pick up the license plates of these offenders. However, in general, the vehicle license plate suspension provisions are poorly enforced. Vehicle Confiscation: Twenty-five states permit the vehicle of multiple DWI or DWS offenders to be confiscated or sold, where the original licensing action can be related to a DWI offense. These states are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont,Washington, and Wisconsin. Vehicle Immobilization: Courts can prevent a DWI or DWS offender from using his or her car by immobilizing the steering wheel (by using a club) or locking a wheel (with a boot). Currently, only Ohio uses these types of sanctions. Special License Plates or Plate Markings: Three states–Iowa, Minnesota, and Ohio–issue special license plates to permit the use of the vehicle by family members of convicted DWI offenders. Two states-Oregon and Washington-enacted laws which permitted officers to affix a zebra sticker over the annual year portion of the license plates of offenders. Ignition Interlock: The purpose of an ignition interlock is to prevent a person who has consumed alcohol from operating a vehicle. The device measures alcohol concentration in the breath and is attached to a vehicle's ignition system. Before the car can be started, a driver must blow a sample of his or her breath into the interlock device. If the driver's breath alcohol is below a specified concentration, the driver will be able to start the vehicle's engine. However, if the driver has a breath alcohol concentration above the established level, the vehicle cannot be started. Thirty-seven states have laws providing for either the discretionary or mandatory use of ignition interlock devices for repeat and chronic DWI offenders. The ignition interlock is discretionary in 32 states: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. In three states–California, Oregon, and Texas–the law is mandatory under special circumstances. In some jurisdictions, interlocks may also be used for first offenders. | Back To Top | Recommendations for Strengthening and Increasing the Use of Vehicle and Vehicle Plate Sanctions Interviews with state and local officials, judiciary members, and law enforcement officers suggest that while impoundment and forfeiture legislation is common, application of these laws is rare. The reasons cited include: (1) these laws are generally reserved for the relatively few multiple DWI offenders rather than the more numerous first offenders; (2) there are difficulties in dealing with nonoffender owners; (3) it is costly to store junk vehicles that are not reclaimed by their owners; and (4) judges are reluctant to punish innocent family members. Yet some states have developed innovative ways for dealing with these problems. Minnesota experienced a twelvefold increase in the use of its license plate impoundment law when they switched from court-based to administrative enforcement of the impoundment law. The following recommendations may help state legislators and local officials revise existing legislation or enact new legislation to increase the use and effectiveness of their laws. Consider legislation that provides for administrative impoundment of plates and civil forfeiture of vehicles. In general, try to avoid criminal laws providing for forfeiture, as courts rarely use them. Enact legislation that allows for seizure at the time of arrest if officers impound either the vehicle or plate. It is more difficult and costly to track down the offender's vehicle later, and the delay gives the offender the opportunity to transfer vehicle ownership. Consider legislation that makes it unlawful for the owner of a motor vehicle to allow another person to drive the vehicle unless the owner determines the person possesses a valid driver's license. Also, require nonoffender owners to sign an affidavit stating they will not allow the offender to drive the vehicle again while the suspension is in effect. Establish a computerized state record-keeping system to document vehicle (impoundment and forfeiture) and license plate actions. This allows states to monitor use of the sanctions. Apply impoundment laws to all repeat DWI offenders and to all DWS offenders where the original infraction was for a DWI offense. This will encourage an increase in the use of impoundment since many courts do not apply this sanction to second-time DWI offenders or to first-time DWS offenders. Where the law provides for special license plates (e.g., family plates or license plate sticker laws), incorporate a provision that permits officers to stop the vehicle for the sole purpose of checking whether the driver is operating the vehicle while their license is under suspension. | Back To Top | Research and Evaluation Regarding the Effects of Vehicle and Plate Sanctions Maryland ignition interlock program lowered the re-arrest rate for repeat alcohol offenders: A Maryland study involving 1,380 repeat alcohol offenders randomly assigned participants to either an ignition interlock group or a control group that did not receive the sanction. Alcohol-related traffic re-arrest rates were tabulated for a full year. They showed that only 2.4 percent of the interlock group was rearrested, whereas 6.7 percent of the control group was re-arrested-a statistically significant difference indicating that the interlock program reduced the risk of an alcohol traffic violation within the first year by about 65 percent. Additional analyses of post-interlock recidivism are being examined. Other research on ignition interlocks is being conducted in Illinois and Alberta (Canada). Recently, NHTSA initiated another assessment of ignition interlocks. The focus of this congressionally mandated study is to conduct additional research on the effectiveness of these devices once they have been removed from offenders' vehicles. The findings from this four-year research effort will become available in 2002. Minnesota License Plate Impoundment Study: In Minnesota, violators incurring three DWI violations in five years, or four or more in ten years, can have their license plates impounded and destroyed. An evaluation of the effects of the law found a significant decrease in recidivism for violators who had their plates impounded versus violators who did not. Violators whose license plates were impounded by the arresting officer showed a 50 percent decrease in recidivism over a two-year period (when compared with DWI violators who did not experience impoundment). Ohio Impoundment and Immobilization Program: In Franklin County (Columbus), Ohio, researchers conducted a field test to study the deterrent effects that a combined impoundment and immobilization sanctions program has on crashes and violations for multiple DUI (Driving Under the Influence) and suspended license offenders. From September 1993 to September 1995, the vehicles of nearly 1,000 offenders were impounded and then immobilized. The recidivism rates of these offenders were compared to eligible offenders who did not receive a vehicle sanction. Offenders whose vehicles were impounded and immobilized had lower rates of DUI recidivism both during and after the termination of the sanction than offenders who managed to avoid the impoundment and immobilization sanctions. Similiar findings were obtained in Hamilton County where only vehicle impoundment was used. A project report will be available by early 2000. California Impoundment Program: NHTSA, in conjunction with the State Department of Motor Vehicles, conducted a research effort to study the impact of California's new vehicle impoundment law as applied to unlicensed and suspended license offenders. The innovative 30-day impoundment law is not typical of those found in most states, since it involves a civil action independent of a criminal DWS conviction for those caught driving without a valid license. More than 6,300 unlicensed drivers and those with suspended or revoked licenses whose vehicles were impounded were compared to about the same number of drivers in 1994 whose vehicles would have been eligible had the 1995 impoundment law been in effect. Driving records of both groups were compared for a one-year period on subsequent traffic violations and crashes. First offenders whose vehicles were impounded had an average rate of subsequent DWS or driving while unlicensed (DWU) that was 24 percent lower than those whose vehicles were not impounded. Repeat offenders had 34 percent fewer DWS or DWU convictions. Also, both first-time and repeat offenders whose vehicles were impounded had fewer crashes there was a 25 percent reduction for first-time offenders and a 38 percent reduction for repeat offenders. Zebra Tag Program in Oregon and Washington States: In Oregon, suspended license offenders whose vehicle plates were "zebra tagged" had fewer subsequent DWI and DWS violations than suspended offenders who did not receive the special tags. Also, among suspended license offenders, the possibility of receiving a zebra tag if re-arrested appears to reduce subsequent violations and crashes. A similar law in Washington State did not affect subsequent violations or crashes for these types of offenders; however, it was not applied to nearly as many drivers and vehicles and it was not as strongly enforced by the police. (Legislators in both states allowed the zebra tag law to expire.) | Back To Top | Transfer and Grant Programs In 1998, as part of the TEA-21 Restoration Act, a new Federal program (see section 164 program) was established to encourage states to address the problem of the repeat intoxicated driver. To comply with Section 164, the state's laws must require that certain sanctions must be imposed on persons convicted more than once within a five-year period of driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence of alcohol (DWI/DUI). One of the sanctions that must be imposed is: that all motor vehicles of repeat intoxicated drivers be impounded or immobilized for some period of time during the driver's license suspension period, or that an ignition interlock system be installed on all motor vehicles of such drivers for some period of time after the end of the suspension period. States that do not meet the Section 164 requirements will have a portion of their Federal-aid highway construction funds redirected into other state safety activities, beginning in fiscal year 2001. In addition, TEA-21 modified the Section 410 grant program. Under the program, as modified by TEA-21, states that qualify for a basic grant may also qualify for supplemental grant funds by meeting one or more of six criteria. One of the six criteria is a program to reduce driving with a suspended driver's license. In order to qualify for a supplemental grant under this criterion, a state must impose one of the following sanctions on individuals convicted of driving after their license has been suspended for an alcohol-related offense: suspension of the offender's vehicle registration and return of license plates; impoundment, immobilization, forfeiture or confiscation of the offender's motor vehicles; or the use of distinctive license plates on the offender's motor vehicle. | Back To Top | Information Sources Beck, Kenneth H., et al. Effects of Alcohol Ignition Interlock License Restrictions on Multiple Alcohol Offenses: A Randomized Trial in Maryland. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 89, No. 11, 1696-1700 (November 1999) A Guide to Sentencing DUI Offenders. NHTSA and NIAAA, DOT HS 808 365, March 1996. Model Specifications for Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Devices (BAIIDS). Federal Register Notice, Vol. 57, No. 67, Tuesday, April 7, 1992 (11772-11786). Assessment of Impoundment and Forfeiture Laws for Drivers Convicted of DUI, Phase II Report: Evaluation of Oregon and Washington Vehicle Plate Zebra Sticker Laws. DOT HS 808 136, Final Report, April 1994. Rogers, A. Effect of Minnesota's License Plate Impoundment Law on Recidivism of Multiple DWI Violators, Alcohol, Drugs and Driving. Vol. 10, No. 2, 1994. In Vehicle BAC Test Devices as a Deterrent to DUI. Unpublished NIAAA Final Report, January 1993. Assessment of Impoundment and Forfeiture Laws for Drivers Convicted of DWI: Phase I Report: Review of State Laws and Their Application. DOT HS 807 870, Final Report, June, 1992. Popkin, C., et al. An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Sanctions for DWI in Preventing Recidivism in North Carolina. UNC HSRC, Raleigh, NC, September 30, 1992. Alcohol Ignition Interlock Service Support. DOT HS 807 923, Final Report, December, 1992. De Young, N.J. An Evaluation of the Specific Deterrent Effect of Vehicle Impoundment on Suspended, Revoked and Unlicensed Drivers in California. DOT HS 808 727, Final Report, November 1997. | Back To Top | The reports and additional information are available from your State Highway Safety Office, the NHTSA Regional Office serving your State, or from NHTSA Headquarters, Traffic Safety Programs, ATTN: NTS-11, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590; 202-366-9588;or NHTSA's website at www.nhtsa.dot.gov
|
|
DUI / DWI, Drinking 
