 |
Driving under influence Home || Blog || Projects || Google Hacks || Artificial Life || Search || About 24 Jul 2004 Driving under influence God may be dead and there is not truth out there, but everybody agrees that driving under influence is Very Bad, right? But is it, or is it just one of those things we tell each other and we never question, because it involves sin (drinking) and death? Let's think about this for a bit if for nothing else then to question our believes. The statistics seem bad enough. In the Netherlands about a thousand people get killed in traffic every year, with estimates as high as half of those accidents being alcohol related. Stop people from drinking and cut the amount of people dying in traffic in half. How could anybody think driving under influence is not bad? Ah, but statistics are a tricky thing. According to NHTSA , the american government organisation researching these things, you have a 300 times higher chance of dying in a car crash if you have an alcohol level of 0.15 BAC. Again, a scary number, but if you don't really know how good your chances are while driving sober, it is not saying much. For comparision, 0.15 is what you get after you take nine alcoholic consumptions in two hours, assuming your a guy of about my size and is three times the amount legal in the Netherlands. Normally you have a chance of dying in car accident of about 7 in a billion per kilometer, so now it will be 210 in a billion. Does this sound scary, or not meaning any thing? Let's put it into perspective, most trips back from the bar are not that long, so your total chance getting killed is 2 in a million, which is similar to the chance of an airplane crashing (1 in a million, but usually a airplane trip is two legged) and will decrease your life expectancy by about half an hour, which is similar to the decrease in life expectancy you get by smoking three cigarettes, which is about the same amount of smoke you inhale when you don't smoke but stay in a bar for the night where people smoke. Before you stop me and tell me my assumptions are wrong, realize that that is not the point. The point is, we tend not to think about these things at all, we just assume they drinking and driving is bad, because it kills people. But risk is part of life and taking risk is unavoidable. Getting killed vs killing by Bram Interesting thought and good point to raise about questioning your believes. You say it yourself: statistics are a tricky thing. You only quote stats about *getting* killed. However, the chances of *killing* also rise (my assumption). I think that the deaths of innnocent people at the hands of drunk drivers bring emotions into the equation, probably too much of 'em to apply the reason in the way you do. It'll make your good point a hard sell on most people I fear. Re: Getting Killed vs Killing by Douwe Osinga Yes, that is a difference, though the same could be argued for secondary smoke. But the question how much I can endanger the lives of others is very hard to answer. Driving 600 km while sober endangers others as much as driving 2 km drunk, but if you visit a friend in an other country on a surprise trip, people usually don't go, but think of all the innocent people you've endangered, while if you take the same friend to a bar for a drink and drive home drunk, they will. Risk by Anyhoo, You say <I>risk is part of life and taking risk is unavoidable</I>, but surely the point is to manage the risks and so minimise them? You seem to argue that it is an individual's right to take risks, and to a certain extent, I think most people would agree. However, if an individual taking risks causes greater risk to those around that person (and thus endanger their individual rights, including of taking risks), then should society's nominees be allowed to restrain such a reckless individual? Should society be able, through laws and campaigns, to reduce acts which negatively impact the lives of others? As for the example in your comment, it's a matter of where to position the threshold. It depends entirely on the definitions for a reasonable quality of life, what one means by freedom [and what constitutes a negative impact]. Should smoking be required? Permitted? Banned in some places? Banned in many places? Banned everywhere bar the home? Banned in the presence of any human? Banned in the presence of any respiring animal? Banned everywhere? Is there a right to harm, or a right to self-harm? As an aside: Is it worse to drink-drive for 2 km in a congested city or a barren desert? Morally or legally? What about the impact on humans, or the environment? Sorry if I seem to be playing devil's advocate, though I suspect you are as well. And now for the sucking up and ending on a positive note bit: Great blog - been reading for a while, please keep going, and don't worry about infrequent posting. Risk and statistics by zurn I agree with the points made in the comments above about risk management and statistics. Something to keep in mind is your judgement is impaired, even slightly, after your first glass of alcohol. Considering how dangerous and traumatic a car collision can be, is it acceptable to knowingly increase that risk and personally impair the driver of the vehicle, yourself? Also, keep in mind that you may not cause any fatalities, but you may still cripple someone, or incapacitate them for a while. Those are not reflected in fatality statistics. I can see what you're trying to say about driving long distances, and the per/km risk, but thinking in terms of such global statistics isn't always that helpful in real life. What a long drive increases the risk of is your encountering odd traffic situations or high-risk events such as other bad/careless/drunk drivers or bad weather/roads. It is in these situations that your full, un-impaired judgement may be required to avert inconvenience, injury, or death. These are the situations I think of when I consider drinking and driving, not simply driving a straight line down an empty road. Flying is a bit different, since you are not in control of the plane, and the rules are stricter. But you know that there are extremely strict rules regulating the behaviour of commercial pilots, such as no drinking at all 12 hours or so before the flight, and that the qualifications needed for such jobs are very high as well (and the penalties for trangressions equally high). I step onto a plane knowing that the risk to myself and others are been reduced as much as possible. This is not true of a car driven by a drunk driver. How would you feel if the pilot had a beer and thought it would be OK to fly? Smoking is another big issue as well. The risk from smoking is huge. In 2000 in the US, tobacco is cited as the actual cause of death in %18 of the deaths ( http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/factsheets/death_causes2000.htm ). Only poor diet/physical inactivity comes even close, %16.6 in second. Motor-vehicles are 6th, at %1.8. Since smoking is such a huge health problem, the government has had to step in (under public pressure of course) and mitigate this risk, since it's causing so many deaths. It's not just the statistical value of the risk to one person, it's also about how many people that risk is attached to, and with tobacco it's a lot of people. That's why in Canada smoking is banned in public places. In several Canadian cities the ban is far more extensive; for example, in Toronto it extends to all bars, restaurants, pool halls, bingo halls, casinos and racetracks. These measures wouldn't be taken if only a small number of people had smoked. One final point about smoking "taking X hours" off your life. I don't know exactly how they come up with these numbers, but I figure it's a result of averaging the lowered age of death of all past smokers. The reality is smokers, and those around them, aren't taking hours or minutes off their life; they're *potentially* taking decades off. That might give people more pause, if health is an issue with them. Interesting blog, I've been reading for several months. flippy statistics by chaizzilla most car collision fatalities in the usa are dui-related. driving drunk is rarely about taking those o so romantic risks life is alllll about as much as simply being a lazy dick. it eats up a lot of resources: emergency services, district attorneys, courtrooms, various people who didn't actively suck but got run over by a slobbering twit anyway, etc. the liability issue gets pressed eventually, civil society weighs the cost/benefit ratio, and the right to drink and drive loses. unless of course you're in the moneyed class; throw enough money at a dui conviction and you'd have to have killed seven mother teresas and then bragged about it to the press to not get the charge written off. unless you're famous &/or someone with more money &/or lots of PR muscle has it in for you. then you can go down in sacrifical goat flames for the sake of public sensibilities like martha stewart over ken lay's pocket change. true life story from austin, texas: you can run through a line of flares & cones around a dui crash from earlier in the evening and kill a cop fresh out of cop school unfortunate enough to have been working the scene, and still manage to go free for years while you drag the case out, costing the taxpayers a small fortune above and beyond the immediate damage. on the bright side i think this woman was one of the most hated people in the region; whenever her picture showed in the newspaper people taped it to dartboards. have you read any flannery o'connor? she's great. why bother by jw it is not that hard to understand. We like our live's and want to protect ourselfs and our family. that is why we mourn about the ones we've loved but lost. All the other (unkown persons) are not interesting enough to mourn about. In a way they are. One person know's everybody in the entire world. And if one person is hurt we feel the same, because we can relate. BUT, kill a sheep, kill a deer, kill a bear, kill a fly and nobody will give a cry. You can kill literaly EVERYTHING but a human, why ? No idee, because we feel related ? Maybee, but i think it is because we don't want it to happen to us, personally. Eliminate the rist by forbitten, like a lot of other things we're not allowed to do. My opinion. People who drink and drive do the cleaning in our society. Somebody got to do it. Why the fuck do we always think we are the lucky basterd to live our entire life. Finding the drunk on your path is part of the risk. If you want to get out, get out but don't moan if you get hit. And, it always takes two to tango. I understand, it's a pitty if it is a relative, but be realistic, if you don't now the driver nor the fellow he hit, you'll hardly read it in the paper, let alone realise it. I dare to state that we need accidents, they happen for a reason, same like virussus and plages. and douwe, geweldige leuke discussie, de onder buur man statistics, injury vs. death, sobriety by michael i think your statistics can be massaged a little bit more. let's say your probability of a fatal driving accident is P/km sober, and 300*P/km when fairly impaired. consider N 1km bar trips (or, really, N km worth of bar trips). your probability of *not* having a fatal accident is (1-P)^N versus (1-300*P)^N. with your claim that P is 7/1,000,000,000, we can compare these for a few values of N: N = 50: sober, 0.99999965 => 3.5 in 10 million impaired, 0.99989501 => 1.05 in 10000 N = 100: sober, 0.9999993 => 7 in 10 million impaired, 0.99979 => 2 in 10000 admittedly this may be stretching things a bit, but either of those might be a decent yearly number, and the "impaired" probabilities are no longer unthinkably small (and the sober numbers are). again, one might not be very impaired every time he leaves the bar, etc. -- but if one begins to think that drunk driving is only a tiny risk, and thus takes that risk more often, the numbers become more tangible a lot faster. really, though, a better statistic would show how your risk as a sober driver increases with the density of impaired drivers on the road. finally i must agree with the previous poster that fatality statistics don't tell the whole story. in my opinion many serious injuries might be worse. Re: statistics, injury vs. death, sobriety by Douwe Osinga Well, you are of course right. Taking the risk of one drunken drive back from a bar is probably not that bad; however, if you make it into a weekly ritual it starts to add up. weighing the punishment to the crime by tax paying citizen with rights in having been in the system for dui now i have to ask the people who back the current laws for dui a few things and point out a few others. how can it be fair that i can be classified a felon for having done the same crime i did 12 years ago that was then classified a misdermeanor.if i was to be charged on any other crime 20 years or 100 years ago and did that crime again today it is what it is it doesnt make me all of a sudden quilty of a more dangerous crime. in fact in proving guilt for intoxication say the level of intoxication is substatially lower on a felony as opposed to the misdermeanor arent we saying who cares how drunk you were and danerous to lives you were. example first offense bac.level .22 felony charge bac.level .o81 so i ask who is and should be considered the real felon in these example. i pose this question the the people who claim these laws save lives tell me who is more likely to kill or even be in a crash.im sure your mad statistics can find something. and since its in your best interest to make the highways safer for all how about speeders who do 80 or 90 down the highways causing crashes and deaths daily and on a much larger scale than that of a guy who blew a .081 or the person entering traffic with a cell in hand attempting to merge without even one thought of on coming traffic causing major injuries and deaths. well i guess a traffic ticket is ok in those situations huh. Post a comment archive (c) Douwe Osinga 2001-2005, douwe.webfeedback@gmail.com Vertaling Nederlands Duits?
|
|
FIELD SOBRIETY TESTING CHAPTER Field Sobriety Testing in Illinois DUI Cases - DUI Lawyer Wheaton Dupage Kane Cook IL Name: Email: Tell us about your problem Or click here for a more comprehensive form Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education DUI FIELD SOBRIETY TESTING CHAPTER © Donald J. Ramsell 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 A. SCOPE OF CHAPTER This Chapter is designed to inform the reader of the history and development of a standardized battery of field sobriety tests, the validation of certain standardized field sobriety tests, the elements of the standardized field sobriety tests, how they are administered and scored, and caselaw regarding the admissibility of field sobriety testing in DUI cases. B. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDIZED FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS (SFST’s) Beginning in the 1970's, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) conducted research into the possible development and validation of a battery of standardized field sobriety tests (SFST’s) which could then be used by law enforcement officers to improve the detection of drivers under the influence of alcohol (DUI). In late 1975, extensive scientific research studies were sponsored by NHTSA through the Southern California Research Institute (SCRI) to determine which roadside field sobriety tests were accurate enough to recommend and further study. Six tests were used in the initial stages, which was comprised of a Laboratory study: The Walk-and-Turn (WAT) The One-Legged Stand (OLS) Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) Finger-to Nose Finger Counting (Thumb and Fingers) Drawing on Paper. Out of the above six, three were chosen to be sufficiently reliable and accurate to conduct further studies in the field. Those tests were: Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Walk-and-Turn One-Legged Stand Marcelline Burns & Herbert Moskowitz, Psychophysiological Tests For DWI Arrest , Final Report, DOT-HS-802-424 (1977). A second study combining laboratory and field testing of sobriety tests was then performed. V. Tharp et. Al., Development and Field Test of Psychophysiological Tests for DWI Arrest , Final Report, DOT-HS-805-864 (1981). A final study was performed solely in the field, employing the three-test battery previously recommended. Theodore Anderson et al., Field Evaluation of a Behavioral Test Battery for DWI , DOT-HS-806-475 (1983). NHTSA analyzed the Laboratory test data and determined that: a) the HGN by itself was 77% accurate b) the Walk-and-Turn by itself was 68% accurate c) the One-Legged Stand by itself was 65% accurate d) and the HGN and WAT in combination were 80% accurate in determining whether a subject’s blood alcohol concentration was .10 or above. Several critics and groups have questioned NHTSA’s empirical data, and pointed to other significant problems that appeared in the studies. Spurgeon Cole & Ronald H. Nowacczyk, Field Sobriety Tests: Are They Designed for Failure? 79 PERCEP & MOTOR SKILLS, 99 (1994); Jonathon D. Cowan & Susannah G. Jaffe, Proof and Disproof of Alcohol-induced Impairment Through Evidence of Observable Intoxication and Coordination Testing , 9 AM. JUR. POF 3d, 459 (1990) Steve Rubenzer, Ph.D., The Psychometrics and Science of the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests , Part 1, The Champion, 48 (NACDL May 2003), Part 2, The Champion, 40 (NACDL, June 2003) (also available at www.stevenrubenzerphd.com). Between 1995 and 1998, three more field evaluation studies were performed. The Colorado Study utilized law enforcement personnel experienced in the use of SFSTs. It reported a correct arrest decision rate of 93%. The Florida SFST field validation study reported that correct arrest decisions were made 95% of the time when utilizing the 3-test NHTSA battery. The third study in San Diego suggested that the 3-test battery resulted in correct arrest decisions 91% of the time at BAC’s of 0.08 and above. NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY TRAFFIC ADMIN., U.S. DEPT. OF TRANS. , DWI DETECTION AND STANDARDIZED FIELD SOBRIETY TESTING STUDENT MANUAL , HS 178 R2/00, Section VIII (2000). Critics have equally questioned the empirical data and reported reliability of these studies. In 1986, the Advisory Committee on Highway Safety of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) passed a resolution which recommended that law enforcement agencies adopt and implement the SFST program developed by NHTSA. In 1992, IACP recommended the development of a system for the selection and training of SFST practitioners by nationally accepted standards. Many of these standards are found in the 2002 DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing Instructor and Student Manuals. To date, Illinois has not adopted these standards. C. THE NHTSA STANDARDIZED FIELD SOBRIETY TEST BATTERY: 1. HORIZONTAL GAZE NYSTAGMUS TEST 2. WALK AND TURN TEST 3. ONE-LEGGED STAND TEST The following three tests have been validated only for alcohol – not any other drugs. One of the foremost authors on field sobriety testing, who is sometimes referred to as the creator of the 3-test SFST battery for NHTSA, is Marcelline Burns. The NHTSA SFST battery has only been validated for the prediction of blood alcohol concentrations. Marcelline Burns acknowledges that there is no correlation between performance on standardized field sobriety tests and operation of a motor vehicle. These tests are only useful in predicting a blood alcohol concentration of .08 and above. Marcelline Burns, Validation of Standardized Field Sobriety Test Battery at BAC’s Below .10 Percent , DOT-HS-808-839 (1998) Formal administration and accreditation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Standardized Field Sobriety Testing program is provided through the International Association of Chiefs of Police. It is unknown to this author if any of the SFST programs run in Illinois are IACP accredited. The validity of the SFSTs is dependent on the officer’s administration, scoring and interpretation of the tests. The following language is found in the 1995, 2000, and 2002 NHTSA Student manuals: “IT IS NECESSARY TO EMPHASIZE THIS VALIDATION APPLIES ONLY WHEN: THE TESTS ARE PERFORMED IN THE PRESCRIBED, STANDARDIZED MANNER THE STANDARDIZED CLUES ARE USED TO ASSESS THE SUSPECTS PERFORMANCE THE STANDARDIZED CRITERIA ARE EMPLOYED TO INTERPRET THAT PERFORMANCE IF ANY ONE OF THE STANDARDIZED FIELD SOBRIETY TEST ELEMENTS IS CHANGED, THE VALIDITY IS COMPROMISED.” In the 2000 NHTSA SFST Instructor Manual, the following language is found: “ 8. How Flexible are the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests? THE STANDARDIZED FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS ARE NOT AT ALL FLEXIBLE. THEY MUST BE ADMINISTERED EACH TIME, EXACTLY AS OUTLINED IN THIS COURSE.” 1. THE HORIZONTAL GAZE NYSTAGMUS TEST The relationship between the ingestion of alcohol and the onset of nystagmus is well documented. See e.g., Ascan, G., Different types of alcohol nystagmus , Acta. Otolaryngol. Suppl., Vol. 140, pp. 69-78 (1958). Lehti, H. The effect of blood alcohol concentration on the onset of gaze nystagmus, Blutalkahol, Vol. 13 pp. 411-414 (1976). Nystagmus is a natural, normal phenomenon involving the involuntary jerking of the eyes. Alcohol and certain other drugs do not cause nystagmus, but may exaggerate or magnify it. NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN., U.S. DEPT. OF TRANS. , DWI DETECTION AND STANDARDIZED FIELD SOBRIETY TESTING STUDENT MANUAL , HS 178 R2/00, Section VIII p.3 (2000) a. Causes of Exaggerated Nystagmus There are at least 38 possible ‘causes’ of nystagmus: problems with the inner ear labyrinth; irrigating the ears with warm or cold water; influenza; streptococcus infection; vertigo; measles; syphilis; arteriosclerosis; Korchaff’s syndrome; brain hemorrhage; epilepsy; hypertension; motion sickness; sunstroke; eye strain; eye muscle fatigue; glaucoma; changes in atmospheric pressure; consumption of excessive amounts of caffeine; excessive exposure to nicotine; aspirin; circadian rhythms; acute head trauma; chronic head trauma; some prescription drugs; tranquilizers; pain medication and anti-convulsant medication; barbiturates; disorders of the vestibular apparatus and brain stem; cerebellum dysfunction; heredity; diet; toxins; exposure to solvents; extreme chilling; eye muscle imbalance; lesions; continuous movement of the visual field past the eyes; and antihistimine use . Schultz v. State , 664 A.2d 60 at 77 (Md. App. 1995) b. Procedures of Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus The procedures for giving the standardized horizontal gaze nystagmus test are as follows: “Begin by asking “are you wearing contact lenses”, make a note whether or not the suspect wears contact lenses before starting the test. “If the suspect is wearing eyeglasses, have them removed. “Give the suspect the following instructions from a position of interrogation (FOR OFFICER SAFETY KEEP YOUR WEAPON AWAY FROM THE SUSPECT): “I am going to check your eyes.” “Keep your head still and follow the stimulus with your eyes only.” “Keep focusing on this stimulus until I tell you to stop.” “Position the stimulus approximately 12-15 inches from the suspect’s nose and slightly above eye level. Check the suspect’s eyes for the ability to track together. Move the stimulus smoothly together or one lags behind the other. If the eyes don’t track together it could indicate apossible medical disorder, injury, or blindness. “Next, check to see that both pupils are equal in size. If they are not, this may indicate a head injury. “Check the suspect’s left eye by moving the stimulus to your right. Move the stimulus smoothly, at a speed that requires about two seconds to bring the suspect’s eye as far to the side as it can go. While moving the stimulus, look at the suspect’s eye and determine whether it is able to pursue smoothly . Now, move the stimulus all the way to the left, back across suspect’s face checking if the right eye pursues smoothly. Movement of the stimulus should take approximately two seconds out and two seconds back for each eye. Repeat the procedure. “After you have checked both eyes for lack of smooth pursuit, check the eyes for distinct nystagmus at maximum deviation beginning with the suspect’s left eye. Simply move the object to the suspect’s left side until the eye has gone as far to the side as possible. Usually, no white will be showing in the corner of the eye at maximum deviation. Hold the eye at that position for about four seconds, and observe the eye for distinct nystagmus. Move the stimulus all the way across the suspect’s face to check the right eye holding that position for approximately four seconds. Repeat the procedure. “After checking the eyes at maximum deviation, check for onset of nystagmus prior to 45 degrees. Start moving the stimulus to the right (suspect’s left eye) at a speed that would take about four seconds for the stimulus to reach the edge of the suspect’s shoulder. Watch the eye carefully for any sign of jerking. When you see it, stop and verify that the jerking continues. Now, move the stimulus to the left (suspect’s right eye) at a speed that would take about four seconds for the stimulus to reach the edge of the suspect’s shoulder. Watch the eye carefully for any sign of jerking. When you see it, stop and verify that the jerking continues. Repeat the procedure. NOTE: It is important to use the full four seconds when checking for the onset of nystagmus. If you move the stimulus too fast, you may go past the point of nystagmus or miss it altogether. If the suspect’s eyes start jerking before they reach 45 degrees, check to see that some of the white of the eye is still showing on the side closest to the ear. If no white of the eye is showing, you have either taken the eye too far to the side (that is more than 45 degrees) or the person has unusual eyes that will not deviate very far to the side. “NOTE: Nystagmus may be due to causes other than alcohol. These other causes include seizure medications, PCP, inhalants, barbiturates, and other depressants. A large disparity between the performance of the right and left eye may indicate a medical condition.” NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN., U.S. DEPT. OF TRANS., DWI DETECTION AND STANDARDIZED FIELD SOBRIETY TESTING STUDENT MANUAL , HS 178 R2/00, Section VIII pp. 6-8 (2000) c. Scoring of the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test (Interpretation) The three clues for the HGN test in each eye are as follows: The eye cannot follow an object smoothly Nystagmus is distinct when the eye is at maximum deviation The angle of onset of nystagmus is prior to 45 degrees. As per the NHTSA Training Manuals, if you observe four or more clues total for both eyes, it is likely that the suspect’s BAC is above 0.10. Using this criterion you will be able to classify correctly about 77% of your suspects with respect to whether they are above 0.10. 2. WALK-AND-TURN TEST a. Procedures for the Walk-and-Turn Test There are two basic parts to the Walk-and-Turn test: the balance stage and the walking stage. Prior to the beginning of the test, always ask the suspect if he has had any injuries or other conditions which might affect his ability to walk or balance, including head, back, neck and leg injuries. The following are the Standard Procedures for the Walk-and-Turn test: “For standardization in the performance of this test, have the suspect assume the heel-to-toe stance by giving the following verbal instructions, accompanied by demonstrations: ‘ Place your left foot on the line’ (real or imaginary). Demonstrate. ‘Place your right foot on the line ahead of the left foot, with the heel of the right foot against the toe of the left foot’. Demonstrate. ‘Place your arms down at your sides’. Demonstrate. ‘Keep this position until I tell you to begin. Do not start to walk until told to do so’ ‘Do you understand the instructions so far?’ (Make sure suspect indicates understanding.) “Explain the test requirements, using the following verbal instructions, accompanied by demonstrations: ‘When I tell you to start, take nine heel-to-toe steps, turn, and take nine heel-to-toe steps back.’ (Demonstrate 3 heel-to-toe steps.) ‘When you turn, keep the front foot on the line, and turn by taking a series of small steps with the other foot, like this’ (Demonstrate) ‘While you are walking, keep your arms at your sides, watch your feet at all times, and count your steps out loud.’ ‘Once you start walking, don’t stop until you have completed the test.’ ‘Do you understand the instructions?’ (Make sure suspect understands) ‘Begin, and count your first step from the heel-to-toe position as ‘One’.’ NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN., U.S. DEPT. OF TRANS. , DWI DETECTION AND STANDARDIZED FIELD SOBRIETY TESTING STUDENT MANUAL , HS 178 R2/00, Section VIII pp. 9-10 (2000) b. Scoring and Interpretation of the Walk-and-Turn Test The following are the NHTSA standardized clues for the Walk-and-Turn Test: Cannot keep balance while listening to instructions . Record this clue only if the suspect does not maintain the heel-to-toe position throughout the instructions. The feet must actually break apart. Don’t record this clue if the suspect merely sways or uses arm for balance. Starts before instructions are finished . Record this clue if the suspect starts after being told not to start walking ‘until I tell you to begin’. Stops while walking . The suspect pauses for several seconds. Do not record if the suspect is merely walking slowly. Does not touch heel-to-toe . Record this clue if there is more than one-half inch of space between the heel and toe on any step. Steps off the line . The suspect steps so that one foot is entirely off the line. Uses arms to balance . The suspect raises one or both arms more than 6 inches from the sides in order to maintain balance. Improper Turn . The suspect removes the front foot from the line while turning. Also record this clue if the suspect has not followed directions as demonstrated, i.e. spins or pivots around. Incorrect Number of Steps . Record this clue if the suspects takes more or fewer than nine steps in either direction. Each clue is only scored one time even if more than one fault is seen. Two or more clues correctly classifies 68% of the suspects as having a BAC of 0.10 or above. The officer should limit his movement while the suspect is performing the test so as not to distract the suspect. c. Test conditions for the Walk-and-Turn Test According to NHTSA, the Walk-and-Turn Test requires a line that the suspect can see, and should be performed on a dry, hard, level, nonslippery surface. Original research indicated that persons with back, leg, middle ear problems, persons 50 pounds or greater overweight, and those over 65 years of age, had difficulty performing the test. (NOTE: Later NHTSA manuals have removed the weight comment, and also inserted the phrase ‘imaginary line’ at the instruction phase, even though original research always used a visible line.) Individuals wearing heels more than 2 inches high should be given the option of removing their shoes. 3. ONE-LEGGED STAND TEST a. Procedures for the One-Legged Stand Test “Initiate the test by giving the following verbal instructions, followed by demonstrations. ‘Please stand with your feet together and your arms down at your side, like this.’ (Demonstrate) ‘Do not start to perform the test until I tell you to do so.’ ‘Do you understand the instructions so far?’ (Make sure suspects indicates understanding.) “Explain the test requirements, using the following verbal instructions, accompanied by demonstrations: ‘When I tell you to start, raise one leg, either leg, approximately six inches off the ground, foot pointed out.’ (Demonstrate one leg stance) ‘You must keep both legs straight, arms at your side.’ ‘While holding that position, count out loud in the following manner: ‘one thousand and one, one thousand and two, one thousand and three, until told to stop.’ (Demonstrate a count, as follows: ‘one thousand and one, one thousand and two, one thousand and three, etc.’ Officer should not look at his foot when conducting the demonstration - OFFICER SAFETY.) ‘Keep your arms at your sides at all times and keep watching the raised foot.’ ‘Do you understand?’ (Make sure suspect indicates understanding.) ‘Go ahead and perform the test.’ (Officer should always time the 30 seconds. Test should be discontinued after 30 seconds.) “Observe the suspect from a safe distance. If the suspect puts the foot down, give instructions to pick the foot up again and continue counting from the point at which the foot touched the ground. If the suspect counts very slowly, terminate the test after 30 seconds.” NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN., U.S. DEPT. OF TRANS., DWI DETECTION AND STANDARDIZED FIELD SOBRIETY TESTING STUDENT MANUAL , HS 178 R2/00, Section VIII p. 12-13 (2000) b. Scoring and Interpretation of the One-Legged Stand Test The NHTSA manual states that the officer should look for the following clues: “A. The suspect sways while balancing . This refers to the side-to-side or back-and-forth motion while the suspect maintains the one-leg stand position. B. Uses arms for balance . Suspect moves arms 6 or more inches from the side of the body to keep balance. C. Hopping . Suspect is able to keep one foot off the ground, but resorts to hopping in order to maintain balance. D. Puts foot down . The suspect is not able to maintain the one-leg stand position, putting the foot down one or more times during the 30-second count.” NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN., U.S. DEPT. OF TRANS., DWI DETECTION AND STANDARDIZED FIELD SOBRIETY TESTING STUDENT MANUAL , HS 178 R2/00, Section VIII p. 13-14 (2000) If the suspect scores two or more clues, there is a good chance his BAC is 0.10 or above, according to the original research. Using that criterion, you will accurately classify 65% of the people tested. Officers must remain relatively motionless and observe the suspect from a safe distance so as to not interfere. If the suspect counts slowly, terminate the test after 30 seconds. c. Test conditions for the One-Legged Stand Test According to the 2000 NHTSA Manual, the surface must be level, dry, and a non-slippery surface. Persons 65 years of age, 50 pounds or more overweight, and those with leg, back and middle ear problems will have difficulty performing the test. However, earlier editions of the standardized field sobriety testing student manuals from NHTSA contain much stronger language, such as the following: “Certain individuals are likely to have trouble with this test even when sober. People over 60 often have very poor balance. (Since very few elderly people are stopped at roadside, specific guidelines have not been established for them on this test.)....In administering the test, make sure the suspects eyes are open and there is adequate lighting for him to have some frame of reference... In total darkness, the One-Leg Stand is difficult even for sober people.” NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN., U.S. DEPT. OF TRANS., Improved Sobriety Testing , DOT-HS-806-512, p. 7 (1984). D. SCIENTIFIC CRITICISMS OF THE STANDARDIZED FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS Many experts have questioned the accuracy of the standardized field sobriety tests, the statistical data behind SFSTs, and the ability of officers to properly administer and interpret SFSTs in the field. In one particular study, individuals who were completely sober were asked to perform the sfst’s and also a set of ‘normal-abilities’ tests. The ‘normal-abilities’ test was comprised of exercises and questions which should be well known to individuals, such as one’s address, phone number, and walking in a normal manner. Performances for each type of test were then videotaped. 14 police officers were asked to view the videotapes of the 21 sober individuals with 0.00 blood alcohol concentrations doing sfst’s and normal-abilities testing. After viewing the 21 videos of sober individuals taking the standardized field tests, the police officers’ believed that forty-six percent of the individuals had “too much to drink”. Fifteen percent of the officers viewing the normal-abilities videos thought the individuals had too much to drink. S. Cole & R.H. Nowaczyk , Field Sobriety Tests: Are They Designed for Failure? , Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 79, pp. 99-104 (1994). The authors concluded that SFSTs must be held to the same standards the scientific community would expect of any reliable and valid test of behavior, and that SFSTs should be examined and judged critically. In another study, the authors concluded that the HGN test has a high baseline error and a dose/response relationship that varied greatly depending on whether the subject’s BAC was falling or rising. In 52 videotapes of actual arrests for DUI, the authors found that the HGN test was improperly administered 51 times. JL Booker, End-position nystagmus as an indicator of ethanol intoxication , Science and Justice 2001: 41(2): 113-116 (2001) In another study, a series of experiments was performed at the Rutgers University Alcohol Behavior Research Laboratory to test the ability of social drinkers, bartenders, and police officers to gauge the sobriety of individuals. All three subject groups – the social drinkers, bartenders, and police officers– correctly judged the subjects level of intoxication only 25 % of the time. Psychology, Public Policy and the Evidence for Alcohol Intoxication , American Psychologist p.1070 (Oct. 1983). Other criticisms noted regarding the NHTSA field studies include: “1) The field studies validated the arrest decisions of the officers, not the SFST’s themselves; 2) The police officers and the degree of supervision in the field studies were not typical of typical DWI stops; 3) The studies are insufficiently documented for scientific papers; 4) The authors did not report the accuracy of arrest decisions for stops that were observed vs. those that were not, or for SFST’s performed under adverse climatic conditions vs. those that were not, and 5) None of the SFST field studies have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.” Steve Rubenzer, Ph.D., The Psychometrics and Science of the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests , Part 1, The Champion, 48 (NACDL May 2003), Part 2, The Champion, 40 (NACDL, June 2003) (also available at www.stevenrubenzerphd.com). Acknowledging that officers trained in conducting SFST’s can have their skills degrade over time, and that modifications to the standardized procedures could result in an officer administering SFSTs according to outdated protocols, NHTSA recommends that law enforcement agencies conduct refresher training for SFST instructors and practitioners. NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN., U.S. DEPT. OF TRANS., Development of a Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) Training Management System , DOT-HS-809-400, (2001). E. NON-VALIDATED SOBRIETY “TESTS” A variety of so-called field sobriety tests are employed by police officers in the field during DUI investigations. None of these ‘tests’ has been statistically validated as reliable, nor have they been accepted in the medical or scientific community for the purpose of diagnosing alcohol intoxication. The use of the term “test’ for these non-validated exercises is a misnomer. Black’s Law Dictionary defines a test as “Something by which to ascertain the truth respecting another thing: a criterion, a gauge, a standard, or norm”. BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, (6 th Ed. 1990) (West Publishing Co.) When proffered testimony is offered to assist the trier of fact to understand or determine facts in issue, the court must determine whether the evidence constitutes scientific evidence, whether it involves a firmly established method or technique, whether the method is generally acceptable in the relevant scientific community, and whether the evidence is reliable. Whiting v. Coultrip , 324 Ill.App. 3d 161,755 N.E.2d 494, 258 Ill.Dec. 111 (3d. Dist. 2001). Most of these non-validated ‘tests’ have arisen either from word-of-mouth between officers, or through antiquated methods that seemingly have not been discarded. These include: 1. The “Alphabet Test” – the variations employed are endless, but most involve saying the complete alphabet (without singing it), or stating a portion of the alphabet, such as starting from E and ending at U, or saying the alphabet backwards. In addition to a total lack of validation that the test can accurately separate sober individuals from those who are under the influence, common problems with this test include that many persons have not stated the alphabet since childhood, many persons do not speak English as their primary language, and that the inability to say the alphabet may be a product of sheer nervousness. Additionally, there has not been any standardization in scoring this exercise for DUI purposes. 2. The “Finger-to-Nose Test” – having its origin somewhere in the 1950's, this test seeks to have a person touch the tip of his nose with the tip of his finger, while tilting his head back as far as possible and keeping his eyes closed. The officer then calls out each hand, left, right, left, right, and then right left in an attempt to confused the subject. Besides a lack of validation, this exercise does not use standardized clues or scoring in order to establish what is a “pass” or “fail”. 3. The “Pick-up-Coins Test” – most commonly used by the Chicago Police Department up until the 1970's, this test required the suspect to pick up the correct coin called by the officer (i.e. penny, dime, nickel, quarter). 4. The “Rhomberg Test” – having its origin in the detection of persons under the influence of drugs, the suspect is asked to close his eyes and tell the officer when 30 seconds have passed. The theory claimed is that a person under the influence of amphetamines will think 30 seconds has passed too quickly, while a central nervous depressant will cause the person to think that 30 seconds has passed too slowly. This “test” has yet to be accepted by the medical or scientific community. 5. The “Finger-to-Thumb Test” – the suspect is asked to touch his thumb to each fingertip in correct sequence starting with the index finger, and asked to count out loud “Four, three, two, one, one, two, three, four” and so forth. 6. The “Hand-pat Test” – the suspect opens the palm of the first hand upright, and then takes the other hand and pats his palm, flipping his second hand from palm to backside and so forth, sometimes while counting. F. LEGAL CHALLENGES TO ADMISSIBILITY OF FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS 1. THE HORIZONTAL GAZE NYSTAGMUS TEST Admissibility of the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test is generally held to a higher standard than any other field sobriety test in Illinois. In a plurality opinion, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the HGN test was no longer novel, and that it was admissible as evidence of consumption of alcohol in DUI cases. People v. Basler , 193 Ill. 2d 545, 740 N.E.2d 1, 251 Ill. Dec. 171 (Ill. S. Ct. 2000). The Basler decision further stated that the State had the burden of establishing that the officer was trained in the procedure and that the test was properly administered. A defendant could still challenge the test if he had evidence that the test was scientifically unsound. The plurality opinion in Basler is not without controversy. In People v. Herring , 327 Ill. App. 3d 259, 762 N.E.2d 1186, 261 Ill. Dec. 259 (4 th Dist. 2002), the Appellate Court disregarded the plurality opinion in Basler, and held that HGN tests are inadmissible unless the State presents expert testimony that the HGN test is a reliable and acceptable method in the scientific community, citing to Frye v. United States , 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) (Requiring proof that a ‘novel’ scientific method has been shown to be generally accepted). Another case critical of the HGN test in Illinois is People v. Kirk , 289 Ill. App. 3d 326, 681 N.E.2d 1073, 224 Ill. Dec. 452, (4 th Dist. 1997) Other districts have found the HGN test generally acceptable. See, e.g. People v. Buening , 229 Ill. App. 3d 538, 170 Ill. Dec. 542, 592 N.E.2d 1222 (1992); People v. Wiebler , 266 Ill. App. 3d 336, 203 Ill. Dec. 597, 640 N.E.2d 24 (1994). Although most cases have allowed the HGN test to be admitted provided a foundation is laid, the HGN test may not be used to establish that the defendant’s blood alcohol concentration was at or above a certain level. In People v. Dakuras , 172 Ill. App. 3d 865, 527 N.E.2d 163, 122 Ill. Dec. 791 (2d. Dist. 1988), the Court held that the HGN test was inadmissible to prove a blood alcohol concentration due to Section 11-501.2 of the Illinois Motor Vehicle Code, which restricts proof of blood alcohol concentrations to specific analyses of blood, breath or urine only. The Dakuras decision is in accord with virtually all other states. See e.g., State v. Superior Court , 718 P.2d 171 (Ariz. 1986); Ballard v. State , 955 P.2d 931 (Alaska Ct. App. 1998); State v. Baue , 607 N.W.2d 191 (Neb. 2000). 2. WALK AND TURN, ONE-LEGGED STAND The admissibility of a defendant’s performance of field sobriety tests, and the admissibility of testimony interpreting the results of field sobriety tests, including the Walk-and-Turn Test and One-Legged Stand Test, is the subject of great controversy across the United States. In Illinois, there are very few cases discussing these issues. In People v. Sides , 199 Ill. App. 3d 203, 556 N.E. 2d 778, 145 Ill. Dec. 160 (4 th Dist. 1990), the Court held that the ‘finger-to-nose test’, the ‘walk-and-turn test’ , and the ‘one-leg stand test’ (sic) “were not so abstruse as to require a foundation other than the experience of the officer administering them”, citing to People v. Vega , 145 Ill. App. 3d 996, 1000-01, 99 Ill. Dec. 808, 496 N.E.2d 501 (1986). The Sides court did suggest that it was for the jury to decide what conclusions should be drawn when a defendant does poorly on field sobriety tests. This logic would seem to suggest that a police officer is not entitled to offer an interpretation of the results of field sobriety tests, as such evidence would invade the province of the jury. In People v. Bostelman , 325 Ill. App. 3d 22, 756 N.E.2d 953, 258 Ill.Dec. 679 (2d Dist. 2001), the Court concluded that an officer is not required to establish that he has any previous experience or formal training in the administration of field sobriety tests in order to testify about the defendant’s performance on field sobriety tests. Further, the Court stated that “ the field sobriety tests measured abilities that are tested innumerable times throughout the average day of the normally active person”, stating: “Indeed, so fundamental are such exercises of balance, coordination, and basic cognition 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.’” People v. Bostelman, 325 Ill.App.3d at 33. Other jurisdictions appear more critical regarding the admissibility of field sobriety tests, and regarding an officer’s ability to interpret the results of field sobriety tests. In State v. Homan, 89 Ohio St. 3d 421, 732 N.E.2d 952 (S.Ct. 1999) the Ohio Supreme Court held that police must strictly comply with established, standardized procedures in administering field sobriety tests, or the evidence is inadmissible. The Homan Court reviewed the NHTSA field sobriety test data, and stated that “the small margins of error that characterize field sobriety tests makes strict compliance critical.” In United States v. Horn , 00-946-PWG (U.S. Dist. Ct. Maryland 2002) the District Court held that SFST’s do not meet sufficient criteria to be used as direct evidence of intoxication. The court further held that, although the SFSTs may be circumstantial evidence of impairment, that the use of descriptive terminology by a police officer that a suject passed or failed the tests, or that the subject exhibited certain clues, or that there is an elusive scoring criteria, unfairly cloaks field sobriety tests with ‘unearned credibility”. “The officer should not be permitted to interject technical or specialized comments to embellish the opinion based on any special training or experience he or she has in investigating DWI/DUI cases.” Further, improperly administered field sobriety tests were held to be inadmissible. Similarly, in State v. Meador , 674 So.2d 826 (Fla.App. 1996) the court held that although a defendant’s performance on psychomotor FSTs were admissible, any attempt by a police officer to attach significance to a defendant’s performance was inadmissible. “Reference to the exercises by using terms such as ‘test’, ‘fail’, or ‘points’, however, creates a potential for enhancing the significance of the observations in relationship to the ultimate determination of impairment, as such terms give these layperson observations the aura of scientific validity.” G. CROSS-EXAMINATION OF FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS Clearly, all of the previous information in this chapter is material in determining how to cross-examine a proponent of field sobriety ‘tests’ which are not in compliance with NHTSA standards, and those which have not been validated by the medical or scientific community. The more critical question is : How do I get this information before the trier of fact? Prior to trial, defense counsel should determine whether the arresting officer received any field sobriety training, when he received the training, and what agency provided the training. Ask the officer whether he or she received any materials in the course, such as a field sobriety training manual. Ask whether the officer still has the manuals in his or her possession. Finally, always ask whether the officer’s training was in compliance with NHTSA standards. Ask whether the officer considers NHTSA authoritative in the area of field sobriety testing. If you have other agencies’ manuals, ask whether the officer would consider that agency to be authoritative on the topic of SFSTs: “Would you consider (the Illinois State Police) to be authoritative and reliable in the area of field sobriety testing?” Certified copies of public records are admissible and self-authenticating. A witness may be cross-examined by use of a publication or article where any witness acknowledges that the document or author is considered authoritative and reliable. Once the witness acknowledges the authoritative nature of a field sobriety manual, have the witness admit that they are not as qualified as the persons who wrote the manuals, and lack the qualifications to disagree with the manuals. If the officer is not conducting the SFSTs in compliance with NHTSA standards, confront the officer directly. The reliability of the officer’s testing, and his ultimate opinion regarding a subjects intoxication, is directly dependent on the manner in which the tests were administered and/or interpreted. If the officer is employing tests which have not been validated, point it out. “Isn’t it true that the National Highway Safety Administration has failed to validate the (finger-to-nose exercise) as capable of separating intoxicated individuals from sober ones?” “Do you consider yourself to have more expertise in this area than then U.S. Department of Transportation?” Similarly, prosecutors should validate officers who conduct the SFSTs as required by NHTSA. Prosecutors may wish to point out that proper SFSTs are an acceptable means of testing individuals across the country for intoxication. (The SFSTs may not be direct proof of intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt, but they can be an effective method for detecting DWI offenders under certain circumstances). Defense attorneys should explore the possibility of employing experts in the field of Standardized Field Sobriety Testing. A qualified expert will tell you that when SFSTs are improperly administered or interpreted, the effect will be that the officer will arrest people that he or she shouldn’t have, and will fail to arrest persons who should have been arrested. Possible motions in limine should be pursued, limiting the testimony of police officers to actual observations only, and prohibiting such terms as pass, fail, etc., because such terms are misleading and invade the province of the trier of fact, as noted in the Horn and Meador decisions previously discussed. H. CONCLUSION The area of field sobriety testing is developing rapidly, as science advances, and as the caselaw develops regarding the admissibility of evidence in this area. Any prosecutor or defense attorney who practices in this area would be well advised to attend a Standardized Field Sobriety Testing Certification Course to further enhance their skills in this area of the law. 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.
|
|
Drunk Driving LawsInsure.com Car Insurance - Official site. Compare auto insurance quotes, 200 companies, instant term life insurance quotes, life insurance quotes, health insurance quotes, medical insurance quotes, dental insurance, long-term care insurance, renter's insurance. Choose one Auto Term Life Health Homeowners Dental Quick Issue Life Children's Life --- Travel Motorcycle Boat/Watercraft Classic Auto Classic Boat --- -- British Visitors: Click Here Canadian Visitors: Click Here Drunk-driving penalties by state By Insure.com What will happen to you if you're pulled over for drunk driving? Most states have "per se laws" that say it's a crime to drive with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at or above a certain level. Typically, license suspension or revocation follows a conviction for drunk driving. In addition, some states impose an administrative license suspension, where licenses are taken before conviction when a driver fails or refuses to take a chemical test. After a conviction, most states permit offenders to drive only if their vehicles have been equipped with ignition interlocks, which analyze a driver's breath and disable the ignition if alcohol is detected. Plus, many states force multiple offenders to forfeit the vehicles they were driving while impaired by alcohol. State BAC Defined as illegal per se Administrative license suspension 1st offense? 1 Restore driving privileges during suspension? 1 , 2 Do penalties include interlock/forfeiture? 3 Alabama 0.08 90 days no no/no Alaska 0.08 90 days after 30 days yes/yes Arizona 0.08 90 days after 30 days yes/yes Arkansas 0.08 120 days yes yes/yes California 0.08 4 months after 30 days yes/yes Colorado 0.10 3 months yes yes/no Connecticut 0.08 90 days yes no/no Delaware 0.10 3 months no yes/no District of Columbia 0.08 2-90 days yes no/no Florida 0.08 6 months yes yes/yes State BAC Defined as illegal per se Administrative license suspension 1st offense? 1 Restore driving privileges during suspension? 1 , 2 Do penalties include interlock/forfeiture? 3 Georgia 0.08 1 year yes yes/yes Hawaii 0.08 3 months after 30 days yes/no Idaho 0.08 90 days after 30 days yes/no Illinois 0.08 3 months after 30 days yes/yes Indiana 0.08 180 days after 30 days yes/no Iowa 0.08 180 days after 90 days yes/no Kansas 0.08 30 days no yes/no Kentucky 0.08 -- -- yes/yes Louisiana 0.08 90 days after 30 days yes/yes Maine 0.08 90 days yes yes/yes State BAC Defined as illegal per se Administrative license suspension 1st offense? 1 Restore driving privileges during suspension? 1 , 2 Do penalties include interlock/forfeiture? 3 Maryland 0.08 (eff. 9/30/01) 45 days yes yes/no Massachusetts 0.08 90 days no no/no Michigan 0.08 4 -- -- yes/yes Minnesota 0.10 90 days after 15 days no/yes Mississippi 0.08 90 days no yes/yes Missouri 0.08 30 days no yes/yes Montana 0.08 -- -- yes/yes Nebraska 0.08 90 days after 30 days yes/no Nevada 0.08 90 days after 45 days yes/no New Hampshire 0.08 6 months no yes/no State BAC Defined as illegal per se Administrative license suspension 1st offense? 1 Restore driving privileges during suspension? 1 , 2 Do penalties include interlock/forfeiture? 3 New Jersey 0.08 -- -- yes/no New Mexico 0.08 90 days after 30 days yes/no New York 0.08 variable 5 yes yes/yes North Carolina 0.08 30 days after 10 days yes/yes North Dakota 0.08 91 days after 30 days yes/yes Ohio 0.08 90 days after 15 days yes/yes Oklahoma 0.08 180 days yes yes/yes Oregon 0.08 90 days after 30 days yes/yes Pennsylvania 0.08 -- -- yes/yes Rhode Island 0.08 -- -- yes/yes State BAC Defined as illegal per se Administrative license suspension 1st offense? 1 Restore driving privileges during suspension? 1 , 2 Do penalties include interlock/forfeiture? 3 South Carolina 0.08 -- -- yes/yes South Dakota 0.08 -- -- no/no Tennessee 0.08 -- -- yes/yes Texas 0.08 60 days yes yes/yes Utah 0.08 90 days no yes/no Vermont 0.08 90 days no no/yes Virginia 0.08 7 days no yes/no Washington 0.08 90 days after 30 days yes/yes West Virginia 0.08 6 months after 30 days yes/no Wisconsin 0.08 6 months yes yes/yes Wyoming 0.08 90 days yes no/no 1 Information pertains to drivers in violation of the BAC defined as illegal per se for all drivers, not the special BAC for young drivers. 2 Drivers usually must demonstrate special hardship to justify restoring privileges during suspension, and then privileges often are restricted. 3 A multiple offender's vehicle may be seized and disposed. 4 The 0.08 per se BAC law in Michgan contains a sunset clause which states that the legal BAC will revert to 0.10 on October 1, 2013. 5 In New York, administrative license suspension lasts until prosecution is complete. Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Last updated July 23, 2004 -- -- $5K-$20K $25K-$150K -- -- -- Auto Insurance Main Page Auto Insurance Basics Minimum Required Levels Average Auto Premiums 9 Ways To Save When Your Insurer Totals Your Car Car Crash Performance Tool Get an Instant Auto Insurance Quote! Health Insurance Main Page Health Insurance Basics Know Your COBRA Rights The HIPAA Law Buying Individual Coverage Short-Term Health Insurance Health Insurance Law Tool Get an Instant Health Insurance Quote! Home Insurance Main Page Home Insurance Basics 12 Ways to Save Get an Instant Home Insurance Quote! Life Insurance Main Page Life Insurance Basics Term Life Basics Life Insurance Calculator 10 Ways to Save Life Insurance & Annuity Tax Tool Get an Instant Life Insurance Quote! Annuities Main Page Annuity Basics Variable Annuities Equity-Indexed Annuities Life Insurance & Annuity Tax Tool Get an Instant Annuity Quote! Long Term Care Insurance Main Page Long Term Care Insurance Basics 5 Sales Pitches to Beware Of 7 Pitfalls of Long Term Care Get an Instant Long Term Care Insurance Quote! -- Short Term Disability Basics Long Term Disability Basics Disability Glossary Medigap Insurance Basics The 10 Medigap Plans Get an Instant Medicare Supplement Insurance Quote! Small Business Insurance Main Page Small Business Insurance Basics Small Business Liability Tool Get an Instant Small Group Insurance Quote! Travel Insurance Basics Tips for International Travelers Expatriate Health Insurance Get an Instant Travel Insurance Quote! Standard & Poor's Fitch Auto Crash Tests & Safety Best & Worst States for Auto Rates Auto Repair Rights Health Benefits Laws By State Life Insurance & Taxes Life Insurance Calculator Small Business Coverages Workers Compensation Laws Insurance Company Guide Consumer Complaints Against Insurers Glossary of Insurance Terms A - F G - K L - M N - O P - T U - W Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Dist of Columbia Florida Georgia Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Virgin Islands Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming
|
|
first DUI conviction Demetria For the record 01/05/06 - The Augusta Chronicle 010506 richmond 7 Thursday, January 5, 2006 AugustaChronicle.com Sentencings, indictments, paroles, marriage licenses and divorces. -- For the record Wednesday, January 4, 2006 DUI SENTENCINGS Frances Delores Newsome, 54, of the 2900 block of Wakefield Court, Hephzibah, one day in jail, followed by 11 months and 29 days' probation, fined $651 and ordered to pay restitution, perform 40 hours of community service, submit to random drug screens and attend a risk-reduction program Marta Cechova, 48, of North Augusta, one day in jail, followed by 11 months and 29 days' probation, transferred to Savannah, Ga., fined $631 and ordered to perform 40 hours of community service, pay a $50 indigent defense assessment fee and attend the Alcohol Drug Safety Awareness Program Annette Oatman, 42, of the 800 block of Crawford Avenue, one day in jail, followed by 11 months and 29 days' probation, fined $631 and ordered to perform 40 hours of community service, pay a $50 indigent defense assessment fee and attend a risk-reduction program and issued an affidavit of first DUI conviction Demetria Antonio Bell, 35, of the 3600 block of Hiers Boulevard, Hephzibah, one day in jail, followed by 11 months and 29 days' probation, fined $776 and ordered to pay restitution, perform 40 hours of community service and attend a risk-reduction program and issued an affidavit of first DUI conviction Julian Dean Brown, 64, of the 1000 block of Eustis Drive, one day in jail, followed by 11 months and 29 days' probation, fined $631 and ordered to perform 40 hours of community service and attend a risk-reduction program and issued an affidavit of first DUI conviction Jesse Shawn Garcia, 21, of the 200 block of Wren Drive, Hephzibah, 14 days in jail, followed by 11 months and 16 days' probation, fined $911 and ordered to perform 30 days of community service, undergo a clinical evaluation for substance abuse, have an ignition interlock device installed, surrender tags, pay a $25 photo fee and attend a risk-reduction program April Renee Lace, 39, of the 2300 block of Washington Road, 14 days in jail, followed by 11 months and 16 days' probation, fined $911 and ordered to perform 30 days of community service, undergo random screens, have an ignition interlock device installed, surrender tags, pay a $25 photo fee and attend a risk-reduction program Julius Lorenzo Harris, 54, of the 1800 block of Killingsworth Road, two days in jail, followed by 11 months and 28 days' probation, fined $631 and ordered to perform 40 hours of community service and attend a risk-reduction program and issued an affidavit of first DUI conviction Byron Keith McIntosh, 44, of the 2500 block of Lumpkin Road, four days in jail, followed by 11 months and 26 days' probation, fined $911 and ordered to perform 56 hours of community service, undergo alcohol counseling and attend a risk-reduction program Regenald D. Blackwell, 31, of the 2900 block of Old Louisville Road, two days in jail, followed by 11 months and 28 days' probation, fined $631 and ordered to perform 40 hours of community service, undergo a clinical evaluation for substance abuse and attend a risk-reduction program and issued an affidavit of first DUI conviction Charles Ronald Clements, 37, of the 3500 block of Old Savannah Road, two days in jail, followed by 11 months and 28 days' probation, fined $631 and ordered to pay restitution, perform 40 hours of community service and attend a risk-reduction program Marshall Lynn Dubose, 51, of the 1600 block of Johns Road, 14 days in jail, followed by 11 months and 16 days' probation, fined $911 and ordered to perform 30 days of community service, undergo a clinical evaluation for substance abuse, have an ignition interlock device installed, surrender tags, pay a $25 photo fee and attend a risk-reduction program Chavis Detrick Petty, 21, of the 2800 block of Cimarron Way, two days in jail, followed by 11 months and 28 days' probation, fined $631 and ordered to perform 40 hours of community service, undergo a clinical evaluation for substance abuse and attend a risk-reduction program and issued an affidavit of first DUI conviction Antoine Parthesius Cates, 32, of the 2900 block of Postell Court, two days in jail, followed by 11 months and 28 days' probation, fined $631 and ordered to perform 40 hours of community service, undergo a clinical evaluation for substance abuse and attend a risk-reduction program Chauncey V. Thompson, 33, of the 2000 block of Leona Street, two days in jail, followed by 11 months and 28 days' probation, fined $631 and ordered to pay restitution, perform 40 hours of community service, attend a risk-reduction program and issued an affidavit of first DUI conviction Kenneth Thomas Myers, 48, of the 4400 block of Old Waynesboro Road, Hephzibah, one day in jail, followed by 11 months and 29 days' probation, fined $631 and ordered to pay restitution, perform 40 hours of community service, undergo alcohol counseling, pay a $50 indigent defense assessment fee and attend a risk-reduction program and issued an affidavit of first DUI conviction John Willie Merritt, 66, of the 2900 block of Gebhart Drive, Hephzibah, two days in jail, followed by 11 months and 28 days' probation, fined $941 and ordered to perform 56 hours of community service, undergo random alcohol screens, pay a $50 indigent defense assessment fee and attend a risk-reduction program and issued an affidavit of first DUI conviction Charlie Jones Jr., 31, of the 2100 block of Roosevelt Drive, one day in jail, followed by 11 months and 29 day's probation, fined $651 and ordered to perform 40 hours of community service, pay a $50 indigent defense assessment fee and attend a risk-reduction program Jamie Aaron Young, 33, of Aiken, 60 days in jail, followed by 10 months' probation, fined $1,451 and ordered to perform 30 days of community service, undergo a clinical evaluation for substance abuse, have an ignition interlock device installed, surrender tags, pay a $25 photo fee and a $50 indigent defense assessment fee, continue alcohol counseling and attend the Alcohol Drug Safety Awareness Program Dennis Martin Niederhofer, 52, of Martinez, one day in jail, followed by 11 months and 29 day's probation, fined $651 and ordered to perform 40 hours of community service and attend a risk-reduction program and issued an affidavit of first DUI conviction Terrance Jearlo Odell, 25, of the 1500 block of Centurion Drive, Hephzibah, one day in jail, followed by 11 months and 29 days' probation, fined $651 and ordered to perform 40 hours of community service and attend a risk-reduction program Christopher P. Worthley, 36, of Evans, one day in jail, followed by 11 months and 29 days' probation, fined $631 and ordered to pay restitution, perform 40 hours of community service and attend a risk-reduction program and issued an affidavit of first DUI conviction Mathew Paul Wanninger, 21, of North Augusta, one day in jail, followed by 11 months and 29 days' probation, fined $651 and ordered to perform 40 hours of community service, undergo alcohol counseling and attend the Alcohol Drug Safety Awareness Program Andrea Delane Edwards, 27, of the 700 block of Metcalf Street, one day in jail, followed by 11 months and 29 days' probation, fined $651 and ordered to perform 40 hours of community service and attend a risk-reduction program and issued an affidavit of first DUI conviction Charles Robin Gabel, 33, of the 2200 block of Basswood Drive, one day in jail, followed by 11 months and 29 days' probation, fined $651 and ordered to pay restitution, perform 40 hours of community service and attend a risk-reduction program and issued an affidavit of first DUI conviction Tavarius Lamar Maxwell, 24, of the 2200 block of Lindsey Road, one day in jail, followed by 11 months and 29 days' probation, fined $631 and ordered to perform 40 hours of community service and attend a risk-reduction program and issued an affidavit of first DUI conviction Leo Collis Strickland III, 28, of Harlem, 14 days in jail, followed by 11 months and 16 days' probation, fined $1,090 and ordered to perform 30 days of community service, undergo a clinical evaluation for substance abuse, have an ignition interlock device installed, surrender tags, pay a $25 photo fee and continue counseling Kourtney Amy Nesbitt, 23, of the 3500 block of Andover Drive, two days in jail, followed by 11 months and 28 days' probation, fined $631 and ordered to pay restitution, perform 40 hours of community service, undergo a clinical evaluation for substance abuse and attend a risk-reduction program and issued an affidavit of first DUI conviction Jesse Roland Shackelford, 35, of the 300 block of Sibley Road, two days in jail, followed by 11 months and 28 days' probation, fined $631 and ordered to perform 40 hours of community service, undergo a clinical evaluation for substance abuse and attend a risk-reduction program and issued an affidavit of first DUI conviction MARRIAGE LICENSE APPLICATIONS Charles Duane Dutton, 28, and Jessica Bodean Spencer, 25, both of 3720 Kingsgate Drive, Hephzibah Carl Eugene Wilson, 47, of 2473 Dublin Drive, and Doreen Gilmore, 41, of 2375 Barton Chapel Road Apt. 8C Reginald Williams Sr., 44, and Catherine Priscilla Eaddy, 33, both of 2741 Barry Drive Eric Ryan Harrison, 21, and Keri Marie Corsaut, 23, both of Graniteville Bryan Adam Pritchett, 19, and Delexious Hortavia Williams, 18, both of Fort Gordon Jason Alexander Bryant, 32, and Denet Karee Brown, 23, both 2019 Steiner Ave. Jerry Eugene Cole, 69, of 3849 Mike Padgett Highway, and Esther Pearl Hankinson, 64, of 3722 Peach Orchard Road David Alan Osmond, 24, of 1527 Heath St., and Jessica Marie Martin, 23, of Gainesville, Ga. Omar Ernesto Prestol, 24, and Steffanie Brooke Bailey, 25, both of Fort Gordon Jeremy Lee Hoffman, 35, and Sarah Roberts Yount, 22, both of Appling Robert Howard, 54, of 2123 Hillsinger Road, and Georgia Marshall Leverett, 52, of 2514 Gerbing Road Coleman Hoyt Herring Jr., 18, of 2014 North Leg Road, and Donna Angel Elizabeth Pounds, 18, of 4046 Indian Hills Road Florentino Binzha Elias, 38. and Virginia Reyes Mesquite, 34, both of Bath Clinton Orlando Rose, 37, and Kelly Denise Workman, 24, both of 1004 Oleander Drive Sean Lydell Street, 31, and Lakeisa Laselle Hendrix, 31, both of 1907 Estroff Court Timothy Lamar Mathis, 34, of Wrens, Ga., and Latassha Melissa Scott, 31, of Keysville, Ga. Ethan Carl Wilson, 21, and Vanessa Samara Celestain, 23, both of Martinez Gregory Allen Weiters, 24, and Antonette Lashee Silas, 23, both of 2119 Lumpkin Road Apt. B2 Brandon Alexander Gibson, 21, of 2536 Norton Blvd., and Kenyatta Mary Francis, 21, of 4315 Warwick Ave., Hephzibah Loring Fitzclarence Loney, 49, of 3219 Sycamore Drive, and Natasha Makeda Kendall, 34, of Palm Bay, Fla. Kenneth James Robinson, 47, and Erica Diane Bates, 33, both of 1017 Woodsedge Drive Apt. F Cory Dolze Hebert, 30, and Hui Jin Kim, 30, both of New Orleans George Riley Jr., 49, of 3308 Hillis Road, and Carolyn Durham, 49, of Appling Carl Demetrius Prescott, 29, of 2001 Sterling Ridge Drive, and Ricquetta Tiese Steadman, 24, of 3259 Parker Road, Hephzibah John Zimmie Dill Jr., 50, of Ware Shoals, S.C., and Deborah Lynn Fortunato, 47, of 2852 Washington Road DIVORCES Jarred Cannon Maddocks vs. Kionne Williams Maddocks; Dec. 20 Lynda J. W. Briscoe vs. Marland Randall Briscoe; Dec. 20 Thomas W. Hazelwood vs. Betty J. Hazelwood; Dec. 19 Theron Garcia vs. Lucretia L. Garcia; Dec. 20 Ernest M. Czoka vs. Gabriella A. Plantz; Dec. 19 Tamara Y. Brewster vs. Wendell O. Brewster; Dec. 19 Melvin Atkins vs. Cheryl Atkins; Dec. 20 Susan G. Dawson vs. Donald L. Dawson; Dec. 12 Deloras Faye Baldwin vs. Ronnie Baldwin; Dec. 8 From the Thursday, January 5, 2006 printed edition of the Augusta Chronicle Past 24 hours | Past 7 days Foxhall subdivision celebrates win Goldberg, 'Little' score big in win Mayor pro tem's ouster sought DuPont drops out of contract bidding Kimberly-Clark adds 150 jobs Foxhall subdivision celebrates win Goldberg, 'Little' score big in win Mayor pro tem's ouster sought Columbia County figures on needing more teachers Special education gets bad grade advertisement -- advertisement -- TopJobs Augusta-area Top Jobs Advertising Sales Rep $60-$75K * Hospital Publications * 33 Year Nat'l Co. * Call-on health related business * Overnight Travel * Top Commissions * Sales Experience Necessary Call Gary Reynolds... ( more ) MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN GIW Industries, Inc., Thomson, GA has an immediate opening for 2nd Shift Maintenance Technician. Duties include: Inspect, test, & repair all equip. used in the mfg. process; d... ( more ) Maintenance Supervisor Candidate must have a minimum of 5yrs exp. in the field. Must have the ability to read electrical, hydraulic & pneumatic prints with strong mechanical ability. Experience with... ( more ) View all Augusta TopJobs Athens Top Jobs HUMAN RESOURCES ASSISTANT - FT Walton Regional Medical Center- Monroe, GA seeking an experienced Human Resource Assistant to assist with operations of the department. College education preferred. Idea... ( more ) View all Athens TopJobs © 2006 The Augusta Chronicle | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | RSS Feeds | -- Help | Contact Us
|
|
DUI / DWI, Drinking 
