DUI Laws and DUI

DUII Implied Consent Ignition

Oregon DMV Suspensions & Revocations Text-Only Site State Directory Agencies A-Z Accessibility Advanced Help -- Oregon DMV About Us Contact Us Online Services Driver & ID Info Vehicle Info Records Info New to Oregon? DMV Offices Forms & Publications Dealers & Businesses News, Facts & Stats En Español About this Web Site SEARCH DMV __________________ DMV Home Suspensions & Revocations If a court suspends or revokes your driving privileges, you may get a suspension or revocation order in court. The court may confiscate your driver license and return it to DMV. If your driving privileges are suspended or revoked by DMV, a notice of suspension or revocation will be sent to the address on your driving record. If you have a license in your possession, it must be returned to a DMV office when the suspension or revocation begins. After the suspension or revocation begins, you may not drive any motor vehicle on highways or premises open to the public. Reasons for and terms of suspension: Failure to Appear/Comply Failure to Pay Child Support DUII Implied Consent Ignition Interlock Device This is a sampling of some of the DMV or court ordered suspensions that could be imposed. For more information, or to see if a particular conviction could result in the suspension of your license, please contact DMV . Related Information Habitual Offender Program Administrative Review Hardship or Probationary Permits Reinstatement Failure to Appear/Comply DMV, when ordered by a court, may suspend a person's driving privilege if the person fails to appear in court or fails to pay a traffic fine for a traffic violation or a traffic crime in Oregon or Washington . Your driving privilege will be suspended until DMV receives proof that the case has been cleared with the court or until five-years has elapsed from the date the suspension begins, whichever comes first. Acceptable proof of clearance from a court includes any of the following: An official court clearance document from the court. An electronically transmitted clearance sent directly to DMV from a Circuit court in Oregon . Persons suspended for failure to appear or to comply are not eligible for a hardship permit . Failure to Pay Child Support If you are behind in paying child support or fail to comply with a subpoena relating to a child support or paternity proceeding, the Support Enforcement Division or a District Attorney may require DMV to suspend your driving privilege. This type of suspension remains in effect until the Support Enforcement Division or a District Attorney authorizes DMV to reinstate your driving privileges, and you have paid a reinstatement fee . DUII You may be found guilty of Driving while Under the Influence of Intoxicants (DUII) if you drive a vehicle while you are under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and/or a controlled substance. You may be charged with DUII if you commit the offense upon any premises open to the public . Implied Consent Oregon ´s implied consent law means that by driving a motor vehicle you have implied you will consent to a breath, blood or urine test if a police officer requests you to take such a test. The officer can request you to take a test if the officer has arrested you for DUII. Refusal to take a test is admissible as evidence in court. You will fail a test if your blood alcohol reading is 0.08 percent or more. If you are under 21, you will fail the test if you have any amount of alcohol in your blood. An implied consent suspension is separate from any suspension you may receive as a result of a DUII conviction. If you have a valid Oregon driver license in your possession, the officer will confiscate it and issue a 30-day temporary driving permit. After 30 days, the suspension is in effect and the temporary driving permit is no longer valid. Suspension lengths vary. If you are arrested for driving under the influence of intoxicants and you: Take a breath test and fail it - DMV will suspend your driving privileges for 90 days. If you have any prior alcohol-related entries on your driving record within five years, DMV will suspend your driving privileges for one year. Refuse to take a breath test - DMV will suspend your driving privileges for one year. If you have any prior alcohol-related entries on your driving record within five years, DMV will suspend your driving privileges for three years. Refuse to take a urine test - DMV will suspend your driving privileges for one year. If you have any prior alcohol-related entries on your driving record within five years, DMV will suspend your driving privileges for three years. The suspension for refusing a urine test will not start until any other Implied Consent suspension (even from the same arrest) is over. Refuse to take a blood test while receiving medical care in a health care facility following a motor vehicle collision - DMV will suspend your driving privileges for one year. If you have any prior alcohol-related entries on your driving record within five years, DMV will suspend your driving privileges for three years. Fail a blood test while receiving medical care in a health care facility following a motor vehicle collision - DMV will suspend your driving privileges for 90 days. If you have any prior alcohol-related entries on your driving record within five years, DMV will suspend your driving privileges for one year. This suspension will begin on the 60th day after DMV received the report that you failed the test. DMV will send a suspension notice to the address on your driving record to inform you of the suspension dates. The officer will not confiscate your driver license and issue a 30-day temporary driving permit. You are required to return any license in your possession to DMV when the suspension begins. DMV will also suspend your driving privileges if any of the actions occurred while driving in another state. ( ORS 809.400 ) If any of the actions occurred while driving a commercial vehicle suspension times may vary. Related Oregon Statutes: ORS 813.100 , ORS 813.110 , ORS 813.120 , ORS 813.130 , ORS 813.131 , ORS 813.132 , ORS 813.135 , ORS 813.136 , ORS 813.140 , ORS 813.150 , ORS 813.160 and ORS 813.404 , ORS 813.410 , ORS 813.420 , ORS 813.430 . Ignition Interlock Device An ignition interlock device (IID) is a computerized breath analyzer. An IID connects into a vehicle´s ignition system. Prior to starting a vehicle equipped with an IID, the driver must provide a breath sample by blowing into the handset of the IID. The IID will prevent the vehicle from starting if the alcohol content in the driver´s breath sample exceeds a preset limit. Oregon requires a person convicted of Driver Under the Influence of Intoxicants (DUII) in Oregon to install an IID in order to: Receive a hardship permit during the DUII suspension. Fully reinstate Oregon driving privileges after the DUII suspension. The requirement starts on the last day of the DUII suspension and continues for six-months. DMV cannot waive the six-month IID reinstatement requirement for temporarily out of state residents. If you are in another state and need an IID installed to reinstate your Oregon driving privilege, contact our Customer Assistance Unit at (503) 945-5400 for assistance locating an IID provider. If there is no IID provider who can assist you, you will have to wait out the six-month reinstatement requirement period. For installation locations for the IID, please call our Customer Assistance Unit at 503-945- 5400 . Habitual Offender Program DMV will revoke your driving privileges for five years if you are convicted of three or more of the following offenses within a five year period: Any degree of murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, assault, recklessly endangering another person, menacing or criminal mischief resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle. Driving while under the influence of intoxicants. Driving while your driving privileges are suspended or revoked. Reckless driving. Failure to perform the duties of a driver after a collision. Fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer. DMV will also revoke your driving privileges for habitual offender if you are convicted of 20 or more traffic violations within five years. Traffic offenses such as driving while suspended or revoked and speeding are some examples of convictions that can be counted to classify you as an habitual offender. Text Only | State Directory | Agencies A-Z | About Oregon.gov | Site Map | File Formats | OAR | ORS | Privacy Policy | Web Site Feedback

California DUI Laws and Lawyer Guide California DUI Laws and DUI Lawyers California DUI Laws Felony DUI Probable Cause Presumption of BAC when Driving DUI Double Jeopardy CA DUI Penalties Home Detention Enhanced Penalties Finding A Good DUI Attorney License Suspensions California DMV Administrative Hearing Implied Consent The Officer's Warning Driving Symptoms Driving Studies Field Sobriety Tests Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Validity of FSTs Breath-Alcohol Odor Blood-Alcohol Tests Breathalyzer Tests BAC Testing Machines Blood-Alcohol Levels Tolerance to Alcohol Miranda Advisements Insurance After a DUI DUI Search Help Home © 2002 All Rights Reserved "California DUI Laws and DUI Lawyers" , is a complete source of information about California DUI laws , California DUI attorneys and lawyers, penalties for driving under the influence, California DMV driver's license suspensions, breath alcohol tests, criminal courts, car insurance after a DUI California arrest and police investigative procedures. California DUI offers everything you need to know if you are arrested in California for driving under the influence of alcohol ( DUI ) — sometimes referred to as "drunk driving" or "driving while intoxicated" ( DWI ) — including answers to such common questions as: What crimes will I be charged with for a DUI in California ? What are the possible penalties for driving under the influence of alcohol ? Who are the best drunk driving lawyers in California? How can I save my driver's license ? How do those field sobriety tests work? Are those breath tests accurate? How can I estimate my blood-alcohol level ? What if I have a high tolerance to alcohol ? What happens if the police didn't read me my Miranda rights? What happens to my car insurance ? How can I get my driving record ? "What should I do if I'm stopped for drunk driving?" Nationally-known Southern California DUI attorney Lawrence Taylor, author of the legal textbook Drunk Driving Defense , 6th edition , offers 5 tips: Politely decline to answer questions without an attorney (only incriminating answers will be in the police report). Decline to take any field sobriety tests (not required by law and rarely helps you). Unless you are under 21, decline to take any handheld breath test not required by law. Agree to take a required "evidentiary" breath test (blood test if confident you are under .08%). Make sure your attorney calls the DMV Driver Safety Office within 10 days and demands a hearing to contest your license suspension. "Should I just plead guilty?" Atlanta attorney William C. Head, one of the foremost authorities in the country, explains the 5 myths and realities of defending against DWI charges today: Most people accused of this crime are guilty. Drunk driving is a minor offense. Any attorney can defend a person accused of DUI. These cases can't be won. DUI cases are just like any other criminal case. California DUI Attorneys Resource Center California-oriented legal megasite for lawyers and laymen, containing information and over 600 links. The Great .08 Debate Excellent discussion of the .08% blood-alcohol controversy, from noted New York attorney Ed Fiandach. MADD and Madder: Today's DUI Defense Bar is More Focused and Aggressive Than Ever Before Interesting article in the "American Bar Association Journal" reporting on the counter-offensive from increasingly specialized and technically sophisticated DWI Lawyers. The DUI Exception to the Constitution The continuing erosion of fairness and constitutional rights in drunk driving cases, from a lecture by a former Fulbright Professor of Law and nationally-known California DUI attorney. DUI Blog Commentary on the defects, fallacies and Constitutional damage of the "war on drunk driving". Southern California DUI Lawyers Helpful legal information from an 8-attorney law firm practicing DUI defense exclusively in Los Angeles , Orange County , Riverside and San Diego . DUI Resource Library for Judges Online links and materials for judges nationwide in understanding and dealing with drunk driving cases. FindLaw Nationwide resource for DUI issues generally. California DUI : A Drunk Driving Law Guide is intended to counter the political pressures of extremist groups such as MADD seeking the passage of unfair laws , the erosion of constitutional rights and the eventual return of prohibition. The National Motorists Association sets forth its positions on controversial drunk driving issues, such as unconstitutional roadblocks, overemphasis on breath alcohol tests, unfair criminal penalties and the imposition of "automatic" license suspensions. " Responsibility in DUI Laws, Inc. ", is an organization dedicated to reforming harsh and misdirected DUI laws. Please visit our local DUI information websites for Los Angeles County , Orange County , San Diego County , Riverside County and Ventura County . Websites for the following counties are under construction or in the planning stages: San Bernardino, Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno, Imperial, Marin, Merced, Monterey, Napa, Sacramento, San Francisco, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz and Sonoma. Site Map | Link to Us Legal Disclaimer

Driving Under Influence

Driving Under the Influence - Stanford University Office of Judicial Affairs JAO > Guiding Principles > Driving Under the Influence Driving Under the Influence 40 K Driving on Campus Under the Influence of Alcohol and/or Drugs The Fundamental Standard has set the standard of conduct for students at Stanford since 1896. It states: Historically, Driving on Campus Under the Influence of Alcohol and/or Drugs has been considered to be a violation of the Fundamental Standard. The original rationale was as follows: "In action taken July 18, 1985, the Stanford Judicial Council rejected the contention that a student's drunk driving per se constituted a violation of the Fundamental Standard, but went on to state: Instead, we start with the proposition that any conduct by a member of the University community which poses a substantial risk of harm to persons or property on campus can be a violation of the Fundamental Standard. With respect to driving under the influence of intoxicating liquors or drugs, it is our belief that whether such conduct poses the proscribed risk depends on the circumstances attending the conduct charged. Circumstances that may give rise to a Fundamental Standard violation include the degree to which the driver's ability to drive in a sober and prudent manner has been appreciably impaired by the effects of alcohol or drugs as evidenced by 1) the manner in which the vehicle was driven, 2) the time and place in which the vehicle was driven, 3) the amount of alcohol or drugs ingested by the driver and the likelihood that they affected the driver's mental and physical faculties at the time of the violation, and 4) the damage or injury, if any, occasioned by the driver's conduct." In January 2004, a Judicial Panel made the following rationale and the Board on Judicial Affairs affirmed their position. Therefore, the most recent guidance to Judicial Panels is as follows: "It is our belief that any DUI according to the laws of the state of CA shall constitute a violation of the Fundamental Standard. We believe this standard, rather than the more ambiguous 1985 opinion is a more accurate reflection of the Stanford community’s views on drunk driving, and we suggest that this standard be adhered to in the future."

DWAI Defense Lawyer Lloyd

Colorado DUI/DWAI Attorney, Drunk Driving Arrest, Legal Information, DUI/DWAI Defense Lawyer Lloyd L. Boyer CALL TODAY FOR YOUR FREE CASE EVALUATION! Toll Free: 1-866-DUI-COLO (1- 866-384 -2656) FREE ONLINE CASE EVALUATION - CLICK HERE! Email Us Today! Home About Colorado DUI/DWAI Defense Lawyer Lloyd L. Boyer Summary of Colorado's DUI Law Penalties for DUI in Colorado DUI/DWAI Frequently Asked Questions Court List for Colorado DUI Cases Colorado License Suspension Laws Drivers License Records DPS / DMV / BMV / MVR Offices Calculate Your Blood Alcohol Site Map Site Map FREE ONLINE CASE EVALUATION Home About Colorado DUI/DWAI Defense Lawyer Lloyd L. Boyer Summary of Colorado's DUI Law Penalties for DUI in Colorado DUI/DWAI Frequently Asked Questions Court List for Colorado DUI Cases Colorado License Suspension Laws Drivers License Records DPS / DMV / BMV / MVR Offices Calculate Your Blood Alcohol Site Map Disclaimer and Terms of Use National Drunk Driving Defense - Find the best attorney to represent your case. If you are facing a DUI/ DWI /OWI/OUI/OMVI charge in any state, you can find legal help here. Protect your legal rights and license. Free online legal information and questionnaire. Visit us at www.dui-dwi.com for more information. Disclaimer and Terms of Use | Home Other Resources: DUI Expungement Lawyers - Clear Your Record | DUI Laws - Drunk Driving Lawyers DWI Laws - Drunk Driving Lawyers | Drunk Driving Defense | DUI Attorneys | Go To Traffic School © 2004-2005, Headlines Marketing Corporation • All Rights Reserved

OUIL and refused a

{\rtf1\ansi \deflang1033\deff0{\fonttbl{\f0\froman \fcharset0 \fprq2 Times New Roman;}{\f1\fswiss \fcharset0 \fprq2 Arial;}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;}{\stylesheet{\fs20 \snext0 Normal;}{\s1 \qj\li720 Level 1;}{\*\cs2 \additive Insert Line;}{\s3 \qj\li360\ri360\sa110 \i\fs22 Quotes;}{\s4 \qj\li864 \'5f;}{\s5 \qj\sa66 \b\f1\fs22 Title;}{\s6 \qj\li360\ri360 \i\fs22 Quotation;}{\s7 \qj\li-1440 \'5f;}{\s8 \qj\li-1440 \'5f;}{\s9 \fs22 Body Text;}{\s10 \qj\li-1440 \'5f;}{\s11 Sem. Name;}{\s12 \qj\li360 Sem. Site;}{\s13 \qj\li720 \fs22 \'5f;}{\s14 \qj\li-1440 a, b, c,;}{\s15 \qj\li-1440 1, 2, 3,;}}\margl1080\margr1080\margt810\hyphhotz936\ftnbj\ftnrstpg\aftnnar\viewkind1 {\shp{\*\shpinst\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpbypara\shptop280\shpbottom280\shpbxmargin\shpleft0\shpright10080{\sp{\sn lineWidth}{\sv 12192}}{\sp{\sn shapeType}{\sv 20}}}}\sectd \sbknone\headery810\footery1440\endnhere\endnhere\titlepg {\header \pard \sa110\tqr\tx10080 {\plain \fs22 Police Law Bulletin, Page 2\tab May, 2003{\*\bkmkstart 2}{\*\bkmkend 2}\par }\pard \sa110\tqr\tx10080 \par }{\*\pnseclvl1\pndec\pnstart1{\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnlcltr\pnstart1{\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pnlcrm\pnstart1{\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pndec\pnstart1{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl5\pnlcltr\pnstart1{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcrm\pnstart1{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pndec\pnstart1{\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl8\pnlcltr\pnstart1{\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1}\pard \qc\tqc\tx5040\tqr\tx10080 {\plain \b\fs28 POLICE LAW BULLETIN}{\plain \par}{\plain \fs16 Published by:}{\plain \fs28 \par}{\plain \fs22 Prosecuting Attorneys Coordinating Council\par}{\plain \fs22 Department of Attorney General}{\plain \fs28 \par}{\plain \fs20 116 W. Ottawa, Suite 200\par}{\plain \fs20 Lansing, MI 48913\par}{\plain \fs20 Telephone 517/334-6060 Fax: 517/334-6351}{\plain \fs28 \par}\pard \sa0\tqc\tx5040\tqr\tx10080 {\plain \fs22 \par}{\plain \fs22 Vol.{\*\bkmkstart 1}{\*\bkmkend 1} 19\tab May, 2003\tab No. 9{\*\bkmkstart 4}{\*\bkmkend 4}\par}\sect \sectd \sbknone\headery810\footery1440\cols2\endnhere\colno1\colw4680\colsr720\colno2\colw4680\endnhere\titlepg {\header \pard \sa110\tqr\tx10080 {\plain \fs22 Police Law Bulletin, Page 2\tab May, 2003{\*\bkmkstart 2}{\*\bkmkend 2}\par }\pard \sa110\tqr\tx10080 \par }{\*\pnseclvl1\pndec\pnstart1{\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnlcltr\pnstart1{\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pnlcrm\pnstart1{\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pndec\pnstart1{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl5\pnlcltr\pnstart1{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcrm\pnstart1{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pndec\pnstart1{\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl8\pnlcltr\pnstart1{\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1}\pard \qc\sa66\tx180\tx360\tqr\tx4680\tqc\tx5040\tx5580\tx5760\tqr\tx10080 {\plain \b\f1\fs22 SEARCH AND SEIZURE}{\plain \fs22 \par}\pard \sa0\tx180\tx360\tqr\tx4680\tqc\tx5040\tx5580\tx5760\tqr\tx10080 {\plain \b\f1\fs22 Blood Taken by Search Warrant Doesn\'92t Have to Be Drawn under a Doctor\'92s Direction.}{\plain \par}{\plain \fs22 The defendant was arrested for OUIL and refused a chemical test. A search warrant was obtained, and the blood was withdrawn by a phlebotomist at a hospital. The defendant was convicted of OUIL 3}{\plain \super\fs22 rd}{\plain \fs22 offense, and on appeal claimed that the phlebotomist was not acting under the delegation of a physician as required by MCL 257.625a(6)(c).\par}{\plain \fs22 Judges Markey, Smolenski and Meter affirmed. They held that when a blood sample is taken pursuant to a search warrant, the implied consent statute doesn\'92t apply. Accordingly, it doesn\'92t matter whether the sample was taken under the delegation of a physician as required by MCL 257.625a(6)(c). They further held that the phlebotomist, in performing his assigned duties at the hospital, was delegated to take a blood sample without specific direction from a physician.\par}{\plain \fs22 On another issue, they held that using a 1993 impaired driving conviction to enhance the defendant\'92s current conviction was not an ex post facto law violation. }{\plain \i\fs22 People}{\plain \fs22 v }{\plain \i\fs22 Callon,}{\plain \fs22 CA No. 234421, April 15, 2003.}{\plain \fs22 \par}{\plain \b\f1\fs22 Consult Your Prosecutor Before Following Reports In This Newsletter.}{\plain \f1\fs22 \par}\pard \s9\sa0\tx180\tx360\tqr\tx4680\tqc\tx5040\tx5580\tx5760\tqr\tx10080 {\plain \fs22 Our reports of decisions from other states are to help you keep up with trends in the law. Even Michigan decisions may conflict with decisions of other Michigan courts. Discuss your practices which relate to these cases with your commanding officers, police legal advisors, and the prosecuting attorney, before changing your practices in reliance on a reported court decision or legislative change. Our editorial office welcomes your suggestions for improving this publication to serve you.}{\plain \b\fs22 \par}\pard \qc\sa0\tx180\tx360\tqr\tx4680\tqc\tx5040\tx5580\tx5760\tqr\tx10080 {\plain \b\f1\fs22 GENERAL}{\plain \fs22 \par}\pard \sa0\tx180\tx360\tqr\tx4680\tqc\tx5040\tx5580\tx5760\tqr\tx10080 {\plain \b\f1\fs22 Police Cannot Be Ordered to run LEIN Histories for Defense Attorneys.}{\plain \par}{\plain \fs22 In a one paragraph order, the Michigan Supreme Court vacated the portion of the Court of Appeals decision in }{\plain \i\fs22 People}{\plain \fs22 v }{\plain \i\fs22 Elkhoja,}{\plain \fs22 CA No. 224126, which had upheld a trial court order to a police department to run LEIN histories on all of the prosecution\'92s witnesses. }{\plain \i\fs22 People}{\plain \fs22 v}{\plain \i\fs22 Elkhoja,}{\plain \fs22 MSC No. 122282, March 26, 2003.}{\plain \fs22 \par}{\plain \b\f1\fs22 A Statement of False Facts Regarding an Actual Crime Constitutes Filing a False Police Report.}{\plain \par}{\plain \fs22 The defendant visited his source to purchase crack cocaine. He was assaulted, robbed and his car was taken from him. He called the police and reported that he was a victim of a carjacking. He lied about the location of the crime and the identity of his source because he didn\'92t want the police to know he was purchasing crack. The trial judge in a bench trial found him guilty of intentionally making}{\plain \i\fs22 \'93a false report of the commission of a crime\'94}{\plain \fs22 to a police officer under MCL 750.411a.\par}{\plain \fs22 The Court of Appeals reversed the defendant\'92s conviction, and held that the statute only applies when the defendant makes a false report of a crime, not a report with false details about the commission of an actual crime. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the defendant\'92s conviction. Six Justices held that the statute covers intentionally providing false details about the commission of a crime. Justice Kelly dissented. }{\plain \i\fs22 People}{\plain \fs22 v }{\plain \i\fs22 Chavis,}{\plain \fs22 MSC No. 120112, April 9, 2003.}{\plain \fs22 \par}{\plain \b\f1\fs22 \par}{\plain \b\f1\fs22 \par}{\plain \b\f1\fs22 \par}{\plain \b\f1\fs22 Counties Are Responsible for Transporting Mental Health Patients to and from Court Hearings.}{\plain \par}{\plain \fs22 Attorney General Cox was asked whether the local sheriff department or community mental health were responsible for transporting mental health patients between the hospital and court for civil commitment hearings. The Attorney General ruled that it is a county responsibility, and that community mental health is not required to reimburse the county for the cost of transport.\par}{\plain \fs22 On a related issue, the AG also ruled that when a police officer takes a mentally ill person into protective custody and transports them to a hospital, only the police officer can sign the petition for hospitalization. OAG No. 7127, April 7, 2003.}{\plain \fs22 \par}{\plain \b\f1\fs22 A Firearm Stolen During a Home Invasion Will Support a Felony Firearm Charge.\par}{\plain \fs22 The defendant committed three home invasions, and during each home invasion, stole at least one shotgun. He was convicted of three counts each of 1}{\plain \super\fs22 st}{\plain \fs22 degree home invasion, felony firearm, and larceny of a firearm. He appealed, alleging that a weapon stolen during a home invasion was not carried or possessed during the commission of the home invasion, and therefore not within the felony firearm statute. He further argued that double jeopardy precluded being convicted of 1}{\plain \super\fs22 st}{\plain \fs22 degree home invasion and larceny of the property stolen during the home invasion.\par}{\plain \fs22 Judges Smolenski, Hoekstra and Fort Hood affirmed the defendant\'92s convictions. They held that because 1}{\plain \super\fs22 st}{\plain \fs22 degree home invasion is an offense that continues until the defendant leaves the home, that a firearm stolen from the home is possessed during the commission of the felony of home invasion. They further noted that the legislature specifically authorized multiple punishment for other crimes committed during a home invasion under MCL 750.110a(9), and therefore double jeopardy did not preclude convictions for home invasion and possession of the property stolen in the home invasion. }{\plain \i\fs22 People}{\plain \fs22 v }{\plain \i\fs22 Shipley,}{\plain \fs22 CA No. 235564, April 24, 2003.}{\plain \fs22 \par}\column \pard \sa0\tx180\tx360\tqr\tx4680\tqc\tx5040\tx5580\tx5760\tqr\tx10080 {\plain \b\f1\fs22 CA Upholds State\'92s First RICO Convictions.}{\plain \par}{\plain \fs22 In the first reported decision under the state\'92s RICO statute, MCL 750.159i, Judges Kelly, Gribbs and White upheld the convictions of two leaders of the }{\plain \i\fs22 Spanish Cobras}{\plain \fs22 against several challenges regarding the admission of evidence under the RICO statute, and their sentences. }{\plain \i\fs22 People}{\plain \fs22 v }{\plain \i\fs22 Gonzalez,}{\plain \fs22 CA No. 223401, April 8, 2003.\par}{\plain \b\f1\fs22 A Zero Tolerance Conviction Can Be Used to Enhance an OUIL 3}{\plain \b\super\f1\fs22 rd}{\plain \b\f1\fs22 Conviction.}{\plain \par}{\plain \fs22 The defendant\'92s OUIL 3}{\plain \super\fs22 rd}{\plain \fs22 charge was enhanced by a 1997 zero tolerance conviction and a 1998 Impaired driving conviction. Prior to October 1, 1999, neither a zero tolerance conviction, nor an impaired conviction, could be used to enhance an OUIL conviction. The trial judge held that it violated due process to use a zero tolerance conviction to enhance an OUIL conviction. Judges Meter, Cavanagh and Cooper}{\plain \fs22 reversed. They held that the legislature\'92s decision to allow zero tolerance convictions to be used to enhance OUIL convictions did not violate due process, and was not an ex post facto law. }{\plain \i\fs22 People}{\plain \fs22 v }{\plain \i\fs22 Haynes,}{\plain \fs22 CA No. 244327, April 22, 2003.}{\plain \fs22 \par}{\plain \b\f1\fs22 A Social Worker Who Fails to Report Child Abuse Can Lose Her Social Work License.}{\plain \par}{\plain \fs22 An administrative law judge (ALJ) found that the social worker had reasonable cause to suspect that her client was sexually abusing the client\'92s child. The ALJ further found that her failure to report the abuse constituted grounds for revoking her social work license. Judges Owens, Murphy and Cavanagh agreed. They upheld the ALJ\'92s decision that the social worker\'92s failure to report constituted both incompetence and gross negligence, and supported the revocation of her license. }{\plain \i\fs22 Becker-Witt }{\plain \fs22 v }{\plain \i\fs22 Board of Examiners of Social Workers, Department of Consumer and Industry Services,}{\plain \fs22 CA No. 226923, April 24, 2003.}{\plain \fs22 \par}{\shp{\*\shpinst\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpbypara\shptop220\shpbottom220\shpbxmargin\shpleft0\shpright10080{\sp{\sn lineWidth}{\sv 12192}}{\sp{\sn shapeType}{\sv 20}}}}\pard \sb0\sa0\tx180\tx360\tqr\tx4680\tqc\tx5040\tx5580\tx5760\tqr\tx10080 {\plain \*\cs2\fs22 \par}\pard \qc\sa0\tx180\tx360\tqr\tx4680\tqc\tx5040\tx5580\tx5760\tqr\tx10080 {\plain \*\cs2\i\fs20 Printed in accordance with:\par}{\plain \*\cs2\i\fs20 1972 PA 203\par}{\plain \*\cs2\i\fs20 1797 copies printed\par}{\plain \*\cs2\i\fs20 Total cost $117\par}{\plain \*\cs2\i\fs20 Cost per copy $.06}}