 |
DUI Oklahoma OK - Drunk Driving Defense Arrest Guide sitemap RSSFeeds DUI-HELPMenu LawyerDirectory FreeConsultation Bookstore Mission Editorial SelfEvaluation FAQ/ Info Callan Attorney Science Surveys Search More... StatePages GoTo Menu Oklahoma Adair County Alfalfa County Atoka County Beaver County Beckham County Blaine County Bryan County Caddo County Canadian County Carter County Cherokee County Choctaw County Cimarron County Cleveland County Coal County Comanche County Cotton County Craig County Creek County Custer County Delaware County Dewey County Ellis County Garfield County Garvin County Grady County Grant County Greer County Harmon County Harper County Haskell County Hughes County Jackson County Jefferson County Johnston County Kay County Kingfisher County Kiowa County Latimer County Le Flore County Lincoln County Logan County Love County Major County Marshall County Mayes County McClain County McCurtain County McIntosh County Murray County Muskogee County Noble County Nowata County Okfuskee County Oklahoma County Okmulgee County Osage County Ottawa County Pawnee County Payne County Pittsburg County Pontotoc County Pottawatomie County Pushmataha County Roger Mills County Rogers County Seminole County Sequoyah County Stephens County Texas County Tillman County Tulsa County Wagoner County Washington County Washita County Woods County Woodward County Lawyers Elsewhere 500+DUI law firms Did You Know? You can purchase Drunk Driving Defense related books here on this site.Click Books for more information. DUI Law Oklahoma Penaltiesfor DUI DWI in Oklahoma (Maximum) 1st = 6monthsjail, $1200 fine, License Suspended 6 Months, otherconditions 2nd = 5yearsprison, $2500 fine, License Suspended 1 Year, otherconditions 3rd = 7Years prison, $5000 fine, License Suspended 3 Years, otherconditions View theAttorneys Near Your Court Takethis Computerized Quiz Legal QuestionsAnswered Stateof Oklahoma Map Info SelfEvaluation QUIZ Find AnAttorney HERE !! DUI BLOG - DWI BLOG - OWI BLOG - OUIL BLOG What was yourblood alcohol level? Important Note: There is no blood alcohol calculator that is 100% accurate because ofthe number of factors that come into play regarding the consumption andreduction (burnoff) rates of different people. Factors include the sex(male/female)of the drinker, differing metabolism rates, various health issues andthe combination of medications that might be taken, drinking frequency,amount of food in the stomach and small intestine and when it waseaten, elapsed time, and others. The best that can be done is a roughestimation of the BAC level based on known inputs. See More ... Whatdoes it mean to beabove the legal limit fordrinking? The“legal limit for drinking” is the alcohol levelabove which an individual is subject to legal penalties (e.g., loss ofa driver's license). Typically, this alcohol level is measured in bloodor breath, using either a blood alcohol test or a breathalyzer,respectively. Legal limits are defined by a government entity (e.g.,state legislature or regulatory agency), and are specific to thesituation that a person is in (e.g., driving a car) as well as thecharacteristics of the person themselves (e.g., their age). Forexample, in most states, the current legal limit for operating a motorvehicle is 0.08%, or 80 mg/dL among drivers who are age 21 years orolder. However, there is zero tolerance for drivers who are underage 21 years, meaning that they are not allowed to operate a motorvehicle with any alcohol in their system. In contrast, thelegal limit is 0.04% or 40 mg/dL for commercial truck drivers.Different legal limits also apply to airline pilots, bus drivers, andto persons operating recreational watercraft. However, it is importantto recognize that the legal limit does not define a level belowwhich it is safe to operate a vehicle or engage in some otheractivity rather, the legal limit is intended to define a level at orabove which an individual is subject to legal action under a specificset of circumstances. Therefore, decisions about the appropriate levelof alcohol consumption in a particular situation should begin with acareful assessment of whether it’s appropriate to be drinking atall. See More ... FAARegulations forPilots Under14 CFR 61.15, all pilots arerequired to submit a notification letter to AMC-700, within 60 calendardays ofthe effective date of an alcohol-related conviction or administrativeaction.For purposes of 14 CFR 61.15(c), alcohol-related convictions oradministrativeactions are referred to as motor vehicle actions (MVA). An administrative action consistsof a suspension, cancellation, or revocation of a driver license.Examples ofadministrative actions include a suspension, cancellation, orrevocation of adriver license for driving with an excessive blood alcohol level orrefusal tosubmit to a chemical or blood test. Airmen should be aware that thenature andduration of administrative actions varies among the states. Forinstance, somestates, such as North Carolina, provide for a 10-day civil revocationforrefusing to test. Other states may impose a lengthy suspension (e.g. 90- 180days) for a similar violation. See More ... What is the Mission of the ImpairedDriving Division? Themission of the Impaired Driving Division is to develop partnershipsto cooperatively save lives, prevent injuries, and reducetraffic-related health care and economic costs resulting from impaireddriving (alcohol and other drugs). See More ... ==================================================================== Before someonequestions any attorney listed at any site, understand ... If one does a couple of things at this site, they'll bewell informed. UnderlinedText is a DUI-Help.com Link for more information . 1. Takethe SelfEvaluation DUI DWI Defense Quiz ; 2. Submitto the ConfidentialFree Consultation Questionnaire ,and; 3.Interview with at least three DUI DWI Defense DirectoryLawyers before you miss deadlines. 4. Email them all you want! Listen: Even the nicestpeople can find themselves in a DUI situation. The serious consequencesdo not discriminate among any type of individual background. This is atime when you need to have forthright guidance and receive aggressiverepresentation. We are most aware of this and provide as much help andsupport as soon as possible after arrest. Our site is very easy to use. Besides all theinformation ( left frame )available for you to peruse, you may also contact the DUI DWI defenseexperts immediately here. Unlike other lawyer directories, allthe information you would need is included in this site. Simply post an email oruse the CallBack system tophone one of our DWI experts in your state or province .Please take a moment to review the information in addition toresearching a DUI expert attorney. Even with an attorney it is stillvitally important that you familiarize yourself with the issues in yourcase before you shop for an attorney. =================== Everyone is entitled to thepresumption of innocence. Without this guarantee, our system is a totalmockery of justice. You are entitled to compassionate and truthfulguidance through the obstacles you face and the possibilities ofovercoming them. You need an attorney who will fight for your rightsand provide you with the emotional support you need. You can count onthis type of legal representation should you choose to accept one of us. What should you get out of your attorney clientrelationship with one of the experts? Hopefully, you keep a legitimatedriver's license and stay out of jail - i.e. you'll not be convicted ofa drunk driving related charge. We give you the legal help you needright now. Take advantage of our no obligation consultations and emailquestionnaires. Use DUI-Help.com for free consultation(s) and review ofyour DUI / DWI / OUI / OWI arrest or lawsuit. Find OutMore - Many More Links in the Left Frame ~ NewAttorney Listings - Begin Here Alllawyers, attorneys andlaw firms listed are responsible for their advertising. Before hiringany professional, please check them out with your local State BarAssociation or Better Business Bureau. DUI-Help.com is solely adirectory similar to any telephone book. We have no control of theprofessional's administration of legal duties in your case. 1996-2006© DUI-Help.com. All rights reserved. Alexa Report DRUNKDRIVING DUI DWI ARRESTS IN ALLCOUNTIES AND CITIES OF OKLAHOMA Ada Altus Alva Anadarko Antlers Ardmore Atoka Bartlesville Bethany Bethel Acres Town Bixby Blackwell Blanchard Bristow Broken Arrow Broken Bow Catoosa Chandler Checotah Chickasha Choctaw Claremore Cleveland Clinton Collinsville Commerce Coweta Cushing Davis Davis Del Dewey Drumright Duncan Durant Edmond El Reno Elk Enid Eufaula Fairview Fort Gibson Town Frederick Glenpool Grove Guthrie Guymon Harrah Healdton Heavener Henryetta Hobart Holdenville Hominy Hugo Idabel Jenks Jones town Kingfisher Lawton Lindsay Lone Grove Madill Mangum Marlow McAlester McLoud Town Miami Midwest Moore Muldrow town Muskogee Mustang New Cordell Newcastle Nichols Hills Noble Norman Nowata Okemah Oklahoma Okmulgee Owasso Pauls Valley Pawhuska Perry Piedmont Pocola town Ponca Poteau Pryor Creek Purcell Roland town Sallisaw Sand Springs Sapulpa Sayre Seminole Shawnee Skiatook town Slaughterville town Spencer Stigler Stillwater Stilwell Stroud Sulphur Tahlequah Tecumseh The Village Tishomingo Tonkawa Tulsa Tuttle Vinita Wagoner Walters Warr Acres Watonga Weatherford Wewoka Wilburton Woodward Yukon at the National Safety Council Drug ImpairedDriving How Good Drivers Get Killed , a special report fromReader's Digest Get Your Own Breathalyzer! _ Just One Night toorder video We hope you never get arrested for drinkingand driving. Read on ... OurAmazonBookstore will let you find thebest defense for your case if you don't have an attorney, buy theirbooks! BOOKSTORE Translatethis Site! Chinese French German Italian Korean Japanese Portuguese Spanish and others just cut & paste www.DUI-Help.com DUI-Help.combecomes 1st niche drunk driving defense website on the internet. Firsttooffer free consultations by email, call back, or CGI form. DUI-Help.comout performs LegalMatch, Findlaw, LawInfo and all others in drunkdriving defenseassistance to the public. HAVE LAWYER CALL YOU A.C.L.U.Police Bust Card available Policeabuse is a serious national problem -- and one that especially affectsyoung people and people of color. While many police officers do striveto be courteous, and while we all understand the stress and dangerinvolved in policing, each of us has the right to be treated withrespect -- and without abuse -- by the police ... FULL ACLUPAGE - Download Card IsYour Mugshot on the Web ? Do You Need a Degreein Drinking Alcohol ?
|
|
drunk driving, support the MADD Online: Home Victims Under 21 MADD Programs Stats & Resources Take Action News About Us Events Contact Us Discussions & Chat Corporate Sponsors Help Support MADD Help us make a difference! Please consider making a charitable donation in support of MADD's lifesaving work. Get email updates Sign up to receive free Legislative Action Alerts and the MADD E-Newsletter Find Your Local Chapter Enter your zip code: Or you can search by state Focus on Underage Drinking MADD's new public service campaign aims to increase awareness among Hispanic parents and caregivers about the consequences of underage drinking. The campaign gives parents both information and advice on how to talk to their children about underage drinking. To learn more, please visit www.PorTuHijo.org or www.ForYourChild.org , or call 1-877-POR-TU-HIJO Super Bowl MVPs Are Not Only Found On The Playing Field "The Super Bowl is usually thought of as a fun time with friends watching football and laughing over clever commercials, but there is a bigger issue that needs to be addressed," says Glynn Birch, MADD national president. "Who is driving the person home that has been drinking? Everyone should have a game plan before the fun starts on Super Bowl Sunday, such as a designated driver or alternative transportation." More... MADD Says Dry Up Alcohol Ads Targeting Youth To Help Stop Underage Drinking The alcohol industry cannot be, and should not be, the sole source of media messages on underage drinking. Congress decided that tobacco companies shouldn’t be the lone voice in educating our children on smoking prevention and we believe the same should hold true for the alcohol companies on underage drinking. More... Ring In This New Year With A Resolution To Celebrate Safely "MADD is urging party-goers to make the resolution to celebrate safely and responsibly by designating a non-drinking driver before festivities begin," says Glynn Birch, MADD national president. More... MADD 2006 Media Awards Call For Entries The 4th annual MADD Media Awards program recognizes media professionals and organizations for outstanding coverage of issues related to MADD’s mission to stop drunk driving, support the victims of this violent crime and prevent underage drinking. More... MADD And Takata Launch Annual Tie One On For Safety Holiday Ribbon Campaign To Save Lives "The holiday season is a busy time on our nation's roads with a high incidence of alcohol-related fatalities," said MADD national president, Glynn R. Birch. More... Norman Y. Mineta Secretary of Transportation supporting MADD's popular public awareness program, Tie One On For Safety Home About Us | Membership & Chapters | MADD Programs | Discussions & Chat | Victims Under 21 | Take Action | Stats & Resources | News | MADD Privacy Policy Contact Us © Mothers Against Drunk Driving. All rights reserved.
|
|
Field Sobriety Testing Drivers Atlanta DUI Lawyer, Georgia Drunk Driving, DUI, DWI, Criminal Defense, GA DUI Lawyers, Attorney, Atlanta DUI Attorneys CALL TODAY FOR YOUR FREE CASE EVALUATION! Toll Free: 1-877-DUI-GEOR (1-877-384-4367) FREE ONLINE CASE EVALUATION - CLICK HERE! Home About Georgia DUI Defense Lawyer William C. Head Our Lawyers Georgia DUI Law Georgia Field Sobriety Testing Drivers License Suspension Law Information Georgia Courts DUI Cases DUI Client Letters DUI Links Publications & Articles Site Map Georgia FIELD SOBRIETY EVALUATIONS OR “TESTS” Motorists suspected of DUI / DWI are routinely asked by police officers to perform one or more field sobriety exercises. These voluntary “tests” (yes, voluntary) were developed by police agencies to assist law enforcement officers in making roadside determinations as to whether a motorist is under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Through the performance of these tests or evaluations, the officer subjectively determines how the motorist reacts to and performs the requested tasks. Almost EVERY knowledgeable DUI / DWI attorney will say to you, “NO. Don’t attempt ANY ‘field tests’---EVER.” That is because many studies have concluded that the SFSTs are “designed to fail”. Police officer administering Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) Evaluation as part of a police arrest. Officer may use finger, penlight or other object as the stimulus. Don't submit to ANY field evaluations in Georgia, since the Georgia Constitution permits you to politely decline such "testing" at the roadway. A motorist's alleged poor performance on field evaluations may provide the “probable cause” (legal justification) an officer needs to arrest a person for impaired driving and may also become part of the proof used to later convict the person at trial. See Parrish v. State, 216 Ga. App. 832, 456 S.E.2d 283 (1995). Therefore, it is very important that, in defending you, your defense attorney know as much or more about these tests as the police, if he or she is going to defend you. One sure way to know that your attorney is up to date: is your lawyer “NHTSA certified”? Certified as a “student”? Or certified as an “instructor”. Ask him/her. This training has been available to defense attorneys since 1994, and over 1000 attorneys nationwide have received the training. Mr. Head is an SFST instructor, and has taught or helped teach these evaluations to over 300 other defense lawyers. Counsel for the defense should challenge the subjective nature of the evaluations, the accuracy of the principles behind the tests, the accuracy of the administration of the tests, the credibility of the officer who “requested” the tests, and challenge all circumstances connected with the evaluations. The attorney representing you must attack the factual and legal issues that may arise regarding the officer's scoring and evaluation of the field tests. Only three tests have been “scientifically” studied (in lengthy studies paid for by the federal government) and represented to have any measure of reliability in helping an officer predict whether a subject is above a certain legal limit (0.10 BAC, in the original testing). These tests, known as the “standardized field sobriety tests” [SFSTs], were designed pursuant to numerous federal grants and ultimately sanctioned by NHTSA (the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration) beginning in 1984. These three tests are (1) the walk and turn [WAT] test, (2) the one leg stand [OLS] test, and (3) the horizontal gaze nystagmus [HGN] test. However, the manuals (plural here, because 6 separate versions have now been released) say that if not performed properly, or if conducted without adhering to the training protocols, such actions “compromise” the validity of these evaluations. Starting in the 1970’s, NHTSA began studying and funding “field tests” to see if any of the dozens of police exercises had any correlation to showing if a drinking driver had a blood alcohol level of 0.10 grams percent or higher. The “studies” determined that only the three named evaluations had any reliable correlation better than 50-50 (flipping a coin and guessing ‘heads’, being a 50-50 reliability test, for example) to identify a person having a BAC of 0.10% or more. These evaluations in no way were used to determine whether a driver is impaired . . . only whether the person may be 0.10 or more. The HGN evaluation, when performed correctly on proper subjects, had a 77% “claimed” reliability rating. The WAT exercise, when conducted properly on a qualified subject on a dry, level surface, was found to be 68% reliable. The OLS exercise, when conducted properly, on a qualified subject on a level, dry surface and under proper instructions and where correctly demonstrated and scored, reportedly yields about 65% reliability. Cumulatively, if all are done correctly, up to 83% correlation to a BAC of 0.10% or more may be expected. Knowledgeable criminal defense lawyers know that 98% or more of the officers administering these evaluations do them wrong, or conduct them in a manner (or on a test subject) not approved by the SFST manual, or grade the evaluations improperly, as per the manual, or ALL OF THE ABOVE. When done incorrectly, these evaluations have ZERO predicted reliability. Hence, a top-notch DUI/DWI lawyer can cross-examine the arresting officer using his/her OWN training materials that the federal government and YOUR state government have approved. Recent research and scientific review of the testing protocols and scoring methodology have brought the NHTSA “Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (“SFSTs”) into serious question. Courts across America are taking a closer look at the original research, to see if proper scientific methods were employed in the initial research. More and more courts are now saying “no” to these questions. In a recent New Mexico case, a high-level court has declared that the person who “developed” the tests (Dr. Marcelline Burns) was not qualified to testify as an expert witness about the scientific principles behind the HGN test. (Lasworth v. State, 42 P.2d 844 (N.M. App. 2001).) HISTORIC ROOTS Prior to the 1980's and NHTSA's studies on field testing, police officers across America were taught a wide variety of “tests” to be given to persons stopped for suspected drunk driving. Most of these “tests” had never been studied to determine “fairness” or accuracy in detecting either impaired drivers or drivers who were operating a vehicle while their BAC level was 0.10 BAC or more. Moreover, no standardized method (that is, not being done the same way by officers who used these tests) of scoring or grading these tests had been attempted. Simply stated, the decision to arrest was based upon the subjective whim of the officer. Mistakes were made in a large percentage of cases. Tests given by some officers may have included reciting the alphabet (or a portion thereof), picking up coins off the ground, or touching index fingers to the tip of the nose while the person’s eyes were closed and head tilted back. Some involved strange, one-legged tapping on the roadway with a raised foot (similar to what that famous television horse, Mr. Ed, used to do). These “made-up” tests were administered to subjects without any scientific or empirical basis for reliability in detecting an impaired driver. These tests were designed for failure, not for fairness. Even worse, police officers often forced people to perform these voluntary evaluations, thereby violating these citizens’ rights. Some “non-standardized” tests were so ridiculous and difficult that proof of non-validity was easy with almost any jury or judge. Today, officers who lack NHTSA training invariably cannot cite any studies or scientific research which “validated” their tests, the scoring (e.g., “pass” or “fail”) or their testing methods. Almost always, no scoring system is used on tests which do not adhere to NHTSA guidelines. If non-standardized tests are used, the number of errors that are required for a subject to fail is totally subjective with each officer. Hence, the untrained officer is usually an easy target for a skilled and knowledgeable criminal defense attorney who knows the “limitations” of these field tests. THE ISSUE OF THE ``SCIENCE'' OF FIELD TESTING A great rift exists among scientific experts on the question of whether field sobriety tests are ``scientific.'' For example, Georgia's appellate courts have blown hot and cold on this subject. Torrance v. State, 217 Ga. App. 562, 458 S.E.2d 495 (1995); Manley v. State, 206 Ga. App. 281, 424 S.E.2d 818 (1992); Foster v. State, 204 Ga. App. 632, 420 S.E.2d 78 (1992); Crawford v. City of Forest Park, 215 Ga. App. 234, 450 S.E.2d 237 (1994) [holding that field tests given by the arresting officer were not ``a scientific procedure,'' but ``simply a behavioral observation on the officer's part'']; Hassell v. State, 212 Ga. App. 432, 442 S.E.2d 261 (1994); Hawkins v. State, 223 Ga. App. 34, 476 S.E.2d 803 (1996). Challenges to field sobriety tests based upon proof of a scientific foundation by an expert have been rejected by the court of appeals. Druitt v. State, 225 Ga. App. 150, 483 S.E.2d 117 (1997). See also Padgett v. State, 230 Ga. App. 659, 498 S.E.2d 84 (1998), where the court of appeals held that field sobriety tests are merely dexterity exercises and the word ``tests'' is a misnomer. The reason that most credible scientists across America (and in other countries) are unwilling to categorize field tests -- even NHTSA's tests -- as being “scientific” is that too many variables are involved in roadside testing to ever eliminate pure chance and non-controlled circumstances from the equation (e.g., environmental conditions such as lighting and roadway slope). Numerous states, including Texas, Alabama and Mississippi, do not permit HGN evidence to be admitted at trial. The reason behind this is that these “party games” (as noted Swedish scientist Dr. A.W. Jones has called them) do not pass well-established rules f evidence (the court rules for determining when certain types of information may be told to the jury) for scientifically acceptable tests. Even NHTSA admits that under optimal conditions (i.e., in an air-conditioned, well lighted room) 35% of sober, drug-free subjects get inaccurate results on the one leg stand test, 32% of sober subjects get flawed results on the walk and turn, and 23% of sober subjects are inaccurately said to be “over the legal limit” on the horizontal gaze nystagmus test. By comparison, polygraph (lie detector) tests are more than 90% accurate when conducted by a qualified operator), and (absent a stipulation by both parties) are still not permitted into evidence by most courts. Issues of unreliability and lack of scientific validity cannot be extensively addressed on this website. The author commends the following articles for your study of this fascinating subject: (1) Nowaczyk, Ronald H., and Cole, Spurgeon, Separating Myth from Fact: A Review of Research on the Field Sobriety Tests, NACDL Champion Magazine, August, 1995, p. 40. (2) Cowan, Jonathan D., Proof and Disproof of Alcohol-Induced Driving Impairment Through Evidence of Observable Intoxication and Coordination Testing, 9 Am Jur Proof of Facts 3d, p. 459 (1990). (3) Cowan, Jonathan D., Proof and Disproof of Alcohol-Induced Impairment Through Breath Alcohol Testing, 4 Am Jur Proof of Facts 3d, p. 229 (1989). (4) Trichter & Peña, DWI/DUI Field Sobriety Testing Revisited, NACDL Champion Magazine, August, 1996, p. 17. (5) Price, Phillip B., Sr., Field Sobriety Testing, NACDL Champion Magazine, August, 1996, p. 46. THESE ARE VOLUNTARY TESTS Only a small number of states have tried to pass laws to make the field tests not be 100% voluntary. These states typically will assess a monetary fine against someone who says “no” to these voluntary tests. So what? I tell all my fiends and relatives and clients: DON’T ATTEMPT THESE TESTS. Other states have said that the State Constitution provides that no person can be compelled to take such tests. Case law in virtually all U.S. jurisdictions indicates that if a person is being detained or is “in custody,” no field tests can be given without first providing Miranda advisements (i.e., right to remain silent; right to an attorney; if you can’t afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you). State v. O'Donnell, 225 Ga. App. 502, 484 S.E.2d 313 (1997). Hence, the new focus for defense attorneys is to establish that some sort of ``custody'' or detention has occurred prior to the field tests. See also Price v. State, 269 Ga. 222, 498 S.E.2d 262 (1998). However, many appellate courts have bent over backward to ignore clear signs of custody. For example, despite guns being drawn on a driver, the Georgia Court of Appeals (in Hassell v. State---see citation above) ruled that this was not “custody”. Of course, this is a ridiculous ruling, but part of “Georgia law,” regardless. Other courts have stood tall and said “if NHTSA tests are supposed to be scientific, then they must be done correctly”. The previously mentioned Lasworth case from the New Mexico Court of Appeals is just such a case. The Supreme Court of Ohio recently held that the officer’s failure to follow NHTSA training in administering field sobriety exercises was a factor in determining the admissibility of the test. State v. Homan, 732 N.E.2d 952 (Ohio 2000). In Homan, a NHTSA-trained officer’s admitted failure to administer the field sobriety exercises in strict compliance with NHTSA’s standardized testing procedures invalidated (and excluded) all of the State’s evidence about the field sobriety exercises. The Homan court made the following findings regarding the unreliability of field tests not conducted in compliance with NHTSA procedure: When field sobriety testing is conducted in a manner that departs from established methods and procedures, the results are inherently unreliable. In an extensive study, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) evaluated field sobriety tests in terms of their utility in determining whether a subject’s blood-alcohol concentration is below or above the legal limit. The NHTSA concluded that field sobriety tests are an effective means of detecting legal intoxication “only when: the tests are administered in the prescribed, standardized manner[,] . . . the standardized clues are used to assess the suspect’s performance[, and] . . . the standardized criteria are employed to interpret that performance.” National Highway Traffic Safety Adm., U.S. Dept. of Transp., HS 178 R2/00, DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing, Student Manual (2000), at VIII-3. According to the NHTSA, “[i]f any one of the standardized field sobriety test elements is changed, the validity is compromised.” Id. Experts in the areas of drunk driving apprehension, prosecution, and defense all appear to agree that the reliability of field sobriety test results does indeed turn upon the degree to which police comply with standardized testing procedures. See, e.g., 1 Erwin, Defense of Drunk Driving Cases (3 Ed.1997), Section 10.06[4]; Cohen & Green, Apprehending and Prosecuting the Drunk Driver: A Manual for Police and Prosecution (1997), Section 4.01. ROADSIDE ALCOHOL SCREENING TESTS A portable breath testing device may be used by police officers in determining whether or not a motorist is under the influence of alcohol. Some states have banned the use of these voluntary “non-evidential” screening devices. “Non-evidential” means that “the digital number” can’t be used against you in court. Some states have ruled that the only place at trial that these can be used is at a pre-trial hearing at which “probable cause” for arrest is involved. Like other “field tests”, these devices are used at the roadway. Often, police officers do not regularly check the devices for calibration. Furthermore, the manufacturer’s instructions (e.g., failing to observe a 15 minute deprivation period, waiting at least 4 minutes between tests, or clearing the prior test results) for proper use are routinely ignored. Some states have started using these roadside testers as evidential tests. This is accomplished when a small printer is attached to the breath test apparatus. Unless your state uses such a device as an OFFICIAL state-mandated breath test, no person should ever submit to these devices and risk a false positive result and almost certain arrest. Politely DECLINE to give this voluntary sample, if it is not the official state test. THE NEWEST “VOODOO” SCIENCE: THE “DEC” PROGRAM TO IDENTIFY DRUG USE Government studies have revealed that many drivers are under the influence of drugs, or a combination of alcohol and drugs. To combat this, an effort has been mounted since the early 1990’s to add some type of training to the police officer's arsenal that will assist in identifying drug-impaired individuals. Hence, NHTSA has created the ``Drug Evaluation and Classification'' (DEC) Program. A DEC officer does not typically work in the field (i.e., making traffic arrests), or make the initial arrest of an impaired driver. A DEC officer is called in after a subject either shows a low score on an alcohol test, or otherwise ‘smells’ like or ‘acts’ like he/she has been using drugs. The proper procedure is for the DEC officer to give Miranda warnings to the person (already in custody), and then start “the evaluation for drug usage”. SIMPLE RULE: SAY NO! You have just been told of your constitutional rights---USE THEM! Say nothing and do nothing beyond say, “I’d like to speak to an attorney.” More information on Your Constitutional Rights. The function of DEC is to ascertain: (a) Whether the person is impaired by something; (b) If impaired, is it from drugs as opposed to alcohol; (c) If the impairment appears to be from drugs, what ``manifestations'' or visible indicia of impairment would indicate the TYPE or CATEGORY of drug being used? As opposed to trying to target a single ``impairing'' chemical, the DEC process seeks to ``recognize'' indications of any of seven broad categories of drugs: (1) Central nervous system depressants, such as Valium, Xanax or alcohol; (2) Central nervous system stimulants (e.g., crack or powder cocaine); (3) Hallucinogens, such as L.S.D.; (4) Phencyclidine, such as P.C.P. (which can manifest itself as a stimulant, depressant or hallucinogen, and is highly unpredictable); (5) Inhalants, such as glues or other aerosol products, which block the passage of oxygen to the brain; (6) Narcotic analgesics, such as Demerol, Dilaudid, opium, heroin, Methadone and other powerful pain relievers; and (7) Cannabis (marijuana and its ``family'' of psychoactive plants.) [For more detailed information on all types of common drugs, click here.] The hope of the police is that these DEC evaluations can be used in court to identify impairment from drugs even if the person refuses all blood and urine testing. Absent a blood or urine test or an admission of recent drug use, “opinion” testimony must be based upon something more than a wild guess or speculation. Ironically, NHTSA designed the DEC Program for post-arrest investigation, to be done in a carefully controlled environment (as opposed to “field” evaluation). Numerous “task force” officers across America have taken IACP-approved DEC classes to enable them to identify a subject impaired by drugs. IACP is the acronym for International Association of Chiefs of Police. Sometimes referred to as “DREs” or “DRTs” (drug recognition experts or drug recognition technicians), these officers utilize a series of simple evaluations and observations to help them identify individuals impaired by drugs. Interestingly, even the IACP recognizes the limitations of the DEC program. For example, the agency recognizes that DEC-trained officers cannot identify exactly what drug (or drugs) a person is “on.” Only one of the seven broad “categories” listed might be identified, if the person has been fully trained and certified. IACP has emphasized the need for an analytical chemical test (such as a GC-MS test) to confirm the officer's “suspicions” about drug use. This is because anything less than a chemical test is just “an educated GUESS”. The law does not support guesswork in criminal trials, because the State must prove guilt BEYOND A REASONABL DOUBT. The DEC process includes an alcohol screening evaluation on a roadside screening device such as an Alco-Sensor. It also includes administering the NHTSA standardized field sobriety tests. The twelve components of the DEC process include: (1) A breath alcohol screening test to determine an estimated BAC level; (2) Interviewing the arresting officer, to see what was seen or heard in earlier contact; (3) The preliminary examination, including questions to determine pre-existing injury, or the existence of a health or mental condition that may mimic drug use; (4) Eye examination, using both horizontal and vertical nystagmus tests, plus checking to see if the eyes converge properly; (5) Divided attention tests, including walk and turn, one-leg stand, finger to nose and the Romberg balance test; (6) Vital signs examination, checking pulse rate, blood pressure and temperature; (7) Dark room examination, including measurement of pupil size, reaction of the eyes to light and tell-tale evidence of ingestion of drugs by nose or by mouth; (8) Examination of muscle tone -- Depending on the type of drug used, muscles can be rigid or flaccid. Examination is performed from the bicep to the wrist; (9) Looking for injection sites, (i.e., needle marks or “tracks”) on the arms, neck, legs, etc.; (10) Questioning the suspect -- After giving all the required “constitutional and statutory” advisements, ask the subject questions concerning the drug or drugs suspected to be involved; (11) The opinion of the DEC evaluator is used to summarize the “findings” and to fill out reports designed to document the observed facts which support the officer's conclusions; and (12) A toxicological examination (blood test) to provide scientific, admissible evidence to substantiate the DEC evaluator's conclusions. (This assumes that a person submits to the test offered, where an option to NOT do so exists.) A properly equipped DEC officer will have these items with him or her: (a) blood pressure kit; (b) an electronic aneroid thermometer; (c) a pupillometer (to measure the size of the subject's pupils); (d) a preliminary alcohol screening device, such as an Alco-Sensor; and (e) access to a dark room. The DEC protocol teaches officers to not only look for either contraband (illegal) or controlled substances (i.e., those drugs which cannot be purchased without a prescription), but to take note of over-the-counter medications that the subject has ingested which may have caused or contributed to the suspect's impairment. Certain allergy and cold medicines have been determined by the American Medical Association and FDA to be particularly unsafe for persons who are driving. These include Benadryl, Allerdryl, Contac Severe Cold Formula, Vicks Nyquil, Trifed, Phenergan and others. Although the use of DEC evaluations by “DRE” officers requires extensive training, this is a wave of the future. Decisions in several states have upheld DEC evaluations by DRE officers, utilizing both a Daubert analysis and a Frye analysis of admissibility. Daubert and Frye are well-known federal cases that have carved out the rules of when and after what type of judicial review scientific evidence can be admitted at a trial. About 45 of the 50 states follow one standard or the other. See State v. Klawitter, 518 N.W.2d 577 (Minn. 1994) [using a Daubert analysis] and People v. Quinn, 580 N.Y.S.2d 818 (Suffolk County Dist. Ct. 1991), rev'd and remanded on other grounds, 607 N.Y.S.2d 534 (Sup. Ct. App. Term 1993) [using a Frye analysis]. See State v. Sampson, 6 P.3d 543 (Or.App. 2000) for a fascinating analysis of prior DEC admissibility in various states. As with other “pro-prosecution” types of “scientific” evidence, expect courts to overrule objections to DEC evaluations based on highly discretionary trial court review of “proper” evidence. The need of the State to “make our highways safe” will likely outweigh the “voodoo” nature of the DEC “opinion” evidence. The best hope for the defense is that a fair-minded judge will look at the highly irregular nature of this evidence and declare “the State has not laid a proper foundation for this scientific evidence. Therefore, this evidence is excluded.” 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 © 2004-2005, Headlines Marketing Corporation • All Rights Reserved
|
|
Driving While Intoxicated: The eMedicine Health - Alcohol Intoxication, Driving While Intoxicated: The Facts Search January 26, 2006 Registration Healthcare Professionals You are in: Substance Abuse > Alcohol Intoxication Alcohol Intoxication Driving While Intoxicated: The Facts FACT: In 2000, some 16,653 people were killed in vehicle crashes involving alcohol. This represents 40% of all people killed in traffic accidents that year. (See the US map of all deaths related to intoxication .) FACT: At present, there are 17 states with laws making it illegal to drive at a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) over 100 mg/dL (0.1%); 32 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have a lower cutoff point, which is 80 mg/dL. In October 2000, the federal government passed a law mandating that all states enact laws lowering the legal driving BAC to 80 mg/dL by October 2003 or face the penalty of withholding 2% of their federal highway construction funds. These cutoff points establish the level below which driving is per se illegal in and of itself. Per se means that the only factor considered is the BAC. Whether the person actually is intoxicated, behaves as if he or she is intoxicated, or appears to be intoxicated does not count. Numerous studies demonstrate that almost all drivers are impaired at a level of 80 mg/dL with respect to critical driving skills such as braking, steering, and changing lanes. Impairment begins as low as 20 mg/dL and is common at 50 mg/dL. Most significant is that impairment of skills begins at a much lower level than required to exhibit obvious signs of being drunk. The per se level mandated by the federal government for drivers of commercial vehicles is a mere 40 mg/dL (0.04%). This applies to all 50 states. In 1992, the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration recommended that all states lower their illegal per se levels to 80 mg/dL (0.08%). Only 19 states have done so. A strong lobby representing sellers of alcoholic beverages has been instrumental in preventing adoption of the recommended levels by all states. Also, the expense of enforcing the lower limits is a significant issue. All countries in Europe are below the 100 mg/dL cutoff common in the US. Countries with a cutoff of 80 mg/dL include Austria, Britain, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Luxembourg, Spain, Switzerland, and Canada. Countries with a cutoff of 50 mg/dL include Belgium, Finland, France, Greece, Netherlands, and Portugal. Sweden and Norway have a 20 mg/dL cutoff. American society continues to be complacent about drunk drivers. Even when a person who is drunk kills someone in a motor vehicle accident, the sentence tends to be extremely light, if imposed at all. Defending drunk drivers is a huge legal business. Over the years, numerous creative defenses have been successfully employed. Some of the popular ones include these: Driver claims to have consumed the alcohol after the accident to calm nerves. Driver claims that he or she only had a soft drink at the party, but someone else laced it with alcohol. Driver claims to have medical conditions that impede the normal metabolism of alcohol. Driver says the alcohol swab used to clean the skin before the blood sample was drawn contaminated the skin. (Such swabs contain isopropyl alcohol, not ethanol, and do not register on the ethanol test.) Specimen was mixed with another in the lab. Driver consumed alcohol-containing elixirs such as cough syrup or mouthwash. < Alcohol Intoxication, Physician Treatment and Follow-up Alcohol Intoxication, Advice to Law Enforcement Personnel > Sections - Alcohol Intoxication Definition and Causes - Alcohol Intoxication Signs and Symptoms - Home Care - When to Seek Medical Care - Physician Diagnosis - Alcohol Intoxication, Physician Treatment and Follow-up - Driving While Intoxicated: The Facts - Advice to Law Enforcement Personnel - For More Information - Multimedia - Synonyms and Keywords - References - Authors and Editors Are you sad, bored, fatigued, irritable, unable to concentrate, pessimistic? If you've been feeling this way for at least 2 weeks, you may have clinical depression. Learn what can help. Dementia is not something that happens only to older people. Learn about causes and treatment options. Wheezing, breathlessness, chest tightness, coughing–all symptoms of asthma. Find out more. Stress, fear, or worries can lead to severe anxiety, which can have a serious impact on your life. Do you need to seek help? Anxiety Arthritis Bone, Joint, Muscle Cholesterol Dementia Depression Headache Mental Health Women's Health About Us | Privacy | Code of Ethics | Terms of Use | Contact Us | Advertise | Healthcare Professionals We subscribe to the HONcode principles. Verify here . © 2003-2006 eMedicine.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved . Medicine is a constantly changing science, and clearly established therapiesare not always available for every condition. New research findingsnecessitate continual changes in drug and treatment therapies. The authors,editors, and publisher of this journal have used reasonable efforts to provideup-to-date, accurate information that is within generally accepted medicalstandards at the time of publication. However, as medical science is everevolving, and human error is always possible, the authors, editors, andpublisher (or any other involved party) do not guarantee total accuracy orcomprehensiveness of the information in this article, nor are theyresponsible for omissions, errors, or the results of using this information.The reader should confirm the accuracy of the information in this articlefrom other sources. In particular, all drug doses, indications, andcontraindications should be confirmed in package inserts. FULL DISCLAIMER
|
|
DUI / DWI, Drinking 
