Field Sobriety Testing Standards

Blood Alcohol Level

Blood Alcohol Level: Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) Calculations Home 15 Tips California DMV Publications DUI Lawyer Links Law Offices Contact Us Arrested for DUI? How do I calculate my BAC? Will the attorney I hire be the attorney who will actually handle my case? How much should I expect to pay? Is he or she recognized by others as a leader in the field? Will my case be dismissed? What's a "wet reckless"? Is the attorney a member of the National College of DWI Defense? Won't the judge be upset with me if I hire a lawyer and fight the charges? >> More Dui Questions Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) Calculations Download EZ-ALC Blood Alcohol Chart Software Click here to download EZ-ALC When you click on the link above to download EZ-ALC, your web browser will ask you where you want to save EZALCSW.EXE. Put it somewhere you'll remember! After it's done downloading, use the "Run" command to run the file and it will automatically install on your computer, with an icon on the desktop, and another one in "Programs" on your "Start" menu. If you don't want the desktop icon, just click on it once, then right-click and select delete from the pop-up menu. Fast Eddie's Simple 8/10 Method for Hand Calculating BAC Click here for an article on how to use Fast Eddie's Simple 8/10 Method (Widmark's formula). Why Do BAC Calculations From Drink History? It's possible to use "Widmark's Formula" to calculate a Blood Alcohol Concentration (B.A.C.) based upon known factors about a person, including their weight, gender, and what amount of alcohol they consumed. It's plain that the defense will want to present expert testimony on this subject to show that the B.A.C. was below the legal limit (Veh. C. 23152(b) and 23155) at the time of driving. Another Reason For Such Evidence The defendant has often admitted at the time of arrest, consuming some amount of alcohol prior to driving. Prosecutors often use such statements to impeach the defendant's credibility. They have the prosecution expert testify as to how much alcohol the defendant had in him at the time of his blood, breath or urine test. Then they have their expert state how many "drinks" the test result means the defendant had to have consumed. The answer usually makes the client look like a liar. And the jury is told that they can't trust anything the client said, like, when he said he was not affected by the alcohol. But your expert can often reconcile the chemical test result with your client's admissions. The defendant's credibility is thereby restored, not only with regard to what he drank, but on everything else in his testimony. Thus, Widmark calculations can be essential not only to showing that the defendant's alcohol level at the time of arrest was below the legal limit, but also to showing that the defendant is not a liar. There is an excellent discussion of how to use the EZ-ALC software in court in, Fitzgerald, Edward F., Chapter 12 "Use of the EZ-ALC Computer Program by Attorneys and Experts", in {NEED LINK} Intoxication Test Evidence, 2d ed. (Deerfield, IL: Clark-Boardman-Callaghan, 1995). Whether you or your expert use the hand or computer calculation method it will be necessary for your expert to testify as to the results. If the calculations have been done by computer your expert can state that he relied upon the statements of EZ-ALC's technical consultant, Randall C. Baselt, Ph.D., for his opinion that EZ-ALC correctly uses Widmark's formula and is scientifically valid. This is no different than an expert testifying that he believes his hand held calculator correctly adds, subtracts, multiplies and divides, based upon the manufacturer's representations that it does that. The program comes with a complete description of how it operates, along with a copy of Dr. Baselt's extensive curriculum vitae, showing him to be a leading authority on the subject. It is not necessary to show that the computer was functioning properly or that the software was working the way it was supposed to (People v. Lugashi (1988) 205 CA3d 632, 252 CR 434 - Case contains an extensive collection of authorities on the subject). For what may be a contrary view see Snyder, R., Assuring the Competency of Computer Generated Evidence (No. 1, Winter, 1989) 9 Computer/Law J. 103-121. See also State v. Pressnall 804 P2d 936 (Idaho CtApp 1991) - Blood Alcohol Concentration (B.A.C.) calculations based upon Widmark formula admissible to rebut Breath Alcohol Concentration (Br.A.C.) evidence; Tarantino, J.A., "Using Computer Generated Simulations in Alcohol Related Trials", DWI Journal, 6 No. 8, Aug. 1991 (Fanwood, NJ: Whitaker Newsletters) 1. California Drunk Driving Law is recognized by thousands of California attorneys and judges as "The Bible of Drunk Driving Defense". It's unrivaled! This site brought to you by the authors of California Drunk Driving Law.

SFST'S, Field Sobriety Tests, FST's, Standardized Field Sobriety Tests DUI Defense DMV Hearings Field Sobriety Testing Walk & Turn Test One Leg Stand Test Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Florida SFST Study Mature Driver Standardized Field Sobriety Testing Standards for the Standardized Field Sobriety Testing (SFST) Program Psychophysical tests should require evaluation of the subject's appearance and condition, ability to follow instructions, as well as balance and coordination. These types of tests are called Divided Attention Tests. They require the subject to concentrate on more than one thing at a time. They divide the subject's attention between mental and physical tasks. Studies have shown that a person who is under the influence of an alcoholic beverage may be able to perform one of these tasks but rarely both. If under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, people are likely to make certain predictable errors while attempting these tasks. Since the mid 1970's, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), with the cooperation and assistance of the law enforcement community, has conducted research that resulted in the development of a battery of three standardized field sobriety tests (Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus, Walk and Turn and the One Leg Stand) to assist police officers in detecting impaired drivers. The program, which was previously termed the Improved Sobriety Testing, was validated in laboratory and field studies conducted by the Southern California Research Institute . These tests were initially developed by the Los Angeles Police Department Training in how to conduct the tests is included in the NHTSA course "DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing." 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 field sobriety testing program developed by NHTSA. As the program has grown, it has become apparent that in order to insure continued success, nationally accepted standards must be established. These standards which establish criteria for the selection and training of SFST practitioners would help insure the continued high level of success of the SFST program. In 1992, the IACP Highway Safety Committee recommended the development of this system of nationally accepted standards. In April of 1992, the IACP and NHTSA sponsored a meeting at the headquarters of IACP in Arlington,Virginia. Persons invited to this meeting included SFST instructors from several states, curriculum specialists and training administrators. The participants met in working groups to reach a consensus concerning the many issues relating to the SFST program and to develop recommended minimum standards to the IACP Advisory Committee on Highway Safety. The standards were drafted and presented to the committee for their review at the mid-year meeting in June 1992. The Advisory Committee on Highway Safety by resolution adopted the National Standards for the SFST Program. (The Standards were subsequently approved by voting membership of the IACP). In order to maintain credibility and integrity of the program, agencies that use a training program other than that is currently approved by the IACP must have the alternative curriculum approved by the IACP Advisory Committee on Highway Safety as meeting the required learning objectives. This is supported by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Presently, SFST Training must be 16 hours in length and include at least two controlled drinking sessions utilizing volunteer drinkers. This is accordance with section 1.2 of the Standards For Training In Standardized Field Sobriety Testing. In section 1.4 in order to satisfactorily complete the classroom portion of the training, SFST candidates must complete the IACP-approved final examination with a score of not less than eighty percent. Candidates scoring less than 80% on the final may be retested one time under the supervision of a SFST instructor. The retest shall be completed not less than 15 nor more than 30 days following the completion of the classroom training. The examination used shall not have been administered to the candidate previously. If the candidate does not achieve a passing score on reexamination, the candidate must retake the classroom portion of the training and pass the final examination. In section III it is recommended that each agency develop refresher or in service training, as needed, to ensure that SFST trained personnel maintain their proficiency in the administration of their total DUI/DWI enforcement program. The U.S. D.O.T. requires 35 practice tests within a six month period. A refusal can not be considered a practice test as the evaluation of the suspect must be corroborated by a blood alcohol reading. The officer is trained to conduct the HGN test last during his practice test period and not to formulate an opinion based on the results or use it for probable cause to arrest. They are told not to document the test due to this. At no time may a person that is tested be used more than once on a practice test. As a result of this it is necessary to review the documentation of the practice tests in order to determine if the practitioner was properly recommended for certification. Generally there are three "tests" which are administered on scene. These tests are: Walk and Turn One Leg Stand Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Some Field Sobrierty Test Articles, Studies and Research 1. Marcelline Burns & Herbert Moskowitz, Psychophysiological Tests for DWI Arrest , Final Report, DOT-HS-802-424 (1977). V. Tharp et al ., Development and Field Test of Psychophysiological Tests for DWI Arrest , Final Report, DOT-HS-805-864 (1981). 2. V. Tharp et al ., supra. Theodore E. Anderson et al ., Field Evaluation of a Behavioral Test Battery for DWI , DOT-HS-806-475 (1983). 3. William A. Pangman, Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus: Voodoo Science , 2 DWI J. Law & Sci. 1 (1987). G. Simpson, Attacking NHTSA’s Three-Test Field Sobriety Assessment , 3 DWI J. Law & Sci., 97. Jonathon D. Cowen & Susannah G. Jaffee, Field Sobriety Tests: The Flimsy Scientific Underpinnings, 5 DWI J. Law & Sci. 121 (1990). Mark Rouleau, Unreliability of the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test , 4 Am. Jur. POF 3d 439 (1990). Jonathon D. Cowan & Susannah G. Jaffe, Proof and Disproof of Alcohol-Induced Impairment Though Evidence of Observable Intoxication and Coordination Testing , 9 Am. Jur., POF 3d, 459 (1990). Ronnie M. Cole & Spurgeon N. Cole, New Proof That Field Sobriety Tests Are ‘Failure-Designed ,’ 6 DWI J.: Law & Sci. 1 (1991). Spurgeon Cole & Ronald H. Nowaczyk, Field Sobriety Tests: Are They Designed for Failure? 79 Percep. & Motor Skills, 99 (1994). Randy T. Leavitt, Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus , 22 Voice for the Defense 17 (1994). Ronald H. Nowaczyk & Spurgeon Cole , Separating Myth From Fact: A Review of Research on the Field Sobriety Tests, The Champion (Aug. 1995) 40. Charles R. Honts & Susan L. Amato-Henderson, Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test: The State of the Science in 1995 , 71 N. Dak. L. Rev. 671 (1995). Joseph R. Meaney, Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus: A Closer Look , 36 Jurimetrics J. 383 (1996). 4. Marcelline Burns, First Annual DWI Training Seminar, Houston (2000). 5. V. Tharp et al ., supra . 6. Jack Stuster & Marcelline Burns, Validation of the Standardized Field Sobriety Test Battery at BACs Below .10 Percent, DOT-HS-808-839 6 (1998). 7. Marcelline Burns & Ellen W. Anderson, Field Evaluation Study of the Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) Battery (Final Report Submitted to the Colorado DOT, November, 1995). 8. Marcelline Burns & Teresa Dioquino, A Florida Validation Study of the Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) Battery , (1997). 9. Jack Stuster & Marcelline Burns, supra at 8. 10. Marcelline Burns & Ellen W. Anderson, supra . Marcelline Burns & Teresa Dioquino, supra . Jack Stuster & Marcelline Burns, supra . 11. National Highway Traffic Safety Adm., U.S. Dept. of Transp., HS 178 R2/00, DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing, Student Manual (2000). 12. Gregory W. Good & Carol R. Augsburger, Use of Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus as a Part of Roadside Field Sobriety Testing , 63 Amer. J. Optometry & Physiological Optics, 467 (1986). 13. See Louis M. Hsu, Diagnostic Validity Statistics and the MCMI-III , 14 Psych. Assess. 410, 410-411 (2002). 14. A. James McKnight et al, Development of a Standardized Boating Sobriety Test , 31 Accid. Anal. & Prev. 147 (1999). 15. A. James McKnight et al ., Sobriety Tests for Low Alcohol Blood Concentrations , 34 Accid. Anal. & Prev. 305 (2002). 16. A. James McKnight et al. , Development of a Standardized Boating Sobriety Test , 31 Accid. Anal. & Prev. 147, 152 (1999). 17. A. James McKnight et al ., Sobriety Tests for Low Alcohol Blood Concentrations , 34 Accid. Anal. & Prev. 305 (2002) 18. Thomas D. Cook & Donald T. Campbell, Quasi-Experimentation: Design & Analysis Issues for Field Settings 2–9 (1979). 19. Id., Donald T. Campbell & Julian C. Stanley, Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research (1962). 20. See also Phillip E. Price & Spurgeon Cole, NHTSA Field Sobriety Tests: Validation and Invalidation , The Champion (Apr. 2001). 21. Marcelline Burns & Ellen W. Anderson, supra at 17. 22. See also J.L. Booker, End-Position Nystagmus as an Indictor of Ethanol Intoxication , 41 Sci. & Justice 113 (2001). 23. United States v. Horn, 185 F.Supp.2d 530, 558 (D.Md. 2002). 24. Marcelline Burns & Teresa Dioquino, supra, at 31. 25. Jack E. Richman & John Jakobowski, The Competency and Accuracy of Policy Academy Recruits in the Use of the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test for Detecting Alcohol Impairment , 47 New Eng. J Optom. 5 (1994). 26. 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-8, VIII-12, VIII-14. 27. Elazar J. Pedhazur, Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research 147-150 (2nd ed. 1982). Jum C. Nunnally & Ira H. Bernstein, Psychometric Theory 333 (3rd ed.1994). 28. Marcelline Burns & Herbert Moskowitz, Psychophysiological Tests for DWI Arrest , Final Report, DOT-HS-802-424 (1977). V. Tharp et al., supra . A. James McKnight et al ., Development of a Standardized Boating Sobriety Test , 31 Accident Analysis and Prevention 147 (1999). A. James McKnight et al., Sobriety Tests for Low Alcohol Blood Concentrations , 34 Accid. Anal. & Prev. 305 (2002). See also Antti Penttila & Martti Tenju, Clinical Examination as Medicolegal Proof of Alcohol Intoxication , 16 Med. Sci. law (1976) 95. Robert S. Kennedy et al., Indexing Cognitive Tests to Alcohol Dosage and Comparison to Standardized Field Sobriety Tests , 55 J. of Studies on Alcohol 615 (1994). 29. V. Tharp et al ., supra, at 30, 31. 30. Id. 30. 31. Id . 16. 32. Joseph Citron, MD, HGN: How to be Your Own Expert Witness (2002) (unpublished manuscript, http: //www.ncdd.com/ dsp_bookstore.cfm). 33. V. Tharp et al ., supra at 7. 34. New Hampshire v. Dahood, #96-JT-707 (Concorde District Court, April 2002) at 11. (New Hampshire Supreme Court remanded the case to the Concord District Court to hold an evidentiary hearing and rule whether the HGN test incorporates scientific principles. If so, the court was to make findings as to the reliability of the test under New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 702). 35. J.L. Booker, supra . 36. Schultz v. State, 106 Md.App. 145, 664 A.2d 60 (1995). 37.Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharma- ceuticals, 113 S.Ct . 2786 (1993). 38. United States v. Horn , 185 F.Supp.2d at 557. 39. New Hampshire v. Dahood , supra. 40. New Hampshire v. Dahood, (No. 99-510, December 20, 2002). 41. American Education Research Association, The American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education, Standards for Education and Psychological Testing (1999).n DUI Lawyer Front Page > DUI Defense > Field Sobriety Tests Firm Profile | DUI Defense | Drunk Driving Laws | DUI Lawyer | CA DUI Research | Contact Info | Site Map © 2005 Braden & Tucci All rights reserved Legal Disclaimer 82 Discovery - Irvine - California 92618 Telephone: (949) 872-2700 Facsimile: (949) 872-2708

DUI Lawyer DWI Lawyer

DWI DUI OWI OUI Driving in Quebec DUI DWI: International Referral Database of DUI, DWI, Impairedand DrunkDriving, Drinking and Driving, Lawyers & Attorneys State orProvince | County | Region | Attorneys | Courthouses | License & Traffic Offices | Legislation | Instruments | Standards | Experts | Articles Add Attorney | Add Courthouse | AddDMV Office | Add Legislation | AddInstrument | Add Standards Home | Debate | AddingYour Firm | Words are used in Canada? DUI | DWI | DrunkDriving | Drinkingand Driving | DUI Laws | DWILaws | Ontariodui | Ontario dui laws | ImpairedDriving | TorontoDUI | BramptonDUI | MississaugaDUI DUI : Driving Under the Influence; DWI : Driving While Intoxicated;OUI: Operating Under the Inflence; OWI: Operating While Intoxicated; ImpairedDriving: Impaired in Canada to Slightest Degree; Over 80: Excess BAC alcohol inCanada over 80 mg/100mL; Care or Control: Occupy seat normallyoccupied by operator in Canada, act or series of acts involving useof car , fittings or equipment Quebec DWI DUI OWI OUI Information Summaries of DUI Law DWI Law for Quebec What to Do On DUI Court DWI Court First Appearance What to Wear to DUI Court DWI COurt Being Early for DUI Court and DWI Court Directory of DUI Courthouses and DWI Courthouses in Quebec Directory of Motor Vehicle Offices BAC Instruments used in DUI Court and DWI Court Cases DUI and DWI Breath and Blood Collection Standards and Departments Responsible DUI and DWI Legislation in Quebec Substantive DUI/DWI/Excess Alcohol Offense DUI DWI Refusal Offense/Presumption DUI DWI Administrative Driver's License Suspension Drinking and Driving Procedure/Evidence DUI DWI Penalties Suspension on Conviction, Prohibition DUI DWI Drive While Suspended Offense Immigration, Exclusion of Visitors resulting from DWI DUI Reciprocal DUI DWI Agreements Constitutional Rights in DUI DWI Cases Other Criminal Non-DUI Non-DWI Legislation DUI Attorneys DWI Attorneys - Lists by County in Quebec List of DUI Attorneys DWI Attorneys and Practice Descriptions Avocats DUI,DWI, droit criminel Adwokaci DUI,DWI, prawo kryminalne List of DUI Forensic Experts, DWI Forensic Experts and Practice Descriptions State/Province DUI DWI Data and Links to DUI DWI Statutes The Impaired Driving Checklist The Drinking Driver's worksheet DUI DWI and Criminal Defense Character Reference Letters Articles and Writings Quebec DUI Attorney DWI Attorney Articles and Writings Quebec DUI Lawyer DWI Lawyer Articles and Writings Quebec Drunk Driving Attorney Articles and Writings Quebec Drunk Driving Lawyer Articles and Writings AddDL Lawyers and DUI Information in Quebec Cities and Towns Sponsored by: No records returned. 2249 | DUI DWI Practice Descriptions, Links, andProfiles | DUI DWI Summaries of Law | Searchby Region, County, City | First Appearance inDUI Court DWI Court | MembersOnly | AddYour Firm | Delete | Privacy | For Ontario DUIDWI impaired driving criminal law information please visit www.lawyers.ca See also TorontoDUI For more information respecting this database or to report misuse contact: AllbissLawdata Ltd. , 303-470 Hensall Circle, Mississauga,Ontario, Canada, L5A 3V4. Theauthor and the participants make no representation or warranty whatsoeveras to the authenticity and reliability of the information contained herein.Advertisement.Theselawyers do not practice in association. WARNING: All informationcontained herein is provided for the purpose of providing basic information onlyand should not be construed as formal legal advice. The authors disclaim any andall liability resulting from reliance upon such information. You are stronglyencouraged to seek professional legal advice before relying upon any of theinformation contained herein. Legal advice should be sought directly from aproperly retained lawyer or attorney.

Driving Under Influence

Drunk Driving Defense Attorneys Home About LawInfo Contact us Site Map Legal Headlines Document Preparation Consumer Resources Business Resources Attorney Programs Legal Experts -- Drunk Driving Defense Attorneys Document Preparation Legal FAQs FAQs en Español Canadian FAQs Legal News Legal Forms Center Canadian Forms Legal Audio Guides Financial Calculators Legal Discussion Boards Legal Dictionary Helpful Law Tips Media Partners Home > Drunk Driving Defense -- Drunk Driving Defense Attorney Search Enter your area code, or search for a lawyer by city and state. - OR - State AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE DC FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY CAN PR UK OT Drunk Driving Defense Attorneys What Do Drunk Driving Defense Attorneys Do? A person is guilty of drunk driving when he or she drives or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle and is under the influence of alcoholic beverages or any chemical or controlled substance to the extent that his or her mental faculties are impaired or when his or her blood alcohol level (BAC) is above the legal limit for the state. Depending on what state in which you are charged, drunk driving offenses can also be known as any of the following: DUBAL - Driving with an Unlawful Blood Alcohol Level DUI - Driving Under the Influence DUII - Driving Under the Influence of an Intoxicant DUIL - Driving Under the Influence of Liquor DWAI - Driving While Ability Impaired DWI - abbreviation could be interpreted as Driving While Intoxicated or Driving While Impaired, depending on the state in which you were arrested DWUI - Driving While Under the Influence OMVI - Operating a Motor Vehicle While Intoxicated OUI - Operating Under the Influence OUIL - Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of Liquor OUIN - Operating Under the Influence of Narcotics OWI - Operating While Intoxicated OWVI - Operating While Visibly Impaired UBAL - Unlawful Blood Alcohol Level If a person drinks while boating, he or she could potentially be charged with Boating While Intoxicated ( BWI ), which carries similar consequences as driving offenses involving land-borne vehicles like a car, truck or motorcycle. All offenses that involve the operation of a vehicle (whether the vehicle is land-borne or water-borne) while intoxicated are criminal law matters, which could potentially incur a felony conviction and possibly a prison sentence, depending on how serious the charges are. Whether you are charged with a misdemeanor or felony offense, you should contact a drunk driving defense attorney immediately if you are arrested. Implied Consent Implied consent laws are the rights and responsibilities of drivers holding a state-issued drivers license. In particular, there is an implied consent to a blood, breath, or urine test for BAC. Violations of implied consent laws typically lead to automatic (administrative or court-ordered) suspension of driving privileges. For more information, consult a DUI lawyer . New "Per Se" Offense Has Been Enacted In recent years, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have enacted a second, "per se", offense: driving with an excessive blood-alcohol concentration (typically .08%). BOTH offenses are charged, and you can even be convicted of both. But the driver under influence can only be punished for one. Open Container Law In addition to drunk driving defense laws, most states also have an "open container law," which is the offense of having an "open container" of alcohol within the driver or passenger compartment of your vehicle. Open container laws prohibit the possession of any open alcoholic beverage container and the consumption of any alcoholic beverage within the driver and/or passenger area of a motor vehicle. Contact a drunk driving defense attorney for information on the open container law in your state. DMV Administrative Actions In addition to the criminal drunk driving charges brought against you, your state's department of motor vehicles can also take administrative action against you if you are arrested for drunk driving. Use the form on this page to find a LawInfo Lead Counsel qualified drunk driving defense attorney in your area for more information about these actions and what you may be able to do to avoid these form happening. Administrative License Sanctions: This term refers to any sanctions legally imposed by state agencies without first requiring court orders . The exact scope, procedures, and limitations of administrative license sanction programs vary among states. In general, they are used to provide rapid, consistent treatment of offenders against the state's drunk driving defense laws or its DUI , DWS, DWR, and DWU laws. Typical administrative sanctions include license suspension, mandatory evaluation or treatment, fees, and education. DWS, DWR, and DWU: Driving While Suspended (DWS), Driving While Revoked (DWS) and Driving While unlicensed (DWU) denote the citation (a moving violation) and/or the license status of the driver at the time of a crash or other event. Administrative Per Se: This term describes the laws establishing an administrative process for dealing with violations of the maximum allowable blood alcohol content (BAC) for drunk drivers in a state. States with administrative per se laws also have a set of procedures in place for suspending the driving privileges of a person who violates the BAC limit without the need for a court trial—that is, the responsible state agency can suspend a driver for a BAC violation even if the court does not convict him or her on the corresponding drunk driving offense. Your drunk driving defense attorney can explain the drunk driving defense laws regarding Administrative Per Se to you in more de tail.. Ignition Interlock: This is a device that renders a car inoperative unless one or more preconditions are met. In drunk driving de fence driver-control programs, the typical ignition interlock device requires the driver to give a breath sample which is then analyzed for the presence of alcohol. If there is alcohol present (above some minimum threshold value), the car will not start. Other variations are used to ensure that the drunk driver does not operate the vehicle, or is the only driver of a vehicle. Should I hire a drunk driving defense attorney? Because drunk driving laws are complex, you not only need to hire a lawyer , but one who specifically specializes in drunk driving defense . DUI lawyers know that some of the enforcement and judicial procedures are unconstitutional and violate motorists' rights. They are more well versed with the different sobriety tests and their varying accuracy levels. Don't give up your rights. Contact an experienced drunk driving defense attorney who understands your particular needs and situation. More information on drunk driving defense ... To begin your search, select a your state below. Alabama DUI Lawyers Alaska DUI Lawyers Arizona DUI Lawyers Arkansas DUI Lawyers California DUI Lawyers Colorado DUI Lawyers Connecticut DUI Lawyers Delaware DUI Lawyers Washington DC DUI Lawyers Florida DUI Lawyers Georgia DUI Lawyers Hawaii DUI Lawyers Idaho DUI Lawyers Illinois DUI Lawyers Indiana DUI Lawyers Iowa DUI Lawyers Kansas DUI Lawyers Kentucky DUI Lawyers Louisiana DUI Lawyers Maine DUI Lawyers Maryland DUI Lawyers Massachusetts DUI Lawyers Michigan DUI Lawyers Minnesota DUI Lawyers Mississippi DUI Lawyers Missouri DUI Lawyers Montana DUI Lawyers Nebraska DUI Lawyers Nevada DUI Lawyers New Hampshire DUI Lawyers New Jersey DUI Lawyers New Mexico DUI Lawyers New York DUI Lawyers North Carolina DUI Lawyers North Dakota DUI Lawyers Ohio DUI Lawyers Oklahoma DUI Lawyers Oregon DUI Lawyers Pennsylvania DUI Lawyers Rhode Island DUI Lawyers South Carolina DUI Lawyers South Dakota DUI Lawyers Tennessee DUI Lawyers Texas DUI Lawyers Utah DUI Lawyers Vermont DUI Lawyers Virginia DUI Lawyers Washington DUI Lawyers West Virginia DUI Lawyers Wisconsin DUI Lawyers Wyoming DUI Lawyers Puerto Rico DUI Lawyers About LawInfo Contact Us Testimonials Careers at LawInfo Media Partners Awards Site Map Disclaimer Privacy Terms & Conditions © 1995 - 2006 LawInfo.com Our Other Websites Help RSS More Law Resources 1 2 3 4 5 6 DUI Attorney Directory

DUI Insurance

How long does a DUI stay on your driving record in North...? Car Insurance Quote Manage Your Account Learning Center Other Products Insurance Licenses Questions and Answers Car Insurance Headlines Partners and Affiliations Privacy and Security Terms of Use Contact Us About Us Site Map FAQ Home Search Ask a Question! How long does a DUI stay on your driving record in North Carolina? The North Carolina Driver's Handbook does not list how long a DUI or DWI conviction stays on your driving record but it is likely 3 to 7 years. I have read that this violation can increase your insurance rates for at least three years and that if you have multiple DWI convictions within 7 years it can be considered to be a felony. For more specific information regarding a DUI/DWI and your NC driving record contact the Department of Transportation. If you are in need of cheap car insurance for North Carolina start now. Related Questions I am currently licensed driver in North Carolina and I have no traffic convictions or stops for at least 4 years. I am currently uninsured and would like to obtain insurance. Is this possible? How do I go about getting a DL123 in North Carolina to obtain a driver's license when I do not own a car? I am a North Carolina resident. In April of 2003 I received a DWI conviction. Since then I have had a clean driving record except for one prayer for judgment and I understand that this won't count tow... Tell us what you think about this answer. What did you think of this question and answer? poor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 excellent Tell us why you rated this car insurance question and answer this way: Visitor Comments No visitors have commented on this answer. Question Details This car insurance question was asked on 1/12/2006 This auto insurance answer was last updated on 1/13/2006 Ashley F. requested this car insurance solution. This answer has been viewed 57 times. Rated 0 out of 10 based on 0 votes. Helpful Tips Print this car insurance question and answer Email this auto insurance answer Disclaimer: These responses are for information purposes. It should not be interpreted as a recommendation to buy or sell any insurance product, or to provide financial or legal advice. Please refer to your insurance policy for specific coverage and exclusion information. ©2006 CarInsurance.com, Inc. - Online Insurance Marketplace CarInsurance.com keeps your information safe: