 |
Walnut Creek DUI Lawyer California DWI Attorney CA Drunk Driving Defense Law Firm Practice Areas DUI / DWI - Drunk Driving Walnut Creek and San Francisco Bay Area DUI DWI Lawyer 925-939-6400 As an experienced and dedicated Walnut Creek DUI lawyer, I have represented clients who face DUI arrests throughout the San Francisco Bay and Tri-Valley area, including the cities of Concord, Martinez, Richmond, Pittsburg, Pleasanton, Dublin, Livermore and surrounding communities. If you have been charged with a DUI and face a license suspension or a license revocation , then you need me, David J. Larkin , to defend you immediately. If you have received a pink temporary license and an order of suspension, you must request a hearing immediately in order to preserve your rights. With the effective and knowledgeable representation I will provide, you will have a good chance of success in retaining your driving privileges. A drunk driving charge is one of the most frightening and disturbing experiences a client can face. Allow me to defend you against these charges by questioning the California's implied consent law. I will dispute any breathalyzer test, field sobriety test or any other "implied" consent they allege you gave during your detention. I will also cast doubt on any police stop and investigation of you, questioning the lack of trustworthy or knowledgeable facts for their stop and disputing any supposed lawful arrest. As your Walnut Creek DUI attorney, I have the experience and knowledge of the criminal justice system in the Tri-Valley area to reduce, through a plea bargain, or dismiss altogether, a drunk driving charge against you. Time is running out! For a free initial consultation, contact your Walnut Creek DUI lawyer, David J. Larkin , NOW! David J. Larkin, Attorney at Law 1806 Bonanza Street, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 phone: 925-939-6400 fax: 925-939-6410 email me Home | Firm Overview | Practice Areas | Been Arrested for a DUI? | Dos and Dont's When Arrested | Attorney Profile | DUI FAQ's | Drunk Driving Info Center | Web Resources | Contact Us FOCUS AREAS: DUI / DWI - Drunk Driving | DMV License Suspension | Domestic Violence / Assault Crimes | Theft / White-Collar Crimes | Drug-Related Offenses | Probation Violations / Warrants Recalled
|
|
D.U.I.Division of Drivers Licensing KY Transportation Cabinet Division of Driver Licensing DUI Laws in Kentucky WHAT IS DUI? WHAT DOES IT MEAN? KRS 189A.010 REVISED 10/01/00 DWI/DUI is an abbreviation of driving while under the influence of intoxicants (alcohol) or of any substance or substances which impair driving ability. Other substances can include illegal drugs, prescription drugs, inhalants such as glue, gasoline, spray paint etc., and/or over the counter medications. Kentuckys DUI law has an "Illegal Per Se" provision. "Illegal Per Se" (On the face of or by itself) means it is illegal to drive with a blood or breath alcohol content of 0.08 or higher. Prosecutors no longer have to prove defendants were impaired if they are being tried for the per se clause of K.R.S. 189A.010. Requires that test be given within 2 hours of operation of motor vehicle for results to be admitted into evidence in per se DUI prosecutions. *Operators can be convicted at levels lower than .08 based on other evidence which indicates impairment. *Drivers under the age of 21 are deemed to be under the influence at .02 breath or blood alcohol level. *Commercial vehicle drivers operating commercial vehicles are deemed to be under the influence at a breath or blood alcohol level of .04. Commercial vehicle operators may also be placed out of service for 24 hours for any detectable amount of alcohol or controlled substance in their system. KRS 281A.210 The changes in the new DUI law (Effective 10/01/00) establishes minimum jail times (which cannot be probated, suspended, conditionally discharged or otherwise subject to early release) if convicted of DUI and aggravating circumstance(s) exist: Aggravating Circumstances (KRS 189A.010 [11]) Result in higher minimum jail time: Over 30 mph over speed limit Wrong way on limited access highway Causes accident resulting in death or serious physical injury Alcohol level of .18 or more within 2 hours after operating Refusal to submit to testing Transporting passengers under 12 years of age DUI PENALTIES First Offense Within a Five Year Period $200 - 500 Fine 2 to 30 Days in Jail 90 Day Alcohol or Substance Abuse Program 30 to 120 Day License Suspension Possible 48 Hours - 30 Days Community Labor *If aggravating circumstances present-4 days imprisonment Second Offense Within a Five Year Period $350-500 Fine 10 Days-6 Months Community Labor 7 Days - 6 Months in Jail 1 Yr Alcohol or Substance Abuse Treatment 12 to 18 Month License Suspension *If aggravating circumstances present-14 days imprisonment Third Offense Within a Five Year Period $500 - 1,000 Fine/30 Days-12 Months Jail 10 Day-12 Months Community Labor Year Alcohol or Substance Abuse Treatment 24 to 36 Month License Suspension *If aggravating circumstances present-60 days imprisonment Fourth Offense Within a Five Year Period Class D Felony Minimum Term 120 Days Imprisonment Without Probation 60 Month License Suspension 1 Year Alcohol or Substance Abuse Treatment *If aggravating circumstances present-240 days imprisonment IMPLIED CONSENT Implied Consent applies to any person who operates or is in physical control of a motor vehicle or a vehicle that is not a motor vehicle anywhere in Kentucky. Implied Consent means that when a person operates or is in physical control of a motor vehicle or a vehicle that is not a motor vehicle as defined by statute in Kentucky they have been deemed to have given consent to one (1) or more tests of blood, breath and urine, or combination for the purpose of determining alcohol concentration or presence of a substance which may impair ones driving ability. Only through a test of blood, breath or urine can alcohol levels be accurately measured. The breath test is precise and efficient in measuring BRAC. It analyzes a breath sample to determine the amount of alcohol in the breath. A blood test measures the amount of alcohol in the blood. (Alcohol concentration means either grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath) License Suspension for Refusal to Take Alcohol or Subsequent Tests It should be noted that all of the offenses listed below are for refusals within a five year period. 1 st Offense 30 to 120 Days 3 rd Offense 24 to 36 Months 2 nd Offense 12 to 18 Months 4 th Offense or subsequent-60 Months Whether you are found guilty or innocent of the DUI charge, you will remain answerable for the Refusal and risk license suspension. BAC - Stands for B lood A lcohol C oncentration and refers to the amount of ethyl alcohol in the blood. BRAC - Stands for Br eath A lcohol C oncentration and refers to the amount of ethyl alcohol in the breath. Factors Which May Affect Blood Alcohol Concentration Other Factors Which May Affect Your Driving Ability Health Body Weight Food in the Stomach Amount Consumed Rate of Consumption Prescription Drugs Over-the-Counter Drugs Inhalants such as glue, gasoline etc. Illegal Drugs The metabolism of alcohol takes place in the liver. The body can burn approximately ounce of alcohol in one hour. The liver eliminates approximately 90 percent of the alcohol from the body. The rest is eliminated through the lungs, perspiration, and urine. The only thing that sobers you up is time. If you drink or take substances which affect you physically/mentally.. DO NOT DRIVE!!! Open Container Law This new provision prohibits an open alcoholic beverage in the passenger area of a motor vehicle while on the public highways or right of way. To learn more about these laws, visit http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research/OpenContainer/ . License Plate Confiscation and Ignition Interlocks for Repeat Offenders Ignition Interlock Device Drivers convicted of a second or subsequent DUI will forfeit their license plates to the courts during the period in which the driver license is suspended. The court may order an ignition interlock device to be installed on the violator's vehicle after the driver serves a statutory suspension period. The ignition interlock device prevents a driver from operating that vehicle if the driver's BAC is .02 or greater. Division of Driver Licensing Home Page Page date: 10/24/2005
|
|
first DUI offenders, the California DMV Says Beverage Industry Press Release Misrepresented Study On Ignition Interlock Devices For DUIs California Home DMV Home Page Online Services DMV Locations & Hours Publications Forms New Arrivals New to California? FAQs Site Map Title & Registration Information Vehicle Registration Boat Registration License and ID Card Information Driver License ID Cards Commercial License Vehicle Industry & Commercial Permits Special Plates Personalized Plates Disabled Placards Other Information Your DMV Records Other Services About DMV Contact Us Legal Notice and Disclaimer My CA This Site California DMV Says Beverage Industry Press Release Misrepresented Study On Ignition Interlock Devices For DUIs California Department of Motor Vehicles Media Relations Office 2415 First Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95818 March 21, 2005 SACRAMENTO - The California Department of Motor Vehicles says a March 15th press release from the American Beverage Institute (ABI) misrepresented the results of a new DMV study of the effectiveness of ignition interlock devices in reducing the incidence of driving under the influence. The ABI press release said "dramatic findings in a recently released study by the California Department of Motor Vehicles show that interlock devices had no statistically significant effect in preventing subsequent drunk driving convictions, but they increase their users' general crash risk by 130%." DMV officials said that statement seriously misrepresents the published conclusions of their study. "It's true that we found court orders to install an ignition interlock device have no significant effect in preventing repeat DUIs among first-time DUI offenders," said the report's lead author, David DeYoung. "But what the ABI press release completely omitted was our finding that when second-time offenders install the device in order to be able to drive with a restricted license, they have a significantly lower risk of repeat DUI incidents - a 41 percent reduction. Since DUI repeat offenders are a major cause of U.S. highway deaths, this misrepresentation by the ABI press release greatly concerns the California DMV. "In quoting our finding that DUI second offenders using the device have a 130% higher risk of a subsequent crash, ABI seems to imply that the device itself somehow increases the likelihood of a crash. That is not what we said. It is not that installation and use of interlocks causes crashes or that the devices themselves are unsafe," said DeYoung. "Obviously if someone who has previously been forbidden to drive is allowed to return legally to the roadways with an ignition interlock and a restricted driver license, their exposure to accidents increases, no matter how sober they are." The ABI release quoted the DMV report as saying: "Because there is no evidence that interlocks are an effective traffic safety measure for first DUI offenders, the use of the devices should not be emphasized." But the ABI release neglected to mention that the DMV report specifically stated that the devices " are effective in reducing subsequent DUI convictions." DeYoung, manager of alcohol and drug projects in DMV's Research & Development unit, said: "We are concerned because the ABI press release quotes our report out of context, presents incorrect information and misstates the findings of our report so completely that the entire tenor of the ABI release is seriously inconsistent with what the report actually says. We are especially concerned because the ABI release uses that misrepresentation as a pretext for urging legislators to "abandon" any attempts to require the devices before a third offense. On the contrary, the DMV report specifically stated that requiring second offenders to install the device if they want to be able to drive with a restricted license significantly reduces further DUIs." DeYoung added: "It's true that our study showed that court orders to first offenders to install an ignition interlock device are not effective in reducing recidivism among that group - perhaps because many first offenders tend to be in denial, resent the devices and refuse to install them. But the ABI press release completely omits our finding that the devices can have a real effect on repeat offenders who are beginning to come to grips with their alcohol problem and who often find the mechanical devices to be helpful in keeping them out of cars when they've been drinking. We urge judges, police, alcohol rehabilitation experts and anyone concerned about the nation's increasing death toll from drinking drivers to study our report." Under current law, California judges are required to order interlocks for drivers convicted of driving while suspended, if the license was suspended for DUI. Judges may order interlocks for first-time DUI offenders with high blood alcohol levels at time of arrest, and for repeat DUI offenders. In addition, there is an administrative program where repeat DUI offenders can, after serving half their license suspension period, install an interlock and obtain a restricted driver license from DMV. The Report #210, " An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Ignition Interlock in California ," is available on the California DMV Web site, www.dmv.ca.gov. ### News Media Calls Only: DMV Media Relations Office (916) 657-6437 Back to Top of Page © 2003 State of California. Conditions of Use Privacy Policy
|
|
OUILMichigan Drunk Driving Defense Lawyer | OUIL DUI DWI OWI MIP Defense Law Attorney | DUI Defenses Get Help Now! Greater Detroit Area " Greater Detroit Area Greater Detroit Area "Patrick T. Barone Site Navigation Return Home DUI Defenses DUI Sample Cases DUI Attorney Info DUI Resources DUI Courts Info DUI Driver License DUI Links Mr. Barone is a very, very intelligent, thorough, good lawyer. He has talent. -Prosecuting attorney's comments to Jury during recent closing argument. DUI Defenses Possible DUI Defenses (see below) Possible Defenses to the DUI Breath/Blood Test Beating the DUIBreath/Blood Test Successfully Challenging the Blood Test (.pdf) DUI Exception to the United States Constitution Prosecutor's Guide to Drugs (.pdf) Some of these documents require Adobe's FREE Acrobat Reader . Possible defenses to a OWI/OWVI case It is not possible to point to one defense or group of defenses for every case. Depending on the facts of your case, the following defenses may or may not apply. While it is not possible to point out one defense or group of defenses for every case, our experience has shown that the following list comprises the most successful general defenses. If you'd like to find out which of the literally thousands of possible defenses fits your case best, please fill out our on-line form for a FREE Case Review . Improper Stop - If it can be shown that the police did not have a proper cause to stop your vehicle, then the evidence collected after the stop might be thrown out. The legal standard is that the stop must be justified by probable cause or an articulable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. Of course, notice of a violation of the traffic code, such as speeding or weaving, will provide a sufficient basis for the stop as well. Improper Arrest - it will be important for your attorney to determine if your arrest was statutorily and constitutionally proper. This is because an improper arrest can sometimes lead to the Court throwing out the evidence, and ultimately to the dismissal of charges. Improper Police Procedures Relative to the Chemical Testing - The taking of breath and blood samples is governed by statues and administrative rules, as is the calibration and maintenance of the testing instruments. If it can be shown that the police did not follow these statutes and administrative rules then the test results can sometimes be thrown out. While this is unlikely to lead to a dismissal, it does make the case a better candidate for victory at trial. Improper Police Procedures Relative to the Field Sobriety Tests - While there are no standardized rules applicable to the taking of field sobriety tests, there are police training manuals and the like that can be used in cross-examination to show that a police officer did not administer the field sobriety test(s) properly. There are also scientific studies that show how inaccurate the field sobriety tests really are. While these facts and circumstances will almost certainly not lead to a dismissal, they should help to persuade the jury to view things more favorably for the defendant, and hopefully result in a not-guilty verdict. Defects in the Charging Documents - Any irregularities in the charging documents and police reports can sometimes be used to call the police officer's credibility into question. The argument to the jury is if the police officer is mistaken as to the direction your car was traveling then perhaps he/she is mistaken as to other facts as well. This is critical since the prosecutor's case usually turns on the testimony of the arresting officer(s). Suppression of Incriminating Statements - While the courts seem less and less inclined to suppress incriminating statements based on a police officer's failure to read a defendant his/her rights, "non-Mirandized" statements are still sometimes suppressed. If you made admissions regarding how much you had been drinking then ask your attorney to determine if Miranda applies and if these statements can be suppressed. Increasing Blood Alcohol - In an unlawful blood alcohol case (UBAL) the prosecutor must show that your blood alcohol was over the legal limit at the time you were driving. Thus, if the chemical testing (breath/blood/urine) in your case was not performed until long after the actual arrest (and presumably the act of driving) then you can argue to the jury that these chemical test results should be given less weight. Expert testimony is usual helpful to drive this point home to the jury. Again, with the proper underlying facts this might help persuade the jury to view things more favorably for the defendant, and hopefully result in a not-guilty verdict. Inaccurate Chemical Test Instruments - The machines used by the police to test a person's breath, blood or urine are all subject to inherent inaccuracies. It is simply not possible for any testing instrument to be 100% accurate all the time. Blood testing is probably more accurate overall then is breath testing, which is again probably more accurate than urine testing. Still, simply because you tested over the limit this does not mean that you have no defense. Talk to your attorney about how the specific facts of your case may have cause an inaccurate test result. Keep in mind also that it is usually necessary to retain an expert to help educate the jury regarding these inaccuracies. No Evidence of "Operation" - In rare instances, it may be possible to have a case dismissed because there is insufficient proof of operation. To "operate" a motor vehicle, a person must be in "actual physical control" over the vehicle. This means that if you are behind the wheel and the car is running, you are probably operating the vehicle. However, this determination will depend on the specific facts of your case because the Michigan Courts have indicated that "once a person using a motor vehicle has put the vehicle in motion, or in a position posing a significant risk of harm, this person continues operating the vehicle until it is returned to a position posing no such risk". Consequently, if your car is running, but does not pose a risk, then your attorney might be able to argue that you were not "operating". There is also a recently decided case in Michigan where an individual was found in a parking lot of a golf course, asleep at the wheel, with the engine running. For some reason this individual was charged with an attempt to drive while drunk, rather than the general crime of drunk driving. Here the Court concluded: "that this evidence fails to establish that defendant possessed the requisite specific intent. The evidence does not sufficiently establish that defendant was intending to use his truck as a motor vehicle as opposed to just a shelter. The mere fact that the engine was running does not sufficiently establish that defendant had or was intending to put the vehicle in motion. As one of the arresting officers conceded, it was possible that defendant was simply keeping the truck warm while he slept". This case is a bit of an anomaly however, because the intent requirement for an attempt (specific intent) is different than for the general intent required for a typical drunk driving offense. Keep in mind though that the facts of your case must be carefully scrutinized by your attorney because circumstantial evidence can also be used to prove this element of the crime. What this means is that if the police find you in a motionless car, but there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to show that the car must have been driven by you to that location at some point earlier in time (such as the mere location of the car, tire tracks, warm hood, etc.), then the charge can sometimes be sustained using this evidence of prior operation. Sometimes a case with an issue of "operation" must be taken to trial so that the jury can make the final determination of these fact questions. The jury might not want to convict where the driver did the "right thing" and tried to sleep it off. This list is not exhaustive, and there may be different or additional defense specific to your case. The point is that you should not simply walk into court and plead guilty without first having your case evaluated by competent counsel. This is because almost all cases can be defended in some manner. This is not to say that all defenses lead to a dismissal or even a substantial reduction in the charges, nor does it mean that it makes sense to vigorously fight every case. However, you should have every opportunity to make fully informed decisions about all of these things, and this decision making process will most likely require the advice of legal counsel. Return Home
|
|
DUI / DWI, Drinking 
