Blog Home

How a Lawyer Handles a DUI Charge
Posted by: Zach Peagler
November 13, 2009
Topic: Why Hire a Lawyer?

 In recent months, a well-known Mobile defense attorney who specializes in DUI cases, was arrested on suspicion of DUI after a deputy allegedly observed him swerving along Dauphin Island Parkway. Though there is no video of the scene, reports show that the accused refused to take the breathalyzer test. He then spent the night in jail. The DUI charges have since been dropped because the District Attorney wrote in a motion to the court that there was "insufficient evidence to establish guilt" and mitigating evidence that created reasonable doubt. The mitigating evidence referred to is a tape of the accused being booked into jail after his arrest, which led the D.A. to believe the suspect was not under the influence of alcohol.

Though no DUI conviction will appear on his record for the incident, the accused still did lose his license for 90 days, as required by Alabama law. Remember, refusal to submit to a breath test after operating a motor vehicle on the public roadways results in an automatic suspension of your license for a period of at least 90 days, regardless of guilt. In any event, the defendant/attorney in this case is free from a DUI at least in part because he followed that favorite piece of defense attorney's advice in criminal proceedings, "Keep your mouth shut."

Drive Safely,

Zach

Permalink

DUI Recliner
Posted by: Zach Peagler
November 09, 2009
Topic: Humor

Drinking and Driving (or Reclining) Doesn't Pay

Dennis Anderson of Proctor, Minnesota is a man who apparently likes to be comfortable when he relaxes with a beer; really comfortable. So much so, in fact, that he converted his leather recliner chair into what has become known around the world as the "DWI Chair." 62 year old Mr. Anderson "pimped his recliner" into a non-street legal vehicle with an 8-horsepower lawnmower engine and headlights, complete with a stereo, cup holder, and a bumper sticker which reads, "Hell Yeah It's Fast." Mr. Anderson would use this recliner vehicle to drive to local bars, watch football, and have a few beers. However, about a year ago, he had one too many and instead of calling a real vehicle to help him home, he reclined his merry way down the streets of Proctor right into a parked vehicle. Mr. Anderson's blood alcohol content was .29 (three times the legal limit), and he was arrested for a DWI.

The legendary DWI Chair was seized by the police, and is being auctioned off on E-Bay. Originally it was incorrectly dubbed the "La-Z-Boy DWI Chair," and had reached bids topping $43,000.00. However, the police had to restart the bidding after the La-Z-Boy brand requested that the name be changed (it wasn't, after all, a La-Z-Boy). The bid rests currently at an impressive $10,099.99. The auction ends at 7:00pm CT, November 5^th, 2009.

I haven't checked to see if the bidding was extended, but There may still be time for you to bid on this custom-built DWI Chair. But a word to the wise: don't repeat its creator's mistake. Never drink and recline.

Drive Safely,

Kate

Permalink

Take Me Away Occifer!
Posted by: Zach Peagler
November 04, 2009
Topic: WHATEVER YOU DO...

We all know those responsible citizens who help keep our roads safe by calling in suspected drunk drivers via 911. We also all know the lesser responsible citizens who get pulled over as a suspected drunk driver. But I'll wager that you've never known a simultaneously responsible and less responsible citizen that has turned herself in for drunk driving. That is exactly what happened to one woman in Clark County. It conjures a vision of Nicholas Pileggi, "I don't go to jail unless I want to. Unless I make myself get caught." Mission accomplished.

Apparently this woman was driving herself home from a night of drinking several brandy and Cokes when she realized she was driving while intoxicated. She called 911 to report a drunk driver: herself. The dispatcher asked if she was behind the drunk driver, to which she cleverly replied, "No. I am them." She pulled over to the side of the road and turned on her flashers, awaiting the police. The officers gave the driver field sobriety tests, which she failed. Her blood alcohol level was .017.

So while I applaud her sense of civic duty, I find myself asking in disbelief, "Really?"

http://news.aol.com/article/wisconsins-mary-strey-reports-herself-as/747678

Permalink

Ignition Interlock Devices Coming To A State Near You?
Posted by: Brett Hollett
September 18, 2009
Topic: Legislative Measures

     The United States Congress is looking at several bills sponsored by groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (which includes Ford, GM, Toyota, BMW, and Mercedes) to prevent convicted drunk drivers from even being able to start their cars. Almost all states (47 in total) already have in-car breathalyzer laws making "interlock" devices a mandatory punishment for convicted DUI offenders; however Alabama is not one of those states. An ignition interlock device is an in-car breathalyzer that is connected to the ignition; it monitors the amount of alcohol on a driver's breath and prevents a car from starting with a positive reading. Convicted drivers are expected to pay for the interlock unit, the installation, and a monthly rental monitoring fee, which can top $75.00; however some states cover half of the total cost for impoverished or unemployed drivers with funds taken out of fines paid by previous DUI offenders. These bills seek to make in-car breathalyzers standard for DUI convictions in the hopes of eliminating the 13,000 deaths caused by DUI accidents each year in America. One bill on its way to the House is the proposed Highway Bill, which seeks to deny federal highway funding to states that do not make interlock punishments mandatory for first-time DUI offenders. Another bill includes fundraising for research of non-invasive in-car breathalyzers, such as skin or perspiration sensors on the steering wheel, ambient air measurements, or retinal light scans.

     States that have interlock installation for DUI offenders have seen a 35% reduction in alcohol related road fatalities. However, these proposed laws are not without opposition. A study commissioned by California in 2004 reveals that drivers who installed an interlock device have a lower risk for subsequent DUI conviction than those without the device; it reduces DUI recidivism by 40-95%. However, the study shows that the interlock device is not a social learning tool, meaning that once the device is removed from the vehicle, the recidivism climbs back up. Further, drivers who installed an interlock device had a higher risk of more accidents than those who did not. Finally, those opposed to the mandatory interlock device for DUI convictions argue thatthe law may fail to distinguish between the first time accidental DUI offender and the habitual alcoholic DUI offender. Drivers who have had the device say it is embarrassing and burdens drivers with both the expense and the intrusion equally.

     There are arguments on both sides. The interlock device clearly helps prevent DUI accidents and convictions while it is installed, but the arguments against its cost and limited post-removal effect are persuasive. Although Alabama has held out on joining the states that impose the interlock punishment, there has been an obvious trend of the law taking effect. For now interlock devices are foreign to the Alabama DUI convicted drivers, but we'll see if that remains to be the case after Congress addresses the proposed legislation. It will take some time; Carl McDonald of MADD estimates a timeframe of about ten years for a majority of states to adopt and enforce an interlock law for all DUI offenders.

     Drive Safe! 

Permalink

If You're Drinking Beer With Dinner, Don't Forget the Wings
Posted by: Zach Peagler
August 11, 2009
Topic: Court Decisions

I guess this falls under the topic of "Court Decisions" although I probably should make a new topic for "Creative Lawyering" for future stories like this one emailed to me by a friend: An Oregon man has pled not guilty to the charge of DUI based, in part on the fact that he is obese and therefore could not perform the "standard" field sobriety tests given by the police.  Apparently, this defense has some history, as an Illinois man was acquitted on similar grounds.  

The man in the instant case is 5'10" and weighs 230 lbs, hardly an "off the charts" case.  However, his lawyer has filed a pretrial brief to suppress evidence of the field sobriety tests administered based on the fact that he is, in fact "obese."  According to the article, written by Elizabeth Dinan, the attorney attached documents to his pretrial brief from Metropolitan Life Insurance, the Centers for Disease Control and the National Center for Health Statistics, all
characterizing men of the Defendant's height and weight as overweight and/or obese.

 The crux of the argument is that certain "standard" field sobriety tests, such as walking in a straight line touching heel to toe, cannot be performed by obese people.  Remember, all that is needed in any criminal defense is a "reasonable doubt."  If the attorney can convince the Judge, probably based on literature or case studies, that obese people are not capable of performing such tests, the evidence can be suppressed and the prosecution's case becomes much more difficult.  (There is no mention in the article of whether a breathalyzer was performed or not.)

I'll try to check back in on the outcome of this case and update the success, or lack there of, of this defense tactic.  In the mean time, don't shy away from the chicken wings at the bar.

 Drive Safe,

Zach 

Permalink