Posts Tagged ‘Dui Conviction’
Las Vegas- area Police Officer Arrested for DUI, How Does This Charge Affect My Employment?
January 21st, 2013
Posted in DUI News
Las Vegas, NV- A police officer in Henderson, just 15 miles outside the Las Vegas area, was arrested for DUI following a minor fender bender. How does a DUI arrest or conviction affect a person’s employment conviction?
According to KLAS-TV in Las Vegas, off-duty officer Sgt. Lisa Mattingly was arrested last week for suspicion of DUI after she rear-ended a car at the intersection of Gibson Rd. and Horizon Ridge Parkway. Henderson police spokesman Keith Paul told KLAS-TV that Mattingly was follow another car too closely which led to her arrest for intoxicated driving.
Mattingly has been suspended from duty pending an investigation.
DUIs, while fairly common are still a terrible mark to have on your permanent record. If you are trying to get a job on police force or other job where integrity is an important part of your job, a DUI can have an affect on your current or future employment though it isn’t prohibitive.
If you’re DUI charge involves drugs it will like be a major road block for obtaining employment, however an alcohol-related DUI is not generally as serious. But everything really depends on the police force you are applying for; some are more lenient than others and will look into the circumstance surrounding your arrest. Other police forces have a zero-tolerance policy and will refuse to hire anyone with a criminal record.
If you are already employed, a DUI can affect your working relationships. Many states revoke a first offender’s license, so relying on public transportation and rides from others can make it difficult to show up to work on time. On top of that, while you are going through the legal process of building a DUI defense you may have to miss work for court dates and lawyer appointments, this missed work can build up an overtime may impact the attitude of your boss and coworkers.
A DUI can also affect your employment for a private job, especially if it’s one that requires driving and the use of a company car. Most private employers conduct background checks on new hires and are trying to determine your personal stability. But the farther in the past the DUI is the less impact it will have on your chances of getting hired, the key is if you have a DUI conviction and you are asked about in an interview be honest and if explain you made a mistake. DUIs are fairly common so chances are your prospective employer will understand if you are candid, and it is the only criminal charge on your record.
Typically, a DUI will stay on your record for a minimum of five years. In some states a DUI will appear on your record for far longer, going back for years. In Nevada, a DUI conviction will be on your criminal and driving record for a minimum of 7 years and their also costly.
Once on your criminal record it can be very difficult to get the charge removed with the help of expert Las Vegas DUI attorney. If it is at all possible, and you have an accomplished attorney it is in your best interest to try beat a DUI conviction.
Women Behaving Badly; Florida Driver Bribes Officer with Sexual Favors, Are DUIs Increasing Among Women?
January 15th, 2013
Posted in DUI News
Palm Beach County, FL-Everyday hundreds of people are arrested for drunk driving, the incidents are fairly routine and not always news worthy. However there are two DUI arrests involving women that caught our attention here at DUI Lawyers Now. And made us wonder if drunk driving among women is increasing?
Although it’s not nice to laugh at other people’s troubles, this story from Palm Beach County, Florida is kind of amusing. It involves a 53 year-old middle school teacher who tried to bribe her way out of a DUI over the weekend.
Sunday night Palm Beach pulled over Mary Maloney, who looks like your average mom or grandmother, because she rammed her van into a pickup truck in Greenacres and fled the scene, the Broward-Palm Beach New Times reported.
After locating and pulling Maloney over, the arresting officer noticed an empty jug of wine in her backseat and she smelled strongly of alcohol. When the officer informed her she was going to be arrested for impaired driving she tried to talk her way of the arrest.
Maloney asked the officer, “How much do I have to pay you to just let me go?” She then tried eliciting some leniency by informing the officer she was a teacher. But neither of those ploys worked so she stepped in up notch.
Maloney then allegedly offered to give the officer a blow job and let him feel up her boobs if he would just let her go. The officer however was not interested in taking her up on sexual favors and she added the charged of attempt to bribe a public officer to her other charges which included suspicion of DUI, fleeing the scene of accident and driving with a revoked license.
Upon further investigation, police discovered Maloney had a previous DUI conviction from 2009.
Had Maloney not attempted to bribe the officer with sexual favors, she could have kept her name out of the news and maybe kept her teaching job.
Also this week, a woman from Rhode Island was charged with DUI after leaving the scene of a collision. Not all that unusual, but what makes her case interesting is that not only was it her second DUI, but she’s also a DUI defense attorney—you’d think she knew better.
The Providence Journal reported that attorney Layne C. Savage was stopped on Sunday evening after she hit a parked car in the Providence.
Her litigation skills paid off with her first DUI because she managed to have the charged reduced because she said the officer didn’t have probable cause to pull her over because he did not witness her erratic driving, according to the Providence Journal. She obviously knows that is an effective defense strategy.
These are just two of the more interesting DUI arrests of late. If you pay attention to DUI news like we do you may have noticed that more and more offenders are women. It’s common knowledge that men take more risks than women, and as a consequence they have a tendency to drink and drive more. But impaired driving among women is on the rise.
In 2009, The Associated Press discovered that while the DUI arrest rate among men was declining, the arrest rate for women was increasing. According to statistics female impaired driving arrests increased 28.8 percent from 1998 to 2007, compared to a 7.5 percent decrease for men over the same period.
In 1998 126,000 women were arrested for DUI compared to 162,493 arrests in 2007. That’s a sharp increase, but it still doesn’t compare to the 626,371 arrests for men in 2007. But if the momentum persists we could see a 2.8 percent annual increase of female DUI arrests.
D.C. Mayor Approves Changes to DUI Laws, Requires Ignition Interlock for First Offenders
January 11th, 2013
Posted in DUI News
Washington, D.C.- Washington D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray signed two new impaired driving laws Wednesday aimed at reducing drunk driving in the metro area adding to tougher penalties passed last summer.
One of the bills could require first offenders to have ignition interlock devices—installed on their vehicles after their first DUI conviction. Previously, a judge could order a convicted offender to install these devices only after their second DUI conviction. Approximately, 1,800 individuals in D.C. have been convicted of a first-time DUI offense and could now be forced to install the devices on an annual basis, according to the Examiner.
Ignition interlocks are breathalyzers which are installed in vehicle and prevents the driver from starting it if their blood alcohol level is above a specified limit, which is generally .02.
“Clearly, I think we’d all agree that we have to do everything that’s possible to prevent impaired drivers from getting behind the wheel,” the Mayor said, “and do everything possible to identify and arrest and prosecute them if they do drive and endanger the lives of others.”
Currently there are 17 states that require impaired drivers to install these devices on their vehicle for a single DUI.
Adding these devises come at an additional cost to the impaired driver. In addition to court fines, fees and penalties, first offenders must pay to have the devices installed along with a monthly fee to recalibrate the machine of accuracy.
This new law follows in the heels of recommendations for the National Traffic Safety Board which previously recommended that law enforcement agencies across the country make ignition interlock devices a requirement for first-time DUI offenders.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 32,000 people are killed in traffic collisions each year. Of those, 32 percent are caused by impaired drivers. Half of convicted drunk driver will repeat the offense therefore the NTSB believes ignition interlocks would be a good deterrent and now Washington D.C. has echoed that belief.
The proposal from the NTSB had been met with criticism, primarily from the America Beverage Institute, which represents 8,000 restaurants, on the basis that it would adversely affect the sale of beverages.
In addition to requiring the interlock devices, the new impaired driving legislation now requires tougher penalties and higher fines for people caught driving under the influence with children in their vehicles. According to the Examiner, traffic accidents are the leading cause of death from children ages 3 to 14.
Speaking at press conference which included Mayor Gray and top law enforcement officials at the city morgue, Attorney General Irvin Nathan said, “We won’t tolerate irresponsible adults who put their children’s lives at risk driving impaired.”
Assistant Chief of Police, Peter Newsham added, “There is nothing more heartbreaking for a police officer then to respond to the scene of a crash and where there is a child, an innocent child victim.”
In July of last year, lawmakers changed the legal limit for drivers. The previous limit was .08, the standard used in the majority of states, but the legal limit was changed to .04. They also increased the fines for drunken drivers of taxis and other for-hire drivers.
Impaired driving, though still a problem, has been reduced significantly over the past few decades, which can be attributed to tougher laws and enhanced enforcement.
Supreme Court Tests Legality of Warrantless Blood Tests for Suspected DUI Offenders
January 9th, 2013
Posted in DUI News
Washington, D.C. – The case of a Missouri man has made it to the Supreme Court where justices will question the legality of allowing police to conduct blood tests on suspected drunk drivers without a warrant.
According to ABC News, the case before the high-court stems from the arrest of Missouri man in October 2010. After consuming a beer at a local bar, Tyler McNeely was pulled over for suspicion of drunk driving, during the stop State Highway Patrol Officer Mark Winder noticed signs of intoxication, a strong-odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes and slurred speech.
Winder asked McNeely to submit to a breathalyzer and a blood test, but McNeely refused. However, Winder took McNeely to a local hospital to have his blood drawn anyway in order to collect evidence of intoxication crucial to securing a DUI conviction, ABC News explained.
Winder failed to obtain a warrant to blood test arguing that, “Obtaining a search warrant in the middle of the night in Cape Girardeau County involves a delay, on average, of approximately two hours.” In the time it would take to get the warrant, the alcohol would dissipate no longer providing sufficient proof that McNeely was intoxicated at the time of his arrest.
The Fourth Amendment, which bars unreasonable searches, is the heart of the issue for the Supreme Court as they weigh whether “dissipation of alcohol in the blood over time is reason enough for police to call for a blood test without a warrant,” the Associated Press explained.
In his trial McNeely moved to have the evidence suppressed and, although his blood alcohol was .154, twice the legal limit, the court sided with him. The court determined that the blood test did not meet criteria for a warrantless blood test which includes endangerment of life, and the destruction of evidence, according to ABC News story.
The Missouri Supreme Court upheld the decision of the trial court, but attorneys for the Obama Administration and the state of Missouri asked the justices to reject the court’s ruling and give police permission to take a blood test without a warrant.
Thirty-two states also urged the court to approve the warrantless tests on the basis that “State’s interest in fairly and accurately determining guilt or innocence for this serious crime outweighs an individual’s interest in avoiding the slight intrusion involved in the halting that evidence destruction by obtaining a blood sample.”
Since alcohol-related accidents take thousands of lives each year Mothers Against Drunk Driving are in favor of the warrantless blood tests.
McNeely is being represented by the ACLU, whose attorney, Steven R. Shapiro argued that the Supreme Court shouldn’t adopt a general rule without consideration for circumstances in each case.
Shapiro wrote in court documents, the state of Missouri, “overstates the need for warrantless blood test, and understates the affront to personal privacy and dignity when the States override an individual’s objection and sticks a needle in his arm.”
Missouri, like most states, have laws which require a person, who refuses a breathalyzer or blood test, to surrender their driver license for three-months to a year, and their refusal is can be used as evidence against them in court. So it begs the question, are warrantless blood tests necessary if the arrestee is automatically subjected to penalties for refusing blood alcohol tests?
Supreme Court Justices heard two hours of oral arguments and posed questions Wednesday, but gave little indication on how they will decide in the case, although some justices did express concern about the seriousness of sticking a needle in person’s arm without their consent. The court will hand down their decision sometime this summer.
Actress Sally Struthers Pleads Not Guilty to DUI, What are the Possible Defense Strategies for Beating a Conviction?
December 14th, 2012
Posted in DUI News
York, ME- Actress Sally Struthers has pleaded not guilty to charges that she was driving drunk while in Maine where she was preforming in a play.
Struthers, who is most well-known for her role in 70s sitcom “All in the Family” was stopped by police on September 12th just after midnight and charged with OUI, operating under the influence, according to the Portland Press Herald.
Although Struthers, 65, lives in Los Angles she frequently travels to Maine to perform at the Ogunquit Playhouse.
She did not appear in court, instead she has he lawyer enter her plea of not guilty. Though drunk driving is serious, if Struthers’ is convicted of the charge she could lose her license for 90 days and be required to pay a $400 fine.
Her attorney has been proactive and has already filed a number or motions. One in particular asks that the statements she made to police during her arrest be inadmissible in court.
While it is in the interest of public safety to keep drunk drivers off the road, there are many instances when people are wrongfully arrested and charged with DUI. So people must be aware that they have rights and it is possible to avoid an unnecessary conviction.
In order for a person to stop a DUI conviction, they must be proactive and contact a qualified DUI attorney immediately. If you talk to a lawyer when an event is fresh in your mind you may be able to relate valuable information that can be forgotten over time.
There are several issues which can be raised when building a defense that could stop a drunken driving conviction.
The first effective strategy would be question the legitimacy of the initial stop. Aside from DUI checkpoints, the Constitution requires that police have probable cause before stopping a driver. An officer cannot simply stop you to see if you’ve been drinking they actually have to have reasonable suspicion, meaning they’ve observed you violating traffic laws or observed erratic driving behavior such as speeding or inability to maintain lane.
One of the most effective DUI defense strategies is to question the validity breathalyzer test results. Breathalyzer test are meant to test the amount of alcohol in the breath deep in the lungs. However, this test often picks up alcohol in the mouth and throat and reads it as breath in the lungs. This can give a false reading, indicting a drivers is above the legal limit even when they aren’t drunk.
Breathalyzers can give inaccurate readings if they are not regularly maintained. They require frequent recalibration which can be overlooked by a busy police force.
Field sobriety tests are frequently inaccurate. There are many factors such as age, weight, medical conditions and even the types of shoes the person is wearing that give an officer the impression that a detainee is drunk.
In studies the three most commonly employed field sobriety tests, the horizontal eye nystagmus, the walk and turn and the one-leg stand have shown to be inaccurate in determining intoxication. The one-leg stand has a 35 percent error rate and the walk and turn has a 32 percent error rate.
Other non-alcohol related factors can lead to a wrongful DUI arrest. Nervousness, anxiety or feeling intimidated can give police the impression a driver is intoxicated. Weather and road conditions can also effect a person’s driving ability.
These are just a few weapons in the arsenals that knowledgeable attorneys will employ to help you beat a DUI conviction. The circumstances of every arrest vary so it will left up to your legal representative to determine which strategy to use in your defense.
