Phoenix DUI Abogados

My office just finished representing an individual who was charged with Driving While Intoxicated, contrary to NJSA 39:4-50, Driving While Intoxicated in a Schoolzone, contrary to NJSA 39:4-50g and Carless Driving, contrary to NJSA 39:4-97 in the Township of Fairview. If convicted of the DWI charge, the defendant would be facing up to a twelve month loss of their driving privileges since their Blood Alcohol Content (“BAC”) was  determined to be .18%. In addition, if the defendant was convicted of a DWI in a Schoolzone, the defendant would facing between a one to two year loss of their drivers license and up to sixty days in the Bergen County Jail. If convicted of both DWI offenses, the Fairview Municipal Court Judge could require that the license suspensions run consecutively and the defendant could potentially lose their driver’s license for three years. Further, with the BAC determined to be over double the legal limit and a DWI in a Schoolzone charge as well, the reality of the defendant being incarcerated was very realistic.

Once my office received the discovery we knew we had to get the “readings” (the defendants BAC) suppressed if we had any chance of keeping the defendant out of the Bergen County Jail. We knew that if we were able to suppress the defendant’s breathalyzer readings, (.18%) the defendant would only be facing a three month loss of their driving privileges on the DWI charge. As a result, my office was able to receive various court orders which demanded that the state produce certains items of discovery within a certain time frame. These items include countless foundational documents for the Alcotest Machine (Machine that determines a defendants BAC) and a schoolzone map, which would prove that the defendant was actually operating his vehicle in a schoolzone at the time of his arrest.

After receiving these court orders, my office was able to successfully argue a motion to suppress the defendant’s Breath Readings.  As a result, the State could only prosecute the defendant as a tier one DWI, which if convicted subjects the defendant to only a three month loss of their driving privileges. With now having the upper hand, we entered into extensive plea negotiations. We were able to negotiate a plea agreement where upon the defendant would plead to a tier one DWI and a dismissal both the driving while intoxicated in a schoolzone and careless driving charge. In conclusion, the defendant, who at the beginning was facing up to a three year loss of their driving privileges and up to 60 days in the Bergen County Jail, was sentenced to a ninety day loss of their drivers license and no jail time.

The Law Offices of Jonathan F. Marshall is an experienced Bergen County DWI criminal defense firm. We have over 100 years of combined experience on staff, including over twenty-five years of prior prosecuting experience. If you or someone you know has been charged with a DUI or any other criminal offense for that matter please contact any one of our Bergen County offices for a free initial consultation.

The post Fairview Man Avoids Jail After DWI in a Schoolzone Charge appeared first on Bergen County Criminal Lawyers.

Many people mistakenly believe that Los Angeles DUI defense attorneys do not care about public safety or have an overly laissez-faire attitude about personal liberties.

Perhaps some attorneys hold this attitude. But the reality is that the vast majority of good DUI lawyers in Los Angeles and Southern California have strong moral compasses. They have families and friends as well. They know all too well the horrors that can result when the wrong person gets behind the wheel or vehicle at the wrong time.

Not all cases of driving under the influence are equal – not by a long shot

This blog has covered some extremely colorful DUI cases involving, for instance, recidivist offenders who’ve been arrested 9+ times. A recent blog post told the story of a 31-year-old who allegedly drove DUI at 80 miles per hour into his girlfriend and her companion, killing the 21-year-old man, severely hurting the girl, and killing all four of her dogs – all while driving under a suspended license after being dinged with three DUI convictions.

A great attorney can help defendants understand what they are up against and construct extremely sturdy and solid legal responses. But there is no such thing as a miracle worker. If you drove with a 0.45% BAC, and purposely hit a nun pushing a baby, odds are you will face massively serious penalties. As well you should!

The reality, however, is that many people who get arrested for crimes like Los Angeles DUI are borderline or near borderline. Maybe you had one too many drinks at a Hollywood industry party and thought you could “make it home” to Santa Monica because you felt pretty good. But then a trooper saw you changing lanes without signaling. He pulled you over, and then one thing led to another, and you found yourself behind bars. Alternately, maybe you’re a student at UCLA who got a little wild at a party. You decided to sleep in your car, but then a police officer found you with your keys in your hand and arrested you for DUI anyway.

Small, borderline cases like these are far more common than the catastrophic, horrific cases you read about in the news. Obviously, all defendants deserve a good defense. Likewise, DUI victims’ rights obviously must be protected, and justice needs to be done.

We as a society also have an obligation to help DUI convicts get rehabilitated, make reparations if possible, regain control over their lives, and get some clarity about how they can be better citizens.

If you know someone who has recently been arrested for DUI in Los Angeles, or if you yourself have been arrested, connect with the Kraut Law Group for a free consultation. Attorney Michael Kraut is an ex-prosecutor, who’s routinely featured as a DUI expert in major media outlets, like KTLA Los Angeles, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, etc. Mr. Kraut will be happy to talk with you about your DUI case and suggest a way forward.

Back in October 2010, Tyler McNeely was stopped for driving 11 miles over the speed limit by Missouri state police officer Mark Winder in Cape Girardeau County. The officer said he saw Mr. McNeely cross the center line three times before he stopped him.

Of course Officer Winder noted that Mr. McNeely had an odor of alcohol on his breath and red, glassy eyes. He then administered four field sobriety tests and concluded that Mr. McNeely was intoxicated. The officer took Mr. McNeely to a local hospital and asked him if he would consent to a “voluntary” blood draw. When Mr. McNeely exercised his right to say no, Officer Winder ordered hospital technicians to conduct a blood draw anyway.

There was no accident. No one was injured. And no one asked a judge for a warrant.

In a hearing before the trial court Officer Winder stated that he never asked a judge for a warrant to draw Mr. McNeely’s blood. He also testified that he had applied for warrants to conduct blood draws on previous  occasions without any difficulty (a sign that many judges have all but forgotten that the Fourth Amendment even exists).

The trial court deemed the results of the blood draw inadmissible. The state appealed. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the lower court so the state appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Obama Administration then joined with the State of Missouri in arguing that there wasn’t a damn thing wrong with strapping down a motorist and jabbing a needle in his arm without a warrant.

The state argued that there were exigent circumstances that necessitated conducting a warrantless blood draw. According to the state, because alcohol dissipates in the body, it is vital that the blood be drawn as soon as possible.

Note that argument wasn’t that anyone’s life was in danger or there was any type of emergency. The argument amounted to the state would really like to have a vial of blood to test because Mr. McNeely might have been intoxicated. He was off the road by the time he was held down and the needle jabbed in his arm. The state wanted evidence that might force Mr. McNeely to plead guilty without holding the state to its burden of proof.

Anyone who’s tried a breath test or blood test case is quite familiar with the junk science that is retrograde extrapolation. Without knowing the specifics of a motorist’s physiology, a government employee sits in the witness stand and proudly tells the jury just what the defendant’s alcohol concentration was at the time of driving – even though the breath or blood sample was given hours after driving. Judges allow the testimony in either because they haven’t the slightest clue what’s going on or because they just don’t give a damn.

But there are plenty of case tried every year in which there is no breath or blood test. There are plenty of cases every year in which a jury is asked to decide whether or not a motorist was intoxicated based upon the driving facts and the roadside exercises performed on video. There were also plenty of DWI cases tried before police cars were equipped with cameras. And prosecutors got convictions in those cases.

There were no exigent circumstances in Mr. McNeely’s case. The state just wanted to make it easier on itself to obtain a conviction. And the courts have gone along with that for years. That’s why we have implied consent laws on the books. That’s why refusing a breath or blood test is held against a motorist and presented to the jury as an admission of guilt.

There are plenty of counties, cities and towns that conduct “No Refusal Weekends” with judges volunteering to sign off on warrants review warrant applications. Judges all across this country have gladly signed off on warrants based on fill-in-the-blank form affidavits that are conclusory and don’t even spell out why the blood sought is evidence of a crime.

Officer Winder could very easily have found a judge who would issue a warrant based upon his statement that Mr. McNeely was speeding and failed a series of roadside exercises. It really is that simple. But Officer Winder couldn’t be bothered to do so. He couldn’t be bothered to comply with the requirements of a watered-down and neutered Fourth Amendment.

The refreshing thing about this case is that a trial judge and a state supreme court decided that the state had crossed the line.