Phoenix DUI Abogados

The DWI statute in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania establishes three levels of DWI offenses. There is a “loss of normal use” DWI that does not require the prosecution to prove an alcohol concentration (referred to as being incapable of safely driving). The state can also prove up general impairment by showing the driver had an alcohol concentration of between .08 and .10 within two hours of driving.

Should a driver have an alcohol concentration of between .10 and .15 within two hours of driving he can be charge with a “high rate of alcohol” DWI. Should that alcohol concentration be over .15, the driver can be charged with the “highest rate of alcohol” DWI.

The penalties for each of the three levels of offense get stiffer as the alcohol concentration rises.

In January 2010, Jason Schildt was arrested on suspicion of DWI when a police officer came across his car lying on its side in a ditch. A breath test on the state’s Intoxilyzer 5000EN revealed an alcohol concentration of .20. Mr. Schildt was charged with multiple counts of driving while intoxicated and faced the most severe penalties as a result of his high breath test.

But, somewhere on the way to the plea docket, things got a bit hairy for the state.

Mr. Schildt’s attorney filed a motion to quash the charge alleging that the state’s breath test machine could not produce a reliable alcohol concentration reading over .015. The challenge was based on the initial calibration of the machine at the factory as well as the field calibrations conducted on the machines.

According to Pennsylvania regulations, the machine is supposed to be calibrated using simulator solutions purchased from an outside source and certified by an independent laboratory. At the hearing on the defense motion testimony from the state’s “expert,” an engineer at CMI, established that CMI, the manufacturer of the machine, performed the initial calibration of the machine using ethanol samples prepared in-house.

Furthermore, when the machines were calibrated in the field, they were only calibrated using ethanol solutions of .05, .10 and .15 concentrations. Another controversy arose about calibrating the machine to a zero point. Defense experts pointed out that for a machine to calibrate to zero would require it be able to distinguish a single atom. Anything else would be a guess. A true calibration curve only includes those data points established by a series of calibration tests – by “forcing” the calibration curve to cross the zero point, the curve below a .05 calibration was just pure speculation.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Court of Common Pleas Judge Lawrence Clark, Jr. found that the Intoxilyzers used by the Commonwealth could not be relied upon to produce a reliable result at alcohol concentrations below .05 or higher than .15.

The court did not find that the machines were unreliable – just that there was no scientific evidence that they could be relied up outside the range at which they were calibrated in the field. Judge Clark was also quick to point out that the defense was not challenging the regulations promulgated by the Commonwealth regarding the calibration of the machines. The challenge was to the conclusions made by the machine’s keepers based upon the regulatory scheme.

The challenge was creative and illustrates why you have to know and understand the regulations surrounding breath test machines as well as how the machines operate in order to defend a drunk driving case properly. Over the years DWI laws have become more draconian and motorists’ constitutional rights have been pared away. In that type of environment, sometimes the best defense is to know the minutiae of the machine better than the prosecutor.

A 20-year-old man, the son of an editor at The Knoxville News Sentinel, faces misdemeanor charges of driving under the influence (DUI) after crashing into the fence of a Southwest Knox County home. According to a news report in The Knoxville News Sentinel, the incident occurred along Duncan Road in Knoxville. He was not injured when he ran his 1999 Mitsubishi Montero off the road and into the fence. Officials say he had slurred speech and admitted to taking an unknown amount of Xanax at a friend’s home. In addition to DUI charges, he faces Xanax drug possession charges after an officer found two pills in his pocket.

Under Tennessee law, you do not have to have alcohol in your system to face DUI charges. Under Tennessee Code 55-10-401(a): “It is unlawful for any person to drive or to be in physical control of any automobile while under the influence of any intoxicant, marijuana, narcotic drug, or drug producing stimulating effects on the central nervous system.”

Were you recently arrested for driving under the influence in Burbank, after being given a blood test by a police officer?

If so, some legal “goings on” at the United States Supreme Court may interest you.

Last Wednesday, the court heard arguments regarding a Missouri case. At issue: whether police should be allowed to compel DUI suspects to participate in DUI blood tests without a warrant. Prosecutors in this case had compelling arguments. Here’s how a Huffington Post article summarized the situation: “against the backdrop of a serious national problem of more than 10,000 deaths from crashes involving alcohol-impaired drivers in 2010…lawyers for Missouri and the Obama administration argued that dispensing with a warrant requirement would further the effort [to reduce the number of DUI injuries] because any delay in testing the suspect’s blood alcohol content allows alcohol to dissipate in the blood.”

A Justice Department lawyer argued that police in DUI situations might “face the certain destruction of blood alcohol evidence” eithout such tests. The SCOTUS Justices appeared skeptical of the prosecution’s case. On the one hand, they agreed that collecting blood samples should be a priority — a delayed collection could be a problem. On the other hand, they recognized that sticking someone with a needle to collect blood — without a judge’s approval! — is a highly intrusive act.

Justice Scalia, for instance, asked prosecutors “why shouldn’t that determination be made case by case?” Scalia’s point was that, if the test can be delayed, then it should be delayed until a warrant is acquired. If waiting would create a evidentiary problem, then “it’s okay.”

Tyler McNeely was arrested in rural Missouri after he failed multiple sobriety tests and appeared unsteady and presented with slurred speech – typical symptoms of Burbank DUI.

The officer had enough evidence to obtain a warrant to get a blood test — McNeely refused the breathalyzer. Instead, he took McNeely to the hospital, where a technician drew blood from him and found that his BAC was 0.154% — nearly twice the legal limit for driving under the influence in Burbank, Missouri, and elsewhere.

Both the lower court and the Supreme Court of Missouri said the blood test results should be thrown out because they violated the Constitution’s restrictions against unreasonable search and seizure. This legal fracas could redound to change how police, prosecutors, and Los Angeles DUI lawyers operate, albeit in a nuanced fashion. But if you’re facing a charge, you probably care less about obscure rulings out of Washington and more about your own situation. What should you do to manage your charges, protect your license and your rights, and avoid the harsh punishments that prosecutors may be bringing against you?

The Kraut Law Group can help you make better decisions. Get in touch with Mr. Kraut and his team for a free, thorough and confidential consultation about your best next steps.