The Court Of Public Opinion

If you have been arrested for DUI or DWI, it is obviously cause for concern?but not for despair. By hiring a quality defense lawyer who can protect your rights, there are a host of ways your case may be defendable. That?s why it would be a good idea to consider hiring one of America?s Top DUI and DWI Defense Attorneys now. Here?s a few ways our lawyers may be able to win your case. Even if your case involves a drug, drugs, medicine or alcohol, they will help.

ILLEGAL STOP OF PERSON OR VEHICLE ? a driver cannot be stopped unless the officer has a reasonable and articulate basis to believe that a traffic law or other law has been violated. Similarly, a person cannot be seized unless a violation has occurred.

WEAVING INSIDE THE LANES IS NOT ILLEGAL ? weaving without crossing any lines is not a violation of the law, and a vehicle cannot be stopped for that reason.

ANONYMOUS REPORT OF DRUNK DRIVING ? a car cannot be stopped simply because an anonymous citizen reported that the driver was drunk.

STANDARD FIELD SOBRIETY TESTING IS INACCURATE ? in healthy individuals, the one-leg stand test is only 65% accurate, and the walk-and-turn test is only 68% accurate in determining if a person is under the influence. Those persons with injuries, medical conditions, 50 pounds or greater overweight, and 65 years or older cannot be validly judged by these tests.

NON-STANDARDIZED FIELD TESTS ARE INVALID ? neither the Federal Government (NHTSA) nor medical science considers touching your finger to your nose, or saying the alphabet, or counting backwards, as valid sobriety tests.

BREATH TESTING IS INACCURATE ? virtually all experts concede that one breath test alone is unreliable. Breath testing is subject to various inaccuracies, including a variance as much s /- 12.5%, non-specificity for ethanol, etc.

BOOKING ROOM VIDEOS ? Many police stations videotape suspects at the police station, where their speech is clear and their balance is perfect, in spite of police testimony to the contrary.

IN-SQUAD VIDEOS ? more and more often, the suspect?s driving and performance on field tests is being recorded; often contradicting police testimony.

FAILURE TO PROVIDE SPEEDY TRIAL ? If a client is not provided with a trial within a certain period of time, which varies between states, through delays of the court or prosecutor, the charges must be dismissed.

POLICE BLOOD TEST INACCURATE ? Many times, police blood testing fails to follow prescribed rules of testing, analysis, or preservation recommendations.

HOSPITAL BLOOD TEST INACCURATE ? Hospital blood tests overestimate a person?s true level by as much as 25% in healthy, uninjured individuals, and are not statistically reliable in severely injured persons.

BREATH TEST OPERATOR UNLICENSED ? Most states require a Breath Test Operator to possess a valid, unexpired operator?s license, or the breath test result is inadmissible.

BREATHALYZER MACHINE MALFUNCTIONS ? Most states specify that if there is a malfunction or repair of the breath test instrument within a certain period of time before or after a suspect?s breath test, the results of the suspect?s test are presumed invalid.

BREATH TEST OPERATOR LICENSE EXPIRED ? Most states require that a Breath Test Operator must possess an unexpired operator?s license, or the breath test result is inadmissible.

BREATH TEST DEVICE NOT APPROVED ? A breath-testing instrument must be listed on the Federal List of Approved Breath Evidential Instruments and the ISP approved list of Devices, or the results are inadmissible.

FAILURE TO PROVE DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE ? A defendant?s admission to driving, without more, does not prove a charge of driving under the influence.

INDEPENDENT WITNESSES ? Often times, independent witnesses to accidents, bartenders, hospital personnel and others can provide crucial evidence of the defendant?s sobriety.

FAILURE TO MIRANDIZE ? Prosecutors may not use as evidence the statements of a defendant in custody for a DUI when the police have failed to properly issue Miranda Warnings.

FIELD SOBRIETY TEST IMPROPERLY ADMINISTERED ? According to the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration, improperly administered field tests are not valid evidence of intoxication.

OFFICER?S PRIOR DISCIPLINARY RECORD ? A police officer?s previous disciplinary record can be used to attack the officer?s credibility.

PORTABLE BREATH TEST INADMISSIBLE ? Most states prohibit the use of portable breath testing results as evidence at trial in a DUI case.

PORTABLE BREATH TEST IMPROPERLY ADMINISTERED ? The manufacturers of portable breath testing devices require a minimum of two tests to consider the results evidential in nature.

FAILURE TO CONDUCT OBSERVATION PERIOD ? Most states require that a driver be observed continuously for a minimum period, such as twenty minutes, prior to a breath test in order for the results to be considered admissible and valid.

EXPERT WITNESSES ? Expert witnesses are available to review the validity of breath tests, blood tests and field sobriety tests.

MEDICAL AND HEALTH PROBLEMS ? Medical problems with legs, arms, neck, back and eyes can affect the results of field sobriety tests. Further, other medical conditions can also affect the validity of breath test results.

BAD WEATHER ? Weather reports establishing high winds, low visibility, and other conditions are available to explain poor driving or poor balance.

LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST ? A police officer must have specific and articulable facts to support any arrest for DUI, or the suspension will be reversed and the evidence suppressed at trial.

ILLEGAL SEARCH ? The police are prohibited from searching a person or the automobile for a minor traffic offense, and may not search a car without a driver?s consent or probable cause. Any evidence illegally obtained is not admissible in court.

PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS BY POLICE OFFICERS ? Any statement made by a police officer, verbally, in police reports, or at previous court proceedings may be used to attack that officer?s credibility.

POST-DRIVING ABSORPTION OF ALCOHOL ? The prosecutor must prove the blood or breath alcohol at the time of driving. Recent consumption of alcohol just prior to driving will cause the test results to be higher than what the true level was when the person was operating the automobile.

INTERFERING SUBSTANCES ? Many items contain forms of alcohol, which may cause false results, such as asthma spray, cough drops, paints, fingernail polish. These items can cause the breath results to be invalid.

BREATH MACHINE NOT PROPERLY OPERATED ? The manufacturers of breath testing devices have specified protocols, which must be followed for a breath result to be valid. Failure to follow these requirements will result in improper readings.

FAILURES TO PRODUCE DISPATCH TAPES ? Most stops of vehicles are recorded on dispatch tapes, as well as recording police communications regarding an arrest of an individual. Failure to preserve such tapes upon request can cause all evidence, which could have been recorded to be suppressed.

MISLEADING STATEMENTS BY POLICE OFFICERS ? Any misleading statement by the police regarding the consequences of taking (or refusing) a blood, breath, or urine test will cause the suspension to be reversed and removed from the driver?s record.

STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS ? A misdemeanor charge of DUI must be filed within a certain period of time (which varies between states) of the date of offense, or the charges will be dismissed outright.

PRIVATE PROPERTY ? A person who has not driven the car on a public highway cannot be suspended for drunk driving.

FAILURE TO DISCLOSE EXPERTS ? The failure of the prosecutor to disclose the state?s expert(s) will cause those witnesses to be barred from testifying against the defendant.

LACTATE RINGERS ? When hospital staff use lactate ringers during the treatment of a patient, the hospital blood serum results will report falsely elevated, and therefore invalid, readings.

FAILURE TO RECORD CERTIFICATION TESTS ? the failure to include the value of the simulator solution used to test breath machines will cause the breath test results to be inadmissible in court against the driver.

FORCED BLOOD DRAWS ? In some states, the police may not take a blood test against the driver?s consent where there has not been an injury involved, or the result is inadmissible.

About the Author:

Donald J. Ramsell is the only Illinois DUI defense attorney to appear and argue on a DUI case before the United States Supreme Court in its entire 213 years of existence. http://www.1800dialdui.com

Ramsell also appears on ‘America’s Top DUI DWI Attorneys’, located at http://www.Americas-Top-DUI-Attorneys.com.

Donald J. Ramsell is the only Illinois DUI Attorney to become Certified in DUI Defense under the American Bar Association standards. The Illinois Supreme Court does not recognize certification in DUI Defense at the present time.

In 2004, the Chicago Sun Times identified Mr. Ramsell as one of the top 5 DUI Defense Attorneys in the State of Illinois.

In 2005, Ramsell was named by Chicago Magazine as an ‘Illinois Super Lawyer’, and was the only Illinois DUI Attorney to receivie this distinction.

In 2004, Ramsell was recognized by his peers as an Illinois Leading Lawyer in Criminal-DUI Defense by Crain Magazine. In 2006, Crain Magazine will also recognize Ramsell as an Illinois Leading Lawyer in Illinois Criminal Appeals.

As many people know, the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States forbids the unreasonable search or seizure of U.S. citizens. Generally, there must be probable cause to arrest or search persons or their private property, which means that the officer must have a reasonable suspicion based on articulable facts that some wrongdoing has occurred. How, then, are law enforcement agents able, constitutionally, to stop motorists at sobriety checkpoints?

According to constitutional law, some stops are not considered seizures of a person. This is the case with a so called stop and frisk in which an officer detains a person for a very brief period of time and quickly checks their outer clothing for contraband. Sometimes, if a person is detained for less than 48 hours, it is not considered a seizure. However, this is not true for DUI roadblocks. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that stopping someone at such a roadblock does constitute a seizure of that person under the Fourth Amendment.

One however further and the language of the Constitution gets tangled up in the thicket of constitutional interpretation and case law. The Supreme Court could have claimed that these stops without probable cause are constitutional under the doctrine of exigent circumstances. The Court has repeatedly held that when an officer believes evidence is about to be destroyed, he can perform a search without a warrant. However, this doctrine seems only to apply to searches. Instead, it appears as though the Court used a balancing test, common in other areas of constitutional law, whereby the minimal intrusion on individual liberties was weighed against the need for and efficacy of roadblocks and found to be less important.

To some, it seems that the Court has simply carved out of the Constitution another exception, similar to the one for exigent circumstances, for sobriety checkpoints. DUI defense attorneys often refer to this as the DUI exception to the Constitution. Critics and dissenting justices have pointed out that the Fourth Amendment does not make exceptions. The only question is whether the officer has probable cause to stop the individual driver. Justice Brennan wrote, That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving…is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion.

The Court’s justification for the exception rested on the assumption that DUI roadblocks are necessary and effective. However, there is some controversy as to whether this is true. The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) recently released data on alcohol-related deaths in 2003 and 2004. There was a decline in such fatalities in 2004, and most of the drop occurred in states that don’t use sobriety checkpoints. Critics already concerned about the large outlay of resources required to operate checkpoints are doubly concerned if spending the resources does not even necessarily prevent DUI offenses.

On the other hand, law enforcement agents believe that checkpoints are effective even if intoxicated drivers get around them because they spread the message that driving under the influence is not tolerated. Officers often provide informational pamphlets to motorists stopped at checkpoints, explaining the consequences of drunk driving, which may have a deterrent effect.

Copyright 2006 Lance Knowlton

Having been struck by drunk drivers twice, Lance Knowlton has a deep appreciation for this serious problem. To learn how you can help prevent drunk driving in your community and earn money at the same time, visit: http://www.alcoholalert.com.

As many people know, the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States forbids the unreasonable search or seizure of U.S. citizens. Generally, there must be probable cause to arrest or search persons or their private property, which means that the officer must have a reasonable suspicion based on articulable facts that some wrongdoing has occurred. How, then, are law enforcement agents able, constitutionally, to stop motorists at sobriety checkpoints?

According to constitutional law, some stops are not considered seizures of a person. This is the case with a so called stop and frisk in which an officer detains a person for a very brief period of time and quickly checks their outer clothing for contraband. Sometimes, if a person is detained for less than 48 hours, it is not considered a seizure. However, this is not true for DUI roadblocks. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that stopping someone at such a roadblock does constitute a seizure of that person under the Fourth Amendment.

One however further and the language of the Constitution gets tangled up in the thicket of constitutional interpretation and case law. The Supreme Court could have claimed that these stops without probable cause are constitutional under the doctrine of exigent circumstances. The Court has repeatedly held that when an officer believes evidence is about to be destroyed, he can perform a search without a warrant. However, this doctrine seems only to apply to searches. Instead, it appears as though the Court used a balancing test, common in other areas of constitutional law, whereby the minimal intrusion on individual liberties was weighed against the need for and efficacy of roadblocks and found to be less important.

To some, it seems that the Court has simply carved out of the Constitution another exception, similar to the one for exigent circumstances, for sobriety checkpoints. DUI defense attorneys often refer to this as the DUI exception to the Constitution. Critics and dissenting justices have pointed out that the Fourth Amendment does not make exceptions. The only question is whether the officer has probable cause to stop the individual driver. Justice Brennan wrote, That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving…is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion.

The Court’s justification for the exception rested on the assumption that DUI roadblocks are necessary and effective. However, there is some controversy as to whether this is true. The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) recently released data on alcohol-related deaths in 2003 and 2004. There was a decline in such fatalities in 2004, and most of the drop occurred in states that don’t use sobriety checkpoints. Critics already concerned about the large outlay of resources required to operate checkpoints are doubly concerned if spending the resources does not even necessarily prevent DUI offenses.

On the other hand, law enforcement agents believe that checkpoints are effective even if intoxicated drivers get around them because they spread the message that driving under the influence is not tolerated. Officers often provide informational pamphlets to motorists stopped at checkpoints, explaining the consequences of drunk driving, which may have a deterrent effect.

Copyright 2006 Lance Knowlton

More articles at article database

If you have been arrested for DUI or DWI, it is obviously cause for concernbut not for despair. By hiring a quality defense lawyer who can protect your rights, there are a host of ways your case may be defendable. Thats why it would be a good idea to consider hiring one of Americas Top DUI and DWI Defense Attorneys now. Heres a few ways our lawyers may be able to win your case. Even if your case involves a drug, drugs, medicine or alcohol, they will help.

ILLEGAL STOP OF PERSON OR VEHICLE a driver cannot be stopped unless the officer has a reasonable and articulate basis to believe that a traffic law or other law has been violated. Similarly, a person cannot be seized unless a violation has occurred.

WEAVING INSIDE THE LANES IS NOT ILLEGAL weaving without crossing any lines is not a violation of the law, and a vehicle cannot be stopped for that reason.

ANONYMOUS REPORT OF DRUNK DRIVING a car cannot be stopped simply because an anonymous citizen reported that the driver was drunk.

STANDARD FIELD SOBRIETY TESTING IS INACCURATE in healthy individuals, the one-leg stand test is only 65% accurate, and the walk-and-turn test is only 68% accurate in determining if a person is under the influence. Those persons with injuries, medical conditions, 50 pounds or greater overweight, and 65 years or older cannot be validly judged by these tests.

NON-STANDARDIZED FIELD TESTS ARE INVALID neither the Federal Government (NHTSA) nor medical science considers touching your finger to your nose, or saying the alphabet, or counting backwards, as valid sobriety tests.

BREATH TESTING IS INACCURATE virtually all experts concede that one breath test alone is unreliable. Breath testing is subject to various inaccuracies, including a variance as much s /- 12.5%, non-specificity for ethanol, etc.

BOOKING ROOM VIDEOS Many police stations videotape suspects at the police station, where their speech is clear and their balance is perfect, in spite of police testimony to the contrary.

IN-SQUAD VIDEOS more and more often, the suspects driving and performance on field tests is being recorded; often contradicting police testimony.

FAILURE TO PROVIDE SPEEDY TRIAL If a client is not provided with a trial within a certain period of time, which varies between states, through delays of the court or prosecutor, the charges must be dismissed.

POLICE BLOOD TEST INACCURATE Many times, police blood testing fails to follow prescribed rules of testing, analysis, or preservation recommendations.

HOSPITAL BLOOD TEST INACCURATE Hospital blood tests overestimate a persons true level by as much as 25% in healthy, uninjured individuals, and are not statistically reliable in severely injured persons.

BREATH TEST OPERATOR UNLICENSED Most states require a Breath Test Operator to possess a valid, unexpired operators license, or the breath test result is inadmissible.

BREATHALYZER MACHINE MALFUNCTIONS Most states specify that if there is a malfunction or repair of the breath test instrument within a certain period of time before or after a suspects breath test, the results of the suspects test are presumed invalid.

BREATH TEST OPERATOR LICENSE EXPIRED Most states require that a Breath Test Operator must possess an unexpired operators license, or the breath test result is inadmissible.

BREATH TEST DEVICE NOT APPROVED A breath-testing instrument must be listed on the Federal List of Approved Breath Evidential Instruments and the ISP approved list of Devices, or the results are inadmissible.

FAILURE TO PROVE DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE A defendants admission to driving, without more, does not prove a charge of driving under the influence.

INDEPENDENT WITNESSES Often times, independent witnesses to accidents, bartenders, hospital personnel and others can provide crucial evidence of the defendants sobriety.

FAILURE TO MIRANDIZE Prosecutors may not use as evidence the statements of a defendant in custody for a DUI when the police have failed to properly issue Miranda Warnings.

FIELD SOBRIETY TEST IMPROPERLY ADMINISTERED According to the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration, improperly administered field tests are not valid evidence of intoxication.

OFFICERS PRIOR DISCIPLINARY RECORD A police officers previous disciplinary record can be used to attack the officers credibility.

PORTABLE BREATH TEST INADMISSIBLE Most states prohibit the use of portable breath testing results as evidence at trial in a DUI case.

PORTABLE BREATH TEST IMPROPERLY ADMINISTERED The manufacturers of portable breath testing devices require a minimum of two tests to consider the results evidential in nature.

FAILURE TO CONDUCT OBSERVATION PERIOD Most states require that a driver be observed continuously for a minimum period, such as twenty minutes, prior to a breath test in order for the results to be considered admissible and valid.

EXPERT WITNESSES Expert witnesses are available to review the validity of breath tests, blood tests and field sobriety tests.

MEDICAL AND HEALTH PROBLEMS Medical problems with legs, arms, neck, back and eyes can affect the results of field sobriety tests. Further, other medical conditions can also affect the validity of breath test results.

BAD WEATHER Weather reports establishing high winds, low visibility, and other conditions are available to explain poor driving or poor balance.

LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST A police officer must have specific and articulable facts to support any arrest for DUI, or the suspension will be reversed and the evidence suppressed at trial.

ILLEGAL SEARCH The police are prohibited from searching a person or the automobile for a minor traffic offense, and may not search a car without a drivers consent or probable cause. Any evidence illegally obtained is not admissible in court.

PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS BY POLICE OFFICERS Any statement made by a police officer, verbally, in police reports, or at previous court proceedings may be used to attack that officers credibility.

POST-DRIVING ABSORPTION OF ALCOHOL The prosecutor must prove the blood or breath alcohol at the time of driving. Recent consumption of alcohol just prior to driving will cause the test results to be higher than what the true level was when the person was operating the automobile.

INTERFERING SUBSTANCES Many items contain forms of alcohol, which may cause false results, such as asthma spray, cough drops, paints, fingernail polish. These items can cause the breath results to be invalid.

BREATH MACHINE NOT PROPERLY OPERATED The manufacturers of breath testing devices have specified protocols, which must be followed for a breath result to be valid. Failure to follow these requirements will result in improper readings.

FAILURES TO PRODUCE DISPATCH TAPES Most stops of vehicles are recorded on dispatch tapes, as well as recording police communications regarding an arrest of an individual. Failure to preserve such tapes upon request can cause all evidence, which could have been recorded to be suppressed.

MISLEADING STATEMENTS BY POLICE OFFICERS Any misleading statement by the police regarding the consequences of taking (or refusing) a blood, breath, or urine test will cause the suspension to be reversed and removed from the drivers record.

STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS A misdemeanor charge of DUI must be filed within a certain period of time (which varies between states) of the date of offense, or the charges will be dismissed outright.

PRIVATE PROPERTY A person who has not driven the car on a public highway cannot be suspended for drunk driving.

FAILURE TO DISCLOSE EXPERTS The failure of the prosecutor to disclose the states expert(s) will cause those witnesses to be barred from testifying against the defendant.

LACTATE RINGERS When hospital staff use lactate ringers during the treatment of a patient, the hospital blood serum results will report falsely elevated, and therefore invalid, readings.

FAILURE TO RECORD CERTIFICATION TESTS the failure to include the value of the simulator solution used to test breath machines will cause the breath test results to be inadmissible in court against the driver.

FORCED BLOOD DRAWS In some states, the police may not take a blood test against the drivers consent where there has not been an injury involved, or the result is inadmissible.

More articles at database for articles