Chicago DUI attorney gets an answer to: "Why Did You Blow?"

This Chicago DUI attorney has posted, here, here, and here about refusing to submit to blood, breath, or urine testing.  She has worked herself into a tizzy trying to figure out how law enforcement officers successfully get so many to submit to these tests. 

She couldn’t believe how simple the answers were:

                        Top 5 Reasons Folks Submit to Testing:

5.                  He said he would let me go.  Yeah, I know I was already handcuffed, but that’s what he said. 

4.                  I told them I wasn’t drunk.  All they were going to find was some weed.

3.                  You mean I didn’t have to take the test?  I thought I did.

2.                  I know I’m not drunk.  I only had a six-pack.

And the number one reason folks submit to testing is:

                        1.         He asked me to.

It is the holiday season and you can be certain that law enforcement will be out looking for people to charge with a DUI.  Here’s my free legal advice:  If you are going to have anything to drink, don’t drive.  If you are stopped by law enforcement for any reason that officer is more than willing to let the courts figure out if you are guilty or not of DUI.

Chicago DUI attorney comments on going to jail for speeding

This Chicago DUI attorney has posted here  about driving too fast, but now they are going to make it a more serious crime to speed.  Not just "pay a fine and keep going" kind of crime that you’ve gotten used to, but the kind of crime that could land you in jail - even if there wasn’t an accident.

From Amendment to HB 3677:




Section 5. The Illinois Vehicle Code is amended by changing Section 11-601.5 as follows:

(625 ILCS 5/11-601.5)

 Sec. 11-601.5. Driving 31 30 miles per hour or more in excess of applicable limit.

(a)   A person who drives a vehicle upon any highway of this State at a speed that is 31 30 [sic]  miles per hour or more but less than 40 miles per hour in excess of the applicable maximum speed limit established under this Chapter or a local ordinance commits a Class B misdemeanor.

A Class B misdemeanor is punishable, upon a conviction, with up to 180 days in jail.  I know you are busy this holiday season, but please slow down.

Chicago DUI attorney wonders if you will get an A on the Pop Quiz

  

True or False:  Court Supervision Does Not Appear On Your Driving Record

I was in court when the judge said:  “Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah (Best Charlie Brown’s School Teacher Voice) and if you have a good driving background I will give you Court Supervision.  Court Supervision WILL NOT appear on your driving record.”

I was shocked.  Over the years I’ve had many, many clients tell me that the judge told them the charges were gone, although they paid a fine.  Whenever this happened, I always tilted my head in disbelief because surely they must have misunderstood what the judge said.  The conversation would then go something like this:

Attorney:         So you were speeding?

Client:             Yes.

Attorney:         You went before the judge?

Client:             Yes.

Attorney:         You told the judge you were speeding?

Client:             Yes.

Attorney:         The judge found you guilty, right?

Client:             No.  He said it wouldn’t be on my record and I could just pay a little

fine.

Attorney:         [Brows furrowed while reviewing client’s driving record]You got the

                        speeding ticket on January 6^th?

Client:             Yep.  I asked the cop to let me go because it was my birthday.

Attorney:         You went to court for the speeding ticket at the Markham Court

House?

Client:             Yes.  I paid the fine like the judge said.

Attorney:         If it wasn’t on your record, why do I know the date you got the ticket

And what Court house you appeared?

Client:             You mean the judge lied to me!

Attorney:         I’m sure you just misunderstood the judge.

Let’s be clear, court supervision does go on your driving record.  I know it seems like a waste of time to hire an attorney for a minor traffic ticket but you may do well to listen to the first part of the judge’s speech, you know the one where he says he can’t give you any legal advice.

Chicago DUI attorney thinks your Halloween costume shouldn't give the police probable cause for a DUI

This Chicago DUI attorney posted here about a BAC DUI costume.  Still, she’s now beginning to wonder if this is more the stuff of an urban legend.

November 2, Lincoln, NE:

The Halloween crime of the year torch appears to have been passed to Lincoln in 2010.

 Early Monday, a police officer pulled over a pickup being driven erratically by a man dressed as a Breathalyzer.

Matthew Nieveen, 19, was cited for second-offense driving under the influence and being a minor in possession of alcohol.

 "He was dressed as a PBT (preliminary breath testing) alcohol sensor and had been attending a Halloween party prior to the stop," the report says.

Police took Nieveen to Cornhusker Place, where, the report says, his blood alcohol measured more than twice the legal limit of .08 percent. The legal limit for minors is zero.

Nieveen also was cited for an open container violation and negligent driving before being released to detox staff.

 Perhaps young people should harness the power of social media to make sure that no one else gets charged with a DUI for wearing this costume.

Chicago DUI attorney comments on the markers for the New Prohibition

This Chicago DUI attorney suspects MADD will quickly be on this new study.  It could certainly garner legitimacy amongst legislators.

From cnn.com:

 Alcohol ranks "most harmful" among a list of 20 drugs, beating out crack and heroin when assessed for its potential harm to the individual imbibing and harm to others, according to study results released by a British medical journal.

A panel of experts from the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs weighed the physical, psychological, and social problems caused by the drugs and determined that alcohol was the most harmful overall, according to an article on the study released by The Lancet on Sunday.

Using a new scale to evaluate harms to individual users and others, alcohol received a score of 72 on a scale of 1 to 100, the study says. It was compared to 19 other drugs using 16 criteria: nine related to the adverse effects the drug has on an individual and seven on its harm against others.

That makes it almost three times as harmful as cocaine or tobacco, according to the article, which is slated to be published on The Lancet's website Monday and in an upcoming print edition of the journal.

Heroin, crack cocaine and methamphetamine were the most harmful drugs to individuals, the study says, while alcohol, heroin and crack cocaine were the most harmful to others.

In the article, the panelists said their findings show that Britain's three-tiered drug classification system, which places drugs into different categories that determine criminal penalties for possession and dealing, has "little relation to the evidence of harm."

Panelists also noted that the rankings confirm other studies that say that "aggressively targeting alcohol harms is a valid and necessary public health strategy."

The Lancet article was co-authored by David Nutt, a professor and Britain's former chief drug adviser, who caused controversy last year after he published an article saying ecstasy was not as dangerous as riding a horse.

 I wonder if one of the authors was looking to curry favor after the debacle of his previous article.

This could very well start the march of the Prohibition Movement.