Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Chicago DUI attorney comments on a U.S. Supreme Justice being a defendant

This Chicago DUI attorney believes that accidents happen.

Still, it’s not every day that a U.S. Supreme Court Justice is a defendant.

The Supreme Court justice was ticketed early Tuesday for his role in a four-car fender-bender. No injuries to anyone but the cars — including Scalia’s, which had to be towed.

Brooke Salkoff saw it all go down. The former NBC reporter told us she was just behind Scalia’s vehicle, a shiny black BMW in the left lane. “It slammed into the car in front of his, which pushed the other two forward,” and caused them all to skew into the right lane, she said.
[T]he justice got a ticket for following too closely. Fine: $70, plus a $20 special assessment, or, said Schlosser, “he can contest it in court.

Anyone else think he will hire a lawyer to make it just go away

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Chicago DUI attorney comments on keeping DUI checkpoint information away from the public

Wow!  Look what happens in the news when you are in court or otherwise going about your day.  You are so bombarded by celebrities hurling chairs or going to trial on theft charges, and the passing of a legend that I bet you miss when your representatives try to take away your right to know what’s going on.

From PCMag.com:
 Four Democratic senators on Tuesday penned a letter to Apple, Google, andResearch in Motion to urge the companies to remove apps that provide users with information about DUI checkpoints.
"With more than 10,000 Americans dying in drunk-driving crashes every year, providing access to applications that alert users to DUI checkpoints is harmful to public safety," according to the letter, which was signed by Sens. Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Frank Lautenberg, and Mark Udall.
The senators asked the companies to remove the apps, unless the app creators remove DUI or DWI checkpoint functionality.
"One application contains a database of DUI checkpoints updated in real-time. Another application, with more than 10 million users, also allows users to alert each other to DUI checkpoints in real time," they wrote. "Giving drunk drivers a free tool to evade checkpoints, putting innocent families and children at risk, is a matter of public concern."

Surely, it’s not only the drunk drivers using the app, is it?  Oh no, there's also that small bit about the Constitution requiring publication of these checkpoints, but I guess they are trying to avoid mentioning the law.

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Chicago DUI attorney thinks you may want to stick to drinking those green shakes this holiday weekend

This Chicago DUI attorney will admit that she’s surprised that there will be DUI arrest today, tonight, and through the weekend.

The Loop is actually quiet and it is clear that many of my colleagues are taking today and tomorrow off from work.  As the saying goes, everyone’s Irish on St. Patrick’s Day!

The Chicago Police Department will conduct a Roadside Safety Check in the Near North
(018th ) District at North Ave and Kingsbury.  The Roadside Safety Check will commence at 8:00 p.m. on Friday, March 18, 2011 and end at 4:00 a.m. on Saturday, March 19, 2011.

 An additional Roadside Safety Check will be conducted in the Calumet (005
th) District at 11800 S. Halsted.  The Roadside Safety Check will commence at 8:00 p.m. on Saturday, March 19, 2011 and end at 4:00 a.m. on Sunday, March 20, 2011.

Trust me the police will be out looking for driving violations starting now!

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Chicago DUI attorney comments on new insurance legislation that doesn't pass muster

This Chicago DUI attorney has posted here about  driving without insurance.

Seriously, the things that get to the floor as possible new laws never cease to astonish me.

Automobile insurance; denial of coverage to unlicensed drivers.  An insurer issuing a policy of automobile liability insurance listing a driver as insured shall not deny coverage to that driver for the sole reason that he or she lacks a valid drivers license, provided that such person was identified on the application for the policy as an unlicensed driver.  However, nothing in this Section shall prohibit an insurer from requesting or enforcing a named driver exclusion with respect to an unlicensed driver.

So what’s wrong with this you ask?  Well first, it means your insurance has to continue to cover the claim whenever you are involved in an accident with an uninsured motorist.  Yes, even if the other party was at fault for the accident.  Now before you get righteously indignant and start talking about suing the individual just take a deep breath and think.  What are the odds that the person who doesn’t have insurance has money to pay your damages when you sue them?  Yep.  You are probably looking at a judgment proof individual.

Another problem with this bill is it lets the insurer take money from the unlicensed driver for the premiums, giving the unlicensed driver the false belief that she’s covered, while at the same time, permitting the insurance company to exclude the unlicensed driver.  You don’t expect an individual to realize that the policy they are paying for excludes them or their spouse or their young adult son or daughter do you?

At the end of the day, there’s no reason for this bill to be written into law.  Why do taxpayers need to codify the insurance industry’s desire to take money from folks while not covering any claims made on the purchased policies?