If you are out drinking, and plan to drive, you need to know what is in your drink at all times. No, I am not talking about date rape (and guys this applies to you as well), read on. You could be charged with a DUI for driving under the influence of alcohol that has been enhanced by drugs, even if you did not know you had consumed drugs!
I recently overheard a conversation in a beauty salon, wherein a woman told the story of being in a bar recently, at which time she became tired of a fellow (male) patron's politically charged rant. When he went to the bathroom, she passed his "friends" an Ambien, which, at her request, they placed in his drink. This is a variation on the great Chicago tradition of "slipping a Mickey". After Mr. Poitical Rant's "friends" indulged her request, she left the bar, with no knowledge of whether Mr. Rant drove home safely, or what happened to him that night.
Fast forward. Our protagonist saw Mr. Political Rant and his "friends" a few weeks later; the guy appeared none the worse for wear. Apparently, and fortunately, there had been no vehicular accident involving the unsuspectingly doped bar patron on the night in question, nor any other reason for the police to take a breath, urine, or blood sample from him. It is very easy to imagine many less fortunate outcomes, including accidents involving fatalities, run-of-the mill accidents, and probable cause stops from bad driving. Any of these unfortunate happenings could have led to the unsuspecting doped patron facing a DUI charge not of his making.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
You Aren't Behind on Your Child Support Payments Are You?
One more reason, besides the obvious, to stay current on your child support payments, your Illinois driver's license can be suspended.
I am not quite certain what the connection is between a driver's license and delinquent child support payments because many parents need to be able to drive in order to work. It is the payment from work that permits them to pay child support. Anything that would hamper the parent from earning a wage suggests to me a decreased ability to pay child support but this plan has brought in millions of dollars in delinquent child support.
It is important that you stay current on your child support payments. If you are unable to do so, it is not the custodial parent you need to talk to but the court in order to avoid the suspension. It is not uncommon to have informal payment arrangements where you pay what you can directly to the custodial parent. This will not prevent your driver's license from being suspended if the official court records suggest that your payments are delinquent.
Under this law, the court can order the driver's license suspension and that order is then submitted to the Secretary of State. The order can be entered once the court has determined that the parent is more than 90 days behind in making payments.
In Illinois, driving while your license is suspended is a criminal misdemeanor. According to the Illinois Vehicle Code, you can be found guilty of this offense for driving or being in physical control of the vehicle. An individual who is convicted of this offense the maximum sentence is 364 days in jail and/or fines up to $2,500.
I am not quite certain what the connection is between a driver's license and delinquent child support payments because many parents need to be able to drive in order to work. It is the payment from work that permits them to pay child support. Anything that would hamper the parent from earning a wage suggests to me a decreased ability to pay child support but this plan has brought in millions of dollars in delinquent child support.
It is important that you stay current on your child support payments. If you are unable to do so, it is not the custodial parent you need to talk to but the court in order to avoid the suspension. It is not uncommon to have informal payment arrangements where you pay what you can directly to the custodial parent. This will not prevent your driver's license from being suspended if the official court records suggest that your payments are delinquent.
Under this law, the court can order the driver's license suspension and that order is then submitted to the Secretary of State. The order can be entered once the court has determined that the parent is more than 90 days behind in making payments.
In Illinois, driving while your license is suspended is a criminal misdemeanor. According to the Illinois Vehicle Code, you can be found guilty of this offense for driving or being in physical control of the vehicle. An individual who is convicted of this offense the maximum sentence is 364 days in jail and/or fines up to $2,500.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
What Is Driving Under the Influence?
Many people believe that they have to be drunk or high in order to be charged and found guilty of DUI in Illinois. They are wrong. Today I will cover drinking and driving, but look for an upcoming blog on drugs and driving.
In Illinois, you can be found guilty if you do not blow, or even if your breathalyzer results are below 0.08 BAC. While the legal limit in Illinois is under 0.08, you are not deemed "sober" (for purposes of the law) unless you blow under 0.05. Even in those instances where you blow under 0.05, you may still be arrested and need to hire an attorney. The range between 0.05 and 0.08 is where you may be found guilty of driving under the influence.
BAC levels in this gray area, or in cases where a blow was not given, may cause other signs to be considered in order to determine whether you are "under the influence". Those signs include:
* there was an accident that was your fault
* driving erratically, e.g. weaving in and out of your lane
* driving the wrong way on a one way street
* slurred speech
* bloodshot eyes
* disheveled clothes
* stumbling or swaying
In addition to the non-exhaustive list of signs above, there are also standardized Field Sobriety Tests (FST). The FSTs include the one-leg stand, walk and turn, and Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN). There are also non-standardized tests such as the finger-to-nose test, alphabet test, or coin test. As you can imagine, there probably would not be an arrest unless the officer thought you failed the test.
What is driving under the influence of alcohol? It all depends.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Little Known Consequences of a Chicago DUI Arrest
Did you know that your license can be suspended just because you were charged with a DUI?
The consequences of driving in Chicago, or anywhere else in Illinois, while your license is suspended or revoked based on a DUI arrest can be huge. There are no emergency defenses, like driving a friend to the hospital, that permit you to drive. Even worse, the car is subject to forfeiture, even if you do not own the car!
Sometimes the lawmakers just doesn't understand the hidden impact of the legislation they pass.
The consequences of driving in Chicago, or anywhere else in Illinois, while your license is suspended or revoked based on a DUI arrest can be huge. There are no emergency defenses, like driving a friend to the hospital, that permit you to drive. Even worse, the car is subject to forfeiture, even if you do not own the car!
Sometimes the lawmakers just doesn't understand the hidden impact of the legislation they pass.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Lake County Judge Keeps HIis Driving Privileges While DUI Case is Pending
Judge David Hall prevailed on his Statutory Summary Suspension Hearing. He will not have his driving privileges restricted while his DUI case is pending in Lake County.
In Illinois, a driver agrees, known as implied consent, to submit to chemical testing, breath, blood, or urine, at the request of an officer who suspects a DUI. There are consequences to the suspected driver whether permission is granted to take the test or not.
In the case of Judge Hall, he did not submit to a breath test however his blood was tested after he was taken to the hospital.
Whenever one is charged with a DUI a distinct action occurs simply based on the arrest, not a subsequent finding of guilty. A driver will have their driver's license suspended for a minimum of three months(90 days) if they submitted to chemical testing. If the driver does not submit then the suspension is for six months (180) days. There are different penalties, often more severe, if the driver holds a Commercial Driver's License(CDL); is under the age of twenty-one; or has been charged before with a DUI. This action is taken by the Secretary of State, not the court hearing the underlying criminal offense of DUI.
To avoid the suspension the driver must have a hearing on the Statutory Summary Suspension, again this is separate from the criminal matter, and prevail in order to avoid losing their driving privileges. In order to have a hearing, one must request it within 90 days of the arrest. Once the request for a hearing has been made, the State must provide a hearing within 30 days. This is to prevent the hardship to the driver of losing driving privileges, assuming a great outcome at the hearing.
The Petition to Rescind Statutory Summary Suspension is narrow in its operation. One can only win for the following reason:
1) The officer did not have probable cause for the traffic stop
2) The officer did not have probable cause to believe the petitioner was driving under the influence
3) The Petitioner did not refuse to submit to testing by the Officer
4) The Petitioner submitted to testing by the Officer and the results were under.08 BAC
I will write more on my blog later but there are big changes coming to Illinois in DUI law as of January 1, 2009.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
U.S. Supreme Court Decisions Influencing DUI Defense
Over the years, the United States Supreme Court has handed down numerous decisions that have had a tremendous impact on the prosecution of DUI cases. The following is a brief survey of a few of these important cases.
Blood Tests Used for DUI Conviction
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966)
The landmark decision in this case allows blood test results to be used as evidence in DUI cases even when taken over the defendant’s objection. In this case, the police officer forced the DUI suspect to submit to the blood test. The court determined that the blood sample drawn by a doctor in a hospital, following the proper procedures, was reasonable. The court ruled that a defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination did not apply to physical evidence, when such evidence came from the individual under medical circumstances. The court also concluded that the taking of blood did not involve the suspect providing communication or testimony, in an oral or written form, which would have been protected under the 5th Amendment.
Hearings Necessary for DUI License Suspension
Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 (1971)
The court ruled that a driver’s license is a possession which may not be taken away without the procedural due process required under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court recognized that a driver’s license is essential to one’s livelihood and a driver’s license may not be taken by the state, such as in the case of a DUI prosecution, without some type of procedural due process. This ruling effectively ensured that a motorist charged with a DUI must receive some type of hearing. This hearing must then allow the individual to challenge the state’s attempt to take away his or her driver’s license for any length of time.
Breath Analysis Used for DUI Conviction
California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984)
The Supreme Court ruled breath analysis tests are admissible evidence in DUI prosecutions even though samples of the suspect’s breath are not preserved as possible exculpatory evidence.
Officers in this case used a device called an intoxilyzer to determine the blood alcohol concentration of a suspected drunk driver. The breath test required the driver to breathe into the intoxilyzer, thus providing a breath sample. The device then recorded the level of alcohol concentration in a printout, thereby providing a breath analysis. The driver’s breath was removed from the device and not saved. Individuals prosecuted using intoxilyzer results argued that they should have access to any evidence necessary to their defense. They argued that they should be given the opportunity to independently analyze the breath used to determine the blood alcohol concentration. However, the Supreme Court determined that the breath collected from any suspect was unnecessary to their defense. This decision was based on the finding that the intoxilyzer had extremely low error rates and that an individual could challenge the results through other means, such as cross examination of the officer that performed the test.
These cases represent just a small part of the many influential decisions related to DUI law that the Supreme Court has handed down. Be sure to return to my blog for more information regarding court decisions influencing drunk driving defense. Thanks for reading my blog. If you have a comment, please feel free to post it here, but keep in mind your comments will not be confidential. If you have been accused of a DUI or traffic violation, contact me for a free, confidential consultation.
Blood Tests Used for DUI Conviction
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966)
The landmark decision in this case allows blood test results to be used as evidence in DUI cases even when taken over the defendant’s objection. In this case, the police officer forced the DUI suspect to submit to the blood test. The court determined that the blood sample drawn by a doctor in a hospital, following the proper procedures, was reasonable. The court ruled that a defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination did not apply to physical evidence, when such evidence came from the individual under medical circumstances. The court also concluded that the taking of blood did not involve the suspect providing communication or testimony, in an oral or written form, which would have been protected under the 5th Amendment.
Hearings Necessary for DUI License Suspension
Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 (1971)
The court ruled that a driver’s license is a possession which may not be taken away without the procedural due process required under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court recognized that a driver’s license is essential to one’s livelihood and a driver’s license may not be taken by the state, such as in the case of a DUI prosecution, without some type of procedural due process. This ruling effectively ensured that a motorist charged with a DUI must receive some type of hearing. This hearing must then allow the individual to challenge the state’s attempt to take away his or her driver’s license for any length of time.
Breath Analysis Used for DUI Conviction
California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984)
The Supreme Court ruled breath analysis tests are admissible evidence in DUI prosecutions even though samples of the suspect’s breath are not preserved as possible exculpatory evidence.
Officers in this case used a device called an intoxilyzer to determine the blood alcohol concentration of a suspected drunk driver. The breath test required the driver to breathe into the intoxilyzer, thus providing a breath sample. The device then recorded the level of alcohol concentration in a printout, thereby providing a breath analysis. The driver’s breath was removed from the device and not saved. Individuals prosecuted using intoxilyzer results argued that they should have access to any evidence necessary to their defense. They argued that they should be given the opportunity to independently analyze the breath used to determine the blood alcohol concentration. However, the Supreme Court determined that the breath collected from any suspect was unnecessary to their defense. This decision was based on the finding that the intoxilyzer had extremely low error rates and that an individual could challenge the results through other means, such as cross examination of the officer that performed the test.
These cases represent just a small part of the many influential decisions related to DUI law that the Supreme Court has handed down. Be sure to return to my blog for more information regarding court decisions influencing drunk driving defense. Thanks for reading my blog. If you have a comment, please feel free to post it here, but keep in mind your comments will not be confidential. If you have been accused of a DUI or traffic violation, contact me for a free, confidential consultation.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Update on Former Lake County Chief Judge David Hall
In a prior blog entry, we followed the arrest of Lake County Chief Judge David Hall for driving under the influence and resisting arrest following an incident on Illinois Highway 60 on April 26th. At the time of this arrest, Hall refused to submit to field sobriety or breathalyzer tests. Hall had entered a plea of not guilty and asserted that arresting Vernon Hills officer Jesse Goldsmith used pepper spray on Hall without provocation, while Hall was seated in his vehicle. According to Goldsmith’s report, he used pepper spray on Hall after Hall refused to exit the vehicle.
Hall had hoped to demonstrate at a pre-trial hearing that Goldsmith lacked probable cause to stop his car. However, presiding Judge Keith Brown of Kane County ruled that Goldsmith’s traffic stop was justified. Judge Brown determined that Goldsmith’s report that Hall swerved and crossed the center line several times sufficiently established probable cause. Hall also hoped to establish that Goldsmith did not have the jurisdiction to arrest Hall. Judge Brown also rejected this argument. He found that Goldsmith first observed Hall’s alleged erratic driving within the village limits of Vernon Hills.
Following Judge Brown’s rulings, the Judge set Hall’s case for a trial date of November 10th, according to the Chicago Tribune. The sufficiency of the evidence available to the prosecution to obtain a conviction is unclear because Goldsmith passed away on June 2nd from a heart attack. Typically, the arresting officer will be called to testify to the circumstances leading to the arrest and any information contained in the officer’s reports. A second arresting officer, Mark Sosnoski, maybe available to testify. However, according to news reports, Sosnoski arrived at the scene after Hall had been stopped. As a result, it is unclear whether Sosnoski observations will be sufficient to obtain a conviction.
In Other News: Efforts in Lake County and Kane County to Remove DUI Offenders from the Road
As reported by the Daily Herald, Lake County and Kane County initiated programs to contend with the increase in drinking over holiday weekends. Lake County over Labor Day weekend and Kane County over Memorial Day weekend, each instituted a policy applicable to DUI suspects who refuse to take a breathalyzer test. These individuals are then informed that a search warrant will be issued allowing for the suspect’s blood to be drawn. A refusal to submit to the blood test after the warrant has been issued could lead to contempt charges. The Daily Herald reports that failing the blood test after refusing the breath test could result in an individual’s license being revoked for at least a year.
Thanks for reading my blog. If you have a comment, please feel free to post it here, but keep in mind your comments will not be confidential. If you have been accused of a DUI or traffic violation, contact me for a free, confidential consultation.
Hall had hoped to demonstrate at a pre-trial hearing that Goldsmith lacked probable cause to stop his car. However, presiding Judge Keith Brown of Kane County ruled that Goldsmith’s traffic stop was justified. Judge Brown determined that Goldsmith’s report that Hall swerved and crossed the center line several times sufficiently established probable cause. Hall also hoped to establish that Goldsmith did not have the jurisdiction to arrest Hall. Judge Brown also rejected this argument. He found that Goldsmith first observed Hall’s alleged erratic driving within the village limits of Vernon Hills.
Following Judge Brown’s rulings, the Judge set Hall’s case for a trial date of November 10th, according to the Chicago Tribune. The sufficiency of the evidence available to the prosecution to obtain a conviction is unclear because Goldsmith passed away on June 2nd from a heart attack. Typically, the arresting officer will be called to testify to the circumstances leading to the arrest and any information contained in the officer’s reports. A second arresting officer, Mark Sosnoski, maybe available to testify. However, according to news reports, Sosnoski arrived at the scene after Hall had been stopped. As a result, it is unclear whether Sosnoski observations will be sufficient to obtain a conviction.
In Other News: Efforts in Lake County and Kane County to Remove DUI Offenders from the Road
As reported by the Daily Herald, Lake County and Kane County initiated programs to contend with the increase in drinking over holiday weekends. Lake County over Labor Day weekend and Kane County over Memorial Day weekend, each instituted a policy applicable to DUI suspects who refuse to take a breathalyzer test. These individuals are then informed that a search warrant will be issued allowing for the suspect’s blood to be drawn. A refusal to submit to the blood test after the warrant has been issued could lead to contempt charges. The Daily Herald reports that failing the blood test after refusing the breath test could result in an individual’s license being revoked for at least a year.
Thanks for reading my blog. If you have a comment, please feel free to post it here, but keep in mind your comments will not be confidential. If you have been accused of a DUI or traffic violation, contact me for a free, confidential consultation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
