Learn your rights. The actions a person takes and the statements a person makes prior to and following an arrest can have a huge impact on your case!

Most importantly: Remain Silent! If you are being questioned chances are good you are a suspect and they are gathering evidence against you. Law enforcement will offer you encouragement to cooperate and tell you things will go easier on you if you talk to them, however, doing this may put your rights at risk and jeopardize your case! DO NOT ANSWER QUESTIONS WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY!

2. If they read or tell you your Miranda rights, they suspect you have committed a crime. Just as when an officer merely approaches and questions you, you have the right, if you are stopped, to refuse to answer any questions if the answer would tend to incriminate you. Also, if you are only being stopped, you can refuse to allow an officer to search your person. Further, anything you say can be used as evidence against you. Sometimes people think that what they are saying won’t incriminate them, when in fact, what they say provides a link in a chain of information that could incriminate them.

3. You may be arrested by a police officer who personally saw you violate any state statute, city ordinance or federal law. The law may be a serious crime (a felony) or a lesser offense (a misdemeanor) or when there is a warrant for your arrest, whether or not you are aware of the warrant.

4. If you are arrested, do not argue with or resist the police. Arguing or resisting the police will not help you; it may increase your chances that the police will arrest you and bring criminal charges against you. It probably also will give them grounds to bring even more criminal charges against you, and it may make it harder for you to get out of jail on bail if you are charged. Once officers no longer have grounds to detain you, they should tell you that you are free to go.

5. If you are arrested you have rights that you should be aware of:

The right to remain silent and not answer any questions at all

The right to know that if you waive (give up) your right to remain silent and do answer questions, the police can use your answers against you in a court to get you convicted. Even if you begin to answer questions, you have the right to stop answering questions at any time and to speak with an attorney;

You have the right to speak privately with an attorney before you answer any questions or sign anything If you cannot afford an attorney and if the crime for which you have been arrested has jail time as a possible penalty, you have a right to have an attorney appointed for you to represent you at no cost to you before being questioned, and to have that attorney present with you during any questioning to which you may later agree to submit. Remember, you cannot be penalized for refusing to answer an officer’s questions. If you try to cooperate by answering questions while you are being held in police custody, you may create difficulties for your lawyer in defending you later on. ALWAYS ASK TO SPEAK TO A LAWYER.

If you find yourself questioned or arrested it is important for you to be aware of your rights. Guilty or innocent, it is important for you to adhere to them in order for your attorney to provide you with the best defense possible.

For more information concerning your rights please visit our website at www.padamslawok.com. Adams Law office is located at 2 W. 6th St. Suite 500 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119 or we can be reached at 918-587-8700. Our firm specializes in the defense of serious criminal offenses throughout Oklahoma.

Now when most people are pulled over, their first inclination is to cooperate as much as possible with the police officer. This is good. Every DUI attorney will advise you to be polite and cooperate with the officer, such as by tendering your driver’s license, registration and proof of insurance. However, the second inclination for those pulled over is to try and convince the officer they should not be arrested, or convince the officer they are not impaired over the legal limit. Good drunk driving lawyers will tell you that is absolutely the worst thing they can try to do because of the evidence they will end up giving the police officer. Police officers love asking questions such as, “Where have you been tonight?”, “How many drinks have you had?”, “Where are you coming from?”

A good DUI attorney will always advise you NOT to answer these questions, but rather let the police officer know that you are happy to cooperate with him or her, but that you wish to maintain your right to remain silent and not self-incriminate yourself as protected by the Fifth Amendment.

Police officers ask those kinds of questions in effort build their case against you. They want you to incriminate yourself and justify why they should arrest you for drinking and driving. Police officers do not care where you came from or where you are going. They just want to see if your speech is slurred or whether you will admit to having had “5 beers” that night, because this is evidence that can be used against you at trial.

Under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, “No person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” You have the right to tell the officer that you do not wish to answer any questions as an exercise of your Fifth Amendment right to not self-incriminate.

In the end, if you are arrested for operating while intoxicated or another DUI-related charge, the prosecution will still have to prove you were guilty of the crime. You are innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, the less evidence the prosecution has to show you were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the better your defense will be.

Please note that none of the above constitutes legal advice. You should consult with a licensed attorney in your state for legal advice.

The GL Law Group, PLC provides free information on Michigan DUI law and guide to choosing a good Michigan DUI attorney. If you have recently been arrested for a DUI, it’s important to contact a good DUI lawyer soon. A guilty DUI conviction can ruin your life. Contact us to set up a free DUI case review.

In People v. Hrlic, the defendant was stopped after a police officer observed her change lanes without using her turn signal. She was subsequently arrested for operating while intoxicated. She tried to supress the evidence gathered against her on the basis that the police stop was invalid. The defendant argued that the statute was unconsitutionaly vague and that she was not required to use her turn signal when changing lanes, but the court of appeals disagreed, noting the following in its opinion published on November 29, 2007:

MCL 257.648 states that, “before stopping or turning from a direct line, [the driver] shall first see that the stopping or turning can be made in safety and shall give a signal as required [.] Therefore, the purpose of the statute is to provide notice of movements along the route that could impact other motorists. We see no reason to make a distinction between movement off the roadway and movement between lanes when the legislative aim is the same for both situations. Accordingly, a reasonable person of ordinary intelligence is not required to speculate about the phrase’s meaning, and MCL 257.648 provides fair notice of what conduct is proscribed. We hold that MCL 257.648 requires drivers to use a turn signal when changing lanes on a highway and is not unconstitutionally vague.

Based on this ruling, the police may stop you for failure to signal when changing lanes in Michigan. That said, the next time you drive after consuming alcoholic beverages (which we do not condone, but happens), if you want to avoid being arrested for operating while intoxicated, then you will not want to give the police a valid reason to stop you, and this now includes signaling each time you change lanes.

Roadside field sobriety tests (FSTs), developed at the behest of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), are commonly employed by police officers during DUI stops to determine whether a driver is under the influence of alcohol.

FSTs generally consist of a battery of three to five exercises, such as walking and turning in a different direction, standing on one leg, nystagmus (using the eyes to track an object), touching the finger to the nose and reciting the alphabet.

The officer may subjectively decide whether the individual failed the test, or he may decide after applying recently-promulgated federal scoring standards. The NHTSA thinks these tests are a reliable way to gauge sobriety; however, there is mounting evidence that they are anything but.

Many FSTs are based on the concept of divided attention, which occurs when an individual must concentrate on more than one thing at the same time. A driver must divide her attention among various physical and mental activities to safely operate a vehicle, and her ability to do so is significantly reduced by the consumption of alcohol.

Ideally, FSTs evaluate the same mental and physical capabilities that a person needs to drive: information processing; short-term memory; judgment and decision making; steadiness, sure reactions; clear vision; small muscle control; and coordination of the limbs.

The most recently developed of the FSTs is the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test. HGN does not test a driver’s ability to divide his attention, but it is thought to be an even more accurate means to detect whether a person has consumed alcohol because it measures involuntary eye movement.

Nystagmus is an involuntary oscillation of the eye, and it occurs naturally in human eyes when they focus too far off center (straight ahead). If a sober person tracks an object from side to side, the eyes will follow it smoothly up to a certain point, when they will begin to oscillate. If an intoxicated person tracks an object from side to side, alcohol will make nystagmus more pronounced, meaning the eyes will oscillate sooner.

However, alcohol is not the only cause of pronounced nystagmus. Nystagmus can be caused by inner ear problems, flu, strep throat, measles, syphilis, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, hypertension, glaucoma and epilepsy.

Temporary conditions such as motion sickness, sun stroke, eye strain or fatigue, and changes in atmospheric pressure may also result in nystagmus. Further, the consumption of common substances such as caffeine, nicotine, or aspirin can also lead to nystagmus. An individual’s circadian rhythms or biorhythms also affect nystagmus readings.

The integrity of the original research affirming the validity of the HGN test has been called into question, and in 2001 additional research indicated that the test is improperly administered by most police officers. HGN, however, is not the only FST to be called into question. The entire battery of tests appears to offer dubious evidence of intoxication.

The most obvious problem is that the conditions under which FSTs are given almost guarantee failure: usually late at night; along a graveled or sloped roadside; with unsteady lighting from passing cars’ headlights, the officer’s flashlight and patrol car’s strobe and headlights; and sometimes gusts of wind from intemperate weather or passing cars. The test is given to a person who is usually nervous and possibly frightened.

In 1991, Clemson University conducted a study on the accuracy of FSTs. Police officers were shown videotapes of individuals performing six common FSTs and asked to determine whether they were too intoxicated to drive. The officers concluded that almost half of the people were too drunk to drive; however, unknown to the officers, none of them had consumed any alcohol.

Given the questionable reliability of FSTs, it is no wonder they are surrounded by controversy and DUI defense attorneys often advise people not to submit to them.

Having twice been involved in crashes caused by drunk drivers, Lance Knowlton has a deep appreciation for this ongoing problem. Learn how you can save lives in your community and make money at the same time, go to: http://www.alcoholalert.com/alcohol-breath-testing.html

Article Source: http://www.ArticleBiz.com

Mandatory alcoholism treatment for people incarcerated for alcohol-related offenses and significant changes in our attitudes toward drinking alcohol, when added to the current anti-drunk driving campaigns and laws, are likely to make a major impact on reducing the number of people in our society who die in alcohol-related traffic accidents.

Three Sobering Facts

An article entitled “Drunk Driving” was featured on the “Insurance Information Institute” website in February of 2007. Pardon the pun, but the following three statistical facts that were discussed in this article are quite “sobering.”

Alcohol-Related Fatalities

First, in spite of increasing the number of anti-drunk driving laws and campaigns, the number of people who died in alcohol-related accidents went down by only .2% from 2004 to 2005 (16,919 in 2004 versus 16,885 in 2005). While every life saved is important, this decrease, from a statistical standpoint, however, was not significant. In other words, the fact that 34 fewer people died in alcohol-related accidents in 2005 than in 2004 could have happened totally by chance rather than because of stricter drunk driving laws or because of the influence of citizen activist groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD).

Repeat DUI Offenders

Second, even with the passing of stricter DUI laws and consequences, over 50% of US drivers arrested for drunk driving are repeat offenders. This statistic is disturbing when viewed on its own merits. What has also become “newsworthy,” however, is the number of repeat offenders who have received an outrageous number of DUIs.

For instance in early 2006, an Ohio man who received 12 DUIs within a ten-year period of time killed two Hiram college students in an alcohol-related accident. Not surprisingly, many people in the local community were outraged with the driver who accidentally killed the two college students.

What was perhaps more revealing in this case, however, was the number of phone calls made to the radio talk shows by people asking who the judges and prosecutors were and what the consequences were for this driver after he received his 3rd, his 8th, and his 11th DUIs. In other words, people starting asking the “tough questions” regarding the accountability of those who received multiple DUIs as well as the accountability of the judges and prosecutors who were involved in the repeat offenders’ legal proceedings.

Many Drivers with Suspended Licenses Still Drive

Third, 67% of US drivers with suspended licenses still drive. From a logical standpoint, many people must be asking themselves how this is possible in an age of technological advancement that features capabilities such as “real-time” computer access to driver registration information that is available to the law enforcement community.

Drunk Driving Countermeasures

According to the authors of “Drunk Driving,” a number of countermeasures have been undertaken that have targeted alcohol-related fatalities on the US roads. For instance, existing drunk driving laws have become stricter, new laws have been passed, drunk driving task forces have been established by many states, and citizen activist groups such as MADD have influenced some of the attitudes toward drinking and driving in our society.

(more…)

In the United States, many people lose their lives each year due to car accidents caused by intoxicated drivers. California is one of the states in the country with the most number of bars, restaurants and other establishments serving liquors to patrons. Consequently, there are a growing number of car accidents caused by having intoxicated drivers. DUI accidents and cases filed and pending in court are already clogging the court dockets in the said state.

Drunk drivers should be held accountable for accidents caused by their intoxication. However, they are not the only ones to be held liable, penalized and prosecuted for these alcohol-related vehicle accidents.

If you are a victim of a driving-under-influence of liquor or DUI accident, you can definitely claim damages against the drunk driver. The usual damages to be sought after include the following:

- property damage, actual medical costs based on your evaluation - treatments, surgeries and rehabilitation and future health care costs when necessary - loss of income for salaries unable to earn due to absence from work, and; - Pain and suffering brought about by the trauma you experienced because of the devastating accident caused by a drunk driver’s negligence.

As you can see, you can claim a lot from the drunk driver including punitive damages aside from the economic ones, as penalty for the grave misconduct committed by the drunk driver. Punishment for drunk drivers would also help to deter others who might be thinking of getting behind the wheels after drinking.

If you are a victim of a vehicle caused by a drunk driver, you need the assistance of an expert car accident and personal injury lawyer to help you claim for damages.

Aside from the drunk drivers themselves, liquor stores can also be made liable for serving liquor drinks to already intoxicated individuals. These establishments must not only think about the profits they earn from selling liquors and intoxicating drinks. They should also be aware that what they serve to their patrons could affect them in such a way that when they leave the establishments, they have to drive a car and they might get into an accident when too intoxicated.

It is negligent for an establishment to serve liquor continuously to already intoxicated patrons. It can be reasonably inferred that these intoxicated patrons may hurt themselves or others once they lost control of their faculties.

Expert car accident lawyers can help you pursue not only the drunk driver but also establishments that serve liquor without monitoring their patrons’ conditions.

Having the right lawyer to pursue your claim would be helpful in holding people accountable and preventing others from committing the same negligent act. This step helps to protect others who might also be involved in DUI accidents.

Our Los Angeles Attorneys are very competent in handling slip and fall injuries and other personal injury related cases.

Article Source: http://www.ArticleBiz.com

They say that there are always certain things that would not and could never be put together, and despite efforts of having them in the same boat, an inevitable result would be the sinking therefore. A classic example is the marriage of drinking and driving. Alcohol has always been the easy culprit for accidents in the road. The explanation is actually quite simple, in a situation when focus and alertness is needed, alcohol serves as a depressant that would actually lead to failure of this essential senses. As a consequent result, drastic vehicular mishaps are brought about and injuries and lost to countless of lives have been the eventual outcome.

There is no prohibition in going out late at nights, and having a drink or two, or even get wasted if that was your choice, provided of course if you are of age to do so. The prohibition begins when after being drunk, you begin to take the wheel and drive like a madman without regard to the safety of persons and property and even your own life. Alcohol has that effect on the driver of the motor vehicle, that is the primary reason why it is abhorred in our streets.

Drinking under the influence of liquor is far drastic a negligence as opposed to driving without a license, since in the latter at least you are sober and you have the clarity of mind to consider the safety of persons and property. The only negligence is that you really have no authority to drive the vehicle you are currently controlling. As for the former, notwithstanding the fact that you have your license with you, still your state of mind creates a dangerous condition not only to your self, but more so the people around you who do not even have a simple clue that you are indeed drunk and driving with a drugged mind.

Drinking and driving is so grave an offense, that not only would it lead to the suspension or ultimate cancellation of your license to drive a vehicle, but if caught it may even be a reason for your eventual imprisonment. Probation or service to the community are some common penalties for violation of the rule, yet with constant disregard to such rule of conduct, imprisonment has been seen as a good deterrent for habitual malefactors of the said offense. Hence, if you are a victim of an injury brought about by the negligence of a driver who drove despite being drunk, contact your DUI Car Vehicle Accident Lawyers, they would see to it that the appropriate penalty would be meted out upon the guilty driver.

For more information about vehicular accidents visit our Los Angeles Attorneys website

Article Source: http://www.ArticleBiz.com

A number of people charged with this offense are not always guilty. Scholarly research shows that most of the sobriety tests performed are inconclusive. In many cases, chemical tests, breath analyzers (Intoxilyzer 5000), or infrared breath machines are not considered valid. Many of the field sobriety tests performed to judge whether the driver’s motor skills are impaired are considered faulty, as they are not performed uniformly and in many cases the police officers improperly guide and instruct the person. In the hands of an adept criminal lawyer or a DUI lawyer who can argue the credibility of the tests, you can avoid the damages that DUI charges may bring. DUI Lawyers can also obtain a pre-trial ruling through which the sobriety tests can be excluded from being produced as evidence on the grounds of lack of a adequate scientific analysis.

Effects of DUI charges:

· Guaranteed suspension of driver license and driving privileges. In some cases, if you hold driver licenses in more than one state, you can lose both. Suspension can last anywhere from 90 days to 5 years.

· Your vehicle can be sent for impounding.

· Probation.

· Time doing Community Service.

· Heavy fines.

· Mandatory counseling.

· Incarceration (even for first timers).

· House arrest.

· And in most cases, time in prison.

Most of the proficient and experienced DUI attorneys and Criminal Defense Attorney’s will tell you that the majority of people charged with DUI/DWI are not irrational juveniles, but average, law-abiding citizens who were slapped with heavy fines and charges after just two glasses of wine. As laws get tougher, equally tough are the criminal lawyers who can tackle most of the charges. Do not go to an average lawyer who might naively expose you to more liabilities. DUI/DWI offenses are ugly, and if not handled correctly, the charges can accumulate.

If you are wrongly charged, by law you have no reason to be facing charges. So remember the law is on your side. Hire an excellent criminal lawyer with whom you can go through all of the details of the trial. Discuss with them the reason for the charges, and all possible allegations and charges that the opposing counsel might throw at you. Also try to find outstanding character witnesses who will stand by you. Therefore, it is important to hire a knowledgeable DUI lawyer who will guide you in the preparation for the trial and make you aware of all the penalties you may face.

It is important to avoid drunk-driving at any cost; but if you have already been charged, it is imperative that you act quickly. As soon as you are charged with the misdemeanor, contact a skilled DUI Defense Attorney who can help you avoid the harsh penalties. For skilled and expert advice from a San Jose DUI defense attorney, contact Lipton Law Offices today.

This article is written by Douglas R. Lipton the founder of Lipton Law Offices. Mr. Lipton has over thirty years experience in criminal defense and cases involving violation of criminal law in San Jose and surrounding cities in California.

Article Source: http://www.ArticleBiz.com

The DUI defendant’s primary argument on appeal was that her first OWI conviction was obtained in violation of her right to counsel and, therefore, that first operating while intoxicated conviction could not be used to support her OWI third offense conviction. Specifically, the DUI defendant claimed that she was denied her request for a court appointed lawyer and her first OWI conviction eventually led to five days in prison. Consequently, she argued on appeal that the trial court erred for denying her request to withdraw her guilty plea.

The Michigan Court of Appeals disagreed. “‘A collateral attack on a prior conviction underlying a present charge may not be made after a defendant’s plea of guilty to the present charge is accepted.’” Citing the Michigan Supreme Court case People v. Roseberry, the court of appeals noted that, “To be timely, such a motion must be made before a defendant’s plea of guilty or nolo contendere is accepted.”

Based on this rule, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court. “In the case at bar, once the Lenawee transcript was filed in the circuit court, the trial court accepted defendant’s guilty plea without any further discussion between the court and the parties. Therefore, even if we were to assume that defendant’s first OWI conviction was obtained in violation of her right to counsel, because defendant’s plea was accepted without defendant moving to set aside the prior conviction, defendant could no longer make a collateral attack regarding her prior underlying OWI conviction.”

The DUI defendant also raised on appeal an ineffective assistance of counsel argument, which the Michigan Court of Appeals rejected.

Click here to read the entire opinion.

According to the Michigan Court of Appeals, one late-night, “a witness observed a truck being driven erratically.  A public safety officer responding to the reported incident saw the truck do a U-turn, then park. The officer parked his patrol car, walked up to the truck, and saw defendant in the driver’s seat of the truck. The officer also saw defendant’s sixyear- old son sitting in the passenger seat. Because defendant smelled of alcohol, the officer performed field sobriety tests on him. Concluding that defendant was drunk, the officer placed him under arrest. A blood test later showed that defendant’s blood alcohol level was .12. The prosecutor charged defendant with resisting arrest and with OUIL with a juvenile passenger. At the first trial on these charges, the jury acquitted defendant of resisting arrest but deadlocked on the OUIL. The trial court held a second jury trial on this charge, resulting in the present conviction.”

The DUI defendant argued that his Michigan DUI lawyer was ineffective “for failing to object to testimony provided by two public safety officers describing defendant’s belligerent conduct after his arrest, including a callous remark defendant made about his son being placed in foster care.”  The Michigan Court of Appeals, however, disagreed, noting that to convict the DUI defendant, “the prosecutor had to prove that defendant was operating a vehicle while intoxicated with a person under age 16 in the vehicle. MCL 257.625(1)(a), (7)(a).” According to the court, the evidence at issue was “relevant to the issue of the identity of the person actually driving the truck when it was observed swerving on the roadway, and to whether defendant was intoxicated.”

The court of appeals concluded that even if it were to assume that the DUI defendant’s lawyer had objected to the disputed evidence and that it would have been sustained by the court, the DUI defendant failed “to show that the trial result was unreliable, and that the result would have been different but for counsel’s failure to object.”

Click here to read the entire opinion.