Alabama DUI Lawyer Blog

A recent article published in MSN Money talked about the high costs associated with being arrested for a DUI.

And it's true: A DUI could easily cost you somewhere in the ballpark of $10,000 to $15,000, from start to finish.

The first thing most people want to do is blame the lawyers.

But here's the reality: Hiring a good Alabama DUI lawyer may actually save you quite a bit of money in the long run.

Let's break it down bit-by-bit.

Your initial costs and fines. Upon your arrest, you will more than likely need to post bail. If the charge is relatively minor (first-time, misdemeanor DUI) you may get an automatic bail amount of about $1,000. However, if you have prior offenses or if the circumstances of your arrest were aggravated, you can expect your bail will be much higher - upwards of $20,000 to no bail at all. In any case, your attorney can negotiate at this phase to help reduce your bail amount. We would argue things like your lack of a criminal record, your unlikeliness to flee, your good standing in the community, etc. Not only will this save you bail money off the top, it's also likely to save you money in terms of allowing you to not miss too much time from work.

Fines and court costs will vary from $500 to $10,000, just depending on the severity of the offense and your prior record.

Other associated costs include mandatory DUI classes. Depending on the program, those can range anywhere from $250 to $750. Not to mention, that's time you won't be able to work - for a stretch of anywhere from several days to 15 weeks - so that's additional money lost as well. However, if your lawyer can get the charges reduced, say to a moving violation, or dropped altogether, you won't be required to attend these courses.

Insurance premiums are a big cost associated with DUI. According to Insurance.com, a DUI conviction can up your premiums by nearly 20 percent. Others report their rates doubling, or even tripling.The amount of time you pay that increased premium is going to depend on your insurer, but it's usually dropped after about three years. The average cost for car insurance in Birmingham is $1,345 annually. An additional 20 percent would increase your rate to $1,615 a year, or an additional $800 over the course of three years. But again, you pay a skilled attorney to help you avoid conviction, and you avoid these costs as well.

Then there is the cost of ignition interlocks, which are now required in Alabama for drivers who are convicted of a second or subsequent DUI offense. Initial installation is about $200, and then you pay another $70 to $100 monthly to maintain the device. That adds up quickly. You're looking at as much as $1,400 a year.

Attorneys set their fees based on a number of factors, including his or her education, experience and track record as well as the circumstances of your individual case. DUI case representation can range form $500 to $15,000. It's really going to depend. The Eversole Law Firm is dedicated to doing all we can to extend our services even to those with limited funds.

We realize that for a lot of people, it can be tough to pay that kind of money. But we also urge you to consider how much more you'll be paying if you simply give up the fight and plead guilty.

Continue reading "Birmingham DUIs Can be Quite Costly - Without a Lawyer" »

Here in sunny Alabama, we aren't limited to the waterways solely in the summer months, but June does kick off the unofficial start of the boating season, coinciding with National Safe Boating Week.

Our Birmingham boating DUI lawyers want to make sure we drive home the point that the laws regarding intoxication are the same on the water as they are on the road.

Specifically, the law states that you can't be the driver or in actual physical control of a vessel or any aquaplane, water skis or any other type of marine transportation device if you have a blood-alcohol content of 0.08 percent or higher. Additionally, you are forbidden from doing so while under the influence of a controlled substance or a combination of alcohol and a controlled substance or even under the influence of any substance that might impair your mental or physical abilities.

People tend to have a skewed perception that because they are out on the water that there is a more relaxed atmosphere with regard to DUI. Don't assume that just because you weren't stopped on the road it won't affect your life on land.

Penalties for a first-time violation of this law could result in fines between $600 to $2,100, up to six months in jail and a license suspension of up to a year. On a second offense, the penalties are upped to a maximum fine of $5,100, a sentence of up to one year in jail and a license suspension of up to three years.

If you cause a boating accident or injury, the penalties will be similar to what they would have been had such an incident taken place on the road.

Know too that if you are over the age of 21 and are caught drinking and operating a vessel while someone under the age of 14 is aboard, your fines and penalties will automatically double.

And you are also held to the standard of implied consent, meaning if you refuse a breathalyzer, you can still be charged with a DUI and you will face an automatic license suspension of one year.

Alabama marine authorities say there were a total of 75 boating accidents last year.

Throughout the U.S., there were 651 boating deaths last year. Of those, 17 percent involved alcohol, according to the U.S. Coast Guard.

There are many locations throughout Alabama for boaters to enjoy, but the strict blood-alcohol content laws for boat drivers don't simply apply here. A recent article in USA Today showed that most states have adopted the 0.08 percent standard for boaters. The only states that still use the 0.10 threshold are Wyoming, North Dakota and Michigan. Georgia just reduced its limit last month.

Top contributing causes of boating deaths in 2012, according to the U.S. Coast Guard, were alcohol use, hazardous waters, operator inexperience, operator inattention, weather, excessive speed, sudden medical condition improper loading and overloading.

Continue reading "Alabama Boating DUIs Spike in the Summer" »

Many states are either considering or have already implemented a legal threshold for marijuana intoxication while behind the wheel.

Several states have posed that anyone who tests positive for 0.05 nanograms of THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, in their blood stream should be considered intoxicated. Eleven states have enacted some type of drugged driving law since 1990.

Another five states, including Michigan, assert that any driver with any amount of THC in their system should be considered intoxicated.

Our Alabama marijuana DUI defense lawyers know that these kinds of arbitrary limits are not only inaccurate, they aren't helpful when the ultimate goal is to reduce the risk of impaired drivers and ultimately drive down DUI injuries and deaths.

Instead, drivers who are not at all impaired end up being arrested. They may have consumed the drug days or even weeks ago and still test positive for it. While the psychoactive effects will last only a few hours at most, the drug will remain in their system for much longer.

That's why a recent state Supreme Court decision in Michigan was so encouraging. In People v. Koon, the court ruled in favor of a medical marijuana patient, who fought the zero-tolerance policy for marijuana users. The court said that the state's medical marijuana program exempted patients from that strict interpretation of intoxication, as individuals with a prescription are legally allowed to consume it.

This is of course not the case in Alabama, which has yet to enact any sort of legalized medical marijuana initiative. However, this ruling may serve as a cautionary tale against enacting such strict limits, particularly when those limits aren't based on any scientific fact.

Researchers with both the University of Colorado, Denver and Montana State University recently took a look at the relationship between per se drugged driving thresholds and the overall incidences of traffic fatalities, per the Fatality Analysis Reporting System between 1990 and 2010. What they found was that the relationship is "statistically indistinguishable." In other words, there is no evidence at all that these kinds of limits reduce the number of traffic deaths.

One must wonder, then, what the true reason is for this type of legislation?

Even absent the introduction of a blood-alcohol test, there is the possibility that the court could convict a person of drugged DUI if they used other evidence to prove the intoxication. One way they do this is with the introduction of a witness known as a Drug Recognition Expert. This is a trained police officer who is brought on the scene of a suspected drugged driving case to identify whether an individual is on drugs, what type of drugs and to what degree he or she is intoxicated. But first of all, even for all the training these individuals are given, the end result is still subjective. And secondly, there are only about 6,800 trained DREs in the U.S. - that's fewer than 1 percent of the nation's police force.

The bottom line is that if you are arrested for marijuana DUI in Alabama, you might have a good chance of beating the charge - if you call a good lawyer.

Continue reading "Marijuana DUI Victory Proves Per Se Drug Limits Pointless" »

As the debate continues over whether states should lower the legal blood-alcohol limit from 0.08 percent to 0.05 percent, it's likely to have little impact on Alabama teens.

Our Birmingham underage DUI lawyers know that the change will mean little for under-21 drivers in Alabama, whose legal limit is already at 0.02 percent. For a 160-pound male, that threshold will be reached after consuming less than two beers in an hour.

Consumption of any amount of alcohol by someone under the age of 21 is illegal in Alabama, but one would have to meet that 0.02 percent threshold in order to be considered intoxicated and charged with DUI. The only exception would be if the officer believed you showed obvious signs of intoxication or impairment, regardless of your BAC. That's unlikely for anything under a 0.02 percent, unless you were also under the influence of another substance.

An underage DUI will be treated the same as any other DUI, per Alabama Code Section 42-5A-191, except that the legal threshold is significantly lower. Penalties for a first-time conviction include up to one-year in jail, a fine of up to $2,100, a 90-day license suspension (unless your BAC was between 0.02 percent and 0.08 percent, in which case it's a 30-day suspension).

The reason that state laws are so strict with regard to under-21 drivers is that when they are involved in alcohol-related incidents, those incidents tend to be more serious. An interactive chart prepared recently by staff at The New York Timesshows under-21 drivers are more likely than older drivers to be involved in fatal, alcohol-related crashes, even at relatively low rates of impairment (under 0.04 percent).

The chart aims to show why reducing legal limits might have an impact on DUI fatalities. Even though the majority of fatalities occur when drivers have impairment levels of 0.08 percent or higher, there are still a fair number that occur among those with lower impairment rates. Most of those, however, involve those under the age of 21.

Drivers under the age of 26 cause the majority of auto fatalities in the U.S., regardless of alcohol consumption. However, of those youthful drivers involved in fatal crashes, more than 20 percent had some level of alcohol in their system, which was a higher percentage than other age groups.

It's our personal belief that even in cases of fatal crashes where the youth might have been drinking alcohol, inexperience tends to play more of a critical role.

But the supposition that lowering the legal limits will have any impact on that leaves out one important fact: It's not legal for someone under the age of 21 to drink period. So how will further lowering the legal alcohol limit in a way that won't directly affect them anyway halt this cohort from drinking before driving?

We doubt that it will.

In fact, political grandstanding on the issue is unlikely to effect any real change with regard to underage drinkers, but it probably will result in more arrests for those who are safely, legally indulging.

Continue reading "Alabama Underage DUI: Young Drivers Held to Tougher Standard" »

A DUI arrest is a serious concern for anyone.

But the consequences can be particularly severe for those in certain professional fields, particularly those that are more high-profile.

Our Birmingham DUI lawyers know that recently in Alabama, we've seen a number of these, involving a state prosecution investigators, a school bus driver and a handful of television reporters.

Some will be able to bounce back in their careers, though they may need to move to another market in order for that to be possible.

The best chance they'll have either way will be to reduce their odds of a conviction by hiring an experienced DUI defense lawyer to handle their case. The other benefit to this is having someone who can speak publicly on the person's behalf, particularly in a high-profile situation. While we general don't advise any defendant speaking to the media prior to the conclusion of a case, your attorney may be able to help do some damage control for a public image in the immediate aftermath of an arrest.

In the last six months, three television reporters in Alabama - all at different stations - were arrested on suspicions of DUI.

The first was a veteran anchor of a FOX affiliate, who soon after announced her retirement. A few months later, a traffic reporter from 11 Alive was also arrested. No one was hurt in that incident, in which an officer reportedly stopped her for speeding and nearly clipping another vehicle. A swift public apology was issued, and she kept her job. And then just recently, a WHNT News 19 reporter was arrested in Huntsville. The outcome of that case remains to be seen.

Then there was the arrest last month of a DeKalb County distract attorney investigator on suspicion of DUI. He was reportedly arrested around 3 a.m. on a Saturday, after being pulled over for reckless driving in his state-issued vehicle. He refused to submit to a breathalyzer test. In addition to the regular criminal penalties he'll face, he has been demoted, taken a significant pay cut, ordered to surrender his badge and gun, submit to regular drug testing and enter an alcohol treatment program. Still, he will get to keep his job.

A school bus driver from Shelby County may not be so lucky. She was reportedly arrested around 6:30 a.m. for DUI after she was seen allegedly swerving on her way to work. It is not clear whether she was in a district-issued bus, but it doesn't seem from reports as if there were any children in the vehicle at the time of her arrest. School bus drivers in particular face tough penalties, and if the incident occurred on duty, the legal limit threshold is just 0.02 percent blood-alcohol content, rather than the standard 0.08 percent. If she had been driving with anyone under the age of 14 in the vehicle, she would have been subjected to double the penalties.

DUI enforcement is a big priority here in Jefferson County especially, as we have the highest rate of DUI fatalities in the state (30 of the state's 67). In each of these cases, no matter who you are, a strong criminal defense will be critical to ensuring the best possible outcome.

Continue reading "Alabama DUI has Higher Stakes for Some Professionals" »

Since last fall, when Colorado and Washington state became the first in the nation to approve the use of marijuana for recreational purposes, both have now taken on stricter definitions for what it means to be legally under the influence of the drug while driving.

In Washington state, a provision of the recreational use law held that a blood test showing 5 nanograms or more of THC in one's system would indicate intoxication. Now, a similar measure in Colorado is awaiting the governor's already-promised signature to become law.

Our Birmingham marijuana DUI attorneys know that even though these two states are seen as more lax with regard to marijuana use, users in that state will potentially face a higher uphill battle to have charges of impaired driving dismissed or reduced than would someone in Alabama.

Certainly, though, we may not be far behind, as law enforcement agencies and prosecutors are fully aware -- similar proposals have been made in numerous other states.

But this idea of quantifying marijuana intoxication is a dangerous one for a number of reasons, the biggest of which being that it isn't very accurate, if the goal is to reduce the number of impaired drivers on the road.

First of all, alcohol and marijuana differ not only in the way they affect the body and mind but also in the way the body processes them. Alcohol dissipates from the system very quickly, while traces of marijuana can remain for days or possibly even weeks. So presence of the drug in one's blood - whether it's legal in the state or not - does not necessarily mean one is intoxicated. This is true even when someone's blood content measures above 5 nanograms of THC. Scientifically speaking, there is no clear link between THC levels and intoxication. What's more, the 5 nanogram limit is arbitrary.

According to R. Andrew Sewell, an assistant professor of psychiatry at the Yale School of Medicine, who was quoted by the Wall Street Journal on this very issue, setting these types of limitations will cause many impaired drivers to be missed and a lot of innocent people to be arrested.

The other problem is with field sobriety tests. These tests are subjective as it is. However, while almost all officers are trained in how to identify a driver who is drunk, very few are qualified and specially trained to identify whether a person is under the influence of drugs. Those who can are called Drug Recognition Experts. Their training is intensive and expensive, and there usually aren't enough to be called on for every single case. In the end, a lot of the cases that don't involve a DRE get tossed for lack of reliable evidence.

In Alabama, we don't have those types of limits - yet. Alabama Code 32-5A-191 holds that you can face DUI charges if you are under the influence of a controlled substance "to a degree which renders (the suspect) incapable of safely driving." That's a very vague definition. At least until science and technology catch up, it should remain that way.

In the future, we may see the invention of devices that can accurately detect marijuana intoxication. But we're not there yet, and punishing people on the basis of an arbitrary threshold - slapping them with a criminal record in the process - is hardly fair.

Continue reading "Alabama Marijuana DUI is Tougher for Cops to Prove" »

A commercial party bus driver in suburban Chicago is facing serious criminal and professional penalties for reportedly driving two dozen students to their prom while he was drunk.

We don't want to downplay the seriousness of the alleged offense, but our Birmingham commercial DUI attorneys are troubled that legislators have taken this as an opportunity to grandstand and propose even harsher penalties for all commercial DUI offenders in that state.

All it takes is an overreaction to a singular occurrence like this can result in unnecessary legislation that ends up doing more harm than good.

As it stands, commercial DUI laws are far stricter than they are for any other type of driver, starting with the legal definition of drunk. Except for those under the age of 21, commercial drivers are deemed to be intoxicated when their blood alcohol level reaches a threshold of 0.04 percent. That's half of what it would be for the rest of the population.

For a 190-pound male, that would be about 2 to 3 drinks in one hour. In some cases, a driver might meet this threshold if he drank a few beers the night before and then got back on the road early in the morning.

In Alabama, per Alabama Code 32-5A-191, the legal limit is even less if you are a school bus or day care driver. In that case, you may not legally have a BAC of 0.02 percent or higher.

Any commercial drivers in Alabama who are convicted of DUI while on duty are subject not only to the normal penalties that they would otherwise receive - which includes up to a year in jail and a maximum $2,100 fine - but they will also be subject to an automatic, one-year driver's license suspension. Being unable to drive means being unable to work.

And if someone under the age of 14 was in the vehicle at the time of the offense, the fines and penalties are doubled.

So we take away a commercial driver's money, job, ability to find another job and freedom - and somehow, that isn't enough?

Apparently not for legislators in Illinois. In this case, the driver was arrested for misdemeanor DUI and reckless driving after he was stopped with a BAC of 0.16 percent. Bear in mind that the criminal penalties he faces for those offenses will be in addition to whatever sanctions he will face as a commercial driver under both state and federal law.

However, state lawmakers are using this opportunity to propose a change to the law that would make all commercial driving arrests fall under the category of an aggravated DUI, which is a Class 4 felony punishable by up to three years in prison. The way the law is now, the felony charge may only be applied to school bus drivers with passengers under the age of 18.

But as anyone who has ever been arrested for a commercial DUI well knows, the potential punishment is steep enough without lawmakers piling on.

Continue reading "Commercial DUI in Alabama Can Have Lasting Consequences" »

If the National Transportation Safety Board has its way, more people will be subjected to DUI arrests in Alabama and throughout the country, despite the fact that the suggested proposal would have little impact on reducing the number of DUI injuries and fatalities.

The group has recommended controversial legislative action that would change what it means to be legally drunk, reducing the limit from 0.08 percent blood-alcohol content to 0.05 percent.

Our Birmingham DUI defense lawyers believe this is a horrible idea, for a number of reasons.

For starters, it criminalizes behavior that is safe and acceptable. For example, according to a BAC calculator created by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, let's say you are a 130-pound female. As it stands right now, you can consume about three alcoholic beverages over the course of two hours before you will reach the legal limit of 0.08 percent. If the law were to be changed to a 0.05 percent standard, one drink an hour would put you dangerously close to violating the law if you were to get behind the wheel. So suddenly, having one or two glasses of wine with dinner and then driving home could easily result in a DUI arrest.

Secondly, a change like this would do little to actually solve the problem that the NTSB is trying to address. The issue is that there are 10,000 DUI fatalities in the U.S. annually, and there are tens of thousands of more people injured. Certainly, from a public policy perspective, we can understand why advocates and legislators would want to take action. However, this is not the best way to go about it when you consider that the vast majority of alcohol fatalities are caused by drivers who have a BAC that is well over the current 0.08 percent limit. More often than not, these are chronic offenders whose BAC at the time of the wreck is usually in the 0.15 percent range.

Interestingly, that used to be the limit, prior to the 1990s, before the Clinton administration began a big push for the reduction to .08. Since that time, the number of fatalities has remained at a steady 10,000 annually, meaning that lowering the rate then didn't have much of an impact on reducing fatal crashes. What makes us think then that lowering it even further will have any effect, aside from generating more revenue for the court system and ensuring that more people have criminal records?

Even the NTSB itself has said that, at best, this measure would reduce the number of fatalities by a mere 5 to 8 percent.

A change like this wouldn't come simply at the request of the NTSB, however. It would have to gain the support of federal and state representatives. It's possible even if Congress didn't get on board, at least a few states will move on this and we could be seeing the lower thresholds enacted as early as next year.

In addition to this proposal, the NTSB in its safety report, Reaching Zero: Actions to Eliminate Alcohol-Impaired Driving, recommends mandatory ignition interlocks for all first-time DUI offenders, including first-time arrestees. Another is an increase of compulsory breath testing - similar to DUI checkpoints - in which all drivers may be stopped and required to provide breath samples, regardless of whether there is reasonable suspicion that he or she is intoxicated. Yet another is passive alcohol sensors, for example built into steering wheels, which could measure a person's BAC through the sweat in the hands.

Continue reading "More Birmingham DUI Arrests Likely if BAC Limit Slashed" »

A judge in Florida ruled that a wealthy polo tycoon, previously found guilty of DUI manslaughter and sentenced to 16 years in prison, will be given a new trial.

The reason had to do with misconduct on behalf of a juror, who had gone as far as to conduct his own intoxication tests at home during the trial and had also lied about his past during jury selection.

Our Birmingham DUI defense attorneys recognize that such second chances are rare. Improprieties on behalf of jurors are not as uncommon as one might think, but the due diligence required to catch them won't usually come with dumb luck. An experienced legal defense team is your best armor against this kind of scenario - especially because most defendants aren't fortunate enough to be granted another trial.

As the judge ruling in this case stated, the defendant was entitled to a fair trial - not a perfect one. However, the conduct of this particular juror had rendered the case a "constitutionally impermissible proceeding."

While we would tend to view the at-home intoxication experiment of this juror to be perhaps the most egregious violation, as it essentially equates to entry of additional evidence not approved by the court, the judge decided that alone wouldn't have been enough to grant a new trial. Rather, it was the cumulative effect of all the juror's actions that warranted the case being retried.

The 69-year-old juror reportedly wanted to get on the jury because it was a high-profile case. The prominent defendant had reportedly struck a 23-year-old recent college graduate one night after downing several drinks at a local country club.

As such, the juror is alleged to have concealed information about a DUI conviction his ex-wife had received several years earlier, while he was married to her. He reportedly had a stroke and divorced his wife soon after learning she was having an affair with someone she met in the DUI program.

Then during the trial, the juror reportedly downed the same number and type of drinks consumed by the defendant on the night in question, in order to determine if he was intoxicated. The juror determined that in fact he was intoxicated by consuming that amount - failing to take into account that numerous factors such as weight, height, age, gender and alcohol consumption frequency can all play a role in one's level of intoxication - even when the same type and amount of drink is consumed.

Still, the court might not have known about any of this - but for a book penned by the juror after the end of the trial. Now, it's not illegal for a juror to write about their experiences once the trial is concluded. However, the fact that he lied to get on the jury and then later profited from having done so makes his judgment in the case highly questionable.

All this of course is no guarantee that the defendant will be absolved, but it does at least give him a shot. Having the benefit of knowing what tactics worked and what did not in the first trial will serve to help his lawyers moving forward in the next case. More than likely, though, both sides will negotiate a plea deal in an effort to avoid the cost and attention of another high-profile trial.

Continue reading "DUI Defendant Gets New Trial Following Juror Misconduct" »

A bicyclist was killed in Alabama recently after reportedly being struck by a drunk driver in Mobile.

Our Birmingham DUI attorneys understand that the 28-year-old suspect registered a 0.16 percent blood alcohol level and had previously been arrested for DUI by area law enforcement officers.

Nearly every element of this case is going to present a unique challenge for this man's defense. That's why in felony DUI cases, you absolutely cannot trust your future to a public defender. It is always advisable to seek the services of an attorney who is experienced in this particular area of law.

Consider that a conviction on the vehicular homicide charge alone could net up to a decade in prison.

In any case where you have a fatality, it usually (though not always) prompts police and prosecutors to be more thorough during the course of an investigation. This means that your defense lawyer is going to have to work extra aggressively to find evidence that was potentially overlooked or improperly collected or handled. A novice may not have all the experience necessary.

Next, you have the element of a high BAC. A person is considered legally under the influence of alcohol if he or she registers a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent or higher. If a person is within a few percentage points of that, the attorney may have a strong argument that the margin of error was such that the suspect wasn't actually intoxicated. There has been ample evidence that breathalyzer machines overstate the intoxication level of those tested.

A person who registers a blood alcohol level of 0.15 percent or higher is going to automatically face increased penalties, per Alabama Code Section 32-5A-19(i). For a straightforward DUI involving a first-time offender, we would be talking about a 90-day license suspension, a two-year interlock ignition requirement and penalties that are double to the minimum of what might have been applied for a defendant whose BAC registered under 0.15 percent.

And finally, we have a situation where the defendant has prior DUI convictions. There is a perception surrounding DUI defendants that they aren't "real criminals." That is, they simply made a simple error in judgment. For the most part, that assessment is true. However, it becomes tougher to argue that if the defendant has prior convictions for the same crime. Then he or she could be deemed a habitual offender.

In this case, the defendant reportedly had prior convictions for possession of alcohol by a minor, public intoxication and DUI.

This most recent case involves the death of a 51-year-old bicyclist, who was pronounced dead at the scene of an intersection late on a Saturday night. The defendant is now charged with DUI and one count of vehicular homicide.

None of this is to say that even with these challenges, a DUI conviction can't be successfully fought. What it means is that it is going to take someone with skill and experience to do it.

Continue reading "Fatal Alabama DUI Poses Challenges for Defense" »

Alabama lawmakers have a pair of bills before them - one in the state House and another in the Senate - that anti-drunk driving advocates are pushing to have passed.

Our Birmingham DUI defense lawyers know that the laws in this state are plenty harsh. But no one will be there to lobby on behalf of the drunk driver.

Consider that according to Alabama Code Section 32-5A-191, a person who is convicted of driving under the influence for the first time will face the following:
--Up to 1 year of imprisonment;
--A fine of up to $2,100, but not less than $600;
--A license suspension for up to three months;
--The possibility of having to install an ignition interlock device.

Additional penalties may be tacked on for first-time offenders who registered an extremely high blood alcohol level (above 0.15 percent), or caused serious injury or property damage or who had a minor under the age of 14 inside the vehicle at the time of arrest.

The two measures currently before state legislators are HB477 and SB401. Both involve the ignition interlock program, and the expansion of it.

Alabama was the last state in the country to require ignition interlock devices for certain DUI offenders. If you aren't familiar, an ignition interlock is basically a device that is affixed to an offender's personal vehicle. It is a breathalyzer test that the driver would be required to pass before the engine would start. This option is only applicable to DUI offenders arrested after September 1, 2012.

However, the program has gotten off to a rocky start. There has been very little training offered to state and local police agencies regarding enforcement. And there have also been some strong arguments made for doing away with the program altogether. So judges here in Alabama have been reticent to order defendants to install the devices.

These twin bills would expand the ignition interlock program and streamline certain processes around it. So for example, while a first-time offender still would not be required to have the interlock installed, he or she may be given the option to do so over the course of six months, or have driving privileges totally revoked for three months.

Additionally, the measures would require the courts to notify the state's public safety department of certain convictions requiring the device. There would also be a fund created so that indigent offenders could still get the device installed.

As of right now, 17 other states have these kind of provisions in place for the interlock devices. Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the advocacy group gunning the hardest for their passage, says that in three of those states where these enhanced interlock programs have passed, DUI deaths are down 35 to 46 percent.

However, MADD was not able to provide any clear-cut evidence that this was specifically due to ignition interlock. In fact, DUI deaths have been on the decline for years - prior to the passage of widespread ignition interlock laws. Over the last 10 years nationwide, drunk driving deaths were down 41 percent, as of 2010 - and that trend has continued.

Continue reading "Alabama DUI Law Pushed By MADD Advocates" »

The ruling is now official, straight from the highest court in the land: If you are pulled over on suspicion of DUI and refuse to provide a blood sample upon request, the officer must obtain a warrant before forcing you to submit - usually.

Our Birmingham DUI defense lawyers know that the decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court in Missouri v. McNeely will have sweeping implications for future and pending DUI cases.

Certainly, officers in future DUI arrests are going to be directed to go through the proper procedure in order to obtain a warrant before initiating blood draw without consent.

For pending cases, blood samples taken without a warrant may be subject to suppression. That is, your defense lawyer has a good chance at making a successful argument for why the prosecutor can't use that evidence against you.

This is a major victory because the last time the court ruled on this issue was 1966, and at that time, the justices decided that the warrant requirement didn't apply to a man who had his blood tested two hours after he'd been in the hospital, following a crash. In that case, the court had indicated there were "special facts" involved.

In the McNeely case the officer stopped the defendant for suspected DUI. The defendant refused a breathalyzer and was subsequently taken to a nearby hospital. He also refused a blood test. The officer said he could have fairly easily obtained a warrant to do so anyway, but he chose not to because he had recently read an article that indicated it wasn't necessary.

The Missouri Supreme Court disagreed, and sided with the defendant. The state appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The argument against requiring warrants has a lot to do with biology. Alcohol usually dissipates from the bloodstream at a rate of about 0.015 percent to 0.020 percent per hour, which means the more time passes, the less alcohol a person will have in his or her system. The state had attempted to argue that this essentially amounts to destruction of evidence.

However, the court disagreed. First, it said warrants are not that difficult or time-consuming to obtain. Often, they can be obtained without the officer ever having to leave the site of the traffic stop.

Secondly, all states have implied consent laws, which hold that if you are a motorist and refuse to take a breathalyzer test, you can be prosecuted for a misdemeanor and will receive an automatic, long-term license suspension. These penalties are substantial enough, the court ruled, that forcing a person to undergo an invasive procedure without even the benefit of a warrant was taking it too far.

The exception to this rule would be in exigent circumstances. However, it's a vague standard, and one that may be easily challenged in court, should an officer attempt a warrantless blood draw in the future on this basis.

Continue reading "DUI Blood Tests Require Warrant High Court Rules in Missouri v. McNeely" »