Alabama DUI Lawyer Blog

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" »

An Air Force service member was recently arrested for DUI, following a two-car accident near the Alabama-Mississippi border. At least one person sustained serious injuries and had to be transported to a hospital in Mobile.

Our Birmingham DUI attorneys know that for any military service member, the stakes can be much higher. How the case is handled is going to depend on whether the incident took place on or off base.

In either case, you may face additional military sanctions. If your DUI occurred off-base, you will need an experienced attorney to defend you in civilian court. While the military won't prosecute you under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice if you are also being prosecuted by civilian authorities, the effect to your military career will almost certainly hinge on the outcome of your civilian case. If you are convicted in civilian court for a DUI, you might additionally be given a letter of reprimand, a revocation of pass privileges, mandatory referrals to substance abuse treatment, corrective training, reduction in grade or even a bar to reenlistment.

Plus, you might still be subject to sanctions under UCMJ for misconduct that isn't being prosecuted by civilian authorities, such as resistance to law enforcement or disorderly conduct.

All of this underscores the fact that the importance of a solid defense can not be stressed enough.

Code of Alabama Section 32-5A-191 holds that a person may not be driving or in "actual physical control" of a vehicle while they either have a blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent or are under the influence of alcohol or any substance, controlled or otherwise, that renders you incapable of safely operating a vehicle.

Penalties include up to a year of jail time, a fine between $600 and $1,200, a driver's license suspension for up to three months and the potential for a judge to order you to undergo substance abuse treatment and to have an ignition interlock device installed.

In Alabama, there are five military bases - an Air Force base in Montgomery, Army bases in Bynum, Dale and Madison and a U.S. Coast Guard base in Mobile.

In this case, the 31-year-old Air Force member was driving an Audi A4 with three passengers - all Air Force members - when he rear-ended a Pontiac G5.

After his fellow Air Force member was transported to a Mobile hospital, the defendant was booked on a charge of DUI first offense. It's possible, due to the property damage and injuries caused, that additional charges could follow.

In a statement released soon after the crash, an Air Force spokesman said the military does not condone drinking and driving, and in fact has adopted the "wingman concept" as a way to prevent DUI offenses among military members from occurring in the first place. That is, other service members are expected to speak up or otherwise intervene if one of their own is about to drive while impaired.

In many areas of the country, there is also a service called Airmen Against Drunk Driving, which provides free and anonymous rides to all service members, Department of Defense civilians and base contractors.

If it's too late for that, call us.

Continue reading "Birmingham DUI Serious for Service Members" »

For many high school students, preparing for prom means picking out the perfect dress, booking the limousine and making reservations to a posh restaurant.

However, our Birmingham DUI attorneys understand that at Chelsea High School, about a half hour away, students are gearing up for participation in the "Every 15 Minutes Program."
The program offers a dramatic example of the dangerous and potentially fatal consequences of both impaired and distracted driving on prom night. A simulated motor vehicle crash on the school's football field will feature students who will act as if they are injured and a coroner who will handle simulated, on-scene deaths.

Additionally, sheriff's officials will be on hand to book a teenage drunk driving "suspect."

Students will be shuffled to their classrooms, where a chaplain will read an "obituary" of the students who were killed, detailing how they died. Then, pre-selected juniors and seniors will be called from every class, only to return as "living dead," their faces painted with white make-up and wearing a coroner's tag. They will not be allowed to speak or interact with other students for the remainder of the day.

It sounds an elaborate rouse, but the hope is it will drive home the message that drinking and driving can be deadly.

We sincerely hope it is effective.

Inevitably, there will be some who proceed to consume alcohol that night and get behind the wheel anyway.

Prom and graduation season - April through June - are the most dangerous times for teens. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for young people, and more than one-third of all alcohol-related traffic fatalities involving teens throughout the entire year occur during this time frame.

In 2010, of the teen drivers involved in fatal crashes, 1 out of 5 had alcohol in their system, according to the Centers for Disease Control. The CDC further states that a driver between the ages of 16 and 20 with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent or higher is 30 percent more likely to be involved in a fatal accident than someone who is over the age of 21.

Alabama had one of the highest rates of reported drinking and driving in the country, according to a separate CDC report. The study indicated that between 11.5 and 14.5 Alabama high school students 16 and older answering yes to a question of whether they have ever been impaired behind the wheel.

Those arrested for DUI or any related offense should immediately contact our experienced Birmingham DUI defense lawyers. While we certainly understand the position of parents who hope the entire experience of an arrest and conviction will teach their children a valuable lesson, the fact is, this lesson has the potential to haunt your teen for the rest of his life. A DUI conviction could potentially hinder future scholarship and college entry opportunities, as well as certain career fields. That's why we fight so vigorously to defend our young clients.

As you are still preparing for prom, parents should keep the following in mind:
--Provide your teen with a safe way to get home, such as picking them up or arranging for transportation throughout the evening;
--Model safe driving behaviors;
--Make sure they are following their "rules for the road" at all times, which include never drinking and driving, following Alabama's graduated driver's license laws, wearing a seat belt, limiting the number of passengers in the vehicle, never texting or talking on the phone behind the wheel, obeying the speed limits and limiting nighttime driving.

Continue reading "Drunk Driving Charges & Teenagers - A Prom and Graduation Risk in Alabama" »

Although it goes contrary to just about every public service announcement you've ever heard, having a drink before getting behind the wheel is not a crime.

Our Birmingham DUI lawyers want you to understand that there is a difference between drinking prior to driving and being impaired while you drive. The latter is a crime, the former is not.

Even if you are involved in an accident after you have had a drink, that does not mean you should automatically be slapped with a DUI charge. Unfortunately, law enforcement officers aren't inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt.

In some cases, officers have been known to charge defendants with DUI even when breathalyzer results show a blood-alcohol content that was below the legal limit. They do this legally by alleging other signs of impairment. They know it's tougher to prove in court, but they are banking on the fact that you won't fight the charge.

But simply pleading guilty is generally not advantageous for you.

A recent case out of Mobile illustrates this whole phenomenon. Interestingly, it involves a criminal defense lawyer who is now on the other side of the table after being arrested for DUI following a crash one recent weekend.

The attorney says he was on his way to the grocery store, across the street from his home, when he clipped the rear of a sport utility vehicle that was passing by. The attorney told police he had consumed a few drinks several hours earlier, but denied he was intoxicated.

He claimed the SUV was speeding. He passed a field sobriety test. He said he planned to undergo a breathalyzer test. However, he said the officers at the police station seemed ignorant of how to set up the machine. He declined to take the test. That means he automatically will lose his driver's license for three months, but it doesn't mean he automatically receives a DUI.

Alabama Code Section 32-5A-191 holds that a person may be charged with DUI if he or she is driving a vehicle AND:
--Has a blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent or higher;
--Is "under the influence" of alcohol;
--Is under the influence of a controlled substance to a degree that renders him or her incapable of driving safely;
--Is under the influence of alcohol and a controlled substance such that he or she can't safely drive;
---Is under the influence of ANY substance that may impair a person's physical or mental faculties in a way that impairs safe driving.

Save for the blood alcohol measurement, the other definitions are quite subjective. That means they are highly reliant on officer testimony, which of course is subject to human error. When that is the only thing prosecutors have on which to rely, they know their case is weakened. They may be more likely to allow you to plead the charges down to a lesser offense or possibly drop them altogether.

So before you assume that you have no choice but to plead guilty, talk first with an experienced lawyer to explore your options.

Continue reading "Birmingham DUI Lawyers: Drinking vs. Impairment" »

A new report from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration indicates it's been a deadly few years on roads in Jefferson and Shelby Counties.

Our Birmingham DUI lawyers have learned that between 2007 and 2011, there were 537 deadly crashes in the two counties, resulting in 590 deaths.

This represents an uptick in traffic fatalities, spiking sharply toward the end of that time frame. Speed and impairment were two of the leading causes of those crashes, according to investigative records.

We don't know exactly how many of those fatalities resulted in criminal charges, but we know prosecutors have ratcheted up enforcement efforts when it comes to pushing criminal charges in the wake of a serious or fatal collision. Those can include homicide by vehicle (Alabama Code Section 32-5A-192) or criminally negligent homicide in conjunction with a DUI (Alabama Code Sections 13A-6-4 and 32-5A-191).

Both are quite serious. The accused could face additional charges if others were injured, there was significant property damage or if you tried to flee the scene.

These are not cases in which defendants should rely on public defenders. That's not to say there aren't some great attorneys in those offices, but you're taking a gamble. Many of them are fresh out of law school or may not have extensive experience in the technical area of DUI law in Alabama. Our experience is backed by a proven track record of success. This is what you need in these cases because the reality is, if you are convicted on one of these charges, you absolutely WILL go to jail, potentially for a period of years.

Homicide by vehicle holds that if you unlawfully and unintentionally cause the death of another person while engaged in a violation of any state law, municipal ordinance or traffic regulation, you may be convicted, fined up to $2,000 and sentenced to up to five years in prison.

Criminally negligent homicide, meanwhile, is charged if you caused the death of another person due to criminal negligence. Normally, this would be a Class A misdemeanor. However, in DUI cases, it's boosted to a Class C felony, which carries a penalty of between 2 and 20 years behind bars.

In addition the more than 500 fatal crashes in Jefferson and Shelby, there were also 27,000 non-fatal crashes - just in 2011 alone.

Drunk drivers accounted for about 20 percent of all crashes, according to authorities.

It's worth noting that a person who causes a fatal accident by speeding alone might also be charged with homicide by vehicle.

In line with national figures, more fatal crashes occurred on the weekends and between midnight and 4 a.m. than during any other times. In Alabama, the majority of deadly wrecks were in rural areas.

Alabama tends to rank higher than other states with regard to traffic fatalities. Teen driver fatalities, for example, climbed by 300 percent in the first sic months of last year compared to the same time frame in 2011.

Continue reading "Alabama DUI Watch: 600 Killed in Crashes in Jefferson, Shelby Counties" »

Auburn football player Nick Fairly believed he had a deal with prosecutors when he pleaded guilty to a Mobile, Alabama DUI charge.

That stipulation plea deal would have allowed the charge to have been erased from his record if he completed a DUI diversion program, available for offender with no prior arrests.

Prosecutors, however, say there were no promises made, as Fairly had a prior marijuana charge.

Our Birmingham DUI attorneys know that diversion programs can be a great alternative to trial if the evidence against you is substantial. The time and money you invest in the program is priceless when compared to the freedom of not being forever haunted by a criminal charge on your permanent record.

We also know that far too many defense attorneys are eager to get their clients into a plea deal. We believe in a careful, thorough examination of the facts and circumstances of each case before reaching that determination.

We also recognize if a plea deal is ultimately determined to be the best course of action for our client, the terms of that agreement must be clear for all parties involved - before a plea is entered. Otherwise, you risk running into a situation like this.

According to various media reports, Fairly was driving under the influence of alcohol last spring when he was stopped by a state trooper for reportedly traveling nearly 100 miles per hour on Interstate-10 around 1 in the morning.

When the player's defense attorney entered a no contest stipulation plea deal on his client's behalf, he acknowledged prosecutors did have enough evidence of DUI and reckless operation. The supposed understanding was that the prosecutor would refer the defendant to a diversion program, which would have allowed the player to walk away with a clean record. As a result, the county district judge accepted the plea and imposed a six-month suspended jail term, a $600 fine, one year of probation and a mandate to attend a DUI course.

However, now the prosecutor is reportedly reneging on the deal, saying that no such agreement ever existed and that the defense was told that the prior possession of marijuana charge would be a roadblock to any such deal.

With the defense now hoping to pull that guilty plea, in light of the fact that no diversion program is being offered.

In order for a defendant to be eligible, he or she must:
1. Have the approval of the existing officer;
2. Not have any kind of prior criminal record;
3. Have a stable source of employment that does not involve transportation of others;
4. Have had a blood alcohol level at the time of the arrest that was under 0.14 percent;
5. Undergo both a criminal and driving history background check.

Although defense lawyers concede that their client doesn't technically meet all those requirements, due to the marijuana charge (it was later dismissed anyway), they maintain that prosecutors should be made to hold up their end of the bargain.

The burden of proof regarding whether a deal was in place is currently on the defense.

A county circuit judge is set to rule on the matter later this month.

Continue reading "Alabama DUI Plea Deal Involving Star Footballer in Question " »