Alabama DUI Lawyer Blog

As a Birmingham drunk driving defense lawyer, I spend my days defending individuals accused with driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). Many of these people are actually innocent of the charges; however the law requires that they be given the chance to argue their case in court. Being charged with driving drunk is serious, not to mention being convicted of drunken driving. This is why it is very important to emlist the services of a qualified Alabama DUI defense attorney.

For those who live pretty much hand-to-mouth, being arrested and held without bail can be devastating to their families and anyone else who relies on the support that these individuals provide. Many of the less fortunate among us are so-called illegal aliens and whatever their status, the law provides for their defense as well. Recently, an Alabama Senate committee passed a couple bills aimed at denying public benefits to illegal immigrants as well as revoking bail for felony criminals not in the country legally.

According to news accounts, the Senate Fiscal Responsibility and Accountability Committee passed the bills that were sponsored by Sen. Hinton Mitchem. Pertaining to drunk driving, one of the bills passed on February 12 mandates the denial of bail to anyone without proof of citizenship who is arrested for DUI or a felony.

Essentially, what this future law would mean to illegal immigrants arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol is if they cannot prove U.S. citizenship at the time of arrest, then you will be denied bail. The thinking is that such individuals should not be released into the local community while a DUI trial is pending.

Only time will tell if these bills become law, after which it could become an added burden on those innocent of any DUI-related arrest and in turn only hurting the families and others who rely on these people during this difficult time of worldwide economic uncertainty.

Committee passes Mitchem’s bills, SandMountainReporter.com, February 13, 2010

From Mobile to Gadsden and Auburn to Florence, motorists all across Alabama have seen the effect of drunken driving enforcement throughout the state. Police agencies and local law enforcement departments have a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to driving while intoxicated. Although driving under the influence of alcohol is a serious charge, the state may be looking elsewhere for addition sources of traffic fatalities.

As a Birmingham DUI defense lawyer, I represent Alabama drivers who have been arrested for inebriated driving. But more and more we may see arrests for other kinds of non-alcohol traffic offenses, but judged just as dangerous as DUI. According to reports, recent traffic safety data points to cell phones as presenting a distinct hazard to safe travel on public roads.

Based on these new statistics, talking and/or “texting” while driving has been pointed to as the cause for nearly 30 percent of all automobile crashes across the state. And while it’s not uncommon to see drivers reading, eating, adjusting their sound systems or disciplining their kids all while driving a vehicle at significant road speeds, talking on a cellphone or texting are big problems, according to authorities.

Based on news reports, the National Safety Council (NSC) announced that 1.6 million of the crashes that occur each year across the nation are caused by drivers using cell phones – that equates to 28 percent of all traffic crashes. Out of that 1.6 million crashes, the NSC says 200,000 are caused by drivers who were texting while driving.

Apparently, this happens with extreme frequency. A study by AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety reportedly showed that 53 percent of motorists around the U.S. said they have used a cellphone for either talking or texting while they were driving. That same study indicated that 60 percent of the drivers said they use a hand-held phone, compared to 34 percent who use a hands-free phone.

What some people have suggested is that cellphone use while driving could someday be treated like driving under the influence of alcohol. If that is so, could any one of us be arrested for TWD, or texting/talking while driving? Nobody can be certain, but there is always a chance.

Cell phones can be hazards, TimesDaily.com, January 25, 2010

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts was apparently unhappy with the denial of a recent appeal brought before the top court. According to news reports, the Supreme Court declined to review a case of driving under the influence of alcohol, which was under appeal due to a reversed conviction of an impaired driver. The reversal was based on the fact that the police did not actually see the drunk driver do anything wrong. Instead, they stopped the driver based on an anonymous tip of a car being driven by someone allegedly intoxicated.

As a Birmingham DUI defense lawyer, I was pleased to see that the Supreme Court refused to review this appeal. Not because I believe the top court shouldn’t be handling DUI cases, but because this goes to the core of what the police need to be doing, which is observing traffic violations and acting on those observations. In the original drunk driving case, which occurred in Virginia, the police answered an anonymous call advising them that a person may have been driving under the influence of alcohol.

The original outcome was a conviction for DUI and affirmed by the Virginia Court of Appeals, which upheld the legality of the stop. However, on further appeal to the Virginia State Supreme Court, justices voted 4-to-3 to reverse the conviction and also to adopt a rule that commands police officers following a driver reported to be drunk to do nothing until they see the driver actually do something unsafe on the road.

The case was then brought before the U.S. Supreme, which has declined to review it. This apparently has upset Justice Roberts who wrote in his dissenting remarks, “Ordinary citizens are well aware of the dangers posed by drunk driving, and they frequently report such conduct to the police. A number of States have adopted programs specifically designed to encourage such tips….”

Roberts argues that the US Supreme Court should hear the case because he is not convinced that the law requires independent confirmation of an anonymous tip. “I am not sure that the Fourth Amendment requires such independent corroboration before the police can act, at least in the special context of anonymous tips reporting drunk driving. This is an important question that is not answered by our past decisions, and that has deeply divided federal and state courts. The Court should grant the petition for certiorari to answer the question and resolve the conflict.”

Continue reading "Alabama DUI News: U.S. Supreme Court Turns Down Appeal for DUI Arrests Based Anonymous Tips" »

Fact: Alabama is one of only three states that don’t yet require ignition interlocks for convicted DUI offenders. Although the other 47 states in the Union have some type of drunk driving laws on the books that call for ignition interlocks for repeat drunk driving offenders, we still do not. Could this change? You bet.

More and more, these breath testing devices have become popular with courts and legislators around the country. Backed by groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), 11 states now make the installation of an ignition interlock mandatory on the vehicles belonging to anyone convicted of a DUI, including first-time offenders. Hawaii was number 11. MADD has been lobbying hard for the past three years to have all 50 states require the devices for every driver convicted of operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol.

For use, iginition interlocks are wired into a car's electrical system. Before the car can be started, the driver must blow into a plastic tube attached to the unit -- just like a breathalyzer. If the device detects a blood alcohol content above (typically) 0.025 percent, the car will not start. The units also require random retests, which supposedly prohibits a drunk driver from having a sober person blow into the device to start the car, then getting in and driving off.

Interlocks usually cost about $75 to install, while the driver must pay a similar amount every month after that while the device is attached to the car. The unit must also be recalibrated every couple months or the vehicle will shut down.

Many states have used ignition interlocks as a part of their sentencing for years now. Some states, like Kansas, have seen the number of ignition interlock installations increase as that state’s legislature has kept tightening its DUI laws. According to reports, Kansas has had a 45-percent increase in the number of interlocks installed due to DUI convictions from a year ago.

The push around the country is to help prevent repeat DUI offenses. Do they work? Apparently so, if you believe the information coming from proponents of the devices. According to a MADD spokesperson, ever since New Mexico enacted its interlock laws in 2002, the rate of drunk drivers re-offending in that particular state has decreased by 65 percent.

Are we next? All I can say is that Alabama is one of the lone holdouts, joined by Vermont and South Dakota. These three states are yet to have ignition interlocks written into their drunk driving laws.

As an Alabama DUI defense attorney based in Birmingham, I can tell you that a drunk driving conviction, even for a first-time offense, will most certainly be costly and can often be detrimental to both your career and your private life. Having a mandatory ignition interlock as an added condition of one’s sentence for a DUI offense would only compound the inconvenience and stigma of a conviction. This is why I constantly encourage people accused of driving under the influence to seek a qualified drunk driving lawyer for their defense.

There’s no telling how soon we might see similar legislation in our own backyard, but with the success MADD has had to date, Alabama drivers could see ignition interlocks sooner than later.

Legislature breathes life into revision of Kansas DUI law, LJWorld.com, June 15, 2009