Categories

COLUMBIA – The legal and personal consequences of driving while impaired is the focus of the SC Department of Public Safety’s (SCDPS) TV campaign to air during the Sober or Slammer enforcement campaign for the Christmas/New Year’s holidays.

The new TV commercial, which shows the aftermath of a DUI arrest, helps illustrate the commitment in resources and personnel between law enforcement and prosecutors in combating impaired driving. Additionally, SCDPS awarded the SC Commission on Prosecution Coordination a $1.2 million federal grant this year to hire a special prosecutor in each of the state’s16 judicial circuits to work exclusively on DUI cases.

“Enforcement, of course, is the most visible aspect of our fight against DUI,” SCDPS Director Mark Keel said. “However, the expeditious adjudication of DUI cases is equally important.”

The 60-second TV commercial that will begin airing Saturday is a follow-up to one that debuted during the Labor Day DUI enforcement effort. A preview of the new commercial was shown Thursday to media, solicitors and law enforcement representatives at simultaneous news events in Columbia, Charleston, Greenville and Myrtle Beach.

The commercial continues the story of a man stopped by a Highway Patrol trooper on suspicion of DUI and shows the effects his arrest has on his family as he heads to court.

SCDPS and local law enforcement agencies statewide will combine efforts to combat impaired driving during the Sober or Slammer holiday crackdown, from December 16 to January 3. The goal of the campaign is to lower the number of alcohol-related crashes and fatalities and increase compliance with the state’s DUI laws. SCDPS also continues to encourage motorists to call *HP or *47 to report suspected drunk drivers before they can do any harm to themselves or others on the road.
read more…

Thousands of people could be saved from death on America’s roads each year if drivers embrace strict drunken-driving enforcement and widespread use of speed cameras, which have helped cut fatalities by half in fifteen high-income countries, according to a major new study.

The United States is far behind other developed countries when it comes to pursuing strategies that reduce traffic fatalities. Since 1995, France has cut deaths by 52 percent, Great Britain by 38 percent and Australia by 25 percent. In the United States, they’ve dropped by 19 percent.

“The lack of progress in reducing the highway casualty toll might suggest that Americans have resigned themselves to this burden of deaths and injuries as the inevitable consequence of the mobility provided by the road system,” the report says. “In other countries, public officials . . . have declared that this human and economic cost is neither inevitable or acceptable.”

The number of traffic fatalities in the United States last year – 33,808 – was the lowest since 1949, but other countries saw far more significant drops. If the United States had made the same progress in reducing deaths as Britain did between 1997 and 2008, 29,000 more Americans would still be alive.
read more…

With more drivers impaired by illegal and prescription drugs, law enforcement officials say cracking down on drugged driving must become a national priority, says the Houston Chronicle. Drugged driving, though not new, has become more of a threat in recent years. Blood tests on drivers are detecting more traces of prescription drugs like Xanax, Soma, and hydrocodone — all substances that can adversely affect judgment, reaction time, and motor skills. The tests also are increasingly detecting mixtures of prescription and illegal drugs taken with alcohol, which can exacerbate impairment.

The troubling trend comes as DWIs nationwide have declined, largely because of more than two decades of public education about the dangers of drinking and driving. The Office of National Drug Control Policy is calling for a reduction in accidents and fatalities over the next five years and for more education and research on how drugs affect the ability to drive. “We’ve made progress on DWI,” said Gil Kerlikwoske, President Obama’s top drug policy adviser. “We need a very clear message on not using drugs and driving.” Getting  reliable statistics on the problem is. State DUI laws vary, and no standard has been established to determine when a driver is impaired by drugs, Kerlikwoske said. A blood alcohol content level of 0.08 is the standard used for alcohol impairment. The National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers, conducted every 10 years, included drug use for the first time in 2007. The random survey of more than 9,000 drivers found that 16.3 percent of nighttime weekend drivers tested positive for over-the-counter and illegal drugs including marijuana and cocain

Source

The problem of impaired-driving is a serious one. While America witnessed a decline in the number of impaired-driving fatalities from 2007-2008, the numbers are still too high. That’s why the Northern Delaware County DUI Taskforce today announced it will join other law enforcement agencies throughout the country in support of an intensive crackdown on impaired driving now until Sept. 6, known by its tagline, “Drunk Driving. Over the Limit. Under Arrest.”

The Taskforce will conduct sobriety checkpoints during the weekends of Aug. 27 within Radnor Township and Sept. 3 in Upper Darby Township. In 2008 alone, nearly 12,000 people died in crashes in which a driver or motorcycle rider was at or above the legal limit, according to the latest statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The age group with the highest percentage of alcohol impaired drivers in fatal crashes is young people age 21-24. read more…

Destiny Brewer’s family is using the loss to urge state lawmakers to pass stricter DUI laws.

The family created an on-line petition and website called Destiny’s Hope that outlines a potential bill they want lawmakers to consider.

It would create more jail time, higher fines, and less driving privileges for those convicted of DUI.

“If we can just prevent one death, it’s worth anything that we can put into it. If we can just save one child’s life, because you know, you can’t put a price on life,” John Evans said.

More than 800 people have signed the on-line petition.

The family plans to meet with local lawmakers later this week.

As DUI laws continue and will continue to pass, hiring a DUI lawyer has become essential after being charged with driving under the influence. Visit www.DUIDRUNKDRIVINGLAWYERS.com to find a lawyer in your state.

Source

DENVER (AP) — New state laws that take effect Thursday include one that cracks down on repeat drunken drivers.

The new law requires second-time offenders to face a minimum of 10 days in jail and third-time offenders a minimum of two months in jail. The maximum penalty will still be one year in jail.

The Denver Post reported in a series of stories last year that some repeat drunken drivers got no jail time. The Post also found that sentences for repeat offenders varied widely across Colorado.

The Colorado State Patrol says about 200 people died in alcohol-related crashes last year. State Patrol Sgt. John Hahn says the agency made 572 DUI arrests over last year’s Fourth of July holiday weekend.

Been arrested for DUI in Colorado?

Source

Just over a year ago, nine-year old Melody Osheroff and her father Aaron were walking hand-in-hand on one of their regular evening walks in their Novato neighborhood.

As they were walking through a residential crosswalk, they were struck by Edward John Schaefer, a motorcyclist who was drunk at twice the legal limit and who had at least 8 prior convictions for DUI.

The damage was horrific. Melody was killed. Aaron nearly died from his injuries, including the loss of a leg. His other leg was nearly lost, and Aaron spent months in the hospital, enduring surgery after surgery.

When we think about the devastation to the Osheroff family caused by this repeat DUI offender – the agony of losing a child, the horror of having your body maimed, the lifetime suffering that this tragedy caused – we also must ask, how could someone who had been convicted so many times of driving drunk and recklessly continue to hold a valid California driver license and vehicle registration?

This heartbreak isn’t an isolated incident; rarely does a week go by without a similar story appearing in Bay Area newspapers. According to the California Department of Motor Vehicles, in 2007 alone there were 2,238 alcohol and drug related traffic fatalities in California – over half of all traffic fatalities reported that year.

And while California is known to have some of the strictest drunken driving laws in the nation, the tragedy that took Melody’s life

More.

The Nevada Supreme Court determined a driver need only fail one of two breath tests in order to lose his or her license for a DUI charge in the state.

The ruling reverses an earlier decision by Clark County Judge Michelle Leavitt. Leavitt decided the driver must fail both tests in order to lose a license. This ruling only applied to whether the driver’s license could be suspended, not whether criminal charges could be made. In Nevada, a driver can be charged with DUI despite passing a breath test if signs of impairment are evident.

The Nevada law, like laws in most states, requires two separate breath samples be taken at the scene. This helps prevent errors in the machine’s usage or calibration. If the tests show the driver has .08 percent BAC or higher, regardless of any sign of impairment, the driver may lose his or her license. The question before the Supreme Court was whether both tests must be positive for .08 percent or higher.

In an opinion by Justice Michael Douglas, the court argued that the law requiring two samples must be upheld. However, the court reversed the lower court’s decision, saying only one test must be positive in order for a license suspension to take place. The only stipulation is the tests are within .02 percent of each other.

In this case, an individual who tests .06 percent on one BAC test, as little as one drink for many individuals, then .08 percent on another, that person would lose the privilege to drive. While this was not exactly the situation with Audrea Taylor-Caldwell, a similar incident did occur. Taylor-Caldwell provided samples of .073 percent and .083 percent. Taylor-Caldwell, under the lower court’s ruling, would not lose her license.

Taylor-Caldwell did lose her license in an administrative hearing. Then, she regained the privilege to drive with Judge Leavitt’s decision. Now, since the case has finally flowed through the Supreme Court, Taylor-Caldwell must surrender her license. Her case will serve as precedent for future arrests with similar circumstances.

Source

Video Courtesy of KSL.com

SALT LAKE CITY — Underage drinking is illegal.

“They’re under 21. They shouldn’t have been drinking,” says defense attorney Cara Tangaro.

Drinking and driving is illegal.

“Obviously, we don’t want kids to drink, and we don’t want them to be in an automobile,” says Rep. Carol Spackman Moss, D-Holladay.

Kids who break the law must be punished.

“You make your bed. You lay in it,” says Robert Milliner, a father from Ogden.

Minors shouldn’t be drinking. They shouldn’t be drinking and driving, that’s not controversial. The dispute centers on the punishment itself. A KSL 5 News investigation reveals the new DUI penalties facing Utah minors.

Utah’s liquor laws saw some major changes last year, including the end of private clubs and memberships. But there was another change that didn’t grab as many headlines: new penalties for underage drinkers who drive.

“I never thought this would happen to me, and it did,” 17-year-old Krystal Milliner says.

“This is the first offense I’ve ever had,” 19-year-old Craig Arnoldus says. “I don’t have anything on my legal or my driving record, and yet I’m done.”

Done, because of Utah’s Not a Drop DUI law. Craig and Krystal both know they’re not supposed to drink alcohol. They didn’t realize that minors who drink — even a drop — and then drive, are committing a DUI.

“I thought .08 was the limit for everyone,” Krystal says.

“I stayed the night where I drank and decided to drive when I was sober,” Craig says.

But sober does not matter. Since 1992, it has been illegal for a minor to drink any alcohol and drive. What is new are the tougher penalties for minors who break this zero tolerance law.

Defense attorney Cara Tangaro represents both Krystal and Craig. She says she was shocked when she learned about the strict new punishment her clients now face. read more…

About three weeks ago, an Ohio appellate court decided the case of State v. Parker, 2010 Ohio 1092 (Ohio.App. 2010), which presented the issue of whether Ohio’s DUI sentencing law, R.C. 4511.19(G)(1)(d), was constitutional. The law, which allows a court to look back 20 years to find prior DUI convictions to use in enhancing a sentence, was not in place when some of the offenses it now covers were committed, which was the basis of Bradley Parker’s challenge.

Mr. Parker was charged with DUI on April 30, 2009 after a police officer noticed he was driving erratically. When he was indicted, his record reflected that he had been convicted of DUI offenses at least 5 times in the last 20 years, so R.C. 4511.19(G)(1)(d) called for him to be charged with a fourth degree felony.

Mr. Parker initially pled not guilty and asked the court to throw out the case against him because the sentencing statute was an ex post facto law, and therefore unconstitutional under both the Ohio and U.S. Constitutions. In the case of Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167, 169 (1925), the U.S. Supreme Court defined an ex post facto law as one that “punishes as a crime an act previously committed which was innocent when done, [or] which makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission.” The trial court disagreed that R.C. 4511.19(G)(1)(d) made Mr. Parker’s previous DUI convictions more burdensome, which prompted Mr. Parker to agree to plead guilty to the current DUI charge if his appeal of the ex post facto issue was not resolved in his favor.

On appeal, the court first observed that R.C. 4511.19(G)(1)(d) was enacted in 2004 to replace the old look-back law which allowed sentencing courts to look back a maximum of 6 years. In the court’s view, the law did not add punishments to Mr. Parker’s past conduct but only used that past conduct to enhance the sentence for his present DUI. THe court also noted that, given that the new look-back law had been in place for several years, Mr. Parker should have been aware of the additional consequences for him if he were convicted of another DUI. The court also looked to the case of State v. Midcap, 2006 Ohio 2854 (Ohio App. 2010), which ruled that the ban on ex post facto laws is meant to protect people from being punished for actions that were legal when taken or having the punishment for past crimes increased. Consequently, the court reasoned that increasing the penalty upon a new DUI based on prior convictions was not one of the legitimate interests protected by the ban on ex post facto laws. The court found support for this view in  the fact that both Ohio and U.S. Supreme Courts have accepted the idea that repeat offenders can be punished more severely than first-time offenders and in the fact that when the 6-year look-back law was first enacted, an argument very much like Mr. Parker’s had been rejected.

The Court of Appeals rejected all parts of Mr. Parker’s constitutional argument and affirmed the decision of the trial court. Because he lost his appeal, Mr. Parker pled guilty to the DUI and was sentenced to one year in jail with three years probation and was required to attend an alcohol abuse treatment program. He was also fined $1350 and his license was suspended for four years.

Source