They are called no-refusal policies because regardless of what you want, you will submit to a blood test when suspected of DUI in cities and counties taking part.  No longer can suspected drunk drivers refuse a breath test in the hopes of avoiding giving the state evidence of their impairment.

Lawmakers and prosecutors saw it as a problem that suspects could refuse a breath test when suspected of drunk driving. Typically, when this occurred, the prosecution would be left presenting police reports and other second-hand sort of evidence at trial, evidence that is more easily beaten by defendants.

Now, however, if you refuse the breath test, the police can get a warrant and forcefully take your blood. They are even authorized to strap you down while a medical professional sticks the needle in your arm.

With blood evidence, prosecutors win convictions in about 90% of cases, or more. Most often, defendants confronted with blood evidence opt for a plea agreements, pleading guilty in order to avoid trial and a potentially harsher sentence. According to the Wall Street Journal, there’s a saying within the legal community about this, “If it bleeds, it pleads.”

No refusal policies aren’t in place everywhere in the state, at all times. Instead, they are often used as a tough alternative on weekends or holidays. More than likely there will be many such blood-draws over the coming weeks.  Officers have to be in touch with prosecutors, who in turn can provide the proper motion to judges on call who can sign an order for the evidence to be collected.

The problem with this approach, according to opponents, is that it subjects people to a very invasive “search and seizure” of evidence, perhaps even unreasonable, something that we are protected against by the U.S. Constitution. Like many drunk driving policies, this seems to assume the suspect is guilty long before they are given the benefit of due process. But, the Texas courts disagree, having repeatedly upheld the no refusal practices.

This summer, 500 Texas law enforcement agencies took part in a no-refusal weekend over the 4^th of Jult. They made about 1,500 DWI arrests. So far, Bexar County (including San Antonio) is the only locality that has implemented the practice year-round.

It’s hard to beat a DWI charge when the prosecution has blood evidence, but it is not impossible. And even when the outcome looks bleak, your attorney may be able to negotiate a favorable plea agreement that can avoid the harshest penalties, and let you get on with your life.

If you are charged with DWI, regardless of the evidence, contact us for a free criminal consultation and find out how we can help.

Sobriety check points have been banned in Texas since 1994, at least in part because of the inconvenience they cause to everyone but drunk drivers. One source, however, states Texas’ interpretation of the US Constitution deemed sobriety check points illegal, and this argument holds some merit.

Under the federal Constitution, we are protected against unreasonable searches and seizures. An officer must have a good reason to pull you over. This reason, also referred to as probable cause, is also necessary to conduct a search or seizure without a warrant.

Opponents of many drunk driving laws state law allowing these DWI checkpoints & roadblocks turn due process on its head, assuming you’re guilty rather than “innocent until proven guilty.” After all, drunk driving charges are one of the few instances where you can face penalties before you even go to court.

But, advocates of sobriety check points would like to see these ineffective and inconvenient headaches back in practice in Texas. Sure they say it’s because they want safer roadways but check points like these result in more tickets for seatbelt violations and similar trivial matters than they do apprehend drunk drivers. Police are more likely to catch a drunk driver by watching such drivers for erratic behavior behind the wheel.

What these sobriety check points do provide local governments with is a little bit of revenue (in the form of tickets) and huge expenses (in officer overtime).

Some argue the roadblocks are actually counterproductive because they take officers away from their routine duty, requiring them to stand on the side of the road with their colleagues.

The North Texas Crime Commission would also like to see bans on synthetic drugs like Spice and K2, as well as stiffer penalties for car burglaries. Currently, the first two convictions of car burglary are considered misdemeanors.

Secondary to these three priorities for the Commission are things like separate charges for ATM thefts, identification requirements for prepaid cell phones, and requiring DNA swabs for every arrest classified as a Class B misdemeanor or more serious.

There are really no surprises on this list of recommendation. The law enforcement community asks for stricter criminal laws and sanctions with broader powers to enforce the laws. Typically, if passed, related legislation is at least slightly softened by the legislators.

Both men were arrested (and their animals were taken into custody), and taken downtown to the Travis County Jail. According to the Austin Statesman, the judge wouldn’t sign off on one of the men’s charges and he was released. The other, however, was held.

According to officers at the scene, they were called out after reports of the men indicated drivers were having to swerve around them in busy downtown Friday night traffic. While there seems to be no law against riding horses on the streets of Austin, the officers felt the men’s presence was a safety risk and had further issues with the scene when it was obvious at least one of the men was intoxicated.

Ultimately, charges of DWI would be dropped by the local prosecutor who stated he researched other similar cases in Ohio and Pennsylvania, cases that ultimately didn’t stand up in courts. It isn’t exactly clear why but the reasons could be due to the definitions under statute.

A DWI charge is defined as being intoxicated while in control of a “motor vehicle”. While the Statesman states a mule fits this definition, I have my doubts. Namely, because there’s no motor in a farm animal.

Now both men face public intoxication tickets instead, though they still may have to pay a $500 fine, it’s a far cry from the criminal charge they initially faced. The animals also spent a few nights locked up, impounded first in the animal’s version of a holding cell, a “small barn” not designed for large animals but cats and dogs, and ultimately being transferred to an animal hospital. They will also have to be bailed out, with a $50 impound fee for each day they were in custody.

Although a horse doesn’t seem to qualify as a motor vehicle, there have been local cases which involved DWI on a lawnmower. And although a car would be more dangerous to the general public, a motivated prosecutor will push a case on a lawnmower just as hard as one in a pickup truck or minivan.

If you are facing DWI charges, you don’t have time to concern yourself with the legal definitions—that’s your attorney’s job. You’ve got potential jail time, fines, and a lack of driving privileges to worry about. DWI charges carry serious ramifications, and we aren’t just talking about a humorous video of your arrest. (See here for the video of the DWI horseback bandits).

The idea would largely be a lesser plea (proposed penalties for the new law haven’t been publicized) from a DWI.  Although the fact is, most states, including Texas, have the ability to convict people of drunk driving or DWI if they appear to be impaired, regardless of blood alcohol level, such as when under the influence of illegal drugs or other substances.

Critics suggest this is just another way to criminalize moderate drinkers, and that the real danger on the road to public safety is hardcore alcoholics who continue to drive after repeat offenses and high levels of intoxication.

Even MADD, while not coming out against the idea, has suggested that this idea may not be necessary, and isn’t part of their organization’s agenda and lobbying efforts.

Hopefully this idea will be DOA before it gets any legislative momentum.

In Texas, you will have your license confiscated if you are arrested for DWI or if you refuse to give a breath test when pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving. Yes, this means you are being punished before being convicted of a crime.

But, because judges understand a suspended license can stop people from getting to work, providing for family, and even showing up at court, they often agree to issue occupational licenses during these periods of suspension. According to the Statesman, these provisional licenses are rarely denied and judges are often lacking the whole story when it comes to the reasons a driver might need their license.

Like nearly everything else in the criminal courts, how a judge handles a request for an occupational license varies from courtroom to courtroom. One judge might require proof of employment or have drivers keep detailed mileage logs while driving on the license. Others simply take the defendant’s word for it.

The report itself states that even some judges question the ethics in suspending a license before a conviction and perhaps this is why many are so lenient in justifying the provisional licenses. While groups like MADD and others would likely just as soon lock all drunk drivers up and take away their driving privileges permanently, this isn’t reasonable nor is it likely.

While the risks of having a drunk driver on the road are very real, many of the laws designed to get tough on drunk drivers are way out of proportion for the crime at hand. Serious drunk drivers who are a threat to public safety should face penalties. But allowing average citizens who may show a one-time lapse in judgement, to still function in society needs to be a priority, too.

Some judges maintain a moderate and rational mind set when penalizing drunk drivers and hearing the criminal cases. This doesn’t mean, however, that you will get off easy when accused of drunk driving. As a matter of fact, Texas has some pretty harsh penalties for DWI and multiple offense DWI charges.

If you’re facing charges like these, wondering if you might qualify for an occupational license or just what kind of sentence you may face, you need the assistance of a criminal defense lawyer. Contact our offices today for a free consultation on your case and to discuss your options.

This article from the Dallas Morning News outlines the agenda for MADD, which includes a push for this research, as well as continuing lobbying efforts to require an ignition interlock device installed in any driver’s vehicle after a DWI conviction. Thought interlock devices are mandatory for 1st offense drunk driving charges in Arizona, Illinois, and other states.

photo credit: JSmith Photo

However, under Texas law, the devices are only mandatory on first offense convictions if the driver recorded a BAC level or .15% or higher, or nearly twice the legal limit of alcohol in the bloodstream. Interlock requirements are typically coupled with a Texas Occupational Licence.

The article also notes recent criticism of MADD from Charity Navigator and the American Institute of Philanthropy, which rated the organization as having poorly allocated its charitable funds. But there is also an argument that MADD is a lobbying group more than a traditional charity with needy recipients, so it’s effectiveness, like it or not, is best measured in how well it passes legislation that meets its organizational goals.

And by most measures, they have been effectively, particularly in increasing the severity of ignition interlock requirements in different states nationwide.

But this new effort at enforcing drunk driving laws at the level of every vehicle on the road has many people concerned about civil liberties and privacy issues. There are countless issues raised by these systems.

• How does due process work if everyone is a suspect?
• What threshold alerts the system to stop the ignition from starting?
• Who controls the data captured?
• How accurate are the systems?
• What if a passenger is drunk, and the driver is the responsible one? Can the environmental sensors tell the difference?

There is a considerable risk of any such data being used to incriminate people, or raise suspicion, even in cases when a person is within the law.

What if a person regularly drives with a level at .06 or .o7% BAC? Does the government capture that information? Can they use it to keep a close eye on anyone on the road known to drive with a couple of drinks in them?

This kind of road tracking surveillance data would be easy to use and implement with automatic license plate scanners in police cruisers, and access to this data.

The data mining and “big brother” possibilities of these systems need to be worked out well before any of these technologies hit the road, because unwinding them will be difficult to do.

According to the American Statesman, drunk driving arrests are down. But despite this, Chief Acevedo states new legislation would allow them to take more people off the streets than they already do. While this is all suggested in the name of public safety, one has to question the motives when the original .08% legal limit was obviously chosen for the same reason.

Part of the problem, they say, is people are being charged with DWI but getting plea agreements that allow them to plead guilty to lesser charges like reckless driving. The DWAI would give prosecutors another option and would mean the drunk drivers wouldn’t be able to skirt alcohol education and counseling—often required with a DWI sentence.

A state Senator on the Senate Criminal Justice Committee states that there are some people who shouldn’t be able to drive after a single drink and that the .08% threshold doesn’t allow law enforcement to effectively prevent these, less intoxicated people from driving.

However, the Austin police chief goes on to say that some people may drive dangerously at around “0.05 or .06. It depends on the person.” He is right—it does depend on the person. But the .08% legal limit was chosen for a reason, because that is where most people became unable to function normally.

Now, to punish people for driving under less of an influence because some people have lower tolerances will no doubt end up giving out criminal charges to people who weren’t too impaired to drive at all and wouldn’t have been considered drunk under the current laws.

While there’s no bill proposed or written, this is something to keep our eyes on. Will DWAI be the next law that Texans have to watch out for? Will a designated driver be necessary after a single drink with dinner?

Until then, we will deal with the drunk driving laws on the books in this so-called broken system. A first time DWI conviction can have serious repercussions, though it is considered a misdemeanor. If you are facing DWI charges for your first or your third time—you need help.

Contact our offices today speak with a criminal a defense lawyer who can offer you a free legal consultation on fighting DWI charges.

Drugs, whether illegal substances like heroin or legal prescriptions including hydrocodone, can lead to impairment. Delayed reaction times, poor judgment, and low functioning motor skills experienced when under the influence of drugs can be disastrous when behind the wheel. Law enforcement has seen an uptick in driving while impaired by drugs and is struggling to find ways to combat it.

In Texas, driving under the influence of drugs is charged in the criminal courts as a DWI. There is no distinction under the law when it comes to driving while drunk or impaired by drugs. The difference between the two, however, lies in detection.

If you’re pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving, you may be asked to submit to a breath test. The results of this test are what is most often used to determine if you are intoxicated. If your blood alcohol content is over .08%, you will likely face charges of DWI.

But signs of impairment including shakes, slurred speech, and difficulty walking aren’t always indicative of drinking alcohol. Sometimes these symptoms are related to drug use and proving that isn’t as simple as a quick breath test.

According to the Houston Chronicle, drug detection is one issue law enforcement is having with keeping drug impaired drivers off the road. Just how do you know someone is under the influence of drug and how can you prove it when it’s time to go to court?

Houston itself has over 100 “drug recognition experts” who will go to a scene and analyze a suspect, determining what they may be under the influence of. No refusal blood draws are another, albeit extreme and arguably unconstitutional, way for determining if drugs are in someone’s system.

Because many people are legitimately prescribed drugs for diseases and conditions, it’s difficult to know who is abusing them and who is simply taking them as directed by their physician. Furthermore, it would need to be blatantly obvious that the driver was so impaired due to the prescription drugs within their system for charges like this to stick.

If you are facing DWI charges for being under the influence of drugs, you need a defense attorney’s help. Depending on the facts of the case we may be able to challenge the prosecution’s charge that you were impaired at all.

A charge like this has the potential to change your life. Contact our attorneys for a free consultation on your case.

The accident occurred last week as the man was giving a ride to two teens after a “teen night” party, according to The Houston Chronicle. A third teen was in the SUV struck by the man, riding with her father. The two 13 year olds and 17 year old died as a result of the accident.

Immediately following the collision, police gave the suspect a series of field sobriety tests—of which he failed 2 of 3. They transported him to the hospital for blood to be drawn, a test whose results aren’t immediately available. The suspect told police he had only drank a fraction of one beer and they are said to have believed him.

The police followed standard procedure, given the circumstances, even calling a representative from the District Attorney’s office. The decision was made that he wasn’t a flight risk and he was released pending further investigation.

The test results came back and showed the man had a blood alcohol level of .127 to .162. This is a suspiciously wide rage, if the report is true, but it is well above the legal limit of .08. Now, however, he us nowhere to be found and may be back in his native Nepal.

Many things are taken into consideration when determining if someone is a flight risk. The police believed the man was a business owner, “giving him a serious tie to the community.” Things like employment and family are seen as reasons a person wouldn’t flee a criminal investigation. In this situation, however, it appears they were wrong.

Understandably, the police and prosecutors are facing backlash in the wake of the man’s release. They could have held him for 24 hours though this still wouldn’t have been enough time to get the test results back. The District Attorney’s office states there simply wasn’t enough evidence to charge him the night of the accident and they had no reason to think he was a flight risk.

Drinking and driving can quickly turn into a situation much more serious, and obviously a vehicular manslaughter charge is a tragic outcome.

The SCRAM (secure continuous alcohol monitoring) bracelets, as they are called, test sweat released from your pores to determine if you have been drinking, in violation of your probation.

While the bracelets aren’t 100% accurate, a fact not lost on defense attorneys, they are said to prevent probationers and other DWI offenders from drinking and if they don’t successfully prevent it, they require them to be accountable for violating by notifying the probation department.

Every 30 minutes, the alcohol monitoring bracelet analyzes sweat and sends the results to the company and finally to the probation office. While it isn’t a certain probation revocation, a positive can start violation proceedings.

Judges most often apply the use of the SCRAM in conjunction with other tools like ignition interlock devices. Unfortunately for the defendant, however, both of these items require money to maintain them.

It’s said that monthly SCRAM costs run around $400. For many people accused of DWI, this cost is simply unaffordable. Ignition interlock devices require maintenance costs as well, putting even more stress on the budgets of people already likely to be facing fines and court costs.

Like many tools used in the management of probationers, the use of these bracelets is far from perfect. With false positives for things like hairspray and mechanical problems they can cause headaches to not only the people wearing them but the officers tasked with monitoring the probationers.

If you are in Dallas and facing DWI charges, there’s a chance you could be required to wear a SCRAM bracelet. You may also be required to serve jail time and pay some pretty hefty fines. When facing charges like this, it pays to have a local defense attorney on your side.

If you are looking at DWI charges and unsure of the best course of action, contact my offices today. Get a free legal consultation and some valuable advice on your DWI case.