5 Myths About Defending Accused Drunk Drivers
February 28, 2008 | 3 Comments
Almost every attorney is at one time or another confronted with a client, friend, or family member charged with drunk driving. Because accused drunk drivers are immediately charged with a crime, drunk-driving cases represent the single largest category of criminal infractions of all reported cases, with about 200,000 more cases processed each year than all theft and larceny offenses combined. Even attorneys who do not generally handle criminal matters are routinely asked how an accused person should proceed in a drunk-driving case.In the 1960s, driving under the influence of alcohol was considered a minor offense, leading to modest fines; in the 1990s, it is considered the most serious misdemeanor offense. In several states, repeat offenders are considered felons.
Nearly two million drunk-driving cases are filed by law enforcement officers around the country ever year. These cases take up a large portion of the criminal docket of most court systems. Because the penalties for drunk driving have increased, many of those charged with this crime now must seriously consider alternatives to pleading guilty or nolo contendere. For the rest of the 1990s, the absence of palatable alternatives for the accused driver will lead to a dramatic increase in these trials.
Most attorneys harbor many myths and misconceptions about this offense. These can lead to malpractice. In this article, I will address five myths about defending accused drunk drivers.
Myth Number 1: Most people accused of this crime are guilty.
This is perhaps the most troubling myth - one harbored by attorneys and the general public. In my opinion, an attorney who believes this should never represent a person accused of drunk driving. That mindset can eliminate objectivity.In the overwhelming majority of drunk-driving cases in which police obtain a chemical test, an infrared breath analysis machine is used, not a blood test. This primary evidence is vulnerable to attack by a skillful practitioner.
Most attorneys have no idea how woefully inadequate infrared breath machines are as evidence-gathering devices. These machines are so unsophisticated that virtually no scientist would ever trust the results as a basis for scholarly research or scientific investigation. Yet attorneys assume that since the state has approved the machine, its accuracy and reliability are not subject to change.
There are at least 30 ways to rebut the evidence from these machines if the attorney understands how the machine works, what causes them to malfunction, and that they are nonspecific for alcohol. Without doing exhaustive research, no attorney would understand their internal workings enough to cross-examine the state’s witnesses effectively on their alleged accuracy.
The “opinion” evidence gathered by police officers typically consists of field or roadside sobriety tests. These agility tests are supposed to indicate that the person suspected of drunk driving was actually impaired or in some way “a less safe driver.”
Recent scholarly studies have shown that field sobriety tests are not given uniformly, there is no scientific basis for assuming they are valid, and most officers either require the wrong tests or improperly instruct the suspect on how to perform the tests. A defense attorney can obtain a pretrial ruling that the tests and their alleged indication of impairment must be excluded from evidence due to lack of scientific foundation and faulty instructions.
Any other “observation” evidence from a police officer will generally be inconclusive and subject to many interpretations by experts. For example, bloodshot eyes can be caused by conditions other than drunkenness, including contact lenses, allergies, or lack of sleep. The defense attorney should analyze the evidence that will likely be presented and take the time to investigate the medical background of clients and the environmental contaminants they have been exposed to. Most alleged evidence of intoxication can be neutralized or eliminated from the state’s presentation with findings from this investigation.
The defense should leave no stone unturned. These cases require detailed investigations, as does a complex murder case that involves fiber evidence, ballistics tests, or other intricate issues. Attorneys who do not investigate thoroughly and defend the client aggressively do the client a disservice and expose themselves to possible liability. In addition, they harm the legal profession by failing to fully represent the client.
Myth Number 2: Drunk driving is a minor offense.
Many veteran attorneys remember when drunk-driving convictions led to fines of $50 to $150, with no suspension of driving privileges and no penalties beyond going to court, paying the fine, and being chastised by the judge. Those days are gone.One reason some attorneys still do not give proper consideration to these cases is that their only contact with the client occurs when they enter the plea. The attorney doesn’t experience the penalties that later befall the client.
A client accused of drunk driving deserves to be represented zealously because an unjustified conviction will have repercussions lasting for the rest of the client’s life. Not all the “penalties” for these convictions are legal in nature.
The stigma of a conviction can exact a severe psychological toll.
A substantial number of drivers whose licenses are suspended continue to drive. Typically, they do so to provide for themselves and their families, despite the possibility of being jailed for driving with a suspended license. A surprising number are never caught. Yet, they live in terror of being stopped at a license check or a roadside sobriety checkpoint Those unjustly convicted should not have to live with this hardship.
Most of those convicted also suffer serious financial and social consequences. In most states, a drunk-driving conviction can never be removed from a driving record, so convicted offenders must endure the consequences of their convictions for the rest of their lives.
Some blame themselves because they know they had something to drink before the police stopped them. However, it is not illegal for adults to drive after drinking alcoholic beverages in any state. The crime of drunk driving occurs only when the person’s blood alcohol level has exceeded the arbitrary numerical standard set by the state, or when the person has demonstrated bad driving that can be causally connected to impairment due to a high blood alcohol level.
Most attorneys would cringe at the thought that they might have poorly represented a client on a civil matter and that the substandard representation could come back to haunt them. Malpractice in drunk-driving cases carries the same potential for litigation, except that most convicted drivers don’t realize that their attorneys may not have properly represented them when advising them to plead guilty or nolo contenderewithout first checking into the facts of the case. The client doesn’t know whether the state’s case was validly made or based on an illegal stop. The client is not familiar with the many ways that breath machines may be inaccurate. That is why people need attorneys in the first place - to investigate the case thoroughly and recommend the best alternative.
Myth Number 3: Any attorney can defend an accused drunk driver.
If a friend or relative asked me for help on a matter involving antitrust litigation, my response would be to consult an expert in the field. I would probably inquire with the state bar association or phone colleagues to try to locate an expert in antitrust laws. I would try to send the client to the most skilled lawyer I could find who specializes in this area of practice.When a prospective client walks into the average law office and asks for help on a drunk-driving case, some attorneys will agree to represent the person even if they have never handled criminal matters. The attorney may advise the person to plead guilty or nolo contendere (depending on state law) and work out an arrangement with the court to keep his or her license with the least possible suspension time. The attorney may not adequately investigate the facts of the case or get copies of documents and other evidence that are readily available through discovery.
These naive attorneys don’t realize how much exposure to liability they have if they counsel clients to give up their Constitutional and statutory rights and plead guilty to this serious offense. Yet these same attorneys would probably not hesitate to refer these same clients to specialists if they were charged with securities fraud.
Some clients discover the folly of their plea before the statute of limitations on their potential malpractice against their former attorney expires. A suit for malpractice may be the only way they can hope to achieve some semblance of recovery for the devastating effects of a drunk-driving conviction.
After a conviction, these clients soon learn what most drunk-driving specialists already know: The penalties are not only serious, but like the Energizer bunny in the TV ads, they keep going and going and going. Consequences like license suspension, fines, community service, probation, mandatory counseling or alcohol treatment, and possible incarceration (even for first offenders) are well known. These cases also carry a plethora of other consequences that will confront the convicted driver days, months, or even years after.
For example, in most states insurance rates for a convicted drunk driver will increase 500 percent to 1,000 percent above the premiums paid before the conviction (if coverage isn’t canceled). In South Carolina, a person with a five-year-old car carrying only liability coverage can expect to pay $10,000 to $11,000 in additional premiums over the first three years after a first-offense drunk-driving conviction.
This increase in insurance costs is well known. But many attorneys are unaware that most credit bureaus now include drunk-driving convictions on credit reports. This not only will affect future credit, but it may also prevent convicted drivers from getting jobs where the prospective employer runs a credit check in processing job applications. A drunk-driving conviction may bar or restrict employment alternatives with a significant segment of the job market.
Other penalties have been imposed on defendants in different states. They include the following:
College students charged with or convicted of drunk driving have been suspended from school for at least one semester or quarter .
Recipients of unemployment benefits who have drunk-driving convictions have had their benefits eliminated.
Those in military service who are charged with or convicted of drunk-driving offenses can be summarily discharged or required to take extensive alcohol-education courses, restricted to military bases, deprived of normal base privileges, or saddled with other forms of punishment.
Professionals (like attorneys and judges) may be disciplined by their professional regulatory authorities.
Many people wrongly convicted of drunk driving need not passively suffer these consequences. Relief may be as close as the nearest attorney who handles legal malpractice cases. Any judge or jury will sympathize with former trusting clients who can show that they lost jobs or homes and suffered other serious penalties as a result of a conviction that should never have occurred.
Myth Number 4: These cases can’t be won.
This is the most prevalent myth about these cases. Not only do members of the general public believe this, so do many attorneys. In fact, experienced drunk-driving defense lawyers “win” most cases of first offenders when there is no evidence of a wreck or other manifest bad driving.The term “win” is in quotation marks here because winning may mean having the charge reduced to a different offense or otherwise obtaining a plea bargain that avoids a conviction. The availability of alternative plea arrangements for offenders varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Where jury trials are available, success rates for acquittal are surprisingly good. The national average for acquittals is about 50 percent for those accused of drunk driving if their cases are heard by juries. In some jurisdictions, only about 20 percent to 30 percent of all drunk-driving arrests lead to a conviction, while other states have an 80 percent to 90 percent conviction rate.
In the few states that have abandoned the right to jury trials for the misdemeanor drunk-driving cases, defense attorneys will have a more difficult task convincing a judge to acquit. However, this only applies to about 5 percent of all drunk-driving cases.
The formula for success is to investigate exhaustively; conduct pretrial discovery and motion practice aggressively; use evidentiary maneuvers and procedural devices skillfully; and present a well-conceived, thoroughly choreographed trial with expert witnesses, character witnesses, and other tried-and-true tactics for successful defense of criminal cases.
Many people know someone who has been charged with this offense and pleaded guilty or nolo contendere. Because most people believe that these cases are difficult or even impossible to win, the average client will not challenge the trusted attorney’s “sage advice.”
Attorneys who enter pleas of guilty or nolo contendere for these clients will never win those cases. Their files for these clients probably contain only three or four pieces of paper, clearly indicating that they have not performed “due diligence” investigations. Granted, the client may have told the attorney that he or she could not afford to contest the charges. But was the client fully informed of the penalties that will follow a conviction? If the client had known this, would the client have chosen to seek a trial to challenge the state’s case?
In explaining to clients why they should consider pleading not guilty and letting a jury decide their fate, I often compare receiving a conviction for drunk driving with receiving a diagnosis of cancer. Getting rid of the problem may be expensive and difficult and will involve some risks, but the alternative is much worse.
This may seem like a bad analogy, but consider the “cancer” that attacks the lives of convicted drunk drivers. Some have committed suicide after incarceration for drunk driving. Certainly, people who suffer from untreated cancer (or their survivors) will not be pleased if they later discover that the doctor should have recommended surgery, not vitamin therapy. Similarly, people who suffer the consequences of ill-advised guilty pleas to drunk-driving charges will not be pleased with their lawyers.
Myth Number 5: Drunk driving cases are just like any other criminal case.
Nothing could be further from the truth. In many areas, the courts handle these cases differently from other offenses. Here are two examples that make the point:First, consider the normal prosecution where the state proposes to use physical evidence as part of its case-in-chief. For example, suppose John Doe is charged with murder, having allegedly shot Tom Jones. The prosecution will normally order ballistic tests, take blood spatter patterns and fingerprints, and collect other physical evidence. That evidence is always subject to independent analysis by the defense attorney representing the accused.
This is not true in drunk-driving cases, where breath tests usually are not required to be preserved. Very few states require police officers taking a breath sample to capture some of the breath so it can be analyzed independently at a later date. Yet, all modern breath analysis machines can provide sealed samples at a minimal cost. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that it is perfectly acceptable that such critical evidence is destroyed, even where the state could have preserved it for less than $1 per sample.
Another consideration is the use of roadside sobriety checkpoints (roadblocks) at which drivers are briefly detained to determine if they are under the influence of alcohol or drugs. More than 40 states permit this, and the U.S. Supreme Court has given its stamp of approval to this encroachment on our Fourth Amendment rights. A few states like Louisiana and Texas have ruled that their state constitutions provide protection against such arbitrary searches and seizures.
Manifestly unfair judicial decisions have been rendered in many other areas in an effort to stamp out drunk driving. A book could be written about these unfair and unconstitutionally premised state court decisions. Suffice it to say that the judicial system has erected difficult hurdles for practitioners who defend drunk-driving cases.
No attorney likes to hear the word “malpractice.” However, I am convinced that faulty representation in these cases is blatant attorney malpractice. Often, the attorney’s negligent handling of a drunk-driving case is attributable to a defeatist attitude.
Lawyers must take these cases seriously. Either they must fully educate themselves on this subject so they can provide an effective defense, or they must refer these cases to lawyers with expertise in the field. This will protect these clients from great harm and provide the lawyers with many peaceful nights, free from the concern that they may have improperly advised a client.
Source: Article by William Head found at the site of Vic Carmody
Memphis DUI Lawyers Know Not to Rely on Breath Tests
February 26, 2008 | Leave a Comment
Here in Memphis the police and prosecutors want you to think that just because you might have blown over .08 on the intoxilizer you are guilty of a DUI. But this just isn’t true. There are several things that could cause an improper reading. Among these are; a damaged breathalyzer, a machine that is not properly calibrated or the officer could have just used it incorrectly. As Memphis DUI lawyers it’s our duty to our clients to make sure that all of these issues are looked into. We want to make sure that we give you the best possible defense in your Memphis DUI case.
The following article shows where eleven dui arrests were thrown out because of faulty machines.
EAST WENATCHEE — A prosecutor’s decision to throw out breath-test evidence in 11 DUI cases in Douglas County could affect several DUI cases in Chelan County as well.
Chelan County Deputy Prosecutor Allen Blackmon said breath-test evidence for between nine and 11 DUI cases, dating to as far back as last summer, could be thrown out. However, the cases can still be prosecuted without breath-test evidence.
This stems from a Feb. 20 Douglas County District Court hearing during which Douglas County Deputy Prosecutor Gordon Edgar agreed not to use the breath-test evidence for 11 Douglas County DUI cases because of a possible problem with the machine used to get the results.
The results were obtained using one of two machines at Chelan County Regional Justice Center. Steve Woods, one of the attorneys who presented the motion that the results not be used as evidence, said a solution used to certify one of the machines was not properly prepared.
The motion was the result of a ruling in a King County case last month in which three judges threw out breath-test results in eight DUI cases due to problems at the State Patrol’s toxicology lab.
Ted Vosk, one of the attorneys who argued the King County case, was one of several attorneys who argued the Douglas County case. He argued that because the solution was not properly prepared, the results were not admissible in court, said Woods.
On Friday, a hearing in Chelan County District Court during which a motion was going to be made to suppress breath-test evidence for the same reason was rescheduled to April 9.
Blackmon said he wants to get the facts straight from the source before deciding not to use the evidence in any Chelan County cases.
“It’s possible we could have the same results here because both Douglas and Chelan counties use the same machines, but I want to talk to the toxicologists myself and get the information about the machines and their certification firsthand before I make any decisions,” Blackmon said Monday morning.
Woods said he believes prosecutors in Douglas County will still pursue the charges against the 11 DUI suspects without the breath-test evidence.
He said the prosecution’s decision to not admit the evidence could affect the results of every breath test taken at that machine between December 2006 and December 2007, the period between certifications.
“It’s possible that more than these 11 cases were affected. Right now we’re looking at cases to see if there are others that might be impacted,” Woods said.
source: The Wenatche World
First Offense DUI in Memphis, Tennessee
February 19, 2008 | Leave a Comment
Memphis DUI attorneys understand that if you are charged with DUI for the first time, you are probably concerned and worried about your future. Our Memphis DUI lawyers realize that Driving Under the Influence is typically not a crime involving malice. Many individuals charged with DUI are not familiar with the criminal justice system. The DUI laws and regulations are confusing and seem to change frequently.U
nder Tennessee law, any person convicted for a first offense DUI shall be fined between $350 and $1,500. The court will prohibit a convicted person from driving a vehicle in the state of Tennessee for a period of one year. Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-403 (2007). A first offense DUI violation is a Class A misdemeanor. The jail time depends upon the circumstances surrounding the conviction.
If you are less than twenty-one years of age at the time of the offense, the court shall sentence you to confinement in the county jail or workhouse for a minimum of forty-eight hours to a maximum of eleven months and twenty-nine days incarceration. As a condition of probation, you must remove litter during daylight hours from state route highways or state-aid highways, for a period of twenty-four hours. The period of litter removal shall be served in three shifts of eight consecutive hours each.
If you are twenty-one years of age or older at the time of the offense, the court shall sentence you to confinement in the county jail or workhouse for not less than twenty-four hours nor more than eleven months and twenty-nine days. As a condition of probation, you must remove litter during daylight hours from state route highways or state-aid highways for a period of twenty-four hours. The period of litter removal shall be served in three shifts of eight consecutive hours each.
• If at the time of the offense the alcohol concentration in your blood or breath is twenty hundredths of one percent (.20%) or greater, the minimum period of confinement for you must be seven consecutive calendar days rather than forty-eight hours.
• If at the time of the offense, you were accompanied by a child under eighteen years of age, you must be punished by a mandatory minimum incarceration of thirty days and a mandatory minimum fine of one thousand dollars $1,000.
• If at the time of the offense, you were accompanied by a child under eighteen years of age, and the child suffers serious bodily injury as a result of the DUI, the violation is a Class D felony.
• If at the time of the offense, you were accompanied by a child under eighteen years of age, and the child is killed as a result of the DUI, the violation is a Class C felony.
Contact a Memphis DUI lawyer to talk about the facts and circumstances surrounding your case. A Memphis DUI attorney can discuss different legal avenues applicable to you. Our Memphis attorneys handle DUI cases in Germantown, Cordova, Collierville, Bartlett and all of Shelby County.
Contact a Memphis DUI Lawyer!
February 19, 2008 | Leave a Comment
Memphis DUI lawyers realize that a DUI charge can be intimidating, especially if you don’t know a lot about Tennessee DUI law. Memphis, Tennessee DUI lawyers can help you understand Tennessee law, and explain your rights and options. If you have questions about the automatic license suspension or the impact a DUI conviction might have on your insurance costs, you may want to talk with a Memphis DUI lawyer.
You should not wait until your initial court appearance to start asking questions about your particular case. Contact a Memphis DUI lawyer before you appear in court so that your Memphis DUI attorney can gather important information he or she needs to make informed decisions about your case. A Memphis DUI lawyer can assess your case from your point of view, and advise you on Tennessee DUI law as it applies to your situation.
If you have questions about the sentence you face including whether the mandatory jail time provisions apply to you, contact a Tennessee DUI lawyer. You may think that there’s no way to successfully challenge a DUI charge, but Memphis DUI lawyers know that many cases have weaknesses. These weaknesses often open doors to dismissals or acquittals. Any crack in the state’s case could create an opportunity for a Tennessee DUI lawyer to negotiate for reduced charges or a favorable plea bargain.
Take advantage of the opportunity to learn about your rights under Tennessee law before you take a step in any direction. Contact a Tennessee DUI attorney if you have been charged with DUI in Memphis, Tennessee. Our DUI attorneys handle DUI cases in Memphis, Germantown, Collierville, Bartlett, Cordova and all of Shelby County.
How Much Will My DUI Cost Me?
January 30, 2008 | 1 Comment
So, you’ve received a DUI in Memphis or Mississippi! How much is your Memphis DUI or Mississippi DUI going to cost you? $500, $1,000 maybe $,1500?
If your arrested and convicted for a Mississippi DUI or Memphis DUI you’d be surprised at the cost. The penalty with a conviction for a Mississippi DUI or Memphis DUI will costs you for years to come. Here’s a look at the cost from CNBC.
Drunk Driving Could Cost $20,000
CNBC News. Dec. 14 - Twenty thousand dollars sounds like a lot to pay for a drink at a holiday party, but if that last cocktail puts you over the legal limit, that “one for the road” could easily cost you that or more.
One drink too many puts you at risk for not only an arrest, but also for fees, fines and costs that can run you thousands of dollars. While a DUI or DWI may be a misdemeanor charge in a number of jurisdictions, it’s a matter that most judges and district attorneys take very seriously. The financial toll of a conviction will play out for years to come, and in many states that can add up to $20,000 before everything is over. This includes bail, fines, legal fees, increased auto insurance premiums, loss of work income, court-ordered alcohol education programs and more.
Of course, if you get fired from your job as a result of the arrest, that dollar figure would skyrocket…
The Texas Department of Transportation says a June 2006 survey in that state showed the total costs of a DWI arrest and conviction - for a first time offender with no accident involved - would range from $9,000 to $24,000.
In many states today, you’re better off committing a felony burglary, for example, than a misdemeanor DUI. The difference between .07% and .08% alcohol in your blood could be the difference between a brief detention and a nightmare in the legal system with a $20,000 price tag.
‘Ever wonder why?
So the next time you decide to drink and drive think about the consequences. Not only will a Mississippi DUI or Memphis DUI cost you over $20,000 in higher insurance costs, court costs, and lost income, it could cost even more if you harm someone when you’re behind the wheel. Remember never drink and drive, but if you feel that you need a Memphis DUI attorney or Mississippi DUI attorney then give us a call.
(special thanks to Lawrence Taylor’s blog for alerting us to the CNBC article)
DUI Entrapment in Memphis, Tennessee
January 30, 2008 | Leave a Comment
Although he’s not a Memphis DUI lawyer, but dui attorney Lawrence Taylor is an expert in the dui defense field. He had an excellent post on DUI entrapment that takes a look at how police and the courts have looked at dui entrapment.
You can view his post on his site here or just read it below.
DUI Entrapment
Monday, December 13th, 2004
Suppose a police officer asks or orders an individual to drive a vehicle - and then arrests him for DUI when he complies?This situation comes up more often than you might think. Take, for example, the following case that eventually made its way to the New Jersey Supreme Court….
The defendant asked his brothers at a wedding reception to drive him home because he was too intoxicated to drive. In the parking lot, however, the brothers got into a fight, attracting the attention of local police. One of the officers struck a brother with his nightstick. The defendant asked the officer to quit hitting his brother. The officer replied by ordering him to leave the parking lot. When the defendant did not immediately comply, the officer repeated the order and then forcefully escorted him to his truck. The defendant obediently got into the vehicle, started the engine - and backed into a police car.
He was arrested for drunk driving.
At trial, the judge ruled that the defendant had failed to prove entrapment or duress as a defense, and he was convicted. On appeal, however, the conviction was reversed on grounds of quasi-entrapment - that is, the defendant should have been acquitted if he could show that but for the officer’s order to leave in the vehicle he would not have driven. The prosecution appealed this reversal to the state’s supreme court.
Incredibly, the supreme court reversed the lower court and reinstated the conviction. Its reasoning? “Obviously,” the court said, “if the law were to permit [drunk drivers] to offer as a defense that they drove only because they reasonably feared that telling the police that they were drunk might lead to arrest, the invitation to offer a pretext would be clear”. The court continued its twisted logic:
“No one ordered the defendant to get drunk and no one ordered defendant to drive drunk. The police did not coerce defendant into driving his vehicle through the use or threats of violence. The police officers merely ordered defendant to get in his truck and leave the scene of the fight….” (Emphasis added) State v. Fogarty, 607 A.2d 624 (N.J. 1992).
This “no win” scenario is fairly typical of what I have referred to in earlier posts as “the DUI exception to the Constitution”.
Two-tiered level of DUI
December 14, 2007 | Leave a Comment
Memphis DUI lawyers might be looking at new classifications of dui’s in the future if what is going on in the West Virginia legislature is any indication.
West Virginia has a bill up that will change the ways that dui’s are prosecuted. The new legislation would make it so that two different tiers of dui’s are created.
Tier 1 would be for all dui’s in which the person blew a .08 to a .14 into the breathalyzer. For these dui’s the person would no longer need to serve 24 hours in jail and would instead be released after a few hours with just time served.
Tier 2 would be for what will be called “aggravated dui’s” in which a breathalyzer reading of .15 or higher was reached. These individuals would then be required to stay in jail for at least 48 hours.
The reasoning behind he law is that West Virginia is trying to lower the number of people required to stay in jail in order to help a crowded jail population. Currently all offenders are required to stay at least 24 hours in jail.
If this new law goes into effect it should give anyone arrested in West Virginia even more reason to hire a dui lawyer. Why you might ask? Because breathalyzer’s are not infallible. In fact they are very often wrong and an experienced dui lawyer should be able to point that out to the court. Here the difference between .14 and .15 could mean an extra few days spent in jail, and thousands of extra dollars in insurance and other costs, not to mention to possible loss of a job for being convicted of “aggravated dui”.
To get a copy of the free report “The Unauthorized Guide to Memphis DUI Defense” written by DUI Lawyer James Ferrell, just email us at info@lawferrell.com or call our 24/7 automated line at 1-800-546-2713 today.
Memphis DUI Lawyers, “It just depends on how good of an attorney you get,”.
December 7, 2007 | Leave a Comment
In an article running in today’s Memphis Commercial Appeal, Memphis Metro DUI Seargent Chris Jones huffs that when it comes to getting out of a DUI, “It just depends on how good of an attorney you get.”
The article in the paper also states that Since 2003, the Shelby County Attorney General’s Office has had a DUI Prosecution Task Force. That head of that task force is prosecuting attorney Charles Bell, who spent more than a dozen years prosecuting violent crimes.
Mr. Bell had this to say about prosecuting DUI cases, “I came to DUI, quite honestly, not realizing how difficult it is to prosecute cases,” he says.
The article goes on to talk about how Memphis and Shelby County are working together to try and crackdown on drinking and driving this holiday season.
At one point in the article the prosecutor is quoted as saying “You can be a little buzzed and be impaired” and follows that up by saying “On the other hand, I’m sure the defense bar will tell you it’s not illegal to have a drink and drive.” These quotes came in response to whether he thought the breathalyzer even mattered, which he apparently does not believe.
It seems that Mr. Bell thinks that anyone drinking and driving should be arrested for DUI. The problem is that it is not against the law to drink and drive. It is only against the law the be intoxicated and drive. There’s a big difference between the two, but I guess Mr. Bell doesn’t think so. In his opinion if you’ve had a beer and drive then you should be behind bars.
This is the type prosecutor and officer that you’ll be against when facing a DUI charge. Unfortunately they sometimes don’t care about the law, just about putting someone behind bars.
To read the full article you can click here.
To get a copy of the free report “The Unauthorized Guide to Memphis DUI Defense” written by DUI Lawyer James Ferrell, just email us at info@lawferrell.com or call our 24/7 automated line at 1-800-546-2713 today.
Famous DUI’s!
December 5, 2007 | 1 Comment
If you’re like most people when they receive a DUI here in Memphis or Mississippi the first thing you think is that you’re life is over. And although a DUI does hamper many aspects of your life a conviction is not going to ruin your life forever (it just makes it more difficult).
A DUI conviction in Kennebunkport, Maine didn’t seem to stop a young George W. Bush from going on to become the future President. And two convictions of Dick Cheney didn’t stop him from later becoming a Vice-President.
Here in Tennessee State Senator Jerry Cooper recently received a DUI. As did Al Gore’s son Al Gore, Jr. when visiting California.
Several mayors around the country have been convicted. The list includes the mayor of Boise, Idaho; Carson City, Nevada; Gore, Oklahoma, Norton, Ohio and more.
Even prosecutors get in on the act sometimes. As is the case in Miami where the city prosecutor hit two people riding a scooter while he was driving under the influence.
Remember, it’s best not to drink and drive. But if you have been convicted it doesn’t mean your life is over. Just make sure that you know your rights.
To get a copy of the free report “The Unauthorized Guide to Memphis DUI Defense“ just email us at info@lawferrell.com or call our 24/7 automated line at 1-800-546-2713 today.
Tennessee DUI Conviction Worse Than a Violent Felony?
December 5, 2007 | Leave a Comment
Here’s an interesting article from The Tennessean that looks at how a DUI Conviction here in Tennessee can stick with you for life. You’d be better off if you’re arrested for domestic violence, burglary or almost any other felony except for misdemeanor DUI here in Memphis.
DUI convictions can’t be erased
By SHEILA BURKE Staff Writer -What can a drug user, wife beater and burglar do that someone convicted of driving under the influence can’t?Under Tennessee law, all but DUI offenders are eligible to have their criminal records wiped clean. Such harsh terms normally apply only to the most violent perpetrators, such as murderers and sexual predators.
Criminal defense attorneys say that’s one more reason drivers should be careful this holiday season, a time when DUI arrests typically rise… click here to read the rest of the article
It seems to me that DUI offenders are everyone’s favorite easy target these days. If you’ve been arrested for DUI make sure that you speak with a lawyer and know the repercussions before going to court alone.
To get a copy of the free report “The Unauthorized Guide to Memphis DUI Defense” just email us at info@lawferrell.com or call our 24/7 automated line at 1-800-546-2713 today.
