Quantcast
Channel: Recent Criminal Law posts - Justia BlawgSearch.com
Viewing all 71824 articles
Browse latest View live

Fake Carl Ceder

0
0
I took all of Carl Ceder’s writings—blog comments and emails—from here, here, and here, and used them as the input to Dr. Nerve’s Markov Page. You might be able to distinguish the result from Carl’s actual writing. Agreed, please see … Continue reading →

MIAMI BEACH POLICE BELIEB JUSTIN BIEBER WAS D.U.I., ACCUSE POP SINGER OF DRAG RACING

0
0
Apparently, Justin Bieber has spent the morning in the custody of the Miami Beach Police Department. His alleged crimes? Spending the day smoking pot, popping pills, drinking alcohol at a nightclub, and drag-racing a Lamborghini at 4 o'clock in the morning in a residential neighborhood. Or, as the 19-year-old Justin Bieber might say: a typical Wednesday night. Of course, in today's social-media universe, there's already video of the traffic stop online. Apparently, a gaggle of shrilly "Beliebers" were also out at 4 o'clock in the morning, following their favorite troubled teen icon through the streets of Miami Beach. Not surprisingly, the girls were totally incompetent in their attempt to film Bieber, and mostly just captured a series of blurry images, accompanied by off camera screeching: "THERE HE IS!!!!! PLEASE!!!! PLEASE!!!! OH. MY. GAWD!!" So let's break down the law, and what we know about the case, as reported in the media. According to a Miami Beach Police Department probable cause affidavit, an officer observed Bieber in a yellow Lamborghini. Bieber's Lamborghini was allegedly next to a red Ferrari, both of which were heading northbound on Pine Tree Drive. The officer observed two S.U.V.'s that appeared to be blocking traffic, so as to create "an open road" for a race. The officer then allegedly observed "both vehicles start a contest of speed (drag racing) from a start." The officer estimated the speed to be "about 55-60 MPH." Pursuant to Florida Statute 316.191(2)(a), to prove the crime of "Drag Racing," the State must prove that Bieber was driving a motor vehicle in a "race, speed competition or contest, drag race or acceleration contest, test of physical endurance, or exhibition of speed or acceleration, or for the purpose of making a speed record on any highway, roadway, or parking lot." "Drag Racing" is further defined as: "the operation of two or more motor vehicles from a point side by side at accelerating speeds in a competitive attempt to outdistance each other, or the operation of one or more motor vehicles over a common selected course, from the same point to the same point, for the purpose of comparing the relative speeds or power of acceleration of such motor vehicle or motor vehicles within a certain distance or time limit." Taking the officer's probable cause affidavit at face value, it does appear that the officer had valid probable cause to arrest Bieber for "Drag Racing." However, it should be noted that the officer simply states that he observed a "contest of speed (drag racing)," without specifically stating that he observed Bieber attempting to competitively "outdistance" the Ferrari. Nevertheless, the officer's observation of the Lamborghini and the Ferrari starting a "contest of speed" "from a start," surely suffices for the purpose of probable cause. Proving the crime of "Drag Racing" beyond a reasonable doubt is another thing altogether, but it is doubtful that Bieber will have any desire to drag this matter out in litigation. See what I did there? Interestingly, the officer did not actually arrest Bieber for "Drag Racing." Rather, he arrested Bieber for "Resisting Arrest Without Violence" (RWOV). From my experience representing clients in Miami Beach, the Miami Beach Police will charge just about anybody for "Resisting Arrest Without Violence," no matter how outlandish the allegation (note to Miami Beach Police: asking "why am I being placed under arrest" is not a crime). That said, taking the probable cause affidavit at face value, the officer seems to have had a legitimate basis to arrest Bieber for RWOV. According to the affidavit, when the officer pulled Bieber over, Bieber exited the vehicle and "kept going into his pants pockets." In legalese, when an individual "keeps going into his pants pockets," it is called "furtive movements." Typically, a police officer cannot conduct a "cursory pat-down" of an individual during a traffic stop if the officer only has a generalized concern for safety. Rather, under Florida Statute 901.151 and relevant case law, an officer may only conduct a "pat-down" if the officer has a reasonable articulable suspicion that the detained individual might be armed. "Furtive movements," in which a detained individual fidgets, or places his hands in his pockets as though to conceal something, provides an officer with a legitimate basis to conduct a "pat-down." Allegedly, when the officer attempted to conduct a "pat-down" of Bieber, the upset pop-star refused to comply with the officer's lawful order to turn around and keep his hands on the vehicle. Under Florida Statute 843.02, it is unlawful for any person to "resist, obstruct, or oppose" any law enforcement officer who is "engaged in the lawful execution of a legal duty." Thus, taking the probable cause affidavit at face value, it does appear that Bieber resisted a lawful order from a law enforcement officer. In fact, considering how Miami Beach Police have reacted to Resisting Without Violence in the past, Bieber should count himself lucky that he wasn't tasered to death. However, the investigation did not end with Bieber's arrest. According to the probable cause affidavit, Bieber smelled of alcohol, had bloodshot eyes, and a look of "stupor" on his face. The affidavit claims that Bieber denied being drunk, and that officers afforded Bieber the opportunity to perform "SFST's." For the uninitiated, this means that officers asked Bieber to perform Standardized Field Sobriety Tasks. The affidavit references a "DUI Test Report," which as of publishing, is not yet publicly available. The affidavit further states that Bieber did not perform the Field Sobriety Tasks "to standards." The affidavit also claims that Bieber agreed to a "breath test" as well as a "drug evaluation." According to the Miami-Herald, Bieber told police officers that "he had a beer, was under the influence of anti-depressants, and had been smoking marijuana all day." The Herald also sources Miami Beach Police Chief Raymond Martinez as saying that "tests showed that Bieber was under the influence of drugs." So what does all of this mean? To begin, it means that Bieber is being charged with D.U.I. This is not as straightforward as it might seem. Typically, to prove the crime of D.U.I., the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant drove or was in actual physical control of a vehicle, while under the influence of alcohol, a chemical substance, or a controlled substance, to the extent that the defendant's normal faculties were impaired. "Normal faculties" are defined as including "the ability to see, hear, walk, talk, judge distances, drive an automobile, make judgments, act in emergencies and, in general, to normally perform the many mental and physical acts of our daily lives." The reason an officer will ask an individual to perform Field Sobriety Tasks, is so that the officer may observe how well--or how poorly--an individual has control of his/her "normal faculties." If an individual refuses to perform Field Sobriety Tasks, the officer will have less evidence to prove that the individual's "normal faculties" are impaired. Unfortunately for Bieber, he agreed to perform the Field Sobriety Tasks, and it appears likely that the State will use his performance as evidence of Bieber's alleged guilt . Of course, the State may also prove the crime of D.U.I. a second way. The State may also prove the crime of D.U.I. by proving that the defendant was operating or in actual physical control of a vehicle, while having a breath-alcohol level of .08 or more grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. This is why the police asked Bieber to provide a sample of his breath for testing. If an individual refuses to provide a sample of breath, the individual's driver's license will be automatically suspended for 1 year. Of course, if an individual refuses to provide a sample of breath, the State will have no direct evidence of the individual's breath-alcohol content. Thus, if an individual refuses to provide a sample of breath, it is just about impossible for the State to prove an individual is guilty of having a breath-alcohol level above .08. Nevertheless, just as Bieber agreed to perform Field Sobriety Tasks, it also appears as though Bieber agreed to provide a sample of his breath. For Bieber, however, the lawful limit is well below .08. Under Florida Statute 322.2616, individuals under the age of 21 may not drive or be in actual physical control of a vehicle with a breath-alcohol level of .02. What is more, under this statute, an officer may detain any individual under the age of 21 for the purposes of testing the individual's breath, if the officer has probable cause to believe that the individual is driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol--regardless of impairment. Thus, for all intents and purposes, law enforcement had the right to detain Bieber and take Bieber to a Breath-Alcohol Testing Center the moment law enforcement smelled alcohol on Bieber's breath. It is entirely possible, of course, that Bieber provided a sample of breath that tested below .02. That, however, would not mean that Bieber is out of the water, so to speak. Rather, law enforcement would next ask Bieber to provide a sample of urine, so as to determine whether Bieber was under the influence of a chemical substance or a controlled substance. If it is true that Bieber admitted to taking anti-depressants and smoking pot, it is more than likely that any urine sample would reveal that Bieber was under the influence of one or more controlled substances. Which brings us to the Herald's assertion that "tests showed that Bieber was under the influence of drugs." There is simply no way that a sample of Bieber's urine has already been tested for drugs. That process can take weeks. However, it is entirely possible that Bieber submitted to a Drug Influence Evaluation. A Drug Influence Evaluation is somewhat similar to a battery of Field Sobriety Tasks, except that it is conducted by a specialized officer, who is designated a Drug Recognition Expert (or "D.R.E."). Unlike Field Sobriety Tasks, which are designed for observing an individual's control of his/her "normal faculties," a Drug Influence Evaluation is designed for observing specific indicators of drug use. The exercises in a Drug Influence Evaluation are different than the exercises in a battery of Field Sobriety Tasks. What's more, the D.R.E. administering the Drug Influence Evaluation can testify in court as an expert witness, and share his/her expert opinion as to the defendant's drug impairment. Reading between the lines, it is entirely possible that when Chief Martinez claimed that "tests showed Bieber was under the influence of drugs," Chief Martinez was referring to the results of a Drug Influence Evaluation. Lastly, law enforcement is alleging that Bieber's Georgia driver's license was expired, which is a second-degree misdemeanor. Got all of that? Good. Now, let's look at the possible penalties. First, the D.U.I. is a misdemeanor offense, punishable by a maximum jail sentence of 6 months. If Bieber doesn't receive a diversion program for his D.U.I., he can expect to serve up to 12 months on probation, suffer a 6-month driver's license revocation, pay a minimum $500 fine (maximum $1,000), and have at least one vehicle, which is registered in his name, immobilized for a period of 10 days. Second, the Resisting Without Violence charge is a First Degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to 1 year in jail, and a maximum fine of $1,000. Third, the Expired Driver's License charge is a Second Degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to 60 days in jail, and a maximum fine of $500. Likely, Bieber won't serve anymore time in jail. A more realistic scenario is that he will go on probation. During the term of his probation, he'll have to stay out of trouble. For Bieber, who has faced allegations of driving recklessly and causing $20,000 worth of egging damage, this might prove difficult. In the final analysis, it is clear that Justin Bieber is a troubled individual. He exists in a peculiar caste within American society: the nobility of celebrity. It would be remiss to fail to mention that an investigation is currently underway in Opa-Locka, Florida, in Miami-Dade County, to investigate an unlawful police escort, which allegedly convoyed Bieber's entourage from the airport to a series of strip-clubs in South Florida. Only a bloated sense of narcissistic entitlement would propel a 19-year-old to recklessly drag-race through the streets of a residential neighborhood on a Thursday morning, while under the influence of alcohol, marijuana, and anti-depressants, and then respond to a police officer with the words: "why the f**k are you doing this? What the f**k is this about." It is important in a society that rejects formal notions of class distinction, and which prides itself on the Rule of Law, to disabuse Justin Bieber of the notion that his social status cloaks him with the privilege of violating the law; or that it affords him special treatment. That said, it is equally important that the law treat Justin Bieber no different than any other similarly situated defendant. Here's to hoping that Florida's criminal justice system is equal to the task.

FL - Senator, sheriff seek greater control of sex offenders

0
0
Original Article So they talk about the growing numbers and want to pass more laws? How will passing more laws prevent the numbers from growing? Or is it so they can attach their name to the law to look good to the sheeple? 01/23/2014 By Gary Pinnell SEBRING - The number of sex offenders in Highlands County is growing: 130 in 2010, compared with 139 in 2013. - A whole 9 more in 3 years! Oh the horror! Even worse, predators - who have committed sexually violent offenses - have nearly... [[ This is a content summary only. Visit our blog for full links, videos, studies and more! ]]

Parties Spar Over Admissibility of Martoma’s Proposed Expert Testimony

0
0
Prosecutors in the government's criminal insider trading case against Mathew Martoma have moved to preclude the testimony of one of Martoma's expert witnesses and to limit the testimony of a second one. Martoma is the former SAC Capital portfolio manager who allegedly traded on material non-public information that he received from two doctors participating in a clinical drug trial conducted by pharmaceutical companies Wyeth and Elan for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Claiming a “broad disagreement” between the parties, the government argues that Martoma’s lawyers failed to provide adequate disclosures of the proposed testimony under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and also that what defense counsel has disclosed is not the proper subject of expert testimony. Martoma’s first expert, Paul Gompers, is a professor at Harvard Business School whose “teaching and research focus on . . . the valuation of pharmaceutical and biotech companies . . . and the practices of institutional investors, including hedge funds.” According to the government, Gompers’ testimony should be precluded altogether because Martoma has not adequately disclosed the “bases and reasons” for his opinions.These opinions include that “there was no correlation in the trading of Elan and Wyeth and the SMC [Safety Monitoring Committee] meetings” and “the trading strategy of SAC in July 2008” shortly before the study results were revealed “was consistent with that of SAC and other hedge funds’ practices.”

Officers Not Beliebers in Justin's Sobriety, Arrest Bieber for DUI in Miami Beach.

0
0
19-year-old Canadian pop star Justin Bieber was arrested early this morning by Miami Beach police for allegedly driving with an expired driver's license, DUI, and resisting arrest without violence, all misdemeanors. According to Officer Medina's Complaint/Arrest affidavit Bieber was observed in a yellow Lamborghini racing or at least "start a contest of speed (drag racing) from a start" with an accompanying red Lamborghini. Officer Medina claims two large black SUVs were following the Lamborghinis in an effort to block off traffic to facilitate the race. Upon detainer Bieber is said to have questioned why he was stopped while emanating an odor of alcohol, was slow and deliberate in his movements and had bloodshot eyes. After becoming rather nasty with responding officers Bieber is alleged to have resisted the investigation leading to his arrest. In spite of his arrest Bieber is said to have advised that he was not drunk and that he was coming back from recording music at a studio. Officers were not "beliebers" and arrested the pop prince anyway. I'm not a fan of Justin Bieber. I don't know what he sings but even if I did I don't think my taste in music is the same as my 6 year old niece's or that of a 15 year old high school sophomore's. I'm sure he's great in his own right and if he wants to gift me a few million who am I to be rude and say no? All that said, I'd love to defend him on his recent snafu as this case may present some issues to huff and puff over. Will the huffing and puffing blow the case down? Probably not but it could provide leverage to free The Biebs on lesser charges. Lets start with the resisting arrest without violence charge. Officer Medina claims in his Complaint/Arrest Affidavit that Bieber was pulled over for "drag racing with the other Lamborghini." In other words, his reasoning for detaining "The Biebs" was reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed. Upon detainer Officer Medina asked the Canadian sensation to step out of his car and allow for a safety pat down. Officer Medina tried to effect this brief search for weapons and contraband and Bieber bucked, leading to his pulling his arms away after Officer Medina elected to cuff Bieber, likely more so for being a smartass than anything else. In Florida to support a finding of guilt for the offense of resisting arrest without violence, "the state must show: (1) the officer was engaged in the lawful execution of a legal duty; and (2) the action by the defendant constituted obstruction or resistance of that lawful duty." See S.G.K. v. State, 657 So.2d 1246, 1247 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). See also Jay v. State, 731 So.2d 774, 775 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). In this case the State would argue that the Officer was engaged in a legal duty of his racing investigation and Bieber wouldn't submit to a brief pat down. J-Beebs then pulled his arms away when the pretty bracelets came out. It's not necessary that the underlying criminal activity providing the basis for the arrest result in a charge or conviction; it is only necessary that the officer has a founded suspicion of criminal activity to make the detention. See State v. Dwyer, 317 So.2d 149, 150 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). In other words, the "[f]acts constituting probable cause [for an arrest] need not meet the standard of conclusiveness and probability required to support a conviction." See Seago v. State, 768 So.2d 498, 500 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Officer Medina had reasonable suspicion to investigate the racing charge. As he was doing so, Bieba Baby resisted.

Central Alabama Task Force Targets Violent Crimes and Drug Offenses

0
0
A new task force has been assembled to identify, arrest and convict criminals who are suspected of crimes including trafficking, money laundering, murder, aggravated assault, robbery and other violent crimes. The task force is targeting crimes that have been associated with gangs, but the new and aggressive approach to target criminals could mean an increase … Continue Reading

"How Colleges Are Preparing Students for a Country Where Pot Is Legal"

0
0
The title of this post is the headline of this notable new article appearing in The Atlantic. I am pleased that my law school seminar, Marijuana Law, Policy and Reform, is discussed in the piece, and I am even more...

Charges Against Former Virginia Governor McDonnell Brought on by Whistleblower

0
0
The media coverage of this week’s announcement that federal prosecutors have charged former Virginia Governor Robert F. McDonnell and his wife, Maureen, with illegally accepting gifts from a wealthy Richmond area businessman have largely focused on what the Commonwealth’s first family may have given in return.  To be sure, the question of whether and how […]

Why the #@$%! is Justin Beiber's sentencing exposure so low for underage DUI?

0
0
The foul-mouthed question in the title of this post was my reaction to reviewing the details in this AP article concerning the charges brought and sentencing ranges in play following troubled pop star Justin Beiber's arrest for drunk driving early...

SECURITY ID INFORMATION

0
0
BREAKING: Judge Dennis Murphy sentenced Eric Rivera, Jr.,  to fifty seven and a half years in prison. Rivera was the individual who fired the gun that killed Sean Taylor (Rivera was convicted of second degree murder, although the jury found it was without a firearm, the facts of the case are that Rivera shot and killed Taylor).  ASA Reid Rubin gets the win and deserves credit for shepherding this case through the system over the last several years. Well done Mr. Rubin. Well done indeed. We are sure the Taylor family is extremely grateful for your dedication and efforts. It's been busy day at the REGJB. BREAKING. Someone named "Bieber" who is apparently a person of some renown in the entertainment world, was arrested earlier today. He had his first appearance before Judge Farina, who is a Judge of some renown in Miami. Bond was set. The media is breathlessly analyzing the cosmic implications of all of this. A lawyer named "Roy Black" muddled his way through the hearing without too much trouble. Occasionally we take a break from our award winning witty repartee; the continued disparagement of  our robed readers, and the downright tarring and feathering of judicial candidates, to post something useful to our readers. Today is that day. If you've been walking around staring at your expired security ID without any idea what to do next, then this is for you. There is NOTHING more important in the lives of lawyers at the REGB than the ability to bypass the hour long lines outside of our humble courthouse. This is, of course, a lawyer-centric view. We imagine the judicial-centric view of what is important  might revolve more along the lines  of locating the local free lunch buffets or making that 3pm tee-time or mani-pedi appointment. (Our ability to hold in abeyance the cheap shots at judges isn't very good.)Go get those IDs. Don't wait in line. Pass Go. Collect your fee. See You In Court. Site Feed

Solving the ‘Big Brother Problem’ of Mass Surveillance

0
0
People have a right to privacy; governments should only be looking at our information if, and only if, they have probable cause to suspect wrongdoing.

Being an Expert Witness in Criminal Defense Cases

0
0
Should forensic accountants and expert witnesses provide services to criminal defendants? Tracy Coenen discusses the work that can be done on the criminal defense side, and a few issues that the accountant should consider before accepting such a case.

Danny Finds Out Why Will Is on the Sex Offender Registry (Love Thy Neighbor)

0
0
Hard to believe this is from the Oprah Winfrey Network! Video Description: After convincing his mother to end her relationship with Will, Danny finds out that Will is only listed as a registered sex offender because he dated a 16-year-old when he was 17. © 2006-2013 | Sex Offender Issues (Facebook) [[ This is a content summary only. Visit our blog for full links, videos, studies and more! ]]

Friday Night Open Thread

0
0
I won't catch up on the days' news for a few hours as I'm finalizing a motion I've been working on yesterday and today. In the meantime, here's an open thread, all topics welcome. [[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

Informing New Hampshire Juries about Nullification

0
0
From The Wall Street Journal: A bill introduced earlier this month in the Granite State's House of Representatives would require judges to tell juries in every criminal case that they are free to exercise a long-standing but controversial power called...

Crash near Rigby sends one to hospital

0
0
IDAHO STATE POLICE NEWS RELEASE - generated by our News Release ListServer DO NOT REPLY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Idaho State Police District 6 1540 Foote Dr. Idaho Falls, Idaho 83402-1828 (208) 525-7377 FAX: (208) 525-7294 For Immediate Release: January 24, 2014 9:10 p.p. Please direct questions to the District Office On January 24, 2014, at 4:50 p.m., Idaho State Police investigated a two vehicle crash on US 20 at milepost 323, near Rigby. Terra Bowden, 29, of Roy, Utah, was travelling westbound in a 2007 Hyundai Sonata. Ryan Belk, 22, of Pingree, Idaho, was also westbound, in a 2001 Buick Century. Bowden took her eyes off the road to deal with a child. When she looked back, she swerved to avoid hitting the rear of Belks vehicle. Bowden then overcorrected, hitting Belks vehicle. Her car then drove off the right shoulder through a fence and rolled once, landing on its wheels. Bowden was transported via ground ambulance to Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Center in Idaho Falls. The crash is under investigation by the Idaho State Police. -------------

Pough v State -plowing new ground in Georgia DUI less safe by dicta

0
0
Pough v. State, A13A2269, January 15, 2014. Clifford Pough was standing outside of his gold Jeep on the shoulder of I-85 in Gwinnett County when police pulled up to check the vehicle.  No one was inside the Jeep and the vehicle was running but its lights were off.  Pough allegedly told police that he was on his way home from shooting pool and had to urinate. Pough admitted to having a few drinks, had an odor of alcohol, red and glassy eyes and slurred speech.  A Officer Cyphers of the Gwinnett County DUI Task Force was called. Pough performed field tests including 6/6 clues on the HGN, 4/8 clues on the walk and turn and 2/4 clues on the one leg stand. Pough consented to a breath test an blew a .157 and .160. He was found guilty of both a less safe DUI and a per se DUI by a jury.  The Judge imposed a single sentence but did not indicate which sentence merged so the Court of Appeals merged the per se DUI or breath test DUI into the less safe DUI. Pough argued that there was no evidence of his driving. He never argued that he was under the legal limit or not less safe. The Court of Appeals found that a jury could have based its verdict of his driving on circumstancial evidence and disregarded his testimony that he was just riding as a passenger. However, rather than stopping there, the Court of Appeals went further describing how he was less safe despite that fact that this was not even contested at trial or on appeal and in effect, expanding the statutory definition of what it means to be less in Georgia in what is perfect example of obiter dictum. Dicta (plural of dictum) is opinions of a judge that do not embody the resolution or determination of the specific case before the court. Expressions in a court's opinion that go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent.  See Wikipedia Definition of Dictum. What is remarkable is that there are two types of DUI. DUI per se where someone blows over the legal limit. It is does not matter if you are drunk or sober but rather all that is required is that you are over the legal limit of 0.08 grams within three hours of driving as relevant by a blood test or an authorized state breath test. Strangely, It does not even matter what your blood alcohol level is while you were driving only the 3 hours window after driving ceases.  See, O.C.G.A. 40-6-391(a)(5). Further, not only it is not relevant what your blood alcohol was while driving, the State's own breath test device service manual for the Intoxilyzer 5000 states quite clearly on page 17 that the majority of experts believe that attempting to extrapolate what alcohol level an individual had at a previous time is scientifcally unreliable. There are simply too many unknowns to do anything other than guess at alcohol levels prior to the time of official state testing. Further, the DUI statutory scheme has evidentiary presumptions for under 0.05 (presumed sober), between .05 and .08 (no presumption) but there is no statutory presumption of less safe DUI over .08. See, O.C.G.A. 40-6-392(b) and(c). Therefore, you can only be charged with a DUI per se or for driving over the legal limt if you are tested on the approved State Breath test or by blood test within the three hour window after driving. By Contrast, a DUI less safe, O.C.G.A. 40-6-391(a)(1) is the mirror image of a DUI per se.  It does not matter what your breath or blood level is it only matters whether the alcohol has impaired you to the extent that you are less safe to drive. It is well established that alcohol effects differently people differently. Some people are less safe at 0.05 and some are safe at 0.15. However, any inferences over 0.08 are reserved for cases in which the Defendant is accused under O.C.G.A. § 40-6-391(a)(5) for driving over the legal limit only. O.C.G.A.§ 40-6-392(c)(1).  In Evans v. State, 253 Ga. App. 71, 558 S.E.2d 51 (2001), the court of appeals found that an expert's testimony about Evans' blood alcohol content based upon the “Widmark formula” is irrelevant in a less safe case, and the only issue is whether Evans' driving ability was impaired by alcohol to the point he was “less safe” to drive. As was held by the Supreme Court of Georgia in Kevinezz v. State, 265 Ga. 78, 454 s.E.2d 441 (1995),  “[u]nder § 40-6-391(a)(2) [DUI-less safe], impaired driving ability is an element of the crime that the state must prove to obtain a conviction.”  In Kevinezz, the Court determined that DUI-less safe and DUI-excessive blood alcohol content are different methods of proving the offense of “driving under the influence,” and indictment on one does not permit conviction on the other, since “such an indictment would not put a defendant on notice that he or she could be convicted under § 40-6-391[(a)(5) DUI-excessive blood alcohol content], which [does] not contain the phrase ‘under the influence’ in and [does] not require the state to prove impaired driving ability.” And of course impaired driving ability depends solely upon an individual's response to alcohol, regardless of his or her blood alcohol content. Baird v. State, 260 Ga. App. 661, 580 S.E.2d 650, 653 (2003). In Pough, the Court went on to discuss how Pough was less safe by circumstancial evidence of admitted drinking, alcohol breath tests of .157 and .160 and the Officer's opinion that he was less safe to drive after observing Pough physical manifestations of impairment and field sobriety evaluations citing Jaffray v. State, 306 Ga. App. 469, 702 S.E.2d 742 (2010)(my personal gift to the DUI Defense bar). In Pough, this dicta is a radical departure from the intended Georgia DUI Statutory scheme, scientifically unreliable and not even argued at the trial level as impairment was essentially conceded.  This is essentially DUI less safe statute creep and judicial legislation so be on guard if you are charged with DUI Less Safe only as you may have to defend an unaccused DUI per se as well. -Author: George Creal

Vehicle Crashes into Days Inn Off U.S. 93 in Jerome

0
0
IDAHO STATE POLICE NEWS RELEASE - generated by our News Release ListServer DO NOT REPLY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IDAHO STATE POLICE NEWS RELEASE District 4 Patrol 218 West Yakima, Jerome, ID 83338-5904 (208) 324-6000 Fax (208) 324-7897 For Immediate Release: 1/24/2014 at 10:15 p.m. Please direct questions to the District Office On January 24, 2014, at approximately 6:45 p.m., the Idaho State Police investigated a two-vehicle crash at the Days Inn, off U.S. Highway 93 in Jerome. James Schmoyer, age 42, of Longview, Washington was driving a Kenworth commercial vehicle pulling one trailer. Schmoyer exited his vehicle at the Flying J gas station off U.S. Highway 93, and failed to set the parking brakes. The commercial vehicle began rolling through the Flying J parking lot into the Days Inn parking lot. Schmoyer's vehicle struck an unoccupied 2007 Dodge Ram, which proceeded to strike the building. The Dodge Ram traveled through the outer wall and came to rest partially inside two motel rooms. No occupants were injured when the Dodge Ram entered the two motel rooms. The crash is under investigation by the Idaho State Police. -------------

Iowa bill would imprison child kidnappers longer

0
0
1-25-2014 Iowa: Legislation that would keep convicted kidnappers in prison longer made it through a House subcommittee Thursday. The bill is in response to last year’s slaying of 15-year-old... [[This,an article summary.Please visit my website for complete article, and more.]]

Wayne Co. sex crimes backlog grows after funding feud idles Internet Crime Unit

0
0
1-25-2014 Michigan: Computers seized from a convicted pedophile have sat for weeks in a police conference room, casualties of an ongoing feud about funding public safety in Wayne County. Wrapped in... [[This,an article summary.Please visit my website for complete article, and more.]]
Viewing all 71824 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images