Our Chicago DUI Lawyers found yet another tale from the “war” on drunk driving.  This time it’s an 82 year old Alberta, BC native who had her car towed, was fined, and lost her license, not because she had been drinking, but because she couldn’t blow hard enough into a breathalyzer.  Bravo, Mounties.

B.C. senior snared by draconian drunk driving law
By Michael Platt, QMI Agency

CALGARY — To bully and berate an innocent senior then punish her without a trial for a crime she clearly didn’t commit.

This, apparently, is what Alberta has to look forward to under draconian drunk-driving laws inspired by our neighboring province, where suspected motorists are guilty until they prove themselves innocent.

Fortunately for 82-year-old Margaret MacDonald, tears brought on by allegedly obnoxious B.C. RCMP officers didn’t blind her to protecting herself.

“I came into the house and burst into tears — then I stood here at three o’clock in the morning and thought ‘my word means nothing’,” said MacDonald.

“Three officers don’t believe me, so I phoned the hospital and took a taxi over to have a blood test.

“I’m not going to let the Mounties get away with saying I was drunk.”

There was no alcohol in her system — not a drop — and yet MacDonald’s failure to provide a proper breath sample meant her car was taken away for a month and her license suspended for 90 days.

Now, $6,000 out-of-pocket and in fear of losing her home, the Cranbrook senior will wait another six months for a ruling on her case, as the B.C. government tweaks legislation to comply with a court order.

It was May 21 when MacDonald was approached by an off-duty RCMP officer, just outside her home.

MacDonald, a near-teetotaler, was returning from an engagement party at a friend’s house when she mistakenly turned into the wrong lane. She assumed that’s why the police officer was there.

Even when the off-duty cop told MacDonald a breathalyzer was coming to test her for drinking and driving, she didn’t worry — her last serious drink was 60 years ago. “I really don’t drink,” she said.

What she didn’t count on was the lung power needed to properly blow into a police breathalyzer. Having suffered from serious pneumonia a few years ago, she couldn’t manage.

That didn’t stop RCMP from making her try — over the next two hours, MacDonald says she was forced to stand in the chill and told to blow 15 times by increasingly snotty RCMP officers.

“He pounded on the hood of his car and shouted at me to blow. He shoved this thing in my mouth and it fell on the ground, and he picked it up and put in back in again,” said MacDonald.

“I said, ‘I don’t drink, I haven’t been drinking,’ and he said, ‘you’re sticking your tongue in there because you don’t want do this — you’re slurring, you’re drunk and you stink of alcohol.’”

RCMP officials are now reviewing the conduct of officers that night, but try as they might, the Mounties couldn’t get a sample from the shivering, teary-eyed senior, who was wearing only sandals and a thin dress.

Thus, MacDonald was cited for failing to provide a breath sample, given a Notice of Driving Prohibition for three months, fined $500 and told her car was to be towed.

MacDonald wept, but she was sharp enough to obtain proof of her innocence, because in Canada that used to be enough to make those in power see sense.

Not anymore. Under a system about to be adopted in Alberta, drivers suspected of driving drunk, even under .05%, can lose their licenses and cars without a trial.

Even after MacDonald took her blood test to the RCMP station, she was told nothing could be done.

A helpful corporal on duty provided her with a letter, stating: “I believe it is only fair that this Driving Prohibition and Vehicle Impound be terminated and removed from your driving record as soon as possible.”

But it didn’t end there.

Despite proof of alcohol-free blood, B.C.’s superintendent of motor vehicles adjudicator still found her guilty — a decision now under review by direct order of B.C. Solicitor General Shirley Bond.

“Obviously, I am concerned with this circumstance but it is important that we get all the facts of the case,” Bond said in a statement to QMI Agency.

“As soon as I became aware of this, I directed the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles to review the case and that work is currently underway.”

The ordeal took a massive toll on MacDonald — a few days later, she suffered what doctors in Calgary told her was a mild, stress-related heart attack, leaving her bed-ridden in hospital.

Back in Cranbrook, all she can do is wait.

“I’m nearly 83 and you have to cope with life, but through my years I’ve never been this traumatized over anything,” she said.

“Especially when I’m totally innocent.”

Unfortunately, our DUI Attorneys will tell you, that this is not an isolated incident.

Our Chicago DUI Lawyers have been following this tragic story from day one.  Today, the jury is expected to wrap up deliberations in the trial of ex-Chicago Police Officer Richard Bolling, is is accused of, among other charges, reckless homicide in the hit & run crash that killed a 13 year old boy.  Prosecutors allege that Bolling, a 17 year veteran of the Chicago Police Department, received special treatment by investigators at the scene of the accident who held off giving Bolling field sobriety tests.

Off-duty officer got special treatment in fatal hit-run case, prosecutors argue
January 17, 2012|By Jason Meisner, Chicago Tribune reporter

A Chicago police officer accused in a hit-and-run crash that killed a 13-year-old boy received preferential treatment from investigators who drove the off-duty officer to a restroom, delayed field-sobriety tests and overlooked key evidence that he was intoxicated, prosecutors said Tuesday in closing arguments.

A Cook County jury deliberated on the fate of Richard Bolling into the evening without reaching a verdict. Deliberations are scheduled to resume Wednesday morning. The veteran narcotics officer, 42, is on trial on charges of aggravated DUI, reckless homicide and leaving the scene of a fatal accident in the May 2009 crash that killed Trenton Booker, who was riding his bike late at night.

One of the officers who stopped him testified that she was ordered to “hold off” on the field-sobriety tests by her watch commander. Both arresting officers reported at the time that Bolling passed those tests but admitted in their testimony at trial that they were mistaken. Bolling was also driven to a restroom to wash up before the field-sobriety tests and didn’t have to take the alcohol breath test until almost five hours after the crash, registering just below the legal limit.

A tragedy for everyone involved.

Our Chicago DUI Attorneys have written about prior “No Refusal Weekends” here in Illinois.  (See DUI No Refusal Weekends In Jeopardy and Kane County No Refusal Weekend Is Back). The State of Texas, it seems, has taken “No Refusal” to a whole new level.  Threats of being strapped down to a chair and stabbed by a needle are now part of the law enforcement culture as suspects are forced to give up their Constitutional rights.

By NATHAN KOPPEL – Wall Street Journal

Texans arrested for drunken driving should be prepared to give blood this holiday season.

Cities and counties across the state are increasingly demanding that drunken-driving suspects who refuse to take breathalyzer tests submit to blood tests that measure the amount of alcohol in their systems.

The blood-test policy—dubbed “no refusal” by law-enforcement officials, because it prevents drivers from refusing to provide evidence of intoxication—has grown from a novel procedure used in a few Texas jurisdictions to an initiative used by police statewide, particularly during weekends and holidays when drunken driving is most common. The no-refusal initiative has also caught on in other states, including Florida, Illinois, Louisiana and Missouri.

Interesting.  But what about the 4th Amendment which does not allow unreasonable search and seizure?  Isn’t that a concern to prosecutors?

 ”If it bleeds, it pleads,” said Fort Worth prosecutor Richard Alpert.

Oh, right.  Winning at all costs is what’s important.  But how does law enforcement get these tests?

“We give people the option of blowing into a tube or getting poked with a needle,” said Lt. Rod Liston. “People increasingly are going with the less painful option.”

Yes, torture does have a way of working, doesn’t it?

“It’s the CSI effect,” said Bexar County District Attorney Susan Reed, referring to the popular television show about crime-scene investigators.

Oh, right.  “CSI”, not torture, our bad.

“About one in four DWI suspects refuses a breathalyzer test in order to avoid prosecution,” Mr. LaHood said at the time. “It’s a persistent, ongoing problem.”

Yes, Secretary LaHood, that Constitution can be problematic.

There are only two machines used in criminal courts; one is an electric chair, the other a breathalyzer machine. No one walks away innocent from either one. So when our Chicago DUI Lawyers are asked the question, “Should I blow in a breathalyzer?” we always advise against. Want another reason to refuse? Check out this latest story about a County Deputy who admitted to falsifying alcohol results.

Richmond County deputy resigns; altered alcohol test results

Erik Norman faced mandatory resignation from the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office on Oct. 19 after a prosecutor reported that Norman told her he had falsified readings from a hand-held alcohol-testing device.

Norman told the department’s internal affairs division that he had done it only “once or twice” but couldn’t recall exactly which cases were involved.

Norman’s credibility is gone now, no matter how many times he falsified readings, said Augusta attorney Robert “Bo” Hunter, who prosecuted drunken driving cases as the Richmond County State Court solicitor from 1988 to 1996.

“He’s created a shadow of a doubt by falsifying evidence,” Hunter said. The only question a defense attorney would need to ask is: “Did you falsify other results?”

Even worse, Hunter said, is that there probably were people charged with driving under the influence who shouldn’t have been.

Norman, hired as a jailer in July 2002, was transferred to the DUI task force in March 2009. An accurate count of his DUI convictions cannot be made through court records, but during his time on the task force, he arrested an estimated 250 to 400 people.

So between 250-400 may have been wrongly charged, fined, penalized and convicted based on this officer’s lies.  What’s the prosecutor going to do about this?  What about his pending cases?

State Court Solicitor Charles Evans said his office has 62 pending DUI cases in which Norman was the arresting officer. Each will have to be judged on its merits to determine whether to continue prosecuting them as DUIs. If necessary, the office will bring in Norman as a trial witness, Evans said.

Great.  So they plan on continuing to use this guy as a witness?  Good luck, State Solicitor Evans.

The Georgia Peace Officer Standards and Training Coun­cil is investigating to determine whether Norman can keep his certification, said Ryan Powell, its director of operations. Unless he is arrested on felony charges or his certification is suspended, Norman is free to work as an officer, Powell said.

Falsifying evidence is a felony – making false statements – but prosecuting Norman for it would be difficult, District Attorney Ashley Wright said. A prosecutor would have to prove in which case Norman falsified the results, and there is no way to uncover those cases without Norman’s admission. He claimed he didn’t know which cases were falsified.

Difficult to prosecute?  He ADMITTED it.  But instead of charging him, they use him as a witness against people he may have falsified arrests against.  Unbelievable.

Sheriff Ronnie Strength said he thought Norman was a good officer and cannot understand why he would alter a test that isn’t admissible in court.

Oh, yeah.  Sounds like a great officer.  We need more law enforcement personal falsifying evidence to help prosecute people.  What a joke.

Our Chicago DUI Lawyers have posted in the past about the increasingly harsh DUI laws in Canada.  See Dangerous New DUI Laws In Canada and Oh (No), Canada! Parliament Considers Random DUI Stops. Check out the following story about Alberta’s latest move to punish drivers BELOW the .08 limit.

Does new law miss target on drunk driving?

Edmonton Journal November 19, 2011

Alberta’s new drinking-and-driving legislation will follow the tire tracks of B.C. into a decidedly grey area. In so doing, it may create opposition to an initiative that will achieve its public-safety goal, but still invite criticism for targeting drivers who are not legally impaired according to the Criminal Code of Canada.

In B.C., a driver whose blood-alcohol content is measured between .05 and .08 – which is legal under the Criminal Code – can be hit with an immediate three-day licence suspension and have to pay a fine of $200, as well as a $250 fee for license reinstatement and might also have to pay for towing and storage if his or her vehicle is seized. Being caught in this grey area a second or third time in a five-year period results in heftier financial penalties, lengthier suspensions and longer vehicle seizures.

So even if you are legally driving under the limit, you get penalized, fined, and towed.  Sounds like a great concept.  But really, how much alcohol is between .05-.08?

But a 125-pound woman needs to drink only two five ounce glasses of wine over a one-hour period to register .06, according to a Canadian Automobile Association calculator.

Wow.  This is less to do with DUI enforcement than outright prohibition and it is just a matter of time before the USA heads down this path.

Our Chicago DUI Lawyers would like to remind everyone to celebrate responsibly during the upcoming holiday season.  Chicago DUI Police will once again be out this weekend, conducting drunk driving Checkpoints.

The Chicago Police Department will conduct a Roadside Safety Check in the Austin (015th) District at 5440 West Madison. The Roadside Safety Check will commence at 8:00 p.m. on
Friday, November 18, 2011 and end at 4:00 a.m. on Saturday, November 19, 2011. During roadside checks, police officers slow down traffic, stop cars at regular intervals and watch for drivers who show signs of alcohol impairment and other violations.

Our Chicago DUI Lawyers urge everyone to be responsible out there on the roads this weekend. Here is this weekend’s Chicago DUI Roadblock alert.

Roadside Safety Check in the Shakespeare (014th) District
The Chicago Police Department will conduct a Roadside Safety Check in the Shakespeare (014th) District at North Ave. & Albany. The Roadside Safety Check will commence at 8:00 p.m. on Friday, November 11, 2011 and end at 4:00 a.m. on Saturday, November 12, 2011.

Our Chicago DUI Lawyers have long argued that Breathalyzers are faulty. See Faulty Breathalyzer Leads to Nearly 400 Improper Convictions, More Faulty Breathalyzers Used To Convict People Of DUI, DUI Breathalyzers Found To Be Faulty, and A Decade Worth Of Bogus Breathalyzers Tests Discovered. No surprise to us that, once again, hundreds of DUI Arrests are being tossed due to more faulty Breathalyzers.

Sarasota State Attorney Sending Out Notices to People Who Took Breath Test on Faulty DUI Machines

The majority of the alcohol breath testing machines used to measure a person’s blood alcohol content in Sarasota have been out of calibration for the past two and half years. One judge in Venice has already said he would not accept the results from one breathalyzer in that city. Now, there are more problems.

The attorney who discovered the problem in Venice is sort of a research guru. When he discovered the problems with Sarasota’s Intoxilyzer 8000, he started doing research on the other machines using the state’s own testing results. He was astounded to see the results, and the fact that prosecutors around the state continued to take people to court with questionable evidence.

“Certainly by now the State Attorney is on notice there is a problem here with every breath test in the state of Florida,” says attorney Robert Harrison.

Harrison’s research showed 40 to 50 percent of the machines were out of calibration.

“Sarasota is much worse than 40 percent, but being 40 percent or 50 percent wrong is totally unacceptable,” he says.

An attorney found this out?  Why didn’t the State’s Attorney know this?  Or the police department?  Who maintains these machines?  Do you realize what happens to people wrongly accused by these machines?

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement, which is in charge of the DUI program, insists there is nothing wrong with the Intoxilyzer 8000 even though internal reports show problems and judges have thrown the results out of court.

Really?  Nothing wrong with the machines.  Then why are the results thrown out?

Robert Harrison is convinced many state attorneys are willing to bend the rules because they are DUI – “Deciding Under the Influence” – of one of the most powerful lobby groups in the state: Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

The Sarasota State Attorney’s Office is planning to send out what’s called a Brady Notice to people who took the test on the faulty machines. It lets them know there may be evidence that may help prove they are innocent.

Will the State’s Attorney also be paying for the legal fees of those wrongly accused and/or convicted?  What about the fines, fees, and license suspension that also come part and parcel with a DUI arrest?  This is why our DUI attorneys, when asked “should I blow into a breathalyzer” always advise against it.  You simply can’t trust those machines.

Our Chicago DUI Lawyers found this interesting tidbit from the latest PR on the City of Chicago Budget:

Impose increased fines for neighborhood safety violations, including DUI…

The problem with this is that these fines the City is referring to are assessed at the time of arrest before any trial has taken place or any charges are proven.  In fact, even if the person arrested for DUI is later found not guilty, these fines still stick.  The only way to contest these fines is to have an administrative hearing.  These “hearings”, of course, are not in a court of law, but in front of an administrative judge who is not an elected judge, but rather appointed by, that’s right, the City of Chicago. These hearings do not deal with whether or not your are guilty of DUI (the basis of the fine) and they are governed under a civil, not criminal, burden of proof – meaning it is easier for the City to win.

In other words, the deck is stacked against you.  Even if you are not guilty.

Our Chicago DUI Lawyers have always maintained that DUI Checkpoints, besides being in violation of our right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, are nothing more than a cash cow.  Finally, some legislators are agreeing.  Take a look at these two recent stories out of California and Colorado.

California Legislature Considers Limiting DUI Roadblock Use

Legislation would prohibit license violation impounding at drunk driving roadblocks in California.

Confiscating automobiles has become a significant source of revenue for cash-strapped California cities. Now, the state legislature has given preliminary approval to legislation to impose limits on the practice.

Under current law, municipalities run sobriety checkpoints funded almost entirely by $30 million in federal grant money. The drunk-driving (DUI) roadblocks catch comparatively few drunk drivers, so officers often focus on issuing as many tickets as possible for minor violations while cars are stopped. Assembly Bill 353 separates vehicle inspection checkpoints from DUI roadblocks and prohibits impounding of vehicles unless the alleged offense meets certain criteria.

Some lawmakers see racial motivation behind current practice.

“Despite their original intent, sobriety checkpoints are increasingly being used to target drivers that are ineligible to obtain licenses in order to increase local revenue,” the bill’s sponsor, Assemblyman Gil Cedillo (D-Los Angeles), explained. “Frequently these checkpoints are set up in the areas that do not have a high correlation of DUI arrests or accidents; instead, they are placed in neighborhoods and, or locations where there are higher populations of low-income families and communities.”

Municipalities collect $150 from license fines imposed at roadblocks plus receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees from towing companies. Out of 24,000 vehicle impounds at DUI roadblocks in 2009, a mere 13 percent were related to drunk driving.

Opinion: Cops Detain 1,407 Innocent Drivers

Colorado Springs, CO.  Sept. 6 – Colorado Springs police detained 1,420 drivers last Saturday in yet another ineffective effort to catch drunken drivers. As a result of detaining thousands of drivers and countless passengers, police cited eight — a whopping .56 percent — on suspicion they had driven under the influence. Meanwhile, cops working the checkpoints were not on the roads providing legitimate public safety.

Drunk drivers kill. Those who drink, even a little, have no business getting behind the wheel of a motorized vehicle for the rest of the day. Just don’t do it for any reason.

Society needs to eradicate drunken driving, but sobriety checkpoints are not the answer. They violate the Fourth Amendment, which forbids unlawful searches and seizures. They are permissible under the Supreme Court’s 1990 ruling in Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, a case in which the majority decided to allow an erosion of liberty to facilitate a compelling interest in reducing fatalities. Checkpoints would be easier to accept if they actually improved public safety.

“The net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative,” wrote Justices Paul Stevens, William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall in their Michigan v. Sitz dissent.

Most public safety experts acknowledge that traditional policing, in which officers look for drunken drivers while patrolling, is more effective. Law enforcement brass like checkpoints because they create overtime pay. An investigation by the University California found that checkpoints generate $30 million in annual overtime pay in California alone. Checkpoints, which are funded with transportation grants, are public relations stunts.

Our police are supposed to protect and serve the public, not detain individuals to generate publicity and overtime pay. Please take a pass on future checkpoint grants in Colorado Springs and use traditional methods to catch drunk drivers.