DUI Breathalyzers Found To Be Faulty

February 7th, 2010

Our Chicago DUI Attorneys have long argued that the results of breathalyzers are flawed.  Now, more proof that the machines should not be relied on to convict anyone.

Audit : Number of inflated DUI tests has doubled

JOHN C. ENSSLIN

The number of flawed blood alcohol tests has doubled since a Colorado Springs Police Crime Lab internal audit last year discovered that some results were inflated, authorities said last week.

Results in 167 DUI cases have been called into question, up from the initial 82 that were disclosed in December, according to 4th Judicial District Senior Deputy District Attorney Frederick Stein.

On Dec. 11, the police department reported that a routine audit had discovered the errors and began both an internal and external investigation into how reported test results came in higher than the actual level.

At the time, the department started re-testing about 1,000 blood alcohol test results taken since January 2009.

Did the audit mention how many people were wrongly convicted based on these faulty machines?

“I can’t say anything definitive about the underlying cause,” Whitlock said. “What has occurred is that we’ve narrowed it down to the point where we believe it is likely a human error. We believe very strongly that it’s not an equipment failure or something inherent in the lab itself.”

Oh, of course.  Human error.  In other words, “it’s not that the machines are faulty, if that’s what you think”.

Chicago DUI Crack Down Set For Super Bowl

February 7th, 2010

Our Chicago DUI Lawyers caution everyone headed out to SuperBowl parties to be responsible because, along with the NFL Championship, this weekend your Constitutional Rights are up for grabs as well.

Police to enforce ‘no refusal’ law for Super Bowl DUI crackdown

BLOOMINGTON — Police will be on the lookout for drivers who have had too much to drink on Super Bowl Sunday.

“Under Illinois law, there is no right to refuse a blood alcohol test if you have been arrested for DUI,” said McLean County State’s Attorney Bill Yoder, who announced the “no refusal” weekend.

“No right to refuse a test”?  Are we living in some police state?  What are they going to do if someone refuses?

Police will contact an assistant state’s attorney to obtain a search warrant authorizing them to draw blood from anyone arrested for DUI who refuses to submit to a breath test when ordered to do so.

What kind of Country do we live in in which the police belive that it is ok to jam needles into people who are SUSPECTED of a crime? A suspected murder has more rights than a suspected drunk driver.

DUI For Man On Bicycle. Yes, A Bicycle

February 2nd, 2010

Once again, from the absurd DUI arrests department…….

Man on bicycle charged with DUI

NAPLES, Fla. — A Tampa man riding a bicycle was charged with driving under the influence after Collier County stopped him in East Naples.

The sheriff’s office reports that 51-year-old Tommy Charles Miller was riding a bike Saturday night without any lights. When deputies stopped him, they reported that his eyes appeared bloodshot, and he smelled like alcohol. Deputies also found two cans of beer in the bike’s front basket.

Miller was arrested and charged with DUI, refusing to submit to a DUI test, having an open alcohol container in public and refusing to sign a citation. He was being held on $7,000 bail.

$7,000.00 bond?  For drinking and riding a bicycle?  Really?  Kudos to all involved in making our roads safer, I guess.

DUI On A Golf Cart For Florida Man

February 2nd, 2010

Our Chicago DUI Lawyers never ceased to be amazed as to what groups like MADD can turn our Country into…

Man On Golf Cart Arrested For Drunk Driving

by Jamie Burch

BONIFAY, Florida – Drinking and golf might mix. But drinking and driving don’t, even if you’re driving a golf cart.

Florida State Troopers were on the scene of a fatal accident on County Road 177 Tuesday afternoon when Jerry Ogburn drove up on a golf cart just to look at the crash.” That’s not against the law. But driving under the influence is.

Ogburn was arrested for DUI and booked into the Holmes County Jail. Troopers say it’s not his first DUI arrest.

Because of Ogburn’s drunk driving history, his golf cart was supposed to have an ignition interlock device which would prevent him from starting it if he’d been drinking.

Really? An interlock ignition device (Breathalyzer) on a golf cart?  Chalk up another victory for MADD, I guess.

No Charges For Chicago DUI Cop Accused Of Making Up DUI Arrests

February 2nd, 2010

Our Chicago DUI Lawyers have had many a case with Officer Fiorito involved as the arresting officer, so we were happy to hear of the investigation into the allegations that he falsified his drunk driving arrests.  Today’s news, however, was a slap in the face to every innocent person that was allegedly railroaded by this officer.

No criminal charges for cop accused of fake DUI arrests

- Kevin Roy

February 2, 2010 (CHICAGO) (WLS) — A Chicago police officer who was taken off the streets after being accused of making false DUI arrests will not face criminal charges.

ABC7 has learned that Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez has decided not to press any criminal charges against Chicago police officer Richard Fiorito. Her decision comes after a nearly year-long investigation by her office into allegations that he was making hundreds of phony DUI arrests.

Note that all the people that Fiorito helped to convict will get no such relief.  And the State’s Attorney’s Office is STILL prosecuting people that Fiorito pulled over!

To his accusers, dash-cam video scenes taken from inside Officer Richard Fiorito’s own squad car made it an open and shut case. In his police report, Fiorito wrote that one driver was swerving and nearly hitting parked cars. Attorneys representing nearly 40 people who say Fiorito trumped up charges against them say it shows exactly the opposite.

But on Monday night, Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez’s office has ended its criminal investigation and has decided that no charges will be charged against Officer Fiorito.

“Based upon that investigation, it was determined that there were a number of inconsistencies. A number of the witnesses had severe credibility issues. And it was ultimately determined we wouldn’t be able to meet our burden which in a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt,” said Dan Kirk, Alvarez’ chief of staff.

40 people state that this cop made up allegations to justify DUI arrests and the State’s Attorney’s office says that they have “severe credibility issues”.  40 people?

What about the tape that shows a car driving down the center of a road and Fiorito’s report that the same car was weaving and almost hit parked cars?  Clearly Anita Alverez has her own interests in mind and not those of the people she is supposed to protect.  Keep this in mind come election day, folks.

DUI For Man Sleeping In A Car That Wouldn’t Start

January 23rd, 2010

Our Chicago Attorneys have found even more non-sense in the world of drunk driving laws.

High court: Asleep at wheel, not driving, enough to get a DWI

-By ROCHELLE OLSON, Star Tribune

Supreme Court upholds conviction of sleeping driver. Supreme Court: Sleeping man was in control of vehicle.

Being drunk and asleep at the wheel of his car while it was parked in his apartment lot with the keys on the console was sufficient evidence to convict a Crookston man of drunken driving, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday.

In a seven-page decision, Justice Alan Page said the jury could reasonably conclude that Daryl Fleck was in “physical control” of his vehicle when arrested.

“Physical control”?  Asleep with the keys on the console?  What about someone sleeping in their bed with the keys on the dresser?

Fleck’s appellate lawyer, G. Tony Atwal said there was no indication Fleck had driven; the engine was cold, and the car wouldn’t even start when an officer tried it. If the car had been by the side of the road, it would have been very different, Atwal said.

The Supreme Court resoundingly disagreed.

The car wouldn’t even start, the owner is asleep, and the keys are on the console.  Is this what DUI arrests have come down to?  Wow.

DUI Tweets Upset Mexican Police

January 18th, 2010

Here’s a bit of DUI news that we have already seen played out here in the United Sates; police refusing to disclose the location of DUI Checkpoints.

Mexico City vows to punish twitter users who tweet location of police breath test checkpoints

Some Twitter users are revealing the locations of police drunk-driving checkpoints in Mexico City and the people behind the tweets could be prosecuted, police said Monday.

Mexico City Public Safety Department spokesman Julio Iver said it is illegal for anyone to “divulge privileged information on police agencies,” but he did not say what sanctions the Twitter users could face.

Mexico City police change the location of the breath-test checkpoints each day to discourage drunk driving.

So drunk driving checkpoints will “discourage” drunk driving by operating in secret, so that no one finds out.  Hmmm.  Makes sense.

MADD Pushes For More Drunk Driving Restrictions

January 17th, 2010

As our Chicago DUI Attorneys have warned in the past, MADD, in its never ending quest to put driving in a police state, pushes for even more restrictions on your driving privileges.

MADD Mad More Ignition Locks Aren’t in Use

by KYW’s John Ostapkovich

The New Jersey Legislature has passed a bill requiring breath test devices on the cars of some drunk drivers.

But not enough, according to Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

The Draeger Interlock XL is one of the current generation of devices that New Jersey judges have been ordering on the cars of three-time drunk drivers and some with a lesser number of offenses. The new law says it’s mandatory at one infraction of .15 or higher Blood Alcohol Content.

Mindy Lazar, executive director of New Jersey MADD said, “We appreciate the efforts that were put into it. Certainly it’s a step in the right direction. However, we remain steadfast in our vision of seeing ignition interlocks required for all convicted drunk driving offenses at a .08 and higher.”

Notably absent is any factual support for the idea that ignition interlock devices prevent accidents or drunk driving.  In fact, a Business Week article states that these machines are “inaccurate, easily circumvented, dangerous—and ineffective.”  MADD, of course, has never let the facts get in the way of a good scare story.  The “war” marches on.

New DUI Laws Create Criminals, Not Deterrents

January 12th, 2010

Our Chicago DUI Lawyers have previously written about Wisconsin’s re-vamped DUI Laws.  Here’s an interesting take by James J. Baxter, President of the National Motorists Association in Waunakee, WI, on those laws

Laws will create new ‘criminals’ and won’t deter chronic offenders

By: James J. Baxter President of the National Motorists Association in Waunakee, WI.

When I first heard the announcement that the state Legislature was going into special session to overhaul Wisconsin’s drunken driving laws, my first thought was “it’s about time.” Maybe legislators will go all the way and reduce the drinking age so it reflects something closer to reality. Better yet, they will raise the legal blood-alcohol limit so the vast majority of the driving public that isn’t part of the drunken driving problem will be left alone and not subjected to life-ruining penalties and career-destroying sanctions.

But, alas, I was wrong.

Wisconsin’s drunken driving policies are taking on all the worst elements of the war on drugs:

The penalties and punishments are out of proportion to the supposed crime. Have two or three drinks and blow a 0.08 breath-alcohol concentration, without an accident and no realistic impairment, and you are looking down the barrel of a multi-thousand-dollar fine, fees, surcharges, possible job loss, revocation of professional licenses, scholarship cancellation and of course suspension of your driver’s license.

And, this doesn’t even scratch the surface!

How many times does it have to be proven that statistics surrounding drunken driving are more propaganda than fact? Drunken drivers are not responsible for 41% of Wisconsin’s fatal traffic accidents. The simple presence of alcohol in someone’s system in a population where 60% to 70% of the population consumes alcohol is not automatically the “cause” of a traffic accident. Yet that is what the public is led to believe.

A more realistic and valid estimation of accidents caused by drunken drivers would be 10% – not 41%. This isn’t acceptable, but it does put the issue in a different, more rational perspective.

Speaking of repetition: Despite their apparent admiration for the Berlin Wall and Soviet Union checkpoints, why do acolytes of Mothers Against Drunk Driving continue to promote roadblocks? Is this just an irrational desire for revenge against a free society in general? It’s been repeatedly proven that roadblocks do not catch or deter meaningful numbers of drunken drivers.

Why is the Legislature ignoring the results and the recommendations of the most extensive review of ignition interlock devices? It is clearly stated that mandating ignition interlock devices for first-time offenders, regardless of blood-alcohol level, result in increased numbers of accidents. I’m assuming that the intent of this legislation is to reduce traffic accidents, so why pass a provision known to increase accidents?

Recognizing that this legislation will create thousands of new “criminals,” and thus will cost the public money, the preferred source of revenue will be people caught driving on suspended licenses – many of which are suspended because the driver couldn’t afford to pay the original fine and/or out-of-sight insurance premiums. This sounds a lot like beating blood out of stones.

And what evidence is there that society will benefit one whit from the creation of new crimes or the heaping on of more penalties? We’ll end up with thousands of new “criminals” and thousands more with lost jobs and diminished job opportunities.

The only apparent beneficiaries will be the companies that make ignition interlock devices. And the serious and habitual drunken drivers who dominate the headlines, how will this affect them? Not at all. They have long proven their resilience to the punitive approach. Many have nothing of consequence to lose.

Further, as is currently the case, enforcement, judicial and institutional resources will be too focused on these new DUI criminals, caught driving home from ball games, wedding receptions, Friday night fish fries or bowling alleys, to devote any serious attention to the perennially and seriously impaired drunken driver.

Bravo.

New DUI Laws In Puerto Rico A Bit Harsh

January 7th, 2010

Our Chicago DUI Attorneys found Puerto Rico’s newest drunk driving laws a bit harsh.

Puerto Rico OKs one lowest drunk-driving limits

Puerto Rico has adopted one of the world’s toughest legal limits for drunk driving by young adults.

Gov. Luis Fortuno signed legislation Tuesday that lowers the blood alcohol limit for drivers ages 18 to 20 to .02 percent from the standard .08 percent that applies to all other drivers on the U.S. island.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving has said the .02 percent standard is lower than any U.S. state. Sweden has had .02 percent limit for all drivers since 1990.

Consider this folks:

The Committee on Alcohol and Other Drugs, first known as the Committee on Tests for Intoxication (CTI), was established in the National Safety Council in 1936
In 1938 the CTI  in a collaboration with a special committee of the American Medical Association (Committee to Study Problems of Motor Vehicle Accidents) established the following chemical standards for the legal interpretation of “under the influence of alcohol” in terms of the percentage of alcohol in the blood or its equivalent in other body materials:

• Below 0.05 percent alcohol in the blood: no influence of alcohol within the meaning of the law.

• Between 0.05 and 0.15 percent, a liberal, wide zone: alcoholic influence usually is present, but courts of law are advised to consider the behavior of the individual and circumstances leading to the arrest in making their decision.

• 0.15 percent: definite evidence of “under the influence”, since every individual with this concentration would have lost to a measurable extent some of the clearness of intellect and control of himself that he would normally.

So where in the world does this .02% BAC come in?  According to the AMA, at .02% BAC there is “no influence of alcohol within the meaning of the law”.

Clearly, it is influence (MADD) not science that is determining the basis for these laws.  And that alone should scare you way more than any of the hysteria surrounding drunk driving.