There are many ways to get caught while driving under the influence. In fact, the police often only need the most minor of excuses to stop a driver. If they believe a crime is in progress, if a tail light is out, if a car is stuck on the railroad tracks in the path of an oncoming train ... any of these "small" issues can get a driver pulled over.
We've covered some pretty interesting stops. There was the kid who rear ended a trailer full of tigers. There was the guy who was too hammered to get out of his own driveway. There was even the amazing woman who tried to seduce an officer to get out of her DUI.
]]> This time, Matthew Partel, 34, tried crossing the train tracks at a spot where it wasn’t allowed, reports the Lower Macungie Patch. His car got stuck, and luckily, he only got arrested. He would have been in a world of hurt if the train had arrived before the cops.When the cops questioned the stuck man, they detected signs of intoxication. They were right. After all, what are the odds of someone sober getting stuck in the midst of an illegal track crossing at 3:50 a.m. on a Friday?
Partel had a reported BAC of 0.2, more than twice the legal limit of 0.08.
Because of his high BAC, and assuming this is his first DUI charge, he’s facing an ungraded misdemeanor charge, which in this case carries between 72 hours and 6 months in prison, a full year’s license suspension, a fine of between $1,000 and $5,000, alcohol safety school, and possible court-ordered alcohol treatment.
Punishments for DUIs in Pennsylvania vary according to the person’s blood alcohol content. The highest BAC category is 0.16 and higher.
Related Resources:
For those keeping score, that's five DUIs in five weeks and six total traffic arrests since the beginning of April, including an alleged hit and run of a school bus that was unloading children.
Who is going to be the lucky attorney who gets to represent this guy? 'Ummm, Your Honor, the officers didn't have probable cause for the third arrest and the sixth confession was coerced but the second one was okay, but the first hit and run wasn't him ..."
]]> According to the Press of Atlantic City, Sotomayor was arrested again today after a concerned citizen noticed his impaired driving and called it in. Police arrived at around noon to find him “weaving in the lane of travel.”They again found an open container of alcohol in his car, and he allegedly admitted this time to taking Oxycodone without a prescription. He did, however, refuse to take a breathalyzer.
Refusal results in a license suspension, which Sotomayor is already facing for the other four DUIs and the hit and run. Refusal, in this case, might have been a wise legal maneuver, both for his drunk driving case and his drugged driving case.
New Jersey’s drugged driving laws are actually quite fascinating from a legal perspective. The New Jersey implied consent law only seems to reference alcohol, which means that those who are suspected of drugged driving can possibly refuse a drug test and not face a license suspension.
For Sotomayor, he isn’t that legally clever, as he admitted to using a narcotic without a prescription, which combined with his alleged weaving, might be enough to convict him of that fifth DUI, even without a breath or blood test.
Thanks to the Post, more details have emerged on his past driving record as well. He received his license in 1985, his first DUI in 1989 and his second in Atlantic City in 1992. His license has been suspended 23 times since that 1989 DUI. He's only had his license back since December.
More information on his psychological state is also available. According to reports, Sotomayor’s wife left him recently and he had his leg amputated a few months ago. Though that doesn't excuse his behavior, it certainly sheds some light on it.
The reason he was out roaming the streets this week was because New Jersey law does not allow judges to hold offenders on bail for motor vehicle violations. As we mentioned before, New Jersey also lacks a felony DUI statute.
However, thanks to today's admission of using drugs without a prescription, Anderson Sotomayor is finally locked up and off the road. His bail is set at $10,000 cash.
Related Resources:
This is a DUI blog, not a math blog, but that seems to make five arrests or summonses and four DUIs in a little more than a month, which is astounding.
]]> Details on his blood alcohol content for each driving under the influence charge are not available at this time.For a first offense, Sotomayor faces harsh penalties, including a license suspension for three months if his BAC was between 0.08 and 0.10. Anything greater than 0.10 nets a 7 to 12 month suspension. He also would face thousands in fines and fees, up to 30 days in jail, an alcohol education program, and a required ignition interlock device if his BAC was above 0.10.
For a second offense, there is a two year license suspension, thousands in fines and fees, a prison term of 48 hours to 90 days, plus 30 days of community service, another alcohol education program, and an ignition interlock device during and after suspension.
His third offense nets a ten year suspension, plus thousands more in fines and fees, 180 days in jail, up to 90 days of community service, another alcohol education class, and the ignition interlock device.
New Jersey, perhaps underestimating the stupidity of the repeat DUI offender, does not have a felony DUI statute in place like many other states do for those with egregious amounts of DUIs. A fourth DUI would net the same punishment as the third.
Ordinarily, repeat offenders would have the possibility of escaping the harsher penalties due to the "ten year rule." Prior DUIs don't count as priors if they are more than ten years old. Unfortunately for Sotomayor, there is no ten day rule.
Again, this is not a math blog, so let's just say Anderson Sotomayor, if convicted, is in a heap of trouble. His license is long gone, he's facing up to sixteen months in jail on the DUIs, and unless he is independently wealthy, he'll be paying off the fines and fees long after he is released from prison.
Related Resources:
Why was Randy Babbitt so lucky? The judge ruled that the stop was unconstitutional and based on an officer's hunch. A video showed Babbitt making a proper left turn prior to being pulled over.
]]> Babbitt was stopped after allegedly driving on the wrong side of the road. His BAC was measured, after multiple attempts, at 0.08. Witnesses from a dinner party that he had left earlier in the night stated that Babbitt only had two and a half or three glasses of wine, and showed no evidence of intoxication.The legal reason behind the case being tossed ties back to the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure. Officers must have some articulable reason, supported by facts, for stopping a vehicle. They cannot stop vehicles on a mere hunch.
The obvious exception that springs to mind are DUI checkpoints, in which everyone is stopped, regardless of suspicion or reason. Certain states have found the checkpoints to violate their state constitutions, yet existing law states that they do pass Federal constitutional muster.
Had the video of the stop not existed, Babbitt may have also had grounds to fight his DUI on the basis of the procedure used for BAC testing. According to his attorney, the first BAC reading was 0.07, and only after subsequent retesting was the reading able to reach 0.08. His attorney argued that officers are not allowed to keep testing until they get a number that they like.
This, dear reader, is the benefit of a good attorney. Not only was Babbitt’s attorney able to locate the video and get the case dismissed on lack of reasonable suspicion of a crime in progress, but he had a backup plan as well. Obviously, not all cases have two blatant police mistakes, but the attorney in this case still deserves a pat on the back.
Related Resources:
Drugged driving is exactly what it sounds like; driving while impaired by the use of some drug. This includes prescription and illegal drugs. We've covered the draconian marijuana laws, where you can be convicted of DUID for driving with days-old metabolites of the drug in your system. However, it seems statistically that DUIDs are becoming more and more about legal prescription drugs.
Wait, you can be arrested for driving under the influence of something that was prescribed to you? Glad you asked, because the answer is: Yes, yes you can.
]]> DUID, or DWI, or drugged driving (the offense has more names than the Artist Formerly Known As Prince) is driving while impaired. It does not matter whether the impairment comes from a legal or illegal substance. Alcohol is perfectly legal to drink, for those over 21. It still can get you arrested if you drink and drive.It seems the only questionable part of drugged driving arrests is the subjective nature of the offense. Traditional alcoholic DUIs rely on a bit of subjective judgment when it comes to probable cause. If officers detect blood-shot and watery eyes, slurred speech, and other behavioral tics that indicate that someone is drunk, they have the probable cause necessary to request field sobriety tests and have the driver take a breath or blood test to measure their blood alcohol content.
For drugged driving, it becomes even more of a subjective issue. There is no scientific roadside test, yet, for drug use. There is currently one being developed for marijuana and THC. Other than that, the entire arrest process becomes subjective, up to the judgment of the officer, until the person is already in custody and submitting to a blood test.
With the sheer variety of drugs that someone could be abusing, that makes for a lot of subjectiveness based on a lot of different criteria, which makes the entire process even less certain and subject to mistake or abuse.
It also makes the importance of a good lawyer even more vital to the defense of your case.
Related Resources:
Dalessandro was driving back from fishing for steelhead trout. He had a meal and a few Miller Lites before getting back on the road. He told investigators and those on the scene that the other car swerved into his lane. Skid marks indicate that it was the other way around, reports the Times-News. The driver of the other car, 21-year-old Daryl Leroy Nunenmaker, of Edinboro, did not survive the impact.
]]> The evidence against him would normally be damning. The skid marks and accident reports appear to indicate that the accident was it was Dalessandro' fault. His blood alcohol content was measured at 0.13, which is more than the legal limit of 0.08. However, the case may end up coming down to an issue of timing.The blood sample that measured his BAC was taken more than two hours after the crash. Under the law, that means it is not automatically admissible, as BACs normally are. The Pennsylvania statute prohibits driving where someone's BAC is 0.08 or higher "within two hours after the individual has driven ."
There is an exception in the statute for the two hour rule for when the prosecutor can show good cause for the delay and where it can be proven that no alcohol or drugs were imbibed between the time of the accident and the time of testing.
The reason for this legal curiosity is that the only important BAC in a DUI prosecution is the blood alcohol at the time of driving. BACs measured hours later do not accurately indicate what a driver's BAC may have been hours earlier when he was behind the wheel, as many things can affect the speed at which a person's BAC rises and falls.
Should the test be admitted, Dalessandro's defense attorney will likely push the rising BAC defense. For someone who just consumed alcohol en masse, immediately before driving, their body doesn't instantly process all of the alcohol in the stomach. Instead, it takes a while, depending on how much was consumed, for the body to fully digest its stomach contents and for the alcohol to hit the blood stream.
This is especially true for those who have eaten a large meal while drinking, which Dalessandro says he did. That's also why you get less belligerently drunk when you have eaten before drinking. In addition, other factors, such as carbonation, body mass, and gender can also factor in to the argument.
Should the court keep the BAC reading out, the prosecutor will have a tough time proving the underlying DUI charge necessary for the conviction. There are witnesses that testified that they could smell alcohol on the defendant and some that testified that they detected none and that Dalessandro seemed composed and sober. If the BAC reading is kept out, expect an extremely favorable plea bargain or a possible not guilty verdict at trial.
Related Resources:
Thomas Senavitis, also known as the "redneck who killed a senator," escaped a homicide conviction for the DUI crash that claimed the life of State Senator James Rhoades. The trial and sentencing all took place back in 2010, so why are we bringing it back up now?
]]> Senavitis, hoping to have lightning strike twice, appealed his DUI conviction as well, all the way to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, reports the Pocono Record. His lawyer was previously credited with pulling off a miracle for convincing the jury that state Senator Rhoades was partially to blame for the crash that claimed his life, as he was allegedly driving in the wrong lane.Senavitis, who allegedly had a BAC of 0.355, was convicted by the jury on DUI and reckless endangerment charges, but was released shortly after the trial after being sentenced to time served. He had been in jail throughout the entire ordeal.
Now, the case may finally be over after the Supreme Court rejected their appeal. Senavitis' attorney, Wieslaw Niemoczynski, argued that because the prosecutor never called the hospital's phlebotomist nor lab technician to testify to the blood alcohol content, there was no opportunity to cross-examine their testimony, results, or methods.
Under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, defendants have a right to cross-examine witnesses and confront their accusers. Niemoczynski felt that cross-examining the forensic pathologist that testified about the data gathered by others was insufficient.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court apparently disagreed, finding that the prosecution had indeed proven that Senavitis' BAC was .355, over four times the legal limit. It seems that Thomas Senavitis' luck and Wieslaw Niemoczynski's magic have finally run out.
Related Resources:
Name that tune?
While mixing the drink, you might also enjoy listening to the classic tune, "Tequila." And then, you might be tempted to share your joy by singing the song in the streets. That might result in a small conflict with the police.
]]> Even though there are going to be thousands of drunk people in Philadelphia this weekend, a wise man once said to expect the worst and you'll never be disappointed. Exercise caution.Warning: This song is so awesome, you will be singing it while even while sober.
Now in Philadelphia, if you appear to be drunk in public, an officer can arrest you on sight, if it appears that you are a danger to yourself, others, property, or if you are an annoyance to those in your vicinity. Yes, you can be arrested for simply being a pain in the arse, if the officer thinks alcohol is to blame.
Since being drunk in public is merely a summary offense, you can either pay the ticket outright via the instructions on the ticket, or you can contest it. The penalty is a fine of up to $300 and up to 90 days in jail, though it would be rare for a first-timer to get any additional jail time beyond a night in the drunk tank. However, it does stay on your criminal record, so consider some common defenses before you cut a check.
Defenses to a drunk in public charge include not actually being in public, not being drunk, and not being a danger to yourself or others.
For the "in public" part, you have to be either outside, or at a place that it open to the general public or a large portion of it. House parties and your own living room do not count. It also doesn't count if you are inside a private place and are escorted out by the police. However, if you do get drunk and then stumble into the streets, screaming, "Ahhhh TEQUIIIILLAAAAAA," well, then you are drunk in public.
As for intoxicants, you can't simply be arrested for annoying those in your vicinity. You have to actually be under the influence of alcohol or drugs and then annoy the crap out of other people in public.
Finally, the last defense is the danger to yourself or others provision of the charge. If you've had a drink but are sitting calmly and enjoying a fine Dominican cigar, they cannot arrest you for drunk in public. However, if you are stumbling, bumbling, and fumbling off of a curb or passed out on the sidewalk, then you obviously cannot care for yourself. Though there is a grey area in between, expect that the police will probably win if the matter is in dispute between them and someone who was allegedly drunk.
There's your primer on being drunk in public. Drink safely, drink carefully, drink responsibly, don't drink and drive and, stay thirsty, my friends.
Related Resources:
According to the Post-Gazette, Elash was leaving the inauguration party for Mayor Michael Cherepko when he crashed his SUV into a building in the 700 block of Route 48. After being taken to the hospital for a head injury, his blood alcohol content was allegedly measured at 0.196, which is more than twice the legal limit. He was also cited for speeding.
]]> If he is convicted of a highest-level BAC (0.16 or higher) first time DUI offense, he faces some pretty severe penalties. The charge carries a minimum of 72 hours in jail, with a maximum of six months.Because he was in an accident, he probably won't get the minimum penalty. There is also a fine of $1,000 to $5,000 and a 12 month license suspension, plus alcohol education classes and possible court ordered alcohol treatment.
An Occupational Limited License, which allows the driver to go to and from work, is available to first time offenders after sixty days of suspension.
Though it is inapplicable to Mr. Elash, for those with a single prior DUI, the penalties for a highest-level BAC DUI increase to a minimum of 90 days in jail and maximum of five years, plus a $1,500 to $10,000 fine, 18 month license suspension, ignition interlock device, alcohol education classes, and possible court ordered alcohol treatment.
Someone with two or more prior offenses can be sentenced to one to five years in prison, plus $2,500 to $10,000 fine, 18 month license suspension, ignition interlock device, and possible court ordered alcohol treatment.
Related Resources:
Vidra hit the second vehicle with so much force that it burst into flames. Witnesses reported hearing the engine race, as if he was accidently speeding up instead of braking. The fire was quickly extinguished by bystanders and the occupants pulled to safety, but they were pronounced dead on the scene. The driver of the Camaro was not seriously injured.
]]> Because of rules of double jeopardy, a person cannot be convicted twice and punished twice for what amounts to the same crime. So, the three homicide charges, presumably two counts of each for the two victims, should be considered alternates.Homicide by vehicle can be charged when a driver's gross negligence, or extreme indifference to the safety of others, results in the death of another person. This could be proved by racing through a stop sign at high speed. This charge will come in handy if DUI cannot be proven.
The other homicide by vehicle charge is related to driving under the influence, resulting in someone else's death. It is similar to the first charge, but of course, the grossly negligent act would be the DUI itself. It also carries a more severe penalty than the basic homicide by vehicle charge.
As for the murder charge, that might be a little more difficult to prove. Pennsylvania has a third-degree murder charge, which is defined specifically as "all other forms of murder." Thanks for the specificity, law-makers. By process of elimination, first-degree requires premeditation, second-degree occurs during the commission of a felony, so third-degree is presumably any non-premeditated murder not related to the commission of a felony.
There is a common-law form of murder called "depraved heart" murder, which is really as interesting as it sounds. An ancient, but classic example was the man that was mad because his wife wouldn't get him a beer, so he threw the oil lamp in her general direction and it exploded on her, burning her to death. If that is what Pennsylvania meant by "all other forms," then this DUI could certainly qualify.
Related Resources:
Until the roadside saliva test is widely available, convictions rely on a lot of police "intuition" and little hard evidence. With a saliva test, officers will be able to administer a test on the roadside to determine whether someone has THC in their system.
]]> Presently, a police officer, if they suspect someone of being under the influence of marijuana, can have their blood tested under the implied consent law. If the metabolites in their blood measure more than 1ng/ml, they are guilty of driving under the influence of drugs.According to NORML, the problem with a measure of metabolites is that they are, by definition, the processed junk left over from ingesting marijuana. The presence of metabolites in one's blood is no indication of whether that person is presently impaired.
Let's consider a hypothetical. Student leaves school at 2 a.m. after finishing a huge term paper. She is exhausted and has been up for two days. She is driving along and swerves to avoid road kill. The officer sees the swerve and pulls her over. She is meanwhile listening to the "Bone Thugs in Harmony's Greatest Hits" Album because their perfect combination of harmonies and fast rhythmic rapping really gets her going and keeps her awake. The officer approaches as "Buddah Lovahs" comes on. He then notices her red eyes ...
What do you think is going to happen? She's probably going to get arrested. And the metabolites, from last weekend's party or from her medical marijuana prescription are going to show up on a test. She hasn't smoked that day, or the day prior. Drugs are not impairing her driving. But she is about to get nailed.
Is this completely hypothetical? Yes. Is it likely? Somewhat. Officers have to rely on circumstantial evidence until the saliva test is ready, and often that evidence is far from perfect.
As for that girl, she faces major sanctions. In Pennsylvania, first time DUIDs have a minimum sentence of 72 hours in jail and a maximum of 6 months, plus a fine of between $1000 and $5000, alcohol education classes, and a license suspension of at least 18 months. There is also the possibility of community service.
For a second offense, the minimum jail time is 90 days, with a maximum of 6 months. The fine is at least $1,500, and the alcohol education program and license suspension requirements are the same. As for that third time, a minimum one year in jail is required, plus a fine of at least $2,500.
For comparisons sake, a first time alcohol DUI, unless you are really hammered, nets the convicted driver a penalty of six months of probation and a $300 fine, plus the alcohol education class.
Smoke and drive accordingly. Or rather don't.
Related Resources:
The front seat passenger, who wasn't wearing a seatbelt, was ejected through the sunroof when the car came to rest. That passenger, Armando Mora-Lemus, died at the scene.
Marco Mora was determined to be the driver during the crash. He was found at the scene by officers, smelling of alcohol and visibly impaired. The hospital took his blood for testing before he stated that he had enough of the United States and was heading back to Mexico.
]]> Mora has been charged with driving under the influence and homicide by vehicle while driving under the influence, along with other related charges. Because of that statement that he made, the Immigration and Naturalization Service was called in. They placed a detainer on him so that he will not be allowed to leave the jail, even if he were able to make bail.In addition to being stuck in jail until his case is resolved, he is facing a minimum of three years if convicted of the homicide by vehicle while driving under the influence charge. In order to convict, the prosecutor will have to prove the underlying DUI charge and that the DUI was the cause of death.
For Marco Mora, here is just one of many lessons. If you are planning on fleeing the country to avoid prosecution, don't drunkenly tell the cops that while you are already in cuffs.
Related Resources:
To top it all off, Chief Yuknavich was charged with driving under the influence when he was pulled over for violating a restraining order by driving near a woman's home, who just happened to have a protective order against him. That's a bad year for a Fire Chief.
]]> Due to the deft legal maneuvering of his attorney, Yuknavich was found not guilty of violating the protective order, as it did not specifically prohibit driving on the protected party’s street.Now, with that victory in hand, his attorney is moving to have the DUI charges tossed, as the police did not have a valid legal reason for pulling Yuknavich over.
It is a long-established rule that the police cannot stop cars randomly. They must have some valid reason, such as reckless driving or damaged lights, to pull someone over. However, DUI checkpoints are an exception, as they indiscriminately pull everyone over.
Quite frankly, it seems like a very valid argument. If the police pulled him over for an invalid reason, the stop may well be termed illegal.
Yukavich’s attorney has also filed a motion to suppress Yukavich’s statements that he made regarding his alcohol consumption earlier that evening. The argument seems to be that since the stop was illegal, and because Yuknavich was never read his Miranda rights, the “fruit of the poisonous tree,” namely the confession, must also be tossed. Generally, evidence resulting from illegal actions by police may not be used in court.
Sometimes, with the more open and shut DUI cases, there is little an attorney can do. But for John Yuknavich, his skilled attorney seems to be making all the difference.
Related Resources:
Social Host Liability Laws are what would happen, you gracious host! Pennsylvania makes you liable for damages if you provide alcohol for underage guests at your party.
]]> The trend started with Dram Shop Laws. Bars can be held liable if they over serve a visibly intoxicated person who then runs out and hurts somebody with a car, or in any other manner. However, this only covered commercial sales, so more laws were passed.Pennsylvania's social host liability laws, while more limited than most states, are still something to be aware of if you are going to throw a party. In most states, irregardless of the age of the drinkers, the host can be liable if they serve people to the point of visible intoxication.
In Pennsylvania, the judges thought that was a bunch of rubbish. Adults are adults. They should be able to monitor their own liquor levels and make their own decisions. However, kids will be kids and they need a bit more supervision. Therefore, the Pennsylvania law is limited to hosts that provide alcohol to their underage guests.
It also is a criminal misdemeanor offense, with a fine of not less than $1000 for the first offense and $2500 for the second offense.
Social Host Liability Laws and the criminal statutes were meant to deter hosts from providing alcohol to minors. Though most people don't consider the implications of hosting a small party, beyond the cost of a keg and the damage to their carpets, they should be aware that if they are serving to underage guests, they can convicted of a crime and be held liable for damages if the guest later hurts herself or others.
Related Resources:
Not all escaped, however. The police detained 34 individuals and cited them for underage drinking. They also published their names in the local paper, specifically the Philadelphia Inquirer. The streets are safe once again.
]]> Underage drinking, if you are one of the lucky few to be caught, actually carries some pretty stiff penalties. The statute calls for 0-60 days in jail, the imposition of which would be rare, a $300 fine, and a license suspension for 90 days. The last part is the real killer, as you do not even have to be driving to lose your license.The crime itself is also defined pretty broadly. It includes attempts to purchase, actual purchases, consuming, possessing, and knowingly or intentionally transporting any liquor or malt or brewed beverage.
Repeat offenders can get up to a $500 fine and 0-90 days in jail, plus a one year license suspension for a second offense and two year license suspension for a third offense. And it gets worse.
If you are carrying a fake ID, that's another problem, punishable by $300 and 90 days of license suspension as well. If you pretend to be over 21 in order to buy your own alcohol? Add another $300-$2500 and up to one year in jail.
Providing alcohol to minors? $1000 - $2500 fine and up to one year in jail.
If the underage drinker really gets lucky in court, the judge could offer an alternative prosecution program, which allows the offender to compete an alcohol education class or community service instead of being prosecuted and having an alcohol offense on their record.
For the Lansdale 34, we can only hope for such benevolence. As it stands, those amongst them who were over 18 but under 21 now have had their names publicized, like a scarlet letter branded to their online persona.
May the Court have mercy on their souls.
Related Resources: