Maryland Dwi Laws

July 19th, 2009 at 03:02pm Under Drunk Driving Law

There are two different types of charges for drunk driving cases in the state of Maryland. They are based on the amount you have had to drink and they vary in severity of consequences.

You will be charged with driving under the influence (DUI) if your blood alcohol level (BAC) is .08 or greater. You will be charged with driving while impaired (DWI) if your BAC is at a level of .07.

When the police suspect you have been drinking, they will ask you to perform a field sobriety test to assess your reaction time, coordination, and reflexes. During this test, they will also evaluate you for other signs of intoxication, including:

· Slurred speech

· Watery eyes

· Scent of alcohol on breath

You will also be given a breathalyzer test to verify your BAC. Refusal to take a breath test comes with severe consequences. Your driver’s license will be suspended for a mandatory 120 day period, and your refusal to submit to the test will be used against you in court as an admission of guilt.

Consequences

In Maryland, the consequences for DUI and DWI vary in degree. For a DUI conviction, you will receive:

· Maximum $1,000 fine

· Up to one year in jail

· 45 day suspension of your license

· 12 points on your license

For a DWI conviction, you will receive:

· Maximum $500 fine

· Up to 60 days in jail

· Maximum 60 day suspension of your license

· 8 points on your driver’s license

Your insurance company will most likely take one of two actions when they are notified of your conviction. They will either drastically raise your rates or they will cancel your policy.

You Don’t Have to Lose Your License

The state of Maryland offers you a chance to appeal the suspension of your driver’s license. However, the police rarely inform you of this right and time is of the essence when appealing your suspension.

You have ten days to ask for a hearing with the Motor Vehicle Administration. Hiring an experienced DUI attorney will greatly help you at this hearing. It is not advisable to defend yourself. If you don’t file for your hearing within the allotted ten day time frame, your license will automatically be suspended.

Other Implications of your DUI

Your DUI conviction can affect your entire life. Your conviction will stay on your record for the rest of your life. Depending on your occupation, you may have trouble with employment. If you work in education, government, or medicine, you may lose your job. Furthermore, your DUI could prevent you from getting hired in these fields at a later date.

The best way to minimize the damage done by a DUI is to hire an attorney to represent you. Lawyers who specialize in DUI cases will know how to pick apart the evidence against you to help reduce your sentence. Considering the widespread impact on your life, you can’t afford to pass up this assistance.

Drunk Driving Accidents

July 19th, 2009 at 03:03am Under Drunk Driving Law

Impaired driving contributes to a large portion of auto accidents, and, while it is only one of many forms of impairment, drunk driving is involved in nearly 40% of all auto accident fatalities. DUI laws have become much stricter in recent years, and the number of fatalities has gone down, but that drop seems to have hit a plateau. Even with the strict penalties we now have, drunk drivers continue to drive while impaired even after they are caught and punished. Repeat offenders account for about one-third of DUI convictions.

Blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is usually the primary piece of evidence relied on in drunk driving cases. All states have adopted a legal limit of .08 or less for adults. Some drivers, such as commercial drivers and minors, must adhere to a much lower legal limit.

Criminal vs. Civil case

If you or a loved one has been injured or killed in an accident caused by a drunk driver, you will be pursuing a civil lawsuit. In most cases there will also be criminal charges against the drunk driver. Although restitution payments may be ordered in the event of a criminal conviction, the civil and criminal cases are separate.

Conviction, in a criminal case, requires a much higher standard of proof than what you will need to establish in a civil lawsuit because a civil lawsuit does not put the defendant at risk of serving jail time.

Even though the cases are separate, a criminal conviction can lend credibility to your civil case, and some of the evidence collected for the criminal case may be available for use in your civil suit, such as BAC.

Responsibility

Proving responsibility is the key factor in any civil suit. Many types of impaired driving, such as fatigue, can be very difficult to prove. Drunk driving is the easiest type of impairment to prove. Unfortunately, because drunk drivers are often repeat offenders or minors, they are often uninsured, meaning that even if found responsible, they simply do not have the money to compensate you for your injuries and losses.

However, in certain cases, the drunk driver is not the only responsible party. Under certain circumstances responsible parties may include:

· Bars, restaurants, or liquor stores that sold alcohol to an already intoxicated person

· Adults who provided alcohol to a minor

· Employers who required or allowed an employee to operate a vehicle for company purposes while intoxicated

Madd’ Campaign Against Drunk Driving Gains Momentum

July 18th, 2009 at 09:02pm Under Drunk Driving Law

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) has today announced significant state legislative victories in Arizona and Illinois that mandate alcohol ignition interlocks for all convicted drunk drivers, moving one step closer to its goal of a drunk-driving free America. The legislative progress is part of a bold new offensive in MADD’s Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving, launched in November 2006.

“Our vision of eliminating drunk driving is one step closer to becoming a reality,” said MADD National President Glynn Birch. “As part of MADD’s Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving, we will continue to work nationwide until every state does what Arizona and Illinois have done.”

MADD is likewise calling for congressional hearings to create a comprehensive strategy built upon solutions proven to work. MADD’s National Board of Directors met recently with members of Congress to champion the Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving and lobby for increased focus on the issue of drunk driving.

The need for the Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving has been underscored by a recent federal report showing that drunk driving deaths are at their highest point since 1992, according to preliminary figures.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, fatalities involving a driver with a .08 blood alcohol content or higher rose from 13,613 in 2005 to 13,990 in 2006, representing almost a 3 percent increase. At the same time, overall traffic fatalities were down slightly by 0.3 percent.

The Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving’s four elements include full implementation of alcohol ignition interlocks for all convicted drunk drivers, intensive high-visibility law enforcement, development of advanced vehicle technologies to prevent drunk driving and grassroots support led by MADD and its 400+ affiliates.

“It’s clear that more of the same will not help in the fight to make our roads safer,” Birch said. “We still have states without the most effective tools in place to deter and stop drunk driving — sobriety checkpoints and ignition interlocks. These tools stop higher-risk offenders and first-time drunk drivers. There is no justification for not using the tools we know will save lives and prevent injuries.”

Last year, nearly 14,000 people were killed by drunk drivers with an illegal BAC of .08 or above and countless others were injured. This represents more than 1,000 families every month that must live with the tragic consequences of drunk driving.

That’s right. Brand new Honda headlights won’t really make any difference if you’re driving drunk. About MADD

Founded in 1980, MADD’s mission is to stop drunk driving, support the victims of this violent crime and prevent underage drinking. MADD is a 501c(3) non-profit, grassroots organization with approximately 400 affiliates and 2 million members and supporters nationwide. For more information, please visit http://www.madd.org/ or call (800) GET-MADD.

Drunk Driving and Insurance

July 18th, 2009 at 03:02pm Under Drunk Driving Law

Based on the fact that there is an alcoholic related traffic fatality in the U.S. every 29 minutes, insurance companies take this very seriously and make it either very difficult for a person with a DUI to carry auto insurance or very costly.

Sometimes, a drunk driving conviction escapes the insurance company’s attention and does not end up on the driving record. In fact, a study made by the Insurance Research Council in June of 2002, revealed that as many as one-quarter of driving convictions never end up on a motor vehicle records. But, for the most part, once the insurance company finds out about a DUI, it’s usually going to cost the person quite a bit in penalties. The penalty may come in the form of higher insurance rates, policy cancellation or even non-renewal. One thing is for sure; if a person is convicted of drunk driving, most auto insurance carriers will decline coverage and more often than not, insurance companies will simply turn down people when they discover a DUI on record.  Surprisingly, even when an auto insurance company does find out about a DUI conviction, it doesn’t mean you’re going to have higher premiums. Most insurers will review your driving history, your record with the company and your claims record before making a decision about insurance.

Overall, most insurance companies handle DUI convictions by raising car insurance premiums and tagging the DUI individual as a high-risk driver. Even though insurance companies are forbidden to deny coverage to policyholders because of race, religion, residence, age or occupation, they can cancel your policy if you have been convicted of drunk driving. They also may cancel the insurance policy right in the middle of the term or terminate it at the end of the term. The company will send the person convicted of a DUI a notice letting them know the reason for the cancellation, leaving the individual to find another insurer. Naturally, with a DUI on the driving record, it’s going to be hard to find another insurance company that will insure that person.

Most states require convicted drunk drivers to get an SR-22 from their insurance agency, which means in most cases, the person convicted of a DUI won’t be able to avoid having his or her insurance company find out about the DUI. An SR-22 isn’t insurance, but is proof that you have certain types of insurance and is required when insurance is provided to an individual who was convicted of a traffic offense. It’s a form that must be filed by the insurance company to the state motor vehicle department stating that auto liability insurance is in effect.

Does Your State Allow Drunk Driving Checkpoints or Roadblocks?

July 18th, 2009 at 09:01am Under Drunk Driving Law

DUI checkpoints are recognizable by the long line of cars and the group of police officers stopping each car asking questions to each driver.
Drunk driving checkpoints or roadblocks have been found to be a reasonable search and seizure by the United States Supreme Court in Michigan Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990). It found that the public concern about drunk driving outweighed the interference of the individual liberty of the driver who is stopped.
Some of the frustrations by legal motorists have been the fear and surprise of the roadblock, the feeling that they must submit to the check and can’t turn around, and the inconvenience of the amount of time for the police officer to reach their car which may be as long as 30 minutes.
Fear and surprise of an unannounced roadblock has been a concern for citizens. In Sitz, the Court reasoned that the “other drivers could see the backup of cars and how each car is being detained for a short period. This would inform approaching motorists that the stop was authorized and non-random, thereby lessening the potential for fear and surprise.”
Fear and surprise is an element that has been of concern so governments have required police agencies to prepare and follow guidelines for all checkpoints. Some states go further and require public notice of upcoming checkpoints.
What about if officers park outside of bars and wait to pull over cars? This could be considered a roving patrol where the police officers stop cars at other than fixed checkpoints. Here they would need either a warrant or probable cause for a search as ruled in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973).
There are 38 states, and the District of Columbia that conduct sobriety checkpoints.
Eleven states do not conduct sobriety checkpoints because they are either considered illegal by law or state constitution or the state has no explicit authority to conduct them.
These states are: Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
Texas prohibits sobriety checkpoints based on their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.
Interestingly, Michigan which was the State that the U.S. Supreme Court decided in allowing checkpoints, ended up ruling that checkpoints were not permissible under the Michigan State Constitution.
Even with the states that do allow sobriety checkpoints, there are some interesting interpretations on its checkpoint laws. It seems generally that most states allow a motorist to make a legal U-turn or turn off a side road and not need to go through the checkpoint.
Pennsylvania Has been made legal under state and federal Constitution.
Under Commonwealth v. Pacek, 691 A.2d 466 (Pa. Super. 1997), “a checkpoint does not have to provide a legal means of avoidance.”
“Checkpoints must be located in area where DUI is prevalent.” Commonwealth v. Blee, 695 A.2d 802 (Pa. Super. 1997).
“Legal U-turn in advance of checkpoint does not justify a stop.” Commonwealth v. Scavello, 703 A.2d 36 (PA. Super. 1997).
“A checkpoint conducted at a toll booth was held illegal because it was not conducted in accordance with state Supreme Court guidelines.” Commonwealth v. Yashinski, 723 A.2d 104 (Pa. Super. 1988).
New York Has been upheld under federal Constitution.
“Turning into a parking lot to evade a checkpoint is cause for an investigatory stop.” People v. Chaffee, 590 N.Y.S.2d 625 (A.D. 4 Dist. 1992); but “turning off a highway before reaching a checkpoint on to another road is not cause for a stop.” People v. Rocket, 594 N.Y.S.2d 568 (Just. Ct. 1992).
“New York does not require written guidelines for a checkpoint.” People v. Collura, 610 N.Y.S.2d (N.Y. CityCrim. Ct. 1994).
“Delaware Has been made legal under state law and federal Constitution.” Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979).
“A trial court has held that a legally executed U-turn in advance of a checkpoint did not justify a stop.” Howard v. Voshell, 621 A.2d 804 (Del. Super. 1992).
“Florida Has been made legal under federal Constitution.” State v. Jones, 483 So. 2d 433 (1986). Campbell v. State, 679 So.2d 1168 (Fla. 1996)
Found a checkpoint deficient under Jones because the written guidelines were insufficient, especially with regard to the method for choosing which vehicle(s) to stop.
“A delay of less than five minutes before a driver was asked to exit the vehicle was found to be permissible.” Cahill v. State, 595 So.2d 258 (Fla. App. 4 Dist. 1992).
Indiana Has been made legal under state Constitution
Previously, “checkpoints had been conducted in Indiana under Garcia, which held checkpoints legal under the federal constitution.” State v. Garcia, 500 N.E.2d 158 (Ind. 1986), cert. den. 481 U.S. 1014 (1987); Snyder v. State, 538 N.E.2d 961 (Ind. App. 4 Dist. 1989). In the Snyder case, the court held that “avoiding a checkpoint was sufficient cause to conduct a stop.”
“Massachusetts has been made legal under state and federal Constitution.” Commonwealth v. Shields, 521 N.E.2d 987 (Mass. 1988); Commonwealth v. Cameron, 545 N.E.2d 619 (Mass. App. Ct. 1989).

Toyota Formulates Anti-drunk Driving System

July 18th, 2009 at 03:02am Under Drunk Driving Law

Toyota is formulating an anti-drunk system that detects drunken drivers via steering wheel-based sensors. The sensors detect the alcohol content of drivers through their sweat. If the sensors detect unusual steering or if the installed camera shows that the pupils of the driver are not focused on the road, the vehicle will be slowed to a halt.

Vehicles equipped with said detection system will not start if sweat sensors detect high alcohol consumption in the driver’s bloodstream. Also incorporated in the system is the special camera that shows the driver’s eyes. Said system is expected to come to the market by the end of 2009. Now, occupants of the automaker’s vehicles will not only be protected by the Toyota transmission speed sensor, side and front airbags, and other safety features; they can also rely on the efficiency of the anti-drunk system.

Nissan, another Japanese automaker, has previously ventured in a system almost similar to this one. Nissan’s device is called the breathalyzer. The latter is likened to the immobilizers used in the United States as part of several drunk-driving sentences. The system can also be mated to a camera in order to monitor if the driver is sleepy while driving. Saab and Volvo auto parts are also designed to complement this system. This is because Sweden has stringent laws against drunk-driving. Similar technologies like alcohol ignition interlocks are also rampant in the United States and other territories.

What triggered Toyota to formulate the anti-drunk system is the fact that drunk-driving and alcohol related accidents have surged in Japan in 2006. In August, a drunken driver collided with another vehicle carrying a family of five. The three children were killed when the vehicle fell off the bridge. The accident prompted safety roadside spot checks to be done by the police. It also was the beginning of the clamor for higher penalties relating to drunk-driving and other safety issues. With the present statistics relating to drunk-driving accidents, it is just but essential to equip vehicles with features and systems to ensure safety of the occupants.

Toyota, a Japanese multination corporation, is the second largest automaker worldwide. It is popular in the field of manufacturing automobiles, buses, trucks and robots. To measure the magnitude of its financial presence in the world, the company is the 8th largest company by revenue. Also, Toyota is expected to become the world’s largest automaker this year or no later than 2008. The automaker is investing a great amount of money in cleaner-burning vehicles like the Prius and the much-awaited RAV4 that runs on hydrogen fuel cells.

Toyota is in almost every part of the globe. It has established factories and assembly plants in the United States, Japan, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Indonesia, Poland, South Africa, Brazil, Turkey, France, and more recently Pakistan, India, Argentina, Czech Republic, Mexico, Malaysia, Thailand, China, Venezuela, and the Philippines.

Reasons to Hire a Drunk Driving Lawyer

July 17th, 2009 at 09:02pm Under Drunk Driving Law

There are several reasons why you need a qualified drunk driving lawyer working hard for your case. Primarily a drunk driving lawyer will know your legal rights in regard to the specific charge against you. Thus, they will be able to help prevent you from self-incriminating yourself or doing any other mistakes that you are likely to make and that may worsen things for you.

Moreover, if the DUI charge is a serious one, which hopefully it is not, a drunk driving lawyer will know how to defend you in court. You need the experience of a good drunk driving lawyer because they understand how to talk to judges, juries and the prosecution. And once again a drunk driving lawyer will know the law far more thoroughly than you will, given his or her years of legal experience.

However there are a couple of very common misconceptions about what a skilled drunk driving lawyer can and cannot do. The most important thing you need to know is that a drunk driving lawyer is a not miracle worker. If you have driven drunk and killed someone there is no way that you are going to get away just with a fine. People often see shows like Law and Order and think that lawyers can get people out of any situation.

The truth is that if you are guilty of killing or seriously injuring someone while driving under the influence you will face jail time. However, even in these cases it makes sense to hire a good drunk driving lawyer because they may be able to get your sentence reduced somewhat, especially if you plead guilty.

A drunk driving lawyer will work best in the case of first time offenders. A drunk driving lawyer can ensure that the fines and/or jail time will be as minimal as possible. The more serious the DUI offense or the more DUI convictions you have the less leeway a drunk driving lawyer will have with your case.

For more resources about Orange County DUI lawyer or about LA County DUI Penalties or even about Harsh Punishment for Drunk Drivers please review these web pages.

What Happens If I’m Arrested For Drunk Driving in Orange County?

July 17th, 2009 at 03:01pm Under Drunk Driving Law

Being arrested for DUI in Orange County can seem very scary – especially if this is your first offense.  Driving with a blood-alcohol content of 0.08 percent or greater is considered drunken driving under California law.  If you are first time offender, you stand the risk of jail time, fines, license suspension or possibly all of the above.  Two or more DUI offenses could result in the more severe consequences including mandatory DUI classes.   The consequences for drunk driving in Orange County will depend upon a number of factors including blood-alcohol content (BAC), whether or not you were involved in an accident, your history of moving violations, whether or not there were any serious injuries or deaths, and other circumstances specific to your case.  If you are a parent with a minor in the car, there’s a chance that child neglect/abuse charges could be filed against you as well.  It’s highly recommended that you hire an Orange County DUI attorney to help you with your case.  There are certain procedures that need to be followed if you’ve been arrested for a DUI and a DUI attorney can help make the process go a little smoother.  Your attorney will be the one to investigate all the details of your case including the police report.  The more you remember what happened before, during, and after your arrest, the better.  Having witnesses to testify to your state of mind will help the case even more.  Drunk driving is a mistake that many people make, but if you learn from that mistake the better off you’ll be in the long run.

Breathalyzers Designed for Clubs, Bars, Alcohol Venues, Aim to Prevent Drunk Driving

July 17th, 2009 at 09:02am Under Drunk Driving Law

Breathalyzers Designed for Clubs, Bars, Alcohol Venues, Aim to Prevent Drunk Driving

Andatech, the company who pioneered the consumer market for breath alcohol testers, is encouraging owners of bars, clubs, entertainment venues and other establishments that serve alcohol to install a fixed or bartop coin operated breathalyzer machine in their place of business.

Although bartenders are trained to recognize when a patron has had too much to drink, an onsite breathalyzer supports their decision. When customers actually see their blood alcohol concentration (BAC), they are less likely to get into their car and drive.

The Andatech AL3500F works like similar vending machines, with step-by-step audio and visual cues to direct the user when taking the breath test and reading its results. It is equipped with fuel cell technology, which provides the highest rate of blood alcohol concentration (BAC) accuracy. To begin the alcohol test, the Andatech AL3500F dispenses a cylindrical straw for the user to breathe into so the sensor can calculate alcohol content. The BAC results are provided within 10 seconds.

The compact bartop design of the Andatech AL3500F is unobtrusive and allows for privacy when testing. It can be placed on the top of a bar, on a corner table, or mounted on a wall.

According to an Andatech spokesperson, the coin operated breathalyzer is being well received by owners of bars, clubs, pubs and entertainment venues because the device enables them to promote safe driving in a way that doesn’t impact their bar revenue. Most establishments that serve alcohol realize most of their profit from drink sales.

As a coin operated breath test, the Andatech AL3500F also offers alcohol-serving establishments an additional means of earning supplementary revenue because once they make the initial investment of purchasing the breathalyzer, they retain all the earnings from it. This earning incentive motivates staff to encourage patrons to use the breathalyzer to determine their blood alcohol concentration before getting into their car to drive.

By installing a coin operated bartop breathalyzer, liquor establishments can take a more active role in promoting responsible drinking and safe driving. It is expected that the effort will cut down on the number of drunken driving accidents and death.

Headquartered in Australia, Andatech is the industry leader in personal and professional alcohol detection breathalyzers. The company distributes breathalyzer devices developed for personal, workplace, transportation safety and law enforcement use. Vending opportunities for the Andatech AL3500F are also available.

Getting Stopped for Drunk Driving –the Police Officer’s Observations

July 17th, 2009 at 03:02am Under Drunk Driving Law

When an officer pulls a driver over in the dark evening hours, he or she is on the alert to see if the driver is under the influence. He or she begins observations when approaching the car.
As the driver rolls down the window, the officer is checking to see if the driver smells of alcohol, if the eyes are watery or bloodshot, if the driver is having trouble retrieving his or her license, and if the driver’s speech is thick or slurred. If the officer does not have reason to believe the driver is under the influence, he or she must allow the driver to drive off. The officer cannot order the driver out of the car to complete the field sobriety tests unless he or she has probable cause to continue the investigation.
Smell of alcohol
The smell of alcohol may be in the car even if the driver is not the one who’s been drinking. If there is a passenger, the passenger may have been drinking. If the driver has been in a bar, he or she most likely smells of stale cigarette smoke and alcohol, even if he or she had nothing to drink.
Blood shot, watery eyes
Blood shot, watery eyes may have several causes. The driver may be operating on very little sleep, may have worked all day at a computer terminal, may be suffering from a cold or allergies, or may look as he or she always does. Remember that the officer has never seen the driver before and has nothing to compare his or her observations to.
Trouble with finding the license
People organize wallets in many different ways. Some don’t separate their credit cards from their driver’s license. And some people couldn’t find their license if they were stone sober in broad daylight. This factor alone says nothing about the driver’s state of sobriety.
Slurred speech
While an officer may associate slurred speech with driving under the influence, it may also be a side effect of certain medications or medical conditions. Remember the officer has never spoken to the driver before and therefore, has no idea how his or her voice “should” sound. If the topic comes up in court, the officer should be questioned on how many other times he has spoken to the driver (none) and how the driver’s voice was different from his or her usual speaking style.
While the officer may assert that some or all of these factors are indicative of intoxication, an experienced attorney knows there may be an innocent explanation.
For this and more information on criminal law and drunk driving go to:
www.gottrouble.com/legal/criminal/drunk_driving/index.html