Early this week, the South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) launched an internal investigation into the circumstances surrounding seven DUI plea bargains which took place between Lance Corporal (Cpl.) David Smith and South Carolina State Senator Brad Hutto. The investigation was initiated after a Highway Patrol officer wrote to his superiors stating that he felt that the DUI cases handled last year by Lance Cpl. David Smith were handled improperly. While the investigation of Lance Cpl. Smith is still ongoing, exploration into the potentially improper working relationship between Senator Hutto and Magistrate Willie Robinson, who is assigned to many of the Senator's cases, has also initiated a SLED review.

Since the outset of the investigation, Lance Cpl. Smith has stated that he felt he was placed in a disadvantaged position prosecuting his DUI cases against Senator Hutto, who was acting as defense counsel in Magistrate Willie Robinson's court. In South Carolina, state troopers used to be responsible for the prosecution of DUI offenders in court. Beginning this year, the job was reassigned to prosecutors in the local superior court.

Lance Cpl. Smith also filed a report to SLED stating that in the DUI cases he was involved in with Senator Hutto, "Brad [appointed] the judge, [made] the motion, and the judge [agreed]". This quote sheds light on the South Carolina justice system, where magistrates are essentially appointed to their positions by local senators. The senators make their recommendations for the judgeship to the governor, who in turn seeks confirmation from the entire Senate body.

In some cases, term limits are disregarded by the magistrates and senators. The magistrate's disregard of the mandated term limits is known as "holdover" status. Critics of this practice have stated that a magistrate's "holdover" status makes them incredibly vulnerable to a senator's demands because the magistrate wishes to stay in office as long as possible.

In response to these allegations, Senator Hutto and Magistrate Willie Robinson have stated that Senator Hutto received no preferential treatment in court. However, SLED has uncovered evidence indicating that the DUI cases that were reviewed during the investigation were all tried in Magistrate Robinson's court as bench trials, with Senator Hutto acting as defense counsel, and that all of those cases resulted in "not guilty" verdicts.

After this evidence was revealed, Robinson argued that the records were completed incorrectly, because in fact, no bench trials actually took place for the cases being investigated and any cases that were reduced to lesser charges were done as a result of plea bargains drawn up between Hutto and Smith.

Please take some time to visit our websites:
San Francisco DUI Attorney
San Mateo DUI Lawyer
Marin County DUI Defense
Northern California DUI Defense Lawyers
San Francisco County DUI Defense Lawyers

On September 18, the American Beverage Institute (ABI) denounced the effectiveness of the proposed ignition interlock bill, California AB2784, which would mandate the installation of breathalyzers in the cars of all first time DUI offenders. The ABI argued that AB2784 does not target the right people in the fight against driving under the influence. ABI spokeswoman Sarah Longwell spoke out against the bill, arguing that "By mandating breathalyzers for first time offenders who may have had as little as two glasses of wine, this bill ignores the root cause of today's drunk driving problem-hard core alcohol abusers".

Assembly member Mike Feuer, a democrat from Los Angeles, introduced AB2784 back in February 2008. The law would require the installation of alcohol ignition interlocks in the vehicles of all individuals convicted of driving under the influence, including individuals with low blood alcohol concentrations and first time DUI offenders.

For a first time offender, the ignition interlock device would be installed in the offender's car for a period of five months. Two-time repeat offenders would be required to use the device for twelve months, three-time offenders would be required to utilize the device for twenty four months, and all other subsequent offenses would require a thirty six month installation. The cost of installation and removal of the ignition interlock system would not be covered by the courts or law enforcement agencies. Instead, the costs associated with the ignition interlock system would be considered the DUI offender's responsibility.

Proponents of the bill (most notably Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)) claim the measure will fight the drunk driving problem and severely cut back on the number of individuals who drink and drive. However, statistics provided by ABI have proven that the drunk driving problem can be reduced to a select number of repeat offenders who severely abuse alcohol and who choose to continue to drive.

According to ABI, the biggest problem with AB2784 is that it does not discriminate between "levels of intoxication". During testimony before the California State Assembly, ABI claimed that AB2784 effectively denies judicial discretion and ignores proportional response. ABI spokeswoman Longwell spoke out against the fact that an individual with a very low blood alcohol concentration could potentially be punished to the same degree as an individual who, at the time of their DUI arrest, had a blood alcohol concentration double the legal limit. In support of ABI's assertion, Longwell has stated, "A one hundred and twenty pound woman can reach the 0.08% BAC level by having two glasses of wine over two hours. Should she receive the same punishment as someone with a 0.19% BAC level or multiple offenses?"

As a substitute for provisions in AB2784 targeted towards first time, low blood alcohol concentration (BAC) offenders, ABI has voiced their support for targeting high BAC motorists and repeat DUI offenders.

Please take some time to visit our websites:
San Francisco DUI Attorney
San Mateo DUI Lawyer
Marin County DUI Defense
Northern California DUI Defense Lawyers
San Francisco County DUI Defense Lawyers

In San Marcos, the San Diego county funded North Inland Community Prevention Program (NICPP) is pushing for the passage of an ordinance which would require businesses in San Marcos that sell alcoholic beverages to have their employees trained and certified in responsible beverage service.

A report published in 2007 by San Diego's Health and Human Service Agency identified a number of bars and restaurants in San Marcos as the last place that numerous DUI program participants purchased alcoholic beverages prior to being arrested for driving under the influence. NICPP director Clark Kiser has stated that the proposed ordinance is designed to encourage the city to take a closer look at establishments that are having difficulties transitioning from restaurants to nightclubs. By requiring training of all employees who serve alcoholic beverages, the more likely it is that those establishments will not serve to excess, which hopefully will lead to a drop in DUI arrests.

Underage drinking is also an issue which would be addressed by the new ordinance. According to evidence collected through a number of local sting operations conducted by the Alcoholic Beverage Control department (ABC), twenty one percent of San Marcos bars and restaurants sold alcohol to underage drinkers and twelve percent of adults purchased alcoholic beverages that were handed off to underage drinkers. The NICPP has stated that responsible beverage sales and service training would help to cut down on the number of underage drinkers and individuals who over-consume by teaching servers how to detect false IDs and how to properly refuse service to heavily intoxicated drinkers.

Currently, the Alcoholic Beverage Control department (ABC) offers free responsible beverage sales and service certification training, however, the training is not required by San Diego County. Last year, ABC trained nearly eighteen thousand alcohol servers across the state of California.

The Student and Neighborhood Relations Commission (SNRC) held a meeting in July to discuss the feasibility of the proposed ordinance. Deputy City Manager Lydia Romero stated that the city attorney and code compliance department would render their decision on the ordinance after collecting input from stakeholders and the public. The staff report is tentatively scheduled for presentation during the Student and Neighborhood Relations Commission's October 13 meeting.

Similar ordinances to the one proposed in San Marcos have been passed in nearby Poway and Solana Beach.

Please take some time to visit our websites:
San Francisco DUI Attorney
San Mateo DUI Lawyer
Marin County DUI Defense
Northern California DUI Defense Lawyers
San Francisco County DUI Defense Lawyers

On Monday, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin signed into law a measure that requires all individuals convicted of driving under the influence to install an ignition interlock device in their vehicles. The bill, H.B. 19, passed in both the Alaska House and Senate unanimously. According to the national president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), Glynn Birch, "This new law will make it harder for offenders to kill and injure others on our roadways".

An ignition interlock device is a breath test that is linked to the vehicle's ignition system. When a convicted drunk driver wishes to start his or her vehicle, the individual is required to first blow into the device. The vehicle will not start if the amount of alcohol in the individual's system exceeds the preset limit. Some ignition interlock devices also have the ability to be set for running retests, which require a driver to provide breath tests at regular intervals during the drive, which helps to prevent motorists from asking a sober friend to start the car. If a driver fails a running retest, the vehicle's horn will honk and lights will flash, alerting law enforcement to the individual. However, the vehicle is not programmed to turn off if an individual fails a running retest, due to safety reasons.

By signing H.B. 19 into law, Alaska has joined the ranks of seven other states, New Mexico, Arizona, Illinois, Louisiana, Washington, Nebraska, and Colorado, who are attempting to further the goals of the Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving. The Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving has four essential elements, which include: mandatory ignition interlocks for all convicted drunk drivers, increased law enforcement efforts, advanced vehicle technology that would make it impossible for a drunk person to start a vehicle, and public support led by concerned citizens nationwide. The MADD Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving was initiated in November 2006, with the express goal of eliminating drunk driving permanently.

MADD has supported the Alaska legislature's decision to sign H.B. 19 into law by providing statistics indicating that in 2006, twenty seven percent of traffic fatalities in the state of Alaska involved an individual driving under the influence of alcohol. According to the Alaska legislature and MADD, requiring individuals convicted of DUI to install these ignition interlock devices is a necessary step in order to permanently decrease the number of driving under the influence related accidents and fatalities.

However, the recent nationwide trend of heightening penalties for individuals convicted of DUI has not received entirely positive reviews. For every individual who is in favor of the new law designed to cut down on the number of individuals who drive while under the influence of alcohol, there is another individual who sees the law as an overzealous attack on an individual's personal freedom.

Please take some time to visit our websites:
San Francisco DUI Attorney
San Mateo DUI Lawyer
Marin County DUI Defense
Northern California DUI Defense Lawyers
San Francisco County DUI Defense Lawyers

While the minimum drinking age has been a source of debate for decades now, in recent months, the fight to lower the drinking age from twenty one to eighteen has received some unlikely supporters. More than one hundred university presidents from colleges across the country have voiced their support of the Amethyst Initiative, a nonprofit group dedicated to re-examining youth drinking and the minimum drinking age.

The group was founded back in June 2008 by Middlebury College President John McCardell, who felt that having the drinking limit set at age twenty one was unintentionally encouraging negative consequences for the nation's young adult population. The Amethyst Initiative clearly asserts the signatories' belief that the drinking age limit is not working as well as the public is led to believe and that the current age limit has created a "culture of dangerous, clandestine binge-drinking".

Supporters of the Amethyst Initiative have stated that as a direct result of the restrictive drinking age limit, when under-age individuals come into contact with alcohol, they are more likely to overindulge and participate in unsafe alcohol consumption practices. Under the current law, individuals who consume alcoholic beverages prior to turning twenty one are forced to keep their consumption a secret, which creates an environment where underage drinkers are disinclined to ask for help out of fear of potential punishment.

According to McCardell and his supporters, an individual's choice to engage in underage drinking practices also encourages a variety of associated illegal activities, such as the use of a fake I.D. in order to purchase alcohol. Members of the Amethyst Initiative say that these illegal practices encourage the compromise of an underage individual's ethics and morals, which erode general respect for authority and the law.

Finally, university presidents and students alike argue that if an individual is old enough to vote, get married, and fight for one's country, that individual should also legally be allowed to indulge in an alcoholic beverage. Even students who are under the age of twenty one and do not drink have voiced their approval of the Amethyst Initiative, stating that it is more about fairness in the law than the ability to consume alcohol earlier on in life that has earned their support of reexamining the minimum drinking age.

However, the Amethyst Initiative has been met with strong resistance nationwide from Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), who have argued that lowering the drinking age would lead to an increase in individuals who choose to drive while under the influence of alcohol. MADD also cites a variety of statistics which assert that the 21 Law saves lives, both on and off the road. In support of this research, MADD has paired up with stakeholders from scientific, medical, and public health organizations to form the Support 21 Coalition. The group is committed to highlighting the lifesaving impact of the current drinking age limit.

In addition, members of MADD have voiced their concern that the presidents who have signed the Initiative will be much less diligent at enforcing the current drinking age on their campuses. MADD members have even asserted that university presidents who have signed the Amethyst Initiative did so in order to make their lives easier and as a precaution to protect themselves against the legal liability associated with underage drinking that university presidents inevitably face. MADD President Laura Dean-Mooney recently issued a statement arguing that parents should think twice before sending their teens to colleges that have "waved the white flag on underage and binge-drinking policies".

The Amethyst Initiative has sent out approximately two thousand letters to college presidents across the country requesting support of their cause. Currently, one hundred and thirty university presidents have responded favorably by signing the Amethyst Initiative.

Please take some time to visit our websites:
San Francisco DUI Attorney
San Mateo DUI Lawyer
Marin County DUI Defense
Northern California DUI Defense Lawyers
San Francisco County DUI Defense Lawyers

Pima County Superior Court Judge Deborah Bernini ruled Friday that defense attorneys should be provided access to the source code and software that is used to power the Intoxilyzer 8000 breath testing equipment currently used by local law enforcement in suspected DUI arrests.

This ruling was made after months of debate between Arizona defense attorneys, who claim that they need the source code to determine whether breath tests administered by local police officers are accurate and reliable measures of an individual's blood alcohol content (BAC), and prosecutors who argue that the source code is a trade secret which should not be disclosed.

Defense attorneys have also argued that refusing to provide the source code for the Intoxilyzer 8000 infringes upon one's constitutional right to cross examine and confront one's accuser. In cases that rely on readings obtained from the breathalyzer, the accuracy of the machine's results cannot fully be challenged without knowing exactly how the measurement is taken. Possession of the source code would help to explain potential errors in the breathalyzer readings.

During the explanation of her ruling, Judge Bernini argued that the code could not be considered a trademark secret because the Intoxilyzer 8000 is not patented and neither is the copyright on the accompanying source code. Judge Bernini ordered that the manufacturer of the Intoxilyzer 8000, a company named CMI, immediately turn over the source code to attorney James Nesci, who has been leading the fight to obtain ownership of the code. Defense attorneys representing approximately twenty individuals arrested on felony DUI charges agreed to consolidate their cases into one case to be decided upon by Bernini. Nesci has taken control of the twenty three cases, and intends to ask Judge Bernini to dismiss the charges against all of the individuals if CMI refuses to release the source code.

Law enforcement officers across Arizona switched from the Intoxilyzer 5000 to the Intoxilyzer 8000 last year, based largely in part on the newer machine's smaller size and the ability for it to be powered by a squad car's cigarette lighter. However, unlike the Intoxilyzer 5000, the Intoxilyzer 8000 isn't patented, so defense attorneys cannot obtain the diagrams and source codes needed to figure out how the machine works. Also, CMI will only sell the Intoxilyzer 8000 to law enforcement agencies, so there is no possible way for individuals not affiliated with law enforcement to obtain information on the new machine. This policy differs from most other breathalyzer companies who readily provide their source codes to anyone who requests them and do not limit who they sell their breathalyzer equipment to.

In addition to Arizona, CMI has been instructed by courts in six other states to turn over the source code for the new Intoxilyzer 8000. Currently, CMI has amassed over $1.2 million in a civil contempt order for not disclosing the source code upon request.

Please take some time to visit our websites:
San Francisco DUI Attorney
San Mateo DUI Lawyer
Marin County DUI Defense
Northern California DUI Defense Lawyers
San Francisco County DUI Defense Lawyers

Santa Clara County District Attorney Dolores Carr and Deputy District Attorney David Tomkins are in the process of reviewing evidence which may reveal that two San Jose police officers attempted to conceal the drunk driving of former San Jose police officer, Sandra Woodall.

The investigation stems from a multi-vehicle accident which occurred on March 25, 2008. According to reports, Woodall smashed her Cadillac Escalade into two cars at the intersection of Branham Lane and Pearl Avenue in San Jose.

At the time of the accident, paramedics noted the strong smell of alcohol on her breath, however, the two responding police officers made no such notation. Paramedics have also revealed that when they questioned Woodall at the scene of the accident, Woodall revealed that she was just out of rehab, had consumed alcohol earlier in the evening, and that she was so disoriented that she did not even know what year it was. Paramedics have even asserted that the officers were coaching Woodall how to answer the questions and when medical assistants tried to take Woodall to the hospital, the officers declined on her behalf.

Witnesses at the scene have come forward saying that shortly after the accident took place, they were told by one of the responding officers that a Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) test was not going to be conducted on Woodall because too much time had elapsed since the incident.

The District Attorney's investigation of Sandra Woodall and the two San Jose police officers has initiated a large amount of public distrust of local governmental organizations. First and foremost, the public asserts that a conflict of interest has arisen because District Attorney Carr is investigating conspiracy charges related to her own employee, Sandra Woodall. Secondly, Carr has been accused of being too close to the police department to properly evaluate the evidence in this case because her husband and step-son are both active officers on the force. Finally, charges were not filed against Woodall until almost four months after the accident, when a local resident complained to police commanders that Woodall had not yet been charged, even though she had been driving under the influence. The public has taken this delay as yet another sign that this case will not be decided impartially.

While the public may be skeptical of the ability of the District Attorney's office to conduct a thorough and objective investigation, local neighboring law enforcement agencies such as San Jose's Independent Police Auditor have voiced their confidence in the capabilities of the District Attorney's office to return a fair and impartial decision, which will restore the public's faith in the criminal justice system.

Please take some time to visit our websites:
San Francisco DUI Attorney
San Mateo DUI Lawyer
Marin County DUI Defense
Northern California DUI Defense Lawyers
San Francisco County DUI Defense Lawyers

In Columbus, Ohio, three Highway Patrol sergeants and nine Highway Patrol troopers have been fired for allegedly cheating on a written alcohol detection device test. Troopers are required to take a fifty question multiple choice test annually in order to demonstrate that they can properly operate a breathalyzer. Typically, ninety nine percent of test takers pass the test.

The suspected cheating took place at the Highway Patrol's Canton post in Jackson Township in March 2007. Investigators believe that cheat sheets were used during the test and after the cheating was discovered, the officers lied about the circumstances surrounding the cheating. Eleven of the twelve officers fired came from the forty person Canton post.

The Ohio Inspector General launched an investigation into the potential cheating after an inspector for the Ohio Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Testing reported that while he was proctoring the required test, he caught several troopers cheating off of a cheat sheet. One of the troopers later admitted to making a copy of the cheat sheet when the proctor left the room. He then distributed copies of the cheat sheet to other troopers scheduled to take the test in the following months.

The fired troopers were placed on paid leave in August and officers from neighboring counties were called in to provide assistance to the Highway Patrol's Canton post. As a result of the firings, Jackson Township post commander Lieutenant Eric Sheppard says that the remaining troopers now spend nearly all of their time responding to traffic accidents and motorist requests. Time allocated to other trooper activities such as speeding deterrence, presence in crime ridden neighborhoods, and DUI checkpoints has had to be severely curtailed. The suspended officers underwent pre-disciplinary hearings on August 29, where recommendations for the twelve officers involved were made.

The firings have had a powerful impact on the status of a number of court cases which rely on the troopers whose employment is now in jeopardy. According to Canton City Prosecutor Frank Forchione, with the certifications of so many troopers in doubt, convictions in up to seventy cases could be overturned.

Please take some time to visit our websites:
San Francisco DUI Attorney
San Mateo DUI Lawyer
Marin County DUI Defense
Northern California DUI Defense Lawyers
San Francisco County DUI Defense Lawyers

Individuals in Orange County, California are trying to convince local bars that placing breathalyzers in their businesses will help to cut down on the number of driving under the influence arrests and accidents. Corder Hudson, owner of Common Cents Vending, has taken it upon himself to travel around Orange County to popular bar districts in order to encourage local bar owners to install the coin operated breathalyzers. Hudson also plans to target his sales to fraternity houses on college campuses.

Hudson says that the breathalyzers that would be placed in the bars use the same technology as breathalyzers utilized by law enforcement officers. In order to test your blood alcohol level, a disposable straw is inserted into a small hole in the machine. The individual is instructed to blow a steady breath into the straw for ten seconds, and the results appear moments after on a LED screen. Hudson explains that while the machine costs one dollar per use, the benefits of its' use far outweigh the cost because the average DUI costs approximately eight thousand dollars.

While Hudson believes that placing the $2,500 machines in places where alcohol is served seems like a promising idea, bar owners and bar-goers alike have not shown the same type of enthusiasm. So far, Hudson has only been able to get one bar to install the breathalyzer machine, Mikey's Sports Bar in Fullerton, CA.

Bar managers expressed their disapproval of placing the machine in their place of business, stating that they are in the business of serving alcohol and a breathalyzer would severely curtail alcohol consumption. Bar owners also foresaw a problem if patrons were to use the machine as a game to see who could get the highest blood alcohol content (BAC) reading. A random sampling of bar-goers admitted that they would rather not know if their blood alcohol content was over the legal limit when they were planning to drive home anyway.

Despite the technologically advanced nature of the equipment, police officers have spoken out against the use of such machinery, saying that the device could provide a false sense of security for individuals who have consumed alcoholic beverages and are planning to drive. It takes a certain amount of time for alcohol to fully metabolize in the body and if an individual uses the breathalyzer before the alcohol has completely metabolized, the individual's blood alcohol level could rise above the legal limit once the individual is in the car driving home.

The idea of placing breathalyzers in bars is not a new idea. In 2005, officials in Rockland, Michigan purchased several breathalyzers to place in local bars as a supplement to local police enforcement. More recently in Connecticut, State Senator Andrew J. McDonald proposed a bill that would give bars and restaurants incentive to install breathalyzer machines by lowering their liability from $250,000 to $100,000. Also in Orange County, a San Clemente couple has created a company called Drive Safe, which works to place breathalyzers in local bars, much like Hudson's company, Common Sense Vending.

Please take some time to visit our websites:
San Francisco DUI Attorney
San Mateo DUI Lawyer
Marin County DUI Defense
Northern California DUI Defense Lawyers
San Francisco County DUI Defense Lawyers

On September 2, the San Rafael City Council voted to accept state Office of Traffic safety grant money in order to continue support of a controversial drunk-driving program which relies on checkpoints to screen for individuals driving under the influence and individuals driving without valid driver's licenses. Two grants were up for consideration before the five member board, a $577,154 grant which would fund the countywide AVOID the Marin 13 Campaign, which would last through 2012, and a San Rafael specific grant for $94,189 to support drunk driving enforcement through September 30, 2009.

The debate which initiated Tuesday night's City Council meeting arose over a Canal neighborhood checkpoint occurring on June 13, 2008, which activists argued was a racially motivated checkpoint installed to locate and detain unlicensed illegal immigrants. During the checkpoint, the San Rafael Police Department arrested forty-seven drivers between the hours of 6pm and 11pm at the checkpoint set up at the intersection of East Francisco Boulevard and Grand Avenue. The checkpoint was then moved to Irwin Street between Fourth and Fifth Avenue until 1:30am. Four of the forty-seven arrested drivers were booked for driving under the influence, while thirty-nine were arrested for driving without a valid license.

The San Rafael Police Department has denied allegations that the checkpoints are even remotely motivated by race, stating instead that the Canal neighborhood had been chosen as a checkpoint location based on statistics regarding traffic accidents and drunk driving arrests. According to the authorities, the checkpoints are legal and necessary in order to combat driving under the influence.

While the approval of funding for the checkpoints was unanimous, certain members of the five member council were still uneasy about the expansion of the checkpoints to include the check for valid driver's licenses. Councilman Greg Brockbank voiced his concern over the idea, but stated that it would be far too divisive within the community if local law enforcement was to call off the checkpoint efforts. As a precaution, city officials have stated that they plan to maintain continuous communication with the City council, community members, and Canal community groups, in order to alleviate local friction.

Please take some time to visit our websites:
San Francisco DUI Attorney
San Mateo DUI Lawyer
Marin County DUI Defense
Northern California DUI Defense Lawyers
San Francisco County DUI Defense Lawyers

Pima County Superior Court Judge Richard S. Fields ruled late last week that the Arizona Department of Public Safety's (DPS) practice of drawing blood from individuals suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs is unconstitutional. Fields argued that by drawing a suspect's blood in the back seat of a patrol car or alongside the road, the Department of Public Safety was not taking proper health precautions in order to avoid risk of infection or injury and was also violating an individual's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure.

Judge Fields' ruling came after he decided that blood-alcohol evidence collected by an Arizona Department of Public Safety officer was inadmissible in court because of the method of blood collection utilized. In the case, the individual suspected of driving under the influence had his blood drawn by an officer while seated in the back seat of a dimly lit patrol vehicle. While the officer drawing the blood sample indicated that he was wearing gloves, he did not state whether or not he had washed his hands prior to taking the sample.

Judge Fields supported his ruling by stating that law enforcement officials have alternatives to blood testing when a blood technician (phlebotomist) is not readily available. However, officers generally prefer to utilize a blood sample over alternative testing methods such as a breathalyzer because the blood test is far more accurate and requires less equipment to set up in advance. In the case of blood testing, a blood sample test generally requires a trip to the hospital so that the phlebotomist is able to draw the blood in an accurate and health conscious environment. When phlebotomists are unavailable or it will take too long for an individual to be taken to a hospital in order to accurately test one's blood alcohol content (BAC), officers have resorted to these backseat blood-drawing tactics.

This is why the practice of drawing blood on the side of the road has become increasingly common in recent years. This way, officers can be sure that the evidence they collected accurate, based on both the timeliness of the test and the precision of the blood-alcohol test itself, when compared to other testing methods.

As a result of Judge Fields' ruling, Chief Criminal Deputy County Attorney David Berkman has stated that prosecutors will soon be dismissing the individual's DUI charges in the alleged drunk driving case. This ruling could have potential negative implications for prosecutors, who may be forced to dismiss cases that are still pending and that rely on improperly collected blood evidence.

Tucscon defense attorney Tom Jacobs states that this challenge of Department of Public Safety authority has not been restricted to Judge Fields' ruling. In addition, Pima County Consolidated Court Justice Jose Luis Castillo issued a similar ruling in another case regarding the constitutionality of Department of Public Safety blood testing of individuals suspected of driving under the influence.

Please take some time to visit our websites:
San Francisco DUI Attorney
San Mateo DUI Lawyer
Marin County DUI Defense
Northern California DUI Defense Lawyers
San Francisco County DUI Defense Lawyers

The California Highway Patrol has reported that the number of traffic deaths over the Labor Day weekend dropped sharply since last year. The California Highway Patrol is attributing this drop in DUI related fatalities to an increase in police crackdown as part of the regional AVOID DUI Campaign conducted this past weekend. U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters stated prior to the long weekend that the U.S. Department of Transportation had earmarked thirteen million dollars for advertising Labor Day weekend in order to deliver the message, "Drunk Driving. Over the Limit. Under Arrest."

While the number of DUI related fatalities dropped fifty percent since last years' Labor Day weekend, decreasing from forty six deaths across California to twenty three, the number of driving under the influence arrests increased slightly. As of midnight, Sunday, August 31, California Highway Patrol officers had arrested one thousand four hundred and sixteen drivers statewide for driving under the influence of either drugs or alcohol, compared to last year where at the end of the long weekend, one thousand four hundred and six people had been arrested. In the Bay Area, three hundred and seventy seven arrests were made, which is slightly lower than last year's statistics.

This drop in traffic fatalities has also been identified on a larger scale nationwide, where last week, the new national figures collected by the U.S. Department of Transportation showed a significant drop in the number of DUI related fatalities. U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters reported that while these statistics are encouraging, the number of DUI related fatalities among motorcyclists is climbing in number.

Secretary Peters provided statistics which revealed that last year, approximately thirteen thousand people were killed in accidents where one of the vehicle operators had been driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.8 of higher. The number of DUI related fatalities in 2007 saw nearly a four percent drop in DUI related fatalities since 2006, where thirteen thousand four hundred and ninety one people's lives were claimed.

According to the California Highway Patrol, the successful decrease in the number of DUI related fatalities seen over the holiday weekend has been attributed to increased police activity through DUI checkpoints and Saturation Patrols, in addition to higher gas prices, increased numbers of public education campaigns addressing driving under the influence, and the use of alternative forms of transportation.

Please take some time to visit our websites:
San Francisco DUI Attorney
San Mateo DUI Lawyer
Marin County DUI Defense
Northern California DUI Defense Lawyers
San Francisco County DUI Defense Lawyers