The owners of Salty's Bar and Grill in Panama City Beach, Florida, have been sued for their involvement in a deadly hit and run accident which occurred one year ago. According to the lawsuit, the four owners of Salty's Bar and Grill provided alcohol to underage employee Jeremy Matthew Hunt, who was working as a bar back at the establishment on the night of October 12 and into the morning of October 13, 2007. Hunt left the bar drunk, where he subsequently hit and killed Clint Malone on Thomas Drive as he rode his bicycle alongside his wife Jennifer Malone.

Three days after the accident, Hunt turned himself in to the authorities. He is now serving twenty years in prison for DUI manslaughter and leaving the scene of an accident involving a fatality. Jennifer Malone's attorney, David Carter, stated that, "Jeremy Hunt indicated that he was given alcohol on numerous occasions by the owners of Salty's. Salty's had an accepted policy that employees were allowed to drink on the premises free of charge so long as they were not on the clock."

The lawsuit filed by Malone asserts that the owners of Salty's knew that Hunt had been drinking on the job on the night of the accident. Additionally, extensive video evidence showing Hunt drinking with management the night Malone was killed was turned over during the course of the investigation. In response to his client's lawsuit, Carter stated that Salty's management displayed gross negligence by, "[failing] to adequately and reasonably train and supervise Jeremy Hunt in the performance of his duties, including but not limited to Jeremy Hunt's participation in Salty's providing of alcohol and encouraging employees to consume alcohol."

Malone is suing the owners of Salty's for medical and funeral expenses, loss of earnings, and pain and suffering endured by herself and her two children. Malone's lawyer summed up her case, stating, "the actions of the bar and its owners are equivalent to putting the bullet in the gun, reaching over his (Hunt's) shoulder, and pulling the trigger."

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

Following an extensive investigation, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) has reported that they have fired DUI inspector Sandra Veiga for allegedly tampering with alcohol breath testing machines. It has been revealed that during the FDLE's routine inspections, Veiga failed to follow testing protocol. When it appeared that the machine was going to register a fail during the required accuracy inspection, Veiga chose to pull the plug on the machine rather than let it finish the test and record the error. Unplugging the machine mid-test prevents the machine from reporting the malfunctions to the manufacturer. Veiga was responsible for the required annual testing all of the Intoxilyzer machines in the Miami-Dade, Broward, and Monroe counties.

The investigation into Veiga's conduct began after two local police officers reported that Veiga had told them to turn the machines off when it looked like they were going to fail inspection. Florida state law mandates that the Intoxilyzer machines be tested for accuracy once a month by the police agency in possession of the machine in addition to the yearly tests provided by FDLE.

In July, the FDLE sent letters to every law enforcement agency in all three counties, instructing the agencies to alert prosecutors and defense attorneys to the alleged tampering. As a result of this widespread corruption, thousands of DUI cases have put been put at risk, including pending cases and cases that have been recently closed. Driving under the influence defense lawyer Richard Hersch stated, "The number of cases involved could be as many as 10,000 here in Miami-Dade County." DUI defense attorneys argue that this scandal casts suspicion on an untold number of driving under the influence cases in Dade, Broward, and Monroe counties.

Defense attorney Mike Catalano added, "If she [Veiga] lied about how she performed her annual inspections, then we don't know if any of them are valid." Individuals who have been arrested for driving under the influence in South Florida, who have submitted to a breath test, or who have been convicted of a DUI in one of the three previously stated counties have been advised to contact their attorney and see if the widespread tampering has affected the finding in their case.

Despite these warnings, the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office has maintained their confidence in the reliability of the Intoxilyzer breath testing machines used in the county's criminal DUI cases. Officials of the State Attorney's Office have stated for the record that the improper accuracy tests will not endanger any of the area's past, present, or future driving under the influence cases.

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 a study presented at the 2008 Clinical Congress of the American College of Surgeons, statistics revealed a high association between moped driver injuries and positive alcohol levels. Trauma surgeon, Dr. Ashley Christmas of the F.H. Sammy Ross Trauma Center in North Carolina presented evidence that as high as thirty nine percent of moped operators involved in accidents were driving while under the influence of alcohol.

To more closely examine the influence of alcohol on moped crashes, Dr. Christmas and several colleagues conducted a retrospective review of adult moped injuries at the F.H. Sammy Ross Trauma Center between the years of 1995 and 2006. Based on the investigation, Dr. Christmas revealed that, "Upon questioning, we learned that many of these individuals had previously had their drivers' licenses revoked. These patients were very in tune to the fact that a moped was defined as a motorized vehicle with an engine less than 50 cubic centimeters, so they knew they could still drive this vehicle without a license. We suspect that many moped operators are repeat offenders, whose licenses were previously revoked."

Moped laws vary from state to state with regard to the age of the operator and whether or not helmets, registration, inspection, insurance, and, most importantly, a driver's license, are required for operation. For example, in North Carolina, moped operators are not required to have a driver's license, however, across state lines in South Carolina, a license is required. While a license is mandated by South Carolina state law, obtaining that license does not depend on the status of any other driver's license the individual may hold. In other words, a driver may be in possession of a suspended or revoked automobile license due to a DUI conviction, but will still be eligible to receive a moped license.

Dr. Christmas addressed the loopholes in South Carolina law, stating, "It is a kind of flaw in the system. I think the Department of Motor Vehicles needs to take a closer look at the definition of motorized vehicle. If a person loses his or her driver's license, it should roll over into not operating a moped on an open road."

Evidence collected during the study also revealed, surprisingly, that despite the fact that the severity of moped accidents was much lower than the severity of motorcycle or automobile accidents, moped drivers still had a higher rate of death as a result of those accidents. Due to these puzzling findings, Dr. Christmas and his colleagues have expanded their study to investigate the cause of this paradox. He and his colleagues are also currently working with the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) in order to determine how many of moped drivers admitted to the F.H. Sammy Ross Trauma Center were driving with a suspended license.

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 Friday, October 10, Hector Whitley was convicted in Sacramento's Superior Court on ten felony counts involving conspiracy, destroying court records, aiding and embedding computer fraud, and making fraudulent computer entries. This conviction stems from an investigation initiated by the Sacramento District Attorney's Office in 2007 after court staff noticed irregularities in the computer entries of several DUI cases.

The investigation revealed that numerous computer entries had been modified to show DUI cases as dismissed, when there had been no court order of dismissal. An audit of all 2007 cases revealed at least seven DUI cases where the defendant in the case had been arrested and charged, but then had failed to appear for their first court date. Normally, following a failure to appear, an arrest warrant would be issued for the individual. However, in these cases, no warrant was issued and electronic records were altered to indicate that the cases had instead been dismissed. Phony minute orders were even drafted for the court files to make the dismissals even more convincing.

Following the extensive investigation, the electronic changes were eventually linked to Whitley and Sacramento Superior Court clerk Fernando Marcos Catlin, who allegedly accepted as much as five thousand dollars from the individuals in order to make the DUI charges disappear.

Whitley has been described as the brains behind the operation to fix the results of the driving under the influence cases. He allegedly advertised his services in local Sacramento bars and then relied on his accomplice, Catlin, to alter the records in the court's computer system. In his closing argument made Thursday morning, Deputy District Attorney Don Steed summed up Whitley's involvement in the scheme saying, "He's the one who found the customers. He got the money. He promoted it by putting his name out there. He's getting the business to do the crime." Whitley himself admitted during trial proceedings that he collected approximately $11,500 from the defendants in exchange for the altering of their court records. Whitley also relied on local bartenders to get the word out around town that he could, "make drunken driving cases disappear."

Following Whitley's conviction, Deputy District Attorney Steed said, "Hopefully, we've caught all the cases. It's important that there be credibility in the system and that we carry forth on this to make the public know that this is a credible process and that justice be served equally to all." Chief Deputy Executive Officer of the Court, Ed Pollard, added that the Sacramento Superior Court has instituted some corrections to the electronic records system in order to prevent similar problems from occurring in the future.

All of the defendants who hired Whitley and Catlin to have their records altered have since pleaded guilty to their old drunk driving allegations and to new charges of aiding and abetting computer fraud. Each of the individuals was sentenced to probation and 90 days of sheriff's work project.

Whitley faces a term of six to eight years in prison as a result of the verdict which took just two hours to return, after nearly two weeks of trial proceedings. Whitley's accomplice, Catlin, pleaded no contest to the charges brought against him and faces a maximum of ten years in prison.

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 a report released Thursday, October 9, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) stated that judges and prosecutors are endangering the public's lives by showing leniency in sentencing for convicted driving while intoxicated (DWI) offenders. MADD investigated 1,300 cases in order to determine why so many multiple DWI offenders are allowed to get back behind the wheel of a car, even after a pattern of reckless behavior has been established.

Based on their investigation, MADD concluded that, in many cases, convicted DWI offenders are offered plea bargains with reduced sentences. In Albuquerque, New Mexico's Metro Court, MADD offered statistics indicating that 42% of drunk drivers who pleaded guilty ended up being sentenced for lesser charges. In a majority of the cases, the guilty individuals were initially charged with aggravated DWI for driving with extremely high blood alcohol concentrations (BAC) or because they had multiple DWI offenses on their record.

MADD says that judges and prosecutors should eliminate leniency in sentencing and instead stick with the stricter DWI charges in order to keep repeat drunk drivers off of the street. Unfortunately, Bernalillo County DWI prosecutor Gary Cade says that convictions on tougher, DWI charges are not always possible to obtain; based on the large amount of DWI cases filed in the area and the deadlines associated with the filing of such cases. Oftentimes, prosecutors are forced to negotiate a reduced sentence in order to obtain a result before the filing period expires, even if the result is not favorable.

MADD has also found that in McKinley County, New Mexico, 72% of alcohol ignition interlock requirements were waived in court because the judge took the driver at their word when the individual claimed that he or she did not own a car. One of the first recommendations MADD made in their report was for the court to check into the veracity of the claims before deciding whether or not to waive the alcohol ignition interlock device requirement during sentencing.

In order to cut down on the number of individuals with multiple DWI offenses, MADD has also suggested that probation officers or court officers check on convicted drunk drivers to make sure that they do not have access to a vehicle. Another recommendation was for the courts to require DWI offenders who claim to not own a vehicle to wear an alcohol monitoring device, which tests the perspiration collected from the air above the individual's skin for alcohol twice an hour.

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 Hillsborough County, Florida, a recent Internal Affairs summary report revealed that Deputy Justin Speaks forged the signatures of two to three sergeants in several of his DUI reports. The Internal Affairs report, dated August 15, 2008, indicated that Speaks committed three counts of forgery, three counts of uttering a forged instrument, and one count of conduct unbecoming of a member of the Sheriff's Office.

The report also stated that, "Deputy Speaks was advised that the State Attorney's Office (SAO) is not going to pursue prosecution on some of his DUI cases as a result of the criminal charges presented to the SAO against him. He agreed his actions have had an adverse affect upon the cases and would destroy public respect in the Sheriff's Office."

As stated in the report, in one instance, the Florida District Attorney's Office chose not to prosecute Lee Anne Bodzenski, who was arrested by Speaks for suspicion of property damage, personal injury, and driving under the influence. Chemical tests taken after the accident revealed Bodenski's blood alcohol concentration to be 0.165 and 0.162, however, prosecutors were forced to abandon the case because of the numerous challenges to Speaks' integrity and honesty.

The forgery was discovered by Speaks' superior after the DUI report on Bodzenski was returned to the office because Speaks had failed to sign his own name to the document. Upon inspection, Speaks' supervisor, Sergeant Porter, discovered that Speaks had forged his signature on the document. When confronted by Sergeant Porter about the forgery, Speaks denied any wrong-doing. However, he changed his story an hour later, saying instead that his wife was responsible for the forgery.

After collecting and comparing handwriting samples of both Speaks and his wife, Internal Affairs concluded that Speaks was responsible for the forgeries. During a subsequent interview, Speaks admitted to the forgeries and even exposed that he had forged the signatures and information of other officers in the past.

This is not the first time Hillsborough County has made national headlines following an Internal Affairs investigation. In the summer of 2007, Deputy Daniel Brock was fired from the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office after reports surfaced that Brock filed arrest reports weeks after DUI incidents occurred, failed to turn on his vehicle audio and video equipment forty percent of the time, reported failures in field sobriety tests when his patrol car video camera documented the opposite, and acted against police arrest procedure on numerous occasions. As soon as the Internal Affairs report was published, Brock was let go.

In light of the highly publicized investigations of Deputies Brock and Speaks, concerns have been raised that individuals may be able to come forward to challenge the evidence and circumstances surrounding their own arrests and convictions in Hillsborough County, regardless of whether Brock and Speaks were involved.

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

Despite the fact that police use of roadblocks and sobriety checkpoints has become increasingly prevalent in recent years, a recent study has found that there is not enough evidence to definitively say that the increased police efforts effectively cut down on the number of driving under the influence related accidents and fatalities. According to lead reviewer Cynthia Goss, of the Colorado Injury Control Research Center and the Colorado School of Public Health, "Increased police patrols might be effective, but we do not yet have enough evidence to prove that they are."

The review will appear in the current issue of The Cochrane Library, a publication of The Cochrane Collaboration, which is an international organization that evaluates research conducted on topics affecting health care. The review provided its' conclusion on the effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints after considering the content and quality of thirty-two existing studies on the topic. The studies were chosen based on strict selection criteria, which required, "Randomized controlled trials, controlled trials, controlled before and after studies, interrupted time series (ITS) studies, and controlled ITS studies evaluating increased police patrols...."

In a majority of the thirty-two studies, the specific intent of the police initiated checkpoints and roadblocks was to locate individuals suspected of driving under the influence, while also serving as a deterrent to individuals who may potentially choose to drink and drive. Some of the police interventions were also aimed at reducing other traffic violations, such as speeding or driving without a valid license.

Most of these studies revealed that increased police patrols reduced traffic crashes and fatalities, but evidence on the effect of traffic injuries was less consistent. The reviewers concluded that in most of the studies, the results may have been biased or unreliable due to their weak or unclear quality. "Methodological limitations included inadequate sample size, dissimilar baseline measures, contamination, and inadequate data analysis. Thus, existing evidence, although supportive, does not firmly establish whether increased police patrols, implemented with or without other intervention elements, reduce the adverse consequences of alcohol-impaired driving."

Goss explained The Cochrane Collaboration's rationale, stating, "Study quality cannot be separated from study results. A poor quality study can make the intervention look better- or worse- than it really is." Reviewers discovered that the detail provided on the methodology of included studies was uniformly poor, and the quality of the finalized reports was equally weak. Reviewers felt that studies assessing the cost-effectiveness of the sobriety checkpoints and roadblocks were necessary in order to truly determine effectiveness of heightened police intervention. No such studies were included in the review.

MADD national president, Laura Dean-Mooney contested The Cochrane Collaboration's findings, asserting that, "Federal research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that sobriety checkpoints reduce alcohol related crashes and fatalities by up to twenty-four percent. Checkpoints are one of the most effective tools we have to deter drunk driving." MADD officials have stated in the past that just because a sobriety checkpoint doesn't yield any arrests doesn't mean that the heightened police efforts are not working. Instead, MADD insists that a lack of arrests for DUI related violations during a police checkpoint illustrates the effective deterrent power police checkpoints have over individuals who may have otherwise chosen to drink and drive.

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

Last month, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled in State v. Mays that a momentary drift of a few inches over the white line at the edge of the road provides sufficient grounds for a police officer to initiate a traffic stop.

In the case of State v. Mays, an Ohio State Highway Patrol trooper was driving through Newark, Ohio, on March 26, 2006, when he saw the vehicle in front of him drift across the white fog line by approximately one tire width. A few moments later, he observed the same occurrence. The trooper continued to follow the vehicle for approximately one and a half miles, but did not observe any further traffic violations. The trooper then signaled to the driver to pull over the vehicle.

The trooper approached the car and asked the driver, Christopher Mays, for his driver license. Instead of providing his driver license, Mays handed the officer a credit card instead. The trooper also noticed that Mays had blood-shot, glassy eyes, and smelled of alcohol. Mays was then asked to step out of the vehicle and perform a series of field sobriety tests, which he refused to do. The trooper then arrested Mays, who was subsequently charged with operation of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in violation of R.C. 4511.19(a)(1)(a) and crossing marked lanes in violation of R.C. 4511.33.

During court proceedings, the Licking County Municipal Court Judge sustained Mays' motion to suppress after hearing the evidence and concluding that the trooper did not have a reasonable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop in the first place. As a result of this opinion, the judge threw the charges out against Mays.

However, following the judge's decision to throw out the case, the state appeals court reversed the municipal court's judgment, insisting that a police officer can stop and interrogate anyone, even if a violation has not been committed. The state supreme court subsequently agreed with the state appeals court's interpretation.

The court ruled that, "[w]hile a defendant may argue that there were reasons for which he or she should not have been convicted of a violation of [the marked-lane statute], an officer is not required to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that someone has violated the marked lane statute in order to make a traffic stop nor must an officer eliminate all possible innocent explanations for someone going over the edge lines. The officer need only have a reasonable suspicion based upon articulable facts that the driver violated the marked lane statute." [State v. Mays, Slip Opinion No. 2008-Ohio-4539.]

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 response to the DUI crash that killed a mother and daughter late last week, Kansas state lawmakers and DUI activists have demanded a serious change in DUI laws targeted towards repeat DUI offenders. Gary Hammitt was arrested on Thursday, October 2 on suspicion of two counts of first degree murder, one count of attempted murder, and one count of driving under the influence, after allegedly striking the mother and daughter next to Gardiner Elementary School on Wednesday afternoon. Chemical tests have indicated that Hammitt's blood alcohol concentration (BAC) during the time of the crash was approximately 0.5, which is nearly 6.25 times the legal limit.

Hammitt was arraigned early Friday morning, where it was revealed that he has been convicted four previous times between 1979 and 2005 for driving under the influence. This fact has caused an uprising among lawmakers and civilians alike, who cannot believe that after four drunken driving convictions, Hammitt was still in possession of a valid Kansas driver license.

Under Kansas law, fourth offense DUI offenders are punished similarly to second and third time offenders. Second and third time DUI offenders have their license suspended for one year, which is followed by a year of driving with a restricted license. Only after a fifth DUI conviction does an individual lose his or her license permanently.

President and Chief Executive of the DUI Victim Center of Kansas, Mary Ann Khoury, stated, "I am telling you that there are people in this community who are outraged. We have had nothing but phone calls from people who are just angry." Khoury has predicted that, in the near future, the Kansas legislature will hear from a large amount of people who want longer prison sentences and longer driver license suspensions for multiple offense DUI offenders.

State Senator Phil Journey (R-Haysville), agrees with Khoury, saying that he expects next year's Legislature to reconsider a proposal that would double the minimum sentences for DUI offenders. Instead of serving a minimum two day jail term, a first time DUI offender would be required to spend four days behind bars. This proposal was initially rejected last year due to complaints by local Sheriffs that there was not enough jail space to house all of the DUI offenders.

Senator Journey is also anticipating increased discussion of a law which would require a lifetime license suspension for all third time DUI offenders; a proposal which he would not support. Senator Journey emphasized that for chronic DUI offenders, a suspended license means very little, "The problem is, some of them just keep driving. They play 'police officer roulette' every day...I've had a few who really do abide by the rules, but I've had a lot of them who don't."

Bill Morris, who runs Adolescent, Adult, & Family Recovery, Inc. in Wichita has agreed with protestors that Kansas's DUI laws are much too lax. In order to have the most impact, Morris would like to focus new legislation on first-time DUI offenders. He argued, "I think first time you ought to lose your driver's license for two years--period. I don't think there needs to be any slack."

DUI activists and community members are hoping that this tragedy will send a message to the Kansas Legislature to modify the existing DUI laws, in favor of adopting increasingly harsh penalties for first time offenders and multiple DUI offenders alike.

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 30, a new law took effect in Ohio which allows authorities to force drivers with two or more driving under the influence arrests to submit to blood or urine tests without their consent. If a repeat drunk driver suspected of driving under the influence refuses to submit to a chemical test, police are entitled to use "reasonable means" to have a medical worker physically take the blood sample. This law will apply to individuals who have a previous felony in their record, who have two or more convictions in the last six years for operating a vehicle while intoxicated, or who have five or more DUI convictions in the last twenty years.

Local prosecutors have been frustrated by individuals suspected of driving under the influence refusing to submit to a chemical test to reveal their blood alcohol concentration. The passage of this law would help to quell the prosecutor's frustration. Assistant Hamilton County Prosecutor Brian Goodyear explained, "Frankly, the idea behind this is to limit the ability of people to refuse having their blood or breath tested after they've demonstrated a pattern of (drunken driving)." Prior to the new law, in order to obtain a conviction, prosecutors had to rely on eyewitness testimony of people who saw how much alcohol the defendant consumed in cases where the individual refused to submit to the chemical test.

While prosecutors are strongly in favor of the new law, there are a number of people who are outraged by the evasive new law and who believe it is a blatant violation of a driver's civil rights. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has added that the forced chemical test is highly unconstitutional because the law gives police authority to obtain a sample without a warrant, which may lead to an abuse of police power.

In addition to the provision of the law which allows for forced chemical tests, the new law will also set up a searchable online database of drunk drivers. The new law requires the courts to send the Ohio Department of Public Safety the records of individuals that have been convicted of driving under the influence at least five times over the last twenty years. Those convicted of multiple driving under the influence offenses will have their name, address, and crime posted on the public internet database. The law mandates that the Department of Public Safety have the database up and working by the end of 2008. Approximately 30,000 people in Ohio have been convicted of five or more drunk driving offenses.

The law also includes a provision which requires treatment for alcoholism for repeat driving under the influence offenders, increases penalties for repeat offenses, and in some cases, will require the installment of an ignition interlock system for convicted 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