State lawmakers in Texas are proposing a new bill which would alter existing laws to allow state law enforcement agencies to set up sobriety checkpoints, in an effort to crack down on drunk driving. In 1994, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that, according to the United States Supreme Court, sobriety checkpoints cannot be used unless there are approved statewide procedures for conducting sobriety checkpoints.

The proposed law, Senate Bill 298, was introduced by Texas State Senator John Carona and would give the Texas Department of Public Safety and local law enforcement agencies the authority to create field sobriety checkpoints on public highways or streets in order to determine whether individuals are driving while under the influence. The law will take effect immediately if it receives a two thirds vote from both houses of the state congress.

According to State Senator Carona, the law is long overdue, stating, "Texas does currently have the most DWIs, and it's one of the states that continues to fight against this legislation. If we're going to save lives and we're going to make the roads safer for everyone, our families, our children, then this is long overdue."

Some members of the public have also voiced their support of the new law, explaining that the sobriety checkpoints will help to encourage drivers to think about the possible consequences of their actions, arguing, "The promotion, the publicity for it makes people make a plan. They should be doing that anyway, but they're not because too many people are being injured."

While a portion of the public is in favor of such a measure, Texan defense attorneys overwhelmingly oppose the passage of such a law, stating that sobriety checkpoints are a violation of an individual's fourth amendment right, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. According to Dallas defense attorney Patrick McClain, "It's a slippery slope, giving up our rights to privacy and to intrusiveness to law enforcement when we haven't done anything that indicates we have broken the law." Members of the public have also agreed with this viewpoint, seeing checkpoints as a blatant attack on personal liberties.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) has been a vocal supporter of sobriety checkpoints since the Supreme Court's ruling on the issue in 1990. MADD also has a history of attacking those who disapprove of sobriety checkpoints, stating, "Opponents of sobriety checkpoints tend to be those who drink and drive frequently and are concerned about being caught." This statement has angered numerous lawmakers and citizens, which has only served to augment opposition to the passage of sobriety checkpoints and increase hostility between those in favor of sobriety checkpoints and those who are against them.

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

A Santa Clara County criminal grand jury has determined that no charges will be filed against two San Jose law enforcement officers accused of ignoring evidence and mishandling a DUI investigation of a local District Attorney investigator. The decision not to charge San Jose police Sergeant Will Manion and Officer Patrick D'Arrigo comes just one week after District Attorney Investigator Sandra Woodall, a former San Jose law enforcement officer, pled guilty to misdemeanor driving under the influence. The charge against Woodall was reduced from a felony in accordance with the plea agreement entered last week.

This announcement comes as the result of a nearly year-long investigation stemming from a multi vehicle accident which occurred on the evening of March 25, 2008. According to police reports, Woodall crashed her Cadillac Escalade into two vehicles are the intersection of Branham Lane and Pearl Avenue in San Jose. A fifteen year old girl was injured in the crash.

Sergeant Manion and Officer D'Arrigo were the first officers to arrive at the scene of the accident. Paramedics arrived prior to the officers and had already begun to treat Woodall of any potential injuries by the time the officers had arrived. The on-site paramedic noted the strong smell of alcohol on Woodall's breath immediately following the accident, however, the officers failed to indicate this observation in their accident report. Additionally, the officers did not have Woodall submit to a blood alcohol concentration test in order to determine whether she truly had been driving under the influence.

On the night of the accident, witnesses indicated that Woodall admitted that she had been drinking prior to the accident and had recently left an alcohol rehabilitation program. Onlookers noted her disoriented and belligerent demeanor as well. However, Sergeant Manion and Officer D'Arrigo both noted that they did not detect any signs of intoxication, which is why they did not test her blood alcohol concentration. Medical personnel on the scene also indicated that the officers attempted to disrupt paramedic attempts to transport Woodall to the hospital for medical attention. Of these accusations, District Attorney Dolores Carr stated, "The allegations made were serious and called into the question the integrity of law enforcement. The grand jury has made its decision and the district attorney will abide by it."

The District Attorney's Office defended their decision to present the case to a grand jury by citing the numerous conflicting interests at issue, "The reason we took this case to the grand jury is because there are always these feelings of these close ties. That's why we take it to an impartial body. I don't see how much more unbiased that can be." In addition to Woodall's employment as an investigator for the District Attorney's Office and time spent as a former law enforcement officer, Woodall's father in law is also employed by the District Attorney's Office and Woodall's husband is a San Jose police sergeant. When asked whether prosecutors believed that the two men had committed a crime, Assistant District Attorney David Tomkins replied, "The grand jury answered that question."

This announcement marks a victory for the two officers, who through this long process have maintained that they committed no wrongdoing on the night of March 25, 2008. Their attorney, Craig Brown, reiterated this point, explaining to reporters, "I think it's the right result, obviously. They are relieved, of course. They always felt that they did what was right under the circumstances."

While the decision was met with approval by law enforcement agents and those close to Sergeant Manion and Officer D'Arrigo, the public has voiced the opinion that a serious miscarriage of justice has occurred by allowing two law enforcement agents to show favoritism to one of their own without punitive repercussions.

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

Law enforcement agencies across the state of Arizona recently announced that they will increasing the number of law enforcement officers who will receive phlebotomy training next year. This training is used for the purpose of determining the blood alcohol concentration of an individual suspected of driving under the influence. Over the past fifteen years, law enforcement agencies have begun to move away from Breathalyzer testing in favor of blood samples drawn by phlebotomists because they are considered far more accurate and are subject to far fewer challenges by defense attorneys.

The money used to fund the training of these law enforcement officers is part of a $4.5 million grant package the state annually receives from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The state of Arizona has been provided this grant because of its status as an opportunity state, where nearly one third of traffic fatalities are linked to drinking and driving. This grant will allow the Governor's Office of Highway Safety to put about 170 extra officers through the five day phlebotomy training program, in addition to the 100 slots available to Arizona law enforcement officers last year.

Arizona state officials have begun to realize that, in light of the constant challenges to breath alcohol test evidence, blood evidence is more likely to lead to a driving under the influence conviction. According to Alan Haywood, officer and program coordinator for the Department of Public Safety, "Breath testing is primarily used throughout the state, but blood is being used more and more. We call it the CSI effect: Juries and judges want evidence, and they like the blood."

However, this training of police officers has raised a large amount of concern amongst criminal defense attorneys as well as the general public. By training officers to perform the duties of a phlebotomist, many worry that the likelihood of drawing a suspect's blood on the side of the road in unsafe conditions will skyrocket. Fortifying these concerns are recent statements made by Pima County Sheriff's Deputy, Koi Greene, who stated that the hands on training she received as part of the five day phlebotomy training made her increasing comfortable with the idea of drawing blood from a DUI suspect on the side of the road.

This confidence in roadside blood draws directly contradicts Pima County Superior Court Judge Fields' ruling made in late October which emphasized that the Arizona Department of Public Safety's (DPS) practice of drawing blood from individuals on the side of the road did not satisfy the state's health precautions laid out by the Department of Public Safety. According to Judge Fields, the high likelihood that the blood draw would occur in an environment ill suited for such testing elevates the possibility of infection to unacceptable levels.

Defense attorneys across Arizona have spoken out against this training, saying that an officer's ability to draw blood will result in blood work being done in situations and under circumstances that are not in the best interest of the suspect. According to Tucson criminal defense attorney, James Nesci, "You need a license to cut hair in Arizona, but you don't need a license to puncture a vein and draw blood. That in and of itself is frightening. There are a couple (of) other things that go along with that. Was the person who drew your blood mad at you? Was it an adversarial situation?"

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

This past weekend marked the beginning of California's holiday season DUI enforcement period. In Alameda County, participating law enforcement agencies were provided with brand new DUI enforcement equipment in order to isolate, test, and arrest individuals suspected of driving under the influence. Included in this package of new equipment is a $750 alcohol sensing flashlight, also known as a passive alcohol sensor.

In addition to providing light to law enforcement officers, the flashlights also scan for the presence of alcohol in an enclosed area. During a traffic stop where an individual is suspected of driving under the influence, a law enforcement officer will place the flashlight inside the individual's window. The flashlight takes in air through an intake port, which is designed to detect the presence of alcohol. A sensor in the flashlight then visually displays the results of the scan on a color scale, ranging from red to green. The individual will have no idea that the officer is actually testing for the presence of alcohol inside the vehicle.

However, increased use of the passive alcohol sensors has resulted in widespread debate between avid supporters such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and staunch critics, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

According to the ACLU, the use of this tool by law enforcement is a violation of an individual's civil rights. "I'd be concerned this violates the state's vehicle code. The statute requires a person to submit to this kind of testing, and if an officer just points a flashlight into the car without the individual knowing what's going on, it seems like that would be an infringement of their rights," stated Michael Risher, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. Because the passive alcohol sensor looks exactly like a flashlight, the driver would have no idea that they are being preliminarily screened for the presence of alcohol when an officer approaches their vehicle.

Risher also argues that the passive alcohol sensors pose a serious disadvantage to designated drivers, who may be improperly asked to submit to chemical testing or field sobriety tests because alcohol was detected within their vehicle. According to Risher, "We hear so much about designating a driver, but this tool kind of contradicts that. It causes nothing more than a hassle and delay for a person doing the right thing."

However, Livermore police Lieutenant Mike Peretti disagrees with the ACLU's assertion that the flashlights violate any laws or civil rights. According to Peretti, "The flashlights are nothing more than an investigative tool. It is one of many we use. We would never base our entire investigation of a possible drunken-driving incident on what the flashlight says. But it lets us know that there is alcohol in the air when we stop someone."

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

According to a study released by the Automobile Club of Southern California, the number of women killed in alcohol related car accidents in California has increased dramatically over the past decade. The study revealed that the number of women drivers aged 21-24 who are involved in alcohol related accidents has risen approximately 116% between 1998 and 2007. The Automobile Club study then compared this figure to male crash statistics, which indicated an increase over the same period of only 39%. These findings have indicated to researchers that the female drinking pattern has been radically altered over the past ten years.

The analysis also indicates that young women drivers, passengers, and pedestrians' alcohol related deaths and injuries have risen substantially over the past decade. In 1998, statistics reported that approximately 1,037 women aged 21-24 were killed or injured in alcohol related crashes. In 2007, this level rose to approximately 1,515 injuries or fatalities, displaying a 46% increase since 1998. For men of the same age category, alcohol related deaths and injuries increased by only 18%.

The increase in female deaths and injuries resulting from alcohol related crashes also applied to females falling into the 18-20 age group. While statistics indicated a 74% increase from 1998 to 2007 for women aged 18-20, the percent increase for men dying or being injured in alcohol related incidents increased 27%.

These findings were presented this morning at the first annual Orange County Drinking and Driving Forum. Steven A. Bloch, Automobile Club senior traffic safety researcher explained the Club's results, stating, "The analysis shows that young women are rapidly catching up with men in terms of risk-taking behavior and incurring the consequences of risk-taking, such as alcohol-involved motor vehicle crashes. Reasons for this include the increase in the number of women obtaining drivers' licenses, women driving more miles and driving more aggressively like their male counterparts."

Bloch added, "These numbers suggest a significant change in our driving culture overall. Despite the $13,500 to $15,000 in fines, fees, and penalties associated with a DUI conviction and the threat of death or injury, young women in particular are increasingly driving in a more risky fashion."

Regardless of the large discrepancy in percent increase between male and female age groups, more generally, these statistics indicate a large increase in the number of alcohol related accidents and fatalities over the past decade.

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

A local Colorado television station investigation has revealed that thousands of drivers who should have lost their licenses after accumulating an excess of marks on their driving record are still on the road due to a seven month Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) backlog.

Under Colorado state law, when a driver accumulates twelve points on their driving record over the course of twelve months or six points on their record if the individual is under the age of eighteen, the individual's license must be revoked. However, before the DMV can revoke an individual's license, the driver is entitled to an administrative hearing with the DMV in order to challenge the revocation of their license.

According to the head of enforcement for the Colorado DMV, Matt Cook, it can sometimes take months before an administrative DMV hearing can be put on calendar. As those months pass, drivers maintain full possession of their driving privileges. Cook reiterated this point, stating, "Until you have a hearing or fail to respond to the opportunity to have a hearing, you're still licensed."

The main problem with Colorado's DMV administrative hearing process is that the state has only seventeen hearing officers to handle all of the DMV hearings that come through the office. Last year, the seventeen hearing officers handled approximately thirty four thousand cases, which breaks down to approximately two thousand cases per hearing officer per year. In order to remedy this situation, Cook suggested charging drivers with more serious offenses like Vehicular Homicide or Aggravated Assault with a Motor Vehicle, which require an immediate revocation of the driver's license upon conviction.

In response to the results of the investigation, Colorado's newly elected Speaker of the House, Terrance Carroll stated, "I'm absolutely flabbergasted and I'm trying to figure out what broke down in the system that these people still have their licenses even after committing driving offenses that should have caused them to lose their license."

Carroll went on to say, "Now that I am aware of the problem the next step is get everyone in the same room together and figure out what we can do and what we can't do to move forward. The next step after that is to actually ask for a legislative audit to see if we can get a handle on this and I do want to sit down with all the stakeholders to find out if there's a legislative fix we can have in January because I think we may need one."

What Carroll found most disconcerting was the types of people who were benefitting from the DMV backlog. He argued, "If you've reached a point where your license should be revoked because you've reached a number of violations, you've shown that you can't drive well. You've shown that you shouldn't be on the roadway and that you're a threat to everyone else of the highways or the roadways and you shouldn't have your license." The state of Colorado is now considering the DMV's backlog a threat to public safety, which they say will be handled accordingly.

This backlog, however, does not apply to drunk drivers. Colorado state law requires that driving under the influence cases be given first priority for DMV hearings, which is adding to the extreme backlog of other DMV hearing requests. As mandated by Colorado law, individuals arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence must be provided an opportunity for a hearing at the Department of Motor Vehicles within sixty days of their DUI conviction.

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

Under Florida state law, a person who sells or provides alcohol to someone of lawful drinking age is not liable for any damage which may occur as a result of the drinker's intoxication. This current statute has been the source of much heated debate across the state of Florida recently, with bartenders voicing their staunch support of law and activist groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving voicing their opinion that the law is overly broad and irresponsible in practice.

The question of a bartender's culpability arose after Army Lieutenant Tyler L. Peterson and a friend spent the evening bar-hopping late November of this year. The evening culminated in a deadly head-on collision on the Pensacola Bay Bridge which occurred as a result of Peterson driving the wrong direction on the bridge. The accident claimed his life, as well as the life of Antonio Fulfer, who was returning home from work late that evening.

Gulf Breeze Assistant Police Chief Robert Randall stated that Peterson and his friend, Army Captain Jesse Erickson, spent the evening at several different bars, including the Pensacola Ale House, New York Nick's, Starbuck's Billiard Room, and Intermission. Erickson told police that he asked the Intermission bartender to stop serving Peterson because he had imbibed several alcohol beverages in quick succession. At approximately 10:30 p.m., Peterson excused himself from the bar and headed towards the bathroom. The accident occurred at about 12:30 a.m. that morning. Peterson's whereabouts for the two hour period preceding the accident are unknown.

Curt Bol was working as a bartender at Intermission the evening of the fatal accident. He stated, "I've been doing this a long time, and I know that I have no way to control where my customers have been or whatever substances they have in their body. I can't demand their keys. I can't take anything from them, but somehow I am responsible? I'm not the baby-sitter here."

Bartender Shana Gilman voiced her support of the limit of culpability for bartenders, stating, "People serving alcohol should be responsible about who they serve and who they choose not to serve. But there's only so much I can control. In the end, someone can sneak out and drink in their car or they can go to another bar. Then how much responsibility can you put on me?"

The owner of Intermission, Mike Ashby, stated that he is confident that none of his staff served Peterson any alcoholic beverages. However, the more important factor which must be determined, he stated, is whether Peterson was even in Intermission during that two hour window between the time he was cut off by his friend and when the fatal accident occurred. The limited liability law is designed to protect bartenders and bar owners from liability in situations where individuals drink alcoholic beverages at a number of locations or sneak alcoholic beverages without the bartenders knowledge. In these cases, the legislature argues, bartenders should not be held accountable for these individual's irresponsible actions.

In support of this debate, many local bar and restaurant owners have said that they require their employees to participate in special training in order to handle individuals who have overindulged. According to Tom Carmichael, general manager of Capt'n Fun at Pensacola Beach, "There are common sense things that you look for. In this business you can tell when somebody has had too much, when walking and talking changes. If the bartender makes the call to cut somebody off, nobody will override that decision."

However, according to Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), the state law limiting liability should be changed. Florida's MADD chapter has voiced their intention to push for a change to the liability law in the next legislative session. "If you look at the current legislation, there is little motivation for a server to be cognizant of the patrons they are serving," stated Todd Rosenbaum, director of Mothers Against Drunk Driving of Northwest Florida. Currently, the only way a bartender can be held liable is by serving a customer with a known alcohol addiction or by serving an individual under the age of twenty one. MADD believes that this law should be changed to include liability for bartenders who are found to have served "clearly intoxicated patrons." This proposal by MADD has drawn a large amount of criticism, as individuals question how "clearly intoxicated" would be defined and who will be responsible for drafting the definition of an individual "clearly intoxicated."

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

Suspected drunk drivers in South Carolina will soon face harsher penalties for refusing to submit to blood alcohol concentration testing. Under the current law, drivers who refuse to the breath or blood test face an automatic license suspension ranging from three to six months. The new law, which will go into effect on February 10, 2009, will increase this automatic suspension to six to fifteen months, depending on whether the individual has any prior convictions.

In addition to increasing license suspension periods, the state of South Carolina is also increasing sentences for individuals with extremely high blood alcohol concentrations. South Carolina legislators agreed that if the state was going to adopt a policy of increasing penalties for high blood alcohol levels, a change needed to be made to the license suspension period as well, so that individuals are not encouraged to refuse a chemical test. "Anytime you raise the penalty for higher blood alcohol concentrations, you run the risk that more people will refuse the test. So, you have to raise the penalty for refusals," stated 7th Circuit Solicitor Trey Gowdy.

Greenville Police Chief Terri Wilfong believes that more drivers will take the extended suspension period into consideration when deciding whether or not to submit to a blood alcohol test.

Laura Hudson, legislative liason for the South Carolina chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)stated that while South Carolina's new legislation is a step in the right direction, there are additional precautions the state could adopt to combat the drunk driving epidemic plaguing South Carolina. Hudson argued that it would be in the best interest of South Carolina residents if suspected drunk drivers did not have the opportunity to drive while awaiting their DMV hearing. She emphasized, "It's not about finding loopholes. It's about public safety-or that's what it should be."

Similar DUI refusal laws have been proposed across the country. A new law taking effect January 1, 2009 in Illinois increases the license suspension period to six months for individuals who fail a blood alcohol test and raises the automatic suspension to twelve months for suspected offenders who refuse to submit to a chemical test.

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

Yesterday, Montgomery County Sheriff John Durante threatened legal action against Montgomery County to prevent the closing of five DUI processing centers. In a sharply worded letter addressed to County Commissioners James R. Matthews, Joseph M. Hoeffel, and Bruce L. Castor Jr., Sheriff Durante warned, "This is an issue of public safety and I will be acting on behalf of local law enforcement agencies and all our law-abiding citizens and our families who have lost loved ones as a result of drunken drivers."

County officials stated that financial hardship was the reason behind the proposal to close the DUI centers in Bridgeport, Towamencin, Willow Grove, Lower Pottsgrove, and Lower Gwynedd. Estimates made by Montgomery County officials indicate that by closing the five DUI processing locations, the county would save approximately $300,000 annually.

The DUI processing locations work by having local and state police drop off drunk driving suspects at the centers following traffic stops. Once at the DUI centers, sheriff's deputies administer field sobriety tests and breath tests, while also filling out necessary paperwork, allowing the arresting officer to return to patrol. Additionally, the centers are all monitored by videotape, so the results of the field sobriety and chemical testing are all captured on tape which can later be used in court, which often strengthens the prosecution's case.

Sheriff Durante maintains, despite claims to the contrary, that the DUI processing locations pay for themselves. Court costs paid by drunk driving offenders include a $150 processing charge, which is supposed to go directly to the DUI processing centers. Additionally, the deputy training, as well as the DUI processing center's equipment, was provided free to Montgomery County by the state of Pennsylvania.

The purpose behind these centralized testing centers is to save time for law enforcement officers so that they do not have to remain with the DUI suspects while the DUI investigative tests are being conducted. This allows the officers to get back on patrol immediately. Sheriff Durante explained, "In our more rural communities, you take one or two officers off the streets and you have no one out there patrolling. The alternative is just as bad, letting a drunk driver go." Ultimately, by eliminating these DUI processing centers, Durante and fellow law enforcement officers anticipate a large drop in the number of DUI arrests which will be made in the future. Sergeant Jeff Gower of the Franconia police department supported Durante's contentions, stating, "We're going to lose time. It's going to take longer to get guys back on the street."

In response to Sheriff Durante's letter, county officials voiced their surprise at his fervent reaction, stating, "No formal action has happened. He acts as though we're turning the drunks loose in Montgomery County. Nothing could be further from the truth." Solicitor Barry Miller emphasized that, despite Sheriff Durante's claims to the extreme usefulness of the DUI testing centers, it is important to determine whether these testing centers are utilized enough to make them financially responsible. Miller stated that oftentimes, municipal police departments take suspected DUI offenders to the hospital for blood-alcohol testing, not to the designated centers. Additionally, many of the centers are not open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, which limits the access local police officers have to these centers and their testing equipment.

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

Recent reports presented by the Pennsylvania DUI Association in Harrisburg indicate that local law enforcement officers are not receiving the level of training necessary to successfully identify and arrest drunk drivers.

Last year alone, there were 53,717 DUI arrests in the state of Pennsylvania, a slight increase from last year's tally of 50,587 drunk driving arrests. In response to these statistics, George Geisler, the director of law enforcement personnel at the Pennsylvania DUI Association in Harrisburg stated, "Since DUI is the number one crime in the state, you would think you would have the number one amount of training for that crime." However, Geisler's assertion does not prove accurate. According to reports, state police are provided with a week's worth of academy training to detect, arrest, and prosecute drunk drivers, while municipal police officers are afforded less than a day of similar training at the academy.

While Geisler has voiced his opinion that local law enforcement officers are in desperate need of additional training in order to bring them up to the level of state police officers, not everyone agrees with his assertion. Lieutenant Scott Laird of the Springettsbury Township Police and Sergeant Rod Varner of the York Area Regional Police say that the driving under the influence training offered is more than sufficient for officers to successfully detect, arrest, and prosecute drunk driving offenders.

According to Laird and Varner, the most valuable portion of an officer's DUI education comes not from in class instruction, but from on-the-street experience. Following an officer's completion of the mandatory twenty week police academy training, most municipal police departments require that new officers complete twelve weeks of supervised field training before initiation onto the force, which was cited as yet another reason not to increase DUI training for local police officers.

Additionally, Laird and Varner asserted that there are safeguards in place in order to assist municipal law enforcement officers, which precludes the need for additional training.

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 an attempt to curb high levels of drunk driving, the state of Washington has begun utilizing specially equipped Cessna 206 airplanes in order to catch individuals driving under the influence. While the Washington State Police (WSP) has been in possession of several of these planes equipped with similar technology for some time now, due to funding shortages, the planes could not be utilized full time. However, in response to a large federal grant, two specially equipped Cessna 206 airplanes taken to the skies full time.

In order to provide the most effective DUI enforcement, these airplanes have been outfitted with a forward-looking infrared (FLIR) camera system in order to track motorists from the air. This system works by detecting warm objects, such as a vehicle or an individual, against a cool environmental background. From the system's detection, a video image is compiled which can later be used in court against the accused DUI offender. Because the FLIR camera system uses thermal energy detection to create the video image, these camera systems can be utilized in all types of traffic conditions, including severe fog or during nighttime hours.

In order for these planes to isolate aggressive or impaired drivers, motorists can call "911" and alert the dispatcher that they have encountered an individual they believe to be driving under the influence. After providing the dispatcher with their general location, the dispatcher will provide the motorist's cell phone number to the pilot of the plane (a state trooper with the WSP), who will contact the motorist once the location is reached. The state trooper then requests that the motorist follow the aggressive or impaired driver while relaying information back to the trooper via cell phone.

Once the plane is situated over the offender's vehicle, the FLIR camera system is turned on and video data is recorded. As the plane follows the car, land-based troopers are radioed to the scene where they subsequently pull the individual over. If the motorist is driving while impaired, he or she will be arrested. If the individual is not impaired, the individual will receive tickets for the violations which were captured on tape by the plane's camera system.

WSP law enforcement officials have voiced their support of the planes, emphasizing the plane's element of surprise. "It's a lot of fun. You see a lot from the air. People speeding, passing on the shoulder, aggressive driving, bad lane changes. They have no idea that we're up above them", said Sergeant Jim Nobach, Washington State Police's Chief Pilot.

Director of the Washington Traffic Safety Commission, Lowell Porter, supported law enforcement's increased use of the specially equipped planes, stating, "Impaired driving continues to be the leading cause of death in motor vehicle crashes throughout Washington, and therefore remains our number one traffic safety priority." However, statistics indicate that only about half of motorists that call in suspected impaired drivers are correct in their assumption. In a bulletin which addressed local concerns regarding use of such planes in conjunction with civilian assistance, WSP Chief John R. Batiste stated, "We see an opportunity for us to improve our response to these very credible reports from sober drivers."

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

Recent figures released by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) indicate that Alabama has one of the highest percentages of repeat drunk driving offenders in the United States. With a statewide population of just over 4.6 million, MADD statistics indicate that there are approximately 22,000 individuals living in Alabama with five or more DUI convictions.

While there are two other states with higher numbers of individuals who have been convicted of driving under the influence five or more times, the populations of these two states are much higher than Alabama's. In the state of California, which has a population of nearly thirty eight million, 44,219 people have been convicted of driving under the influence five or more times. Additionally, the state of Ohio has a population of nearly twelve million and approximately 33,000 people have been convicted of drunk driving five or more times.

The MADD report also revealed that there are fifty one individuals residing within Alabama who have amassed more than twenty DUI convictions, including one individual who has been convicted an astounding thirty three times.

Statistics also indicated that there is a very high correlation between driving under the influence and highway fatalities. Of the 1,110 highway deaths which occurred in Alabama last year, more than 42% were alcohol related. Colonel J. Christopher Murphy responded to MADD's statistics stating, "We're very concerned about all fatalities, and particularly those caused by impaired drivers. We see a DUI as a fatality waiting to happen."

In an effort to decrease the percentage of driving under the influence accidents, the state of Alabama has purchased nine new blood alcohol testing vehicles, or "BATmobiles". These vehicles greatly increase the speed of chemical testing for individuals suspected of driving under the influence, which leaves higher numbers of law enforcement officials available to participate in roaming patrols. The purchase of these "BATmobiles" has made a significant impact on Alabama's drunk driving enforcement. According to Colonel Murphy, this year state troopers have made 200 additional DUI arrests compared to last year and there have been 114 fewer fatalities than this time last year.

However, there is one particular area of the law that MADD has isolated as Alabama's weak spot in the fight against drunk driving. Alabama is one of three states in America that does not have any ignition interlock law in effect. Prior efforts to pass ignition interlock laws have stalled in the Alabama Legislature. However, Colonel Murphy has voiced his desire to work with members of MADD and other law enforcement agencies in order to get an ignition interlock law approved during the next legislative session.

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