Posts Tagged ‘Florida DUI law firm’
Friday, November 25th, 2011
Florida drivers pulled over for suspected DUI are faced with a Catch-22. You may be asked to perform field sobriety tests and a preliminary breath test at the scene, which you may refuse. However, you will be taken to the station or a medical center and given a second test. While you can again choose to refuse (except for narrow circumstances involving accidents with injury), Florida’s implied consent law means that your refusal will have significant adverse consequences. The state will summarily suspend your license for a year the first time you refuse and for 18 months for each refusal after the first. These suspensions are in place even if you are found innocent of any DUI charges. If you do consent and have a blood-alcohol content (BAC) of .08 or greater, however, you will have your license suspended for a minimum of 180 days. Our experienced Florida criminal defense lawyers have helped people just like you protect their driver’s license and stay out of jail.
The Florida Uniform Traffic Citation, the yellow ticket you were given at the time of your DUI arrest, counts as a temporary license. Your Florida driver’s license will be taken at the time of a DUI arrest, but the ticket will function as a temporary license for 10 days. This permit allows you to drive for employment or business. Generally, it is permissible to drive to work, your attorney’s office, the store, court or the like, but discretionary trips, which are merely for leisure purposes, are not permitted. During this narrow 10 day window, it is imperative that you file an application for a Formal Review Hearing with the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV).
This administrative hearing permits you to challenge your license suspension’s legality and seek reinstatement of your driving privileges. Unless you have other legal or administrative issues with your license besides the DUI suspension, the DHSMV will extend your work-only license an additional 42 days and schedule a hearing for some time in the coming 30 days. If you do not file for a hearing, you will be unable to drive for at least the first 30 days of the administrative suspension. You may enroll in an approved alcohol abuse education program and apply for another temporary work license. A refusal to submit to a formal chemical test means that you must wait 90 days before applying for a work-only license. Subsequent refusals make you ineligible for a temporary work license.
Before the administrative hearing, you (or your attorney, ideally) should prepare a statement and subpoena any witnesses you need, including the police officer. The administrative hearing can be used to challenge whether the officer had probable cause to stop you and whether or not you were over the legal limit unless you refused the test. If you refused, the main issue will be whether the police officer informed you of the consequences of a refusal on your driving privileges. It is virtually impossible to prevail at the administrative hearing without an experienced Florida DUI defense attorney. An experienced DUI defense lawyer will carefully investigate the circumstances of your case so that he or she can protect your license. The attorney will also use the hearing to begin developing a defense strategy to your DUI case.
Tags: Administrative License Suspension in Florida, DUI lawyer in Florida, Florida DUI attorney in Florida, Florida DUI Law, Florida DUI law firm
Posted in Florida BUI | Comments Off
Thursday, November 24th, 2011
A person is out drinking and decides to allow someone else drive home. This is a good decision that makes the driver and others on the road safer because it means the driver does not drink and drive. This is exactly what we want to encourage drivers to do and should protect a driver from the risk of a DUI arrest … well maybe not. An alarming DUI case out of Japan may foreshadow where aggressive legal campaigns against drunk driving may be headed in the U.S. Two passengers who had accepted a ride with a driver who had been drinking and was involved in a fatal accident were convicted and sentenced to two years in prison. This case has already caught the eye of a number of drunk driving activist groups who see it as a way to force passengers to take affirmative steps to keep drivers they know have had too much to drink off the road.
The judge in the Japanese case reasoned that when the two passengers accepted a ride with the intoxicated driver they encouraged the driver to drink and drive. This encouragement was treated as “aiding and abetting” the crime of driving under the influence. While dram shop laws exist in may states that permit civil liability to be imposed on a social host or business (i.e. bar or restaurant) that serves alcohol to an obviously intoxicated person who causes injury in a drunk driving accident, the decision by the Japan court goes much further. It imposes criminal liability, which is why the passengers received a prison sentence.
The court also seems to have stretched the law in terms of “aiding and abetting” a DUI offense. The passengers did not actually encourage or persuade the driver to drive but merely accepted a ride from a person who already made a decision to drive. This is a frightening development because it could pave the way to imposing criminal liability on others who drink and drive where the person charged had no role in the driver becoming intoxicated nor his or her decision to drive. Criminal liability in the U.S. usually is not imposed for mere inaction where the risk of injury to another was not in some way created or set in motion by the person charged.
While no state including Florida imposes liability on passengers whose only alleged criminal act is to accept a ride with a driver who has been drinking, MADD and other drunk driving groups are already touting this decision as a guide for future drunk driving laws in the U.S. The sad reality is that this type of law punishes people for doing exactly what they should do, specifically not getting behind the wheel of a car if they have been drinking. One has to wonder how a law like this would work given that even experienced police officers cannot tell for sure if someone is over the legal limit so it is unclear how the average passenger in a vehicle can be asked to make this determination. If you or someone you love has been arrested and charged with drunk driving, our experienced Florida DUI lawyers will carefully investigate your case to develop the strongest possible DUI defense.
Tags: DUI lawyer in Florida, Florida DUI attorney in Florida, Florida DUI Law, Florida DUI law firm
Posted in Florida DUI | Comments Off
Monday, August 8th, 2011
The federal administrative body that handles all business and incidents associated with motor vehicles as well as other forms of transportation such as air, marine, and railways is known as the National Traffic Safety Board. The Boards duties often involved distribution and announcing advisories related to transportation changes, warnings, and advisories with a primary objective emphasized towards safety. A statement that was issued in November 2010 stated that dealing with “hard core drinking drivers” set up a certain set of examples, or instances, in which, involved specific incidents of heavily dangerous DUI crimes. Realistically, all the examples that the board issued, and stated do not all pertain to all forms of transit and even do not completely hold realistically in the court of law in modern days time.
The statement’s core objective and motivation is to attempt, in the United States, to remove all “habitual drinking and drivers” from America’s roadways to make a safer, smoother mode of transit for all. Some of the facts that were listed seem somewhat grim, particularly: “One-third of all drivers who are convicted and inevitably convicted due to driving while under the influence of alcohol or other impairing drugs usually consist of repeated offenders of driving and driving.” However, this statement is not completely factual in context due to statistics showing that convictions have a true relevancy compared to that of minor arrests. A driver, or any citizen in fact, is innocent until proven guilty by the court of law. The arrests may be included in an attempt to bump numbers and statistics up to show higher levels of DUI incidents by the NTSB, but otherwise offenders that have previously committed this crime can not be fully thought of as reoffenders until a previous or current conviction or such crimes.
Widespread, frequent DUI roadblocks or checkpoints are also a suggestion put out by the NTSB. Even with traditional checkpoints, a driver under the influence cannot be found due to roadblocks really only contributing to their future budget by making any really tickets or citations given due to faulty vehicle equipment, expired or invalid driver’s licenses, expired or invalid insurance, or an expired vehicle inspection sticker. As suggested as a “strong” public safety tool, roadblocks are actually quite ineffective and lead to an ever expanding numerous lists of constitutional constraints.
In addition, the NTSB also suggests that any pleas should be strictly prohibited. In saying that it makes the whole ideas of the NTSB up for discussion, considering a defendant must plea either innocent or guilty in the court of law.
Call 1 800-687-2252 to Speak With a Florida DUI lawyer In Your Area.
Hiring a Florida DUI law firm to aggressively defend you can help you obtain the best possible result in your case. Call our toll-free, Florida DUI Advice Helpline at 1 (800) 687-2252 for a Florida DUI law firm near you (by appointment only).
Tags: Florida DUI, Florida DUI law firm, Florida DUI Penalties
Posted in Florida DUI | No Comments »
Friday, August 5th, 2011
A Florida DUI criminal case involving an accident with serious injury or death often results in extremely harsh prison terms that can devastate one’s life. The recent DUI conviction of a Port Charlotte man provides a vivid example. Ronald Judson Smith, who is only 25 years old, was sentenced to a term of 30 years in state prison, which could keep him in prison for more than half his life by the time he is released. Smith also received a permanent revocation of his driver’s license.
The harsh DUI prison sentence was part of a criminal conviction on seven charges including second-degree felony manslaughter after he caused the death of a seven year old girl in a fatal DUI accident. Smith also had been charged with driving under the influence with serious bodily injury, DUI with property damage, assault on a police officer, possession of Oxycodone and Xanax without a prescription, failure to submit to a breath test and driving with a suspended license. The police indicated that Smith ran a stop sign before colliding into the other vehicle. Although Smith refused to take a blood test at the scene of the accident, a forced blood draw was taken anyway. Florida Statute Section 327.353 authorizes police officers to use “reasonable force” to draw blood as part of a DUI investigation in DUI cases involving serious bodily injury or death.
A key issue in the case was whether law enforcement officers had probable cause to take a blood draw. The defense hammered away at inconsistencies among officers regarding the smell of alcohol on Smith following the fatal DUI accident. The statute also provides that an officer must have probable cause to believe that a driver was under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance while causing a car crash that results in death or serious bodily injury. This made the issue of whether the officers actually smelled alcohol on the driver important. The driver ultimately was found to have committed DUI drugs after traces of marijuana as well as Oxycodone and Xanax were revealed by the blood test following his forced blood draw. Unlike DUI involving alcohol, DUI drugs charges do not have a fixed amount that is presumed to result in impairment.
Florida DUI law also requires that police officers that conduct accident investigations inform a suspect before initiating a DUI investigation. If the police officer believes the driver has been drinking and driving but fails to inform the driver that a DUI investigation is beginning, all of the evidence that is subsequently collected including observations of the officer, field sobriety and chemical testing may be suppressed. Smith also claimed that the accident was the result of brake failure not driving under the influence of drugs. Smith’s defense team claimed that mechanical failure rather than intoxication caused the auto accident. Causation can be a key issue in DUI vehicular manslaughter cases. Our Florida DUI attorneys recognize that anyone who is arrested for DUI resulting from a car accident involving serious injury or death faces very serious consequences. Our experienced Florida DUI defense law firm zealously represents those charged with DUI vehicular manslaughter or DUI with bodily injury. Our Florida DUI attorneys offer a free confidential consultation to discuss your charges so call us today.
Call 1 800-687-2252 to Speak With a Florida DUI lawyer In Your Area.
Hiring a Florida DUI law firm to aggressively defend you can help you obtain the best possible result in your case. Call our toll-free, Florida DUI Advice Helpline at 1 (800) 687-2252 for a Florida DUI law firm near you (by appointment only).
Tags: Florida DUI 1st offense, Florida DUI law firm, Florida DUI law firms
Posted in DUI Vehicular Manslaughter | No Comments »
Thursday, August 4th, 2011
There are many aspects to a DUI drugs case in Florida that makes it different from driving under the influence of alcohol. While the process may be similar in terms of the initial stop, which must be based on a traffic violation or articulable facts that a driver is engaged in illegal activity. Once a driver is stopped an officer will typically make observations regarding the driver’s physical condition including bloodshot eyes, smell of alcohol and slurred speech. Based on these observations the officer will then typically request that the driver submit to field sobriety tests (FSTs). When the driver predictability fails the FSTs as expected, the case starts to get interesting.
If the officer has not uncovered specific evidence that the driver is under the influence of drugs, the officer usually will ask the driver to submit to breath testing. If a driver has not been drinking or has consumed a negligible amount of alcohol, there is little reason for the driver to refuse to take the breath test. If the officer still believes that a driver is intoxicated despite a breath test with a blood alcohol (BAC) test below .08 percent, the officer will then insist that the driver submit to blood or urine testing to determine if the driver is under the influence of drugs.
The problem is that the officer really has no specific evidence that the driver was under the influence of drugs merely because the driver passed the breath test. Generally, Florida’s implied consent law requires motorists to consent to chemical testing of breath, blood or urine incident to a DUI arrest. If a driver refuses to consent, the prosecutor can comment on the refusal as “consciousness of guilt” at trial. The interesting question is whether the prosecutor has the same right to comment on the refusal of a blood or urine test following a driver consenting to and passing a breath test.
If you are arrested for DUI drugs our experienced Florida DUI attorneys may be able to challenge a blood or urine test that is administered after you have been determined not to be over the legal limit of .08 percent BAC by a breath test. The key issue is usually whether the officer has specific evidence that you are under the influence of drugs. If the officer has no specific evidence to support a belief that you are under influence of drugs beyond the fact that you passed a breath test, we may be able to have subsequent urine or blood test results suppressed or convince the judge that your refusal to submit to blood or urine test may not be used against you at trial.
While it is never advisable to drive while under the influence of drugs (or alcohol), anyone stopped who has taken any type of drug whether legal prescription, over-the-counter medication or street drug should not volunteer any information to an officer about any such drug use. It is also important to realize that drug paraphernalia, prescription bottles or pills left in plain view in a driver’s vehicle may provide sufficient evidence of a driver being under the influence of drugs to require a urine or blood test even though the driver has successfully passed a breath test.
If you or someone you love is arrested for DUI drugs and forced to submit to a urine or blood test after successfully passing a breath test, our experienced Florida DUI defense attorneys may be able to file a motion to suppress the test results or any reference to the refusal. Our Florida DUI defense attorneys offer a free initial consultation so call us today.
Call 1 800-687-2252 to Speak With a Florida DUI lawyer In Your Area.
Hiring a Florida DUI law firm to aggressively defend you can help you obtain the best possible result in your case. Call our toll-free, Florida DUI Advice Helpline at 1 (800) 687-2252 for a Florida DUI law firm near you (by appointment only).
Tags: Florida DUI 1st offense, Florida DUI law firm, Florida DUI law firms
Posted in Florida DUI Chemical Tests | No Comments »
Wednesday, August 3rd, 2011
Many people who not only receive charges for driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or in driving in general do not understand the full spectrum of what you constitute when you are behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. In Florida, law enforcement entities are able to investigate and administer blood, breath, or urine tests to gain physical evidence to prove to the prosecution and court of law whether or not you were truly driving while under the influence. This power of the law is known as Implied Consent. When one receives or registers for a driver’s license within Florida, as well as most of the United States, you automatically become susceptible to having to participate within any tests that are the result of being stopped and with the law enforcements strong belief that you are participating in illegal acts such as drinking and driving.
Although you may be tested using either a breath, urine, blood, sobriety field test, or possibly more evidentiary breath exams, it does not mean that you will not be tested in more than one way. Law enforcement entities are not required by law to inform the individual who is allegedly behind the wheel that the tests and investigation that they administer are all completely voluntary. However, keep in mind that if one refuses to participate in such examinations, some pretty intense consequences will be an immediate result of that action. Actually, it is considered a misdemeanor crime if a person does not participate in the exams and will inevitably result in the suspension of the individual’s driver’s license for either a period of six months, or up to eighteen months if it is not the individual’s initial refusal of such tests
Also, some individuals feel that the Miranda Rights should apply to Implied Consent. However, the court of law does not hold the Miranda Rights responsible for the individual of what they should know even before attaining a license. In other words, just because the Miranda Laws are usually required, they are not for driving while under the influence case, which means many should expect to be required to take exams even if a police officer does not state as to why he is conducting the tests. Implied consent, however, only applies if the individual has been arrested as an incident of the stop, and it must have a valid reason as to why the individual was stopped in the first place.
Call 1 800-687-2252 to Speak With a Florida DUI lawyer In Your Area.
Hiring a Florida DUI law firm to aggressively defend you can help you obtain the best possible result in your case. Call our toll-free, Florida DUI Advice Helpline at 1 (800) 687-2252 for a Florida DUI law firm near you (by appointment only).
Tags: Florida DUI law firm, Florida DUI law firms, Florida's implied consent law
Posted in Florida's Implied Consent Law | No Comments »
|
 |
|
|
