Response to previous blog:

Buzzed Driving?

This billboard is sponsored by the National Highway Transportation Administrative (NHTSA) and the AdCouncil. NHTSA is the agency that came up with the so-called "field sobriety tests".

The law against driving while intoxicated is a good law. It prohibits driving when you are so intoxicated that your mental and physical abilities are impaired to the extent you cannot safely operate a car. Getting a "buzz" generally means one has consumed some alcohol and can feel the effects thereof to some degree. Feeling a buzz is usually a good sign to stop drinking if one is planning to drive a car in the near future. However, this idea that buzzed driving is the same as drunk driving is false, misleading and an effort to persuade drivers, and the judges and jurors who sit in judgment of those accused of driving under the influence, that any consumption of alcohol prior to driving is illegal. That is not the law.

This is part of the modern prohibition movement in America. The legal limit has been lowered time after time as the political football of DUI gets kicked around by MADD and state legislators. The legal limit started at .15, then went to .12, .10 and recently .08. For a good history and discussion of this issue check out the blog of attorney Lawrence Taylor http://www.duiblog.com/2004/10/20 (MADD and the New Prohibition).

Do drivers kill at .07? Of course they do. Do they kill at .04? Yes. Do they kill at .000, when they are not under the influence of any alcohol or drugs? Absolutely, and to a greater extent than intoxicated drivers do. There is a concerted effort underway to prohibit driving after the consumption of anything, whatsoever, or at least give the impression that it is illegal to do so. That is not the law. That should not be the law.

I don't advocate driving with a buzz, and certainly would not suggest that anyone drive with more than a buzz. But, this effort to link the slightest alcohol consumption with "drunk driving" is an attempt to mislead the public and prevent those who are stopped for DUI, but who are not actually drunk from getting a fair trial.

The Ad Council and NHTSA are out with a new drinking and driving message aimed at drivers who may not think they are too drunk to drive. (December 27)


Drunk Driving Prevention


Breadth of Problem

Impaired and drunk driving is one of the most frequently committed violent crimes in the U.S., killing more than 17,400 people in 2003 and affecting one in three Americans. For several years the fatality numbers remained steady, and from 2000-2002 impaired driving deaths increased. However, fatalities did decrease slightly in 2003. Drunk driving is one of the most often committed crimes, killing someone in America every 32 minutes.

Key Insights

Anti-Drunk Driving messages have been ineffective in changing the behavior of young men, because, in their minds the messages are directed at 'drunk drivers,' not them. More than anything, they value the control they have in their lives. They don't realize how much control they surrender after consuming even a small amount of alcohol.
"Buzzed" is the regular drinking level descriptor of choice, not "drunk." "Drunk" = out of control or noticeably impaired.
Driving after drinking is seen as necessary, there is no alternative.
Chances of being caught are slim
Killing someone is not even in the realm of consideration.
Ad Council's Strategic Solution


Purpose of the Advertising

To get people to begin to talk about and recognize the dangers of "buzzed" driving. And subsequently get people to stop driving buzzed.

Target Audience

People who drink and drive yet don't consider themselves to be hazards on the roadways or a drunk driver.

Many of these people believe that drunk driving is a terrible thing and are quick to condemn people who do it. But they simply don't equate their own behavior with the spread of this epidemic. Sanitized by the statistics, drunk driving is seen as almost academic, worlds apart from their own post-party decision-making.

The main target is men, aged 18-34, well-meaning "average Joes" who certainly don't mean any harm but nevertheless continue to drink and drive. These men tend to either feel invincible or just unrealistically optimistic about the control they have.

Key Thought

Buzz driving is drunk driving.
Public Service Advertisements


Drunk Driving Prevention
Available Fullfillment and Resources


NHTSA

The U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for reducing deaths, injuries and economic losses resulting from motor vehicle crashes. This is accomplished by setting and enforcing safety performance standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, and through grants to state and local governments to enable them to conduct effective local highway safety programs. NHTSA investigates safety defects in motor vehicles, sets and enforces fuel economy standards, helps states and local communities reduce the threat of drunk drivers, promotes the use of safety belts, child safety seats and air bags, investigates odometer fraud, establishes and enforces vehicle anti-theft regulations and provides consumer information on motor vehicle safety topics.

www.nhtsa.dot.gov

Police throughout the country are attaching these things to their light bars.

Has one "looked" at you, e.g. as you were stopped at a light (behind a police vehicle)?

Anyone have any knowledge of these things?

http://www.thermal-eye.com/productcatalog/prodItem18.html

York Region pulls ads after group gets MADD
Drunk driving notices anger organization

Dec 22, 2005

York Region Transit has been offering two ways to avoid a drunk driving conviction: get on the bus or call the number on the back.
But this week, under pressure from the local chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) Canada, the transit company promised to pull a series of bus advertisements paid for by a law firm offering to defend people charged with impaired driving.

The ads, for an outfit dubbed The Impaired Driving Office -- a referral service for criminal defence lawyers interested in taking on impaired driving cases -- had been placed on the back of six different buses across York.

However, the York Region Chapter of MADD Canada complained the ad's message promotes drinking and driving by claiming a lawyer can help you get away with it.

The group also says ads of that nature should not appear on public transit vehicles.

"We've gotten quite a few calls and e-mails from people who are pretty appalled that a bus, something that is supposed to offer a safe alternative to drinking and driving, would have that on its back," said Margaret Williams, MADD Canada York Region chapter president.

Driving behind a bus near her home in Richmond Hill, now retired director of Canadian Centre for Ethics and Corporate Policy Elizabeth Loweth was one of many people who couldn't help but notice the ads and be upset by what they stand for.

"When the police department is saying, 'Don't drink and drive' and the city, on the back of regionally owned buses, is saying something else, it just doesn't make any sense," she said.

"What if they ad said, 'If you're abusing your wife, we can get you off' or 'If you're molesting children, call this number?'"

"How far do we go? Robbed a bank?, call this number. Murder your neighbour lately? Call us."

But the ads and the service were never designed to make drinking and driving an option or to promote it, Vancouver lawyer and owner of The Impaired Driving Office Mark McCook said.

"We don't encourage drinking and driving. All we are saying is that if you have been charged with impaired driving, you are entitled to representation. Come and see a lawyer and see if you have a defence," he said.

"The penalties for drinking and driving-related charges are severe and you should see if you have a defence before you just go ahead and plead guilty."

The Impaired Driving Office website (impaired driving.ca) lists a number of possible defences those charged should consider, including ways to possibly avoid being convicted even if you blow over the legal blood alcohol limit of .08 on a breathalyser.

But while she understands everyone has the right to a legal defence and the presumption of innocence when charged with any crime, Ms Williams, whose sister was killed by a drunk driver five years ago, said the ads are inappropriate for a public transit service to convey.

"We're talking about Canada's No. 1 criminal cause of death," she said. "It's a complete slap in the face."

In the past, MADD Canada has partnered with York Region Transit to offer riders free trips on New Year's Eve, but it threatened to pull out this year because of the ads.

In response, York Region Transit general manager Don Gordon said Tuesday the ads would be pulled by the end of this week.

"We've reviewed the ads ... and heard the concerns from MADD and made a decision to pull them," he said. "We can take that sort of action if an ad stretches the limits of good taste and we feel that is exactly what's happened in this case. Our relationship with MADD has a long history and our hope is we can continue to work together."

But Ms Williams is not so sure.

"If they are, indeed, pulled, we'd be very pleased, but I'll believe it when I see it," she said.

Meanwhile, the Impaired Driving Office will continue to operate, with radio commercials and ads on other public transit services.

The firm is growing and has 50 lawyers across the country, including five in York, none of whom will have any trouble sleeping at night, Mr. Cook said.

"I understand where MADD is coming from. The cost of impaired driving on the community in terms of lost lives and damage to families is huge and my heart goes out to those people," he said. "But one of the cornerstones of our democracy is that you are presumed innocent until proven guilty, even if you are charged with impaired driving."

Are You A Cowboy Cop?

"We cannot have the kind of country we want if people are are afraid
of those folks who are trying to protect them."
-President William Jefferson Clinton, March, 1999


If you are a law enforcement officer and you want to know whether or not you are a "COWBOY COP" you should take the following self-evaluating quiz:



YES ( ) NO ( ) 1. HAVE YOU EVER KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY CAUSED OR ALLOWED EXAGERATED STATEMENTS OF FACT TO BE INSERTED INTO A WRITTEN INCIDENT REPORT OR SWORN AFFIDAVIT?

YES ( ) NO ( ) 2. HAVE YOU EVER KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY CAUSED OR ALLOWED EMBELLISHED STATEMENTS OF FACT TO BE INSERTED INTO A WRITTEN INCIDENT REPORT OR SWORN AFFIDAVIT?

YES ( ) NO ( ) 3. HAVE YOU EVER KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY CAUSED OR ALLOWED FALSE STATEMENTS OF FACT TO BE PLACED IN A WRITTEN INCIDENT REPORT OR SWORN AFFIDAVIT?

YES ( ) NO ( ) 4. HAVE YOU EVER KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY MADE EXAGERATED, EMBELLISHED OR FALSE STATEMENTS IN A WRITTEN INCIDENT REPORT OR SWORN AFFIDAVIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROCURING OR ASSISTING IN THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OF A FELLOW CITIZEN?

YES ( ) NO ( ) 5. HAVE YOU EVER KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY MADE EXAGERATED STATEMENTS OF FACT WHILE TESTIFYING UNDER OATH IN COURT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROCURING OR ASSISTING IN THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OF A FELLOW CITIZEN?

YES ( ) NO ( ) 6. HAVE YOU EVER KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY MADE FALSE STATEMENTS OF FACT WHILE TESTIFYING UNDER OATH IN COURT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROCURING OR ASSISTING IN THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OF A FELLOW CITIZEN?

YES ( ) NO ( ) 7. HAVE YOU EVER KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY STOPPED AND DETAINED A FELLOW CITIZEN UNDER FALSE PRETENSES AND WITHOUT REASONABLE SUSPICION?

YES ( ) NO ( ) 8. HAVE YOU EVER KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY ARRESTED A FELLOW CITIZEN WITHOUT JUST AND REASONABLE CAUSE?

YES ( ) NO ( ) 9. HAVE YOU EVER KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY COMMITTED BATTERY UPON A FELLOW CITIZEN WHEN THE USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE WAS NOT NECESSARY UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES?

YES ( ) NO ( ) 10. HAVE YOU EVER COMMITTED BATTERY UPON A FELLOW CITIZEN AFTER HE OR SHE CEASED ANY RESISTANCE AND FULLY COMPLIED WITH YOUR ORDERS?

YES ( ) NO ( ) 11. HAVE YOU EVER COMMITTED BATTERY UPON A FELLOW CITIZEN SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU WERE ANGRY?

YES ( ) NO ( ) 12. HAVE YOU EVER KILLED A FELLOW CITIZEN UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES THAT DID NOT REASONABLY JUSTIFY THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE?

YES ( ) NO ( ) 13. HAVE YOU EVER ARRESTED A FELLOW CITIZEN IN ORDER TO HELP SATISFY OR FULFILL A DAILY OR WEEKLY "ARREST QUOTA"?

YES ( ) NO ( ) 14. HAVE YOU EVER STOPPED AND DETAINED A FELLOW CITIZEN SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT THAT HE OR SHE WAS ATTRACTIVE?

YES ( ) NO ( ) 15. HAVE YOU EVER SOLICITED OR ACCEPTED SEXUAL FAVORS FROM A CITIZEN THAT YOU HAVE ARRESTED OR THREATENED TO ARREST?

YES ( ) NO ( ) 16. HAVE YOU EVER DRIVEN YOUR MOTOR VEHICLE AT SPEEDS FAR IN EXCESS OF THE LEGAL SPEED LIMIT EVENTHOUGH THERE WAS NO LEGAL REASON FOR DOING SO?

YES ( ) NO ( ) 17. HAVE YOU EVER CHARGED A CITIZEN WITH COMMITTING A CRIME SIMPLY TO COVER YOUR OWN ASS?

YES ( ) NO ( ) 18. HAVE YOU EVER KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY PLACED OR "PLANTED" FALSE INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE ON A FELLOW CITIZEN AT A CRIME SCENE?

YES ( ) NO ( ) 19. HAVE YOU EVER KEPT FOR YOUR OWN PERSONAL GAIN, PROPERTY OR CONTRABAND THAT WAS CONFISCATED DURING A TRAFFIC STOP OR INCIDENT TO A SEARCH AND/OR ARREST OF A FELLOW CITIZEN?

YES ( ) NO ( ) 20. HAVE YOU EVER CONDONED OR APPROVED OF ANY OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER COMMITTING ANY OF THE ACTIONS ENUMERATED IN QUESTIONS 1-19 ABOVE?

How to score yourself:
(BASED ON NUMBER OF YES ANSWERS)

0 --------- SERVES AND PROTECTS
1-3--------FLAWED CHARACTER
4-6--------COWBOY COP
7-9--------FASCIST THUG WITH BADGE
10+ ------SERIAL CRIMINAL

Dec. 25, 2005 14:50 | Updated Dec. 25, 2005 14:54

Tougher anti-drunk driver laws to be enforced Mon.
By JPOST.COM STAFF


Beginning on Monday, any police officer will be allowed to require any driver to undergo a "Breathalyzer" test to determine if the driver is driving under the influence of alcohol.

The previous legislation allowed drivers to refuse to comply with the test and permitted police to carry out the test only if it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the driver was under the influence of alcohol whose driving was a public danger.

Under the new law, failure to comply with the breath test will be considered equivalent to driving under the influence of alcohol.

In addition, the new law - initiated by Transportation Minister Meir Sheetrit- broadens the definition of intoxication and states that drinking alcohol while driving or driving with a high blood alcohol content is sufficient to determine that a driver is sufficient evidence of inebriation.

Sheetrit emphasized that the statistics show that many vehicle-related incidents in Israel are caused by driving under the influence of alcohol.

York Region pulls ads after group gets MADD
Drunk driving notices anger organization

Dec 22, 2005

Martin Derbyshire, Staff Writer


York Region Transit has been offering two ways to avoid a drunk driving conviction: get on the bus or call the number on the back.
But this week, under pressure from the local chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) Canada, the transit company promised to pull a series of bus advertisements paid for by a law firm offering to defend people charged with impaired driving.

The ads, for an outfit dubbed The Impaired Driving Office -- a referral service for criminal defence lawyers interested in taking on impaired driving cases -- had been placed on the back of six different buses across York.

However, the York Region Chapter of MADD Canada complained the ad's message promotes drinking and driving by claiming a lawyer can help you get away with it.

The group also says ads of that nature should not appear on public transit vehicles.

"We've gotten quite a few calls and e-mails from people who are pretty appalled that a bus, something that is supposed to offer a safe alternative to drinking and driving, would have that on its back," said Margaret Williams, MADD Canada York Region chapter president.

Driving behind a bus near her home in Richmond Hill, now retired director of Canadian Centre for Ethics and Corporate Policy Elizabeth Loweth was one of many people who couldn't help but notice the ads and be upset by what they stand for.

"When the police department is saying, 'Don't drink and drive' and the city, on the back of regionally owned buses, is saying something else, it just doesn't make any sense," she said.

"What if they ad said, 'If you're abusing your wife, we can get you off' or 'If you're molesting children, call this number?'"

"How far do we go? Robbed a bank?, call this number. Murder your neighbour lately? Call us."

But the ads and the service were never designed to make drinking and driving an option or to promote it, Vancouver lawyer and owner of The Impaired Driving Office Mark McCook said.

"We don't encourage drinking and driving. All we are saying is that if you have been charged with impaired driving, you are entitled to representation. Come and see a lawyer and see if you have a defence," he said.

"The penalties for drinking and driving-related charges are severe and you should see if you have a defence before you just go ahead and plead guilty."

The Impaired Driving Office website (impaired driving.ca) lists a number of possible defences those charged should consider, including ways to possibly avoid being convicted even if you blow over the legal blood alcohol limit of .08 on a breathalyser.

But while she understands everyone has the right to a legal defence and the presumption of innocence when charged with any crime, Ms Williams, whose sister was killed by a drunk driver five years ago, said the ads are inappropriate for a public transit service to convey.

"We're talking about Canada's No. 1 criminal cause of death," she said. "It's a complete slap in the face."

In the past, MADD Canada has partnered with York Region Transit to offer riders free trips on New Year's Eve, but it threatened to pull out this year because of the ads.

In response, York Region Transit general manager Don Gordon said Tuesday the ads would be pulled by the end of this week.

"We've reviewed the ads ... and heard the concerns from MADD and made a decision to pull them," he said. "We can take that sort of action if an ad stretches the limits of good taste and we feel that is exactly what's happened in this case. Our relationship with MADD has a long history and our hope is we can continue to work together."

But Ms Williams is not so sure.

"If they are, indeed, pulled, we'd be very pleased, but I'll believe it when I see it," she said.

Meanwhile, the Impaired Driving Office will continue to operate, with radio commercials and ads on other public transit services.

The firm is growing and has 50 lawyers across the country, including five in York, none of whom will have any trouble sleeping at night, Mr. Cook said.

"I understand where MADD is coming from. The cost of impaired driving on the community in terms of lost lives and damage to families is huge and my heart goes out to those people," he said. "But one of the cornerstones of our democracy is that you are presumed innocent until proven guilty, even if you are charged with impaired driving

Dec 22, 2005 11:21 am US/Pacific

Warning: Stiff Drunk-Driving Penalties This Season
DUI Charge Could Mean $1,000 Fine, Jail Term

(CBS) LOS ANGELES Motorists who drive drunk this holiday season could face a $1,000 fine, a year in jail and possibly child endangerment charges if they have a youngster in the car, the city attorney warned Thursday.

In 2004, there were 3,500 traffic fatalities between Thanksgiving and New Years -- and 37 percent of them were alcohol-related.

On Christmas Day, 47 percent of traffic fatalities were alcohol-related, said City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo.

"The holiday season is among the most dangerous time on our roads because of the increase in drunk driving," Delgadillo said.

"When you drive drunk it is neither an accident nor a mistake. It is a choice," he said.

The City Attorney's Office prosecutes more than 15,000 DUI cases every year.

Since 2001, city prosecutors have also filed child endangerment charges in all DUI cases in which a child was present in the vehicle. A child endangerment charge can result in six months in jail and a $1,000 fine in addition to the DUI penalties.

Last year, the office successfully prosecuted 156 such cases, officials said.

To avoid driving drunk, people should designated a sober driver, call a taxi or use public transportation, said City Councilman Bernard Parks.

People can ride all Metropolitan Transportation Authority bus and rail lines for free from 9 p.m. Christmas Eve through midnight Christmas Day and from 9 p.m. New Year's Eve through midnight the next day.

"Each and every person that has had a drink -- not a drink too much -- but just a drink, should make that decision to get on public transportation or find another means of transportation in the city," Parks said.

Lynnmaria Bazan, from Mothers Against Drunk Driving, said she knew first-hand the physical, emotional and monetary toll drunk driving accidents have on victims. Bazan and her sister were hit by a drunken driver several years ago as they were leaving the Inglewood Forum.

"The problem is it's a preventable crime. It can be prevented. It's not an accident. It's a crash and people make the conscious decision to get in a car when they drink and drive," Bazan said.

Drivers should not be surprised to see sobriety checkpoints throughout the city, City Councilwoman Wendy Greuel said.

"During the holiday season think twice. If you've had a drink and you're not sure if you can drive, choose an alterative," Greuel said.

DUI get-out-of-jail policy gets locked up for holidays

By Brian Hazle
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
December 23, 2005

Police say they've got a present for people caught driving while intoxicated over Christmas and New Year's and can't post bail: a three-night stay in any of the county's jails.

Each year at this time, the Sheriff's Department suspends its conditional release policy that offers certain people the chance to get out of jail on just a promise to appear in court.

If people can't come up with the bail, they stay until they see a judge.

Additional officers from nearly every law-enforcement agency will be on duty, zeroing in on drunken drivers and other traffic violators through Jan. 2.

The California Highway Patrol is leading the charge. Nearly 80 percent of its officers in the county will be working at least one shift during the holidays.

The CHP hopes the presence of more officers on the highway will deter impaired drivers from even getting behind the wheel. In addition to roving DUI patrols, the officers will staff nearly a dozen sobriety checkpoints.

Typically, the checkpoints are multiagency efforts that involve the CHP, local police and sheriff's deputies. The locations and times of the special enforcement vary and usually are not publicized.

Such efforts seem to be paying dividends in Escondido, for example, where police this year have logged 1,054 DUI arrests, a 55 percent increase over the same time last year, the department said.

The ongoing operations mirror tactics being used elsewhere in the county and state to enforce traffic and alcoholic beverage control laws and to promote traffic safety.

The number of deaths and injuries attributed to alcohol statewide had declined each year for a decade until 1999. Slight increases have occurred each year since, the CHP said.

There were 110 alcohol-related fatalities in San Diego County in 2004 and 3,180 injuries. The figures have remained about the same for the past several years.

During the same time, more than 17,000 drivers were arrested for DUI in the county.

12/22/2005

North Carolina Appeals Court Says DUI Laws Apply to Scooters

North Carolina Appeals Court ruling that applies full drunk driving criminal sanctions to scooters.


Draconian sanctions have been applied to violations of drunk driving (DUI) laws in
recent years because of the havoc a two-ton automobile can cause when not under
proper control. Common penalties range from vehicle and license confiscation to
fines, penalties and legal fees that can add up to $10,000 or more. The same laws
have led to Kevin Michael Crow, 27, being sentenced to 14 days in jail (on a nine
month suspended sentence) and one-year probation for the crime of driving while drunk
on a 50 pound scooter at 10 MPH. On Tuesday, the North Carolina Court of Appeals
upheld these driving under the influence penalties.

Crow's troubles began on May 24, 2003 when an officer spotted him weaving on his
electric scooter as he drove on Ocracoke Island. The officer pulled the scooter
over and determined that Crow's blood alcohol level was .13, in excess of the .08
level at which one is presumed intoxicated in the state. A North Carolina jury found
him guilty on September 14, 2004.

The Appeals Court upheld his conviction, ruling that one may drive "horses,
bicycles, or lawnmowers" as well as Segways and wheelchairs on public roads while drunk,
but not scooters.

"Since defendant's scooter falls within the legislature's definition of 'vehicle'
in N.C. Gen. Stat. 20-4.01(49) and does not meet the requirements of any of the
exceptions to that definition, we conclude that it is a 'vehicle,'" the court wrote.
"An average person exercising common sense should have known that operating a
motorized scooter while impaired would subject him to the penalties of the statute."

Article Excerpt:NO. COA05-253
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed: 20 December 2005

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v . Hyde County
Nos. 03 CRS 0290, 03 IF 259
KEVIN MICHAEL CROW


Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 14 September 2004 by Judge Thomas D.
Haigwood in Hyde County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 November
2005.

Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Patricia A. Duffy,
for the State.

Bass, Bryant & Fanney, P.L.L.C., by John K. Fanney and James K. Jackson, for
defendant-appellant.

MARTIN, Chief Judge.


Defendant was found guilty by a jury of driving while subject to an impairing
substance in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. . 20- 138.1 (2003) and sentenced to a
term of nine months imprisonment. The execution of the sentence was suspended, and
defendant was placed on supervised probation for twelve months. As a condition of
probation, defendant was required to serve fourteen days in the custody of the
sheriff. He appeals from the judgment.
The evidence at trial tended to show that on 24 May 2003, Officer Shane Bryan
of the Hyde County Sheriff Department was traveling south in a marked patrol
vehicle on Ocracoke Island and observed defendant and another individual run a stop
sign. At the time, both defendant and his companion were riding "stand-upscooters."
Each scooter was powered by an electric motor and was likened at trial to a
skateboard with handlebars on the front. The scooters had two wheels, each approximately
six to eight inches in diameter and arranged in tandem much like the wheels of a
bicycle. Officer Bryan observed defendant traveling at approximately ten miles per
hour.
After running the stop sign, defendant and the other individual were observed
weaving erratically within their lane of traffic. Officer Bryan followed them for
about a block and a half, and then used his patrol vehicle's public address system
to advise the pair to pull over. Defendant's companion complied, but defendant
ignored the request and continued riding. Officer Bryan pursued defendant and asked
him to pull over some six blocks down the highway. Defendant exited into a parking
lot. Officer Bryan followed and got out of his car to speak to defendant.
During their conversation, Officer Bryan noticed a strong odor of alcohol. In
addition, defendant had glassy, bloodshot eyes and slurred speech, and he was
unsteady on his feet. Based on his observations, Officer Bryan asked defendant to
submit to a field sobriety test, which he refused. Officer Bryan then took defendant
into custody and called for assistance.
Trooper Brandon Craft of the North Carolina Highway Patrol arrived on the
scene approximately five to ten minutes later and placed defendant in the back of his
car. He noticed the same glassy eyes, slurred speech, and odor of alcohol that
Officer Bryan had observed. After refusing to submit to an alcosensor test,defendant
was arrested and transported to the Hyde County Sheriff's Office, where he
eventually agreed to be tested by an Intoxilyzer 5000 machine. The test reported a breath
alcohol concentration of 0.13 grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.
At the close of the State's evidence, defendant's motion to dismiss the charge
for a constitutional violation and for insufficiency of the evidence was denied.
Defendant offered no evidence, and the jury subsequently found him guilty of
driving while impaired.
____________________________________________

Defendant argues on appeal that the trial court erred in (1) denying his
motion to dismiss for insufficiency of the evidence; (2) denying his motion to dismiss
on the grounds that N.C. Gen. Stat. . 20-138.1 and its associated statutory scheme
fail to give fair notice of acts to be prohibited; and (3) submitting a redacted
version of the statutory definition of the term "vehicle" as part of the court's
instructions to the jury. For the reasons which follow, we find no error.
Defendant first argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss
the DWI charge for insufficiency of the evidence. Upon a motion to dismiss
criminal charges for insufficiency of the evidence, the trial court must determine
"whether there is substantial evidence (1) of each essential element of the offense
charged, or of a lesser offense included therein, and (2) of defendant's being the
perpetrator of such offense." State v.Powell, 299 N.C. 95, 98, 261 S.E.2d 114, 117
(1980). "Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion." State v. Smith, 300 N.C. 71, 78-79,
265 S.E.2d 164, 169 (1980). The evidence is considered in the light most favorable
to the State, and the State is entitled to every reasonable inference arising from
it. Powell, 299 N.C. at 99, 261 S.E.2d at 117. The trial court does not weigh the
evidence or determine witnesses' credibility. Id. "It is concerned 'only with the
suffic
iency of the evidence to carry the case to the jury.'" State v. Thaggard, 168
N.C. App. 263, 281, 608 S.E.2d 774, 786 (2005) (quoting State v. Lowery, 309 N.C.
763, 766, 309 S.E.2d 232, 236 (1983)).
Defendant contends there was insufficient evidence of a violation of N.C. Gen.
Stat. . 20-138.1 because the motorized scooter he was riding cannot be considered
a "vehicle" within the meaning of the statute. We disagree. Under N.C. Gen. Stat.
. 20- 138.1(a), "[a] person commits the offense of impaired driving if he drives
any vehicle upon any highway, any street, or any public vehicular area within this
State . . . [w]hile under the influence of an impairing substance . . . or . . .
[a]fter having consumed sufficient alcohol that he has, at any relevant time after
the driving, an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more." N.C. Gen. Stat. .
20-138.1(a)(1) (2003). By its express terms, the statute does not apply to horses,
bicycles, or lawnmowers. Id. . 20- 138.1(e). The statutory provision encompasses all
other "vehicles" as defined in N.C. Gen. Stat. . 20-4.01(49) (2003):
Every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported
or drawn upon a highway, excepting devices moved by human power or used
exclusively upon fixed rails or tracks; provided, that for the purposes of this Chapter
bicycles shall be deemed vehicles and every rider of a bicycle upon a highway shall be
subject to the provisions of this Chapter applicable to the driver of a vehicle
except those which by their nature can have no application. This term shall not
include a device which is designed for and intended to be used as a means of
transportation for a person with a mobility impairment, or who uses the device for mobility
enhancement, is suitable for use both inside and outside a building, including on
sidewalks, and is limited by design to 15 miles per hour when the device is being
operated by a person with a mobility impairment, or who uses the device for
mobility enhancement. This term shall not include an electric personal assistive
mobility d
evice as defined in G.S. 20-4.01(7a).

Id. . 20-4.01(49).
"Statutory interpretation properly begins with an examination of the plain
words of the statute." Correll v. Division of Social Services, 332 N.C. 141, 144, 418
S.E.2d 232, 235 (1992). If the language of a statute is clear, then the Court must
implement the statute according to the plain meaning of its terms. Id.
In the instant case, defendant was riding a motorized scooter with two wheels
arranged in tandem, and the exclusionary provisions for horses, bicycles, and
lawnmowers under N.C. Gen. Stat. . 20- 138.1(e) have no application. Defendant's
scooter does meet the definition of a "device in, upon, or by which any person or
property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway" under N.C. Gen.Stat. .
20-4.01(49). However, the scooter does not fall into either of that statute's two
exceptions. First, "vehicle" does not include devices "designed for and intended to be
used as a means of transportation for a person with a mobility impairment, or who
uses the device for mobility enhancement." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-4.01(49) (2003).
Defendant neither argued nor relied upon the theory at trial that he suffered from
a mobility impairment. On the contrary, the evidence tended to show defendant was
a healthy twenty-five- year-old man riding the scooter for recreational purposes
on a ho
liday weekend at a popular coastal destination.
Defendant, nonetheless, argues that "mobility enhancement" should be construed
broadly in light of the dearth of legal precedent concerning the definition of
that term. We reject this construction for two reasons. First, although "mobility
enhancement" is not specifically defined in the statute, its placement within the
sentence discussing "mobility impairment" leads us to conclude that the two terms are
closely related and contravenes ascribing the broad definition urged by defendant.
Indeed, there is no evidence that defendant was using the scooter other than for
strictly recreational purposes. Second, the exception for devices being used for
"mobility enhancement" was added to the sentence concerning "mobility impairment" in
2001 as part of "An Act to Make Technical Corrections and Conforming Changes to
the General Statutes as Recommended by the General Statutes Commission." See Act of
Dec. 6, 2001, ch. 487, . 51, 2001 N.C. Sess. Laws 2725, 2806 (codified at N.C.
Gen.
Stat. . 20-4.01(49)(2003)). In a memorandum, the General Statutes Commission
explained that "[t]his bill makes corrections of a technical nature to various
sections of the General Statutes." Memorandum from the Gen. Statutes Comm'n to Sen.
Fletcher L. Hartzell & Rep. Bill Culpepper, N.C. Gen. Assembly (Dec. 3, 2001)(on file
with the North Carolina Supreme Court Library) (emphasis added). Therefore, adding
the term "mobility enhancement" was a technical change that did not substantively
expand the existing mobility impairment exception to the term "vehicle."
Secondly, N.C. Gen. Stat. . 20-4.01(49) excludes "electric personal assistive
mobility device[s]" from the definition of "vehicle." An "electric personal
assistive mobility device" is "[a] self-balancing nontandem two-wheeled device, designed
to transport one person, with a propulsion system that limits the maximum speed of
the device to 15 miles per hour or less." Id. . 20-4.01(7a). The State notes that
the "Segway Human Transporter" is an example of such a device. Here, the trial
court noted that defendant's scooter was not self-balancing. Furthermore, the wheels
on the scooter were arranged one behind the other, or in tandem, thus foreclosing
the possibility that it may be considered an "electric personal assistive mobility
device."
Since defendant's scooter falls within the legislature's definition of
"vehicle" in N.C. Gen. Stat. . 20-4.01(49) and does not meet the requirements of any of
the exceptions to that definition, we conclude that it is a "vehicle" for purposes
of N.C. Gen. Stat. . 20-138.1(a)(1). Defendant does not argue there
wasinsufficient evidence of any other element of impaired driving. The evidence at trial showed
that his breath alcohol concentration following arrest was 0.13, well over the
0.08 limit found in N.C. Gen. Stat. . 20-138.1(a)(2). Accordingly, there was
sufficient evidence to carry the case to the jury on the charge of impaired driving.
Defendant next argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to
dismiss on the grounds that, as applied to this case, N.C. Gen. Stat. . 20-138.1 and
its associated statutory scheme fail to give fair notice of the acts they prohibit.
The United States and North Carolina Constitutions require that the terms of a
criminal statute must be sufficiently clear and explicit to inform those subject to
it what acts it is their duty to avoid or what conduct will render them liable to
its penalties. Individuals may not be required to speculate as to the meaning of a
penal statute at the peril of their life, liberty, or property. Surplus Store,
Inc. v. Hunter, 257 N.C. 206, 211, 125 S.E.2d 764, 768 (1962); see also State v.
Sparrow, 276 N.C. 499, 509, 173 S.E.2d 897, 904 (1970); In re Burrus, 275 N.C. 517,
531, 169 S.E.2d 879, 888 (1969), aff'd, 403 U.S. 528, 29 L. Ed. 2d 647 (1971). A
statute violates these principles when its terms cannot be understood and complied
with by
an average person exercising common sense. United States Civil Serv. Comm'n v.
Nat'l Ass'n of Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 578, 37 L. Ed. 2d 796, 816 (1973);
Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 608, 37 L. Ed. 2d 830, 837 (1973); State v.
Lowry and State v. Mallory , 263 N.C. 536, 539, 139 S.E.2d 870, 873 (1965), cert.
deniedand appeal dismissed sub nom. Mallory v. North Carolina, 382 U.S. 22, 15 L. Ed.
2d 16 (1965); State v. Hales, 256 N.C. 27, 33, 122 S.E.2d 768, 772 (1961).
Based on the language and purpose of N.C. Gen. Stat. . 20-138.1 to protect the
lives of motorists and pedestrians, see State v. Stewardson, 32 N.C. App. 344,
350, 232 S.E.2d 308, 312 (1977), cert. denied, 292 N.C. 643, 235 S.E.2d 64 (1977), an
average person exercising common sense should have known that operating a
motorized scooter while impaired would subject him to the penalties of the statute. As
discussed above, both N.C. Gen. Stat. .. 20-138.1 and 20-4.01(49) are broadly
applicable to "any vehicle" with only narrow, explicit exceptions. The statutory scheme,
accordingly, makes clear that a person riding something other than one of the
enumerated exceptions to the term vehicle is engaged in conduct prohibited by N.C.
Gen. Stat. . 20-138.1.
This conclusion also follows from the purpose of N.C. Gen. Stat. . 20-138.1,
which is to protect human life on the roadways of this State. By imposing criminal
penalties for operating a vehicle while under the influence of an impairing
substance, the statute aims to prevent the very behavior defendant was engaged in on 24
May 2003. He was operating a self-propelled vehicle traveling erratically down a
busy highway at a speed of at least ten miles per hour. Testimony at trial
indicated there were approximately one hundred pedestrians in the immediate area, along
with automobile traffic. Defendant's behavior subjected these pedestrians and
motorists to a high degree of danger. Defendant had fair notice ofthe acts prohibited by
our DWI laws, and his due process rights were not violated by its application.
Defendant asserts that, in light of the express exception for bicycles and
electric personal assistive mobility devices, an average person might infer that
small, lightweight, low-speed devices such as scooters would also fall outside the
reach of the statute. Although we are wary of requiring the legislature to be overly
specific in drafting exceptions to the statute, see In re Banks, 295 N.C. 236,
240, 244 S.E.2d 386, 389 (1978) (noting that "the practical necessities of
discharging the business of government inevitably limit the specificity with which
legislators can spell out prohibitions"), we believe the decision as to whether to exclude
scooters is best left in the hands of the General Assembly. In the case of N.C.
Gen. Stat. . 20-138.1 and its associated scheme, the legislature has made an effort
over time to define a small number of very specific exceptions. Rather than
provide a general exception for all small, lightweight, and low-speed devices, the
legislature
has specifically excepted, in relevant part, bicycles, electric personal
assistive mobility devices, and devices used by individuals with a mobility impairment or
for mobility enhancement. See N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 20-4.01(49), 138.1(e)(2003).
Following the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius ("to express or
include one thing implies the exclusion of the other," Black's Law Dictionary 620 (8th
ed. 2004); see also State v. Jones, 359 N.C. 832, 835, 616 S.E.2d 496, 497
(2005)), the absence of a motorized scooter from the list of exceptions is indicative of
the GeneralAssembly's intent to include such devices in the statutory definition
of vehicle. Here, in a situation in which the legislature has allowed a limited
number of very specific exceptions to a statute, it would be inappropriate for this
Court to create another. The legislature may choose to make an exception for
electric scooters such as the one in this case. Until that time, we apply the statutory
schem
e as it has been enacted.
Finally, defendant assigns error to the trial court's submission of a redacted
version of the definition of the term "vehicle" found in N.C. Gen. Stat. .
20-4.01(49) as part of the court's charge to the jury. Over defendant's objection, the
trial court instructed the jury that "[f]or the purposes of this charge, a vehicle
is defined as every device in, upon, or by which any person is or may be
transported upon a highway, excepting devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon
fixed rails or tracks." This is essentially the first clause of N.C. Gen. Stat. .
20-4.01(49), omitting the exception for devices
designed for and intended to be used as a means of transportation for a
person with a mobility impairment, or who uses the device for mobility enhancement,
is suitable for use both inside and outside a building, including on sidewalks,
and is limited by design to 15 miles per hour when the device is being operated by a
person with a mobility impairment, or who uses the device for mobility
enhancement.

The definition given by the trial judge also omits the exception for "electric
personal assistive mobility devices."
On appeal, this Court reviews jury instructions contextually and in their
entirety. Jones v. Development Co., 16 N.C. App. 80,86, 191 S.E.2d 435, 439-40, cert.
denied, 282 N.C. 304, 192 S.E.2d 194 (1972). If the instructions "present[] the
law of the case in such a manner as to leave no reasonable cause to believe the jury
was misled or misinformed," then they will be held to be sufficient. Id. at 86-87,
191 S.E.2d at 440. The appealing party must demonstrate that the error in the
instructions was likely to mislead the jury. Robinson v. Seaboard System Railroad, 87
N.C. App. 512, 524, 361 S.E.2d 909, 917 (1987), disc. review denied, 321 N.C. 474,
364 S.E.2d 924 (1988).
In this case, we do not believe the omission of this material was likely to
mislead the jury. As discussed above, there was no evidence presented at trial that
defendant suffered from a mobility impairment or was using the scooter for
mobility enhancement. Moreover, defendant's scooter does not fall within the definition
of "electric personal assistive mobility device" found in N.C. Gen. Stat. .
20-4.01(7a). These exceptions were irrelevant to defendant's case, and there was no
evidence to support their inclusion in the charge to the jury. Since the redacted
portions of the statute were not applicable to the case, there is no reason to believe
the jury was misled by their omission.
No error.
Judges McGEE and ELMORE concur.
Source: North Carolina v. Crow (North Carolina Court of Appeals, 12/20/2005)

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/08/853.asp

Posted on Thu, Dec. 22, 2005

Huntington Beach city attorney arrested for investigation of DUI
Associated Press
HUNTINGTON BEACH, Calif. - The city attorney was arrested for investigation of drunken driving after police spotted her driving the wrong way on a downtown street, officials said.

"It's been a hard day," said Jennifer McGrath, 37, who was elected in 2002.

McGrath was arrested shortly after midnight Wednesday, said Lt. Irwin Feuerstein, a spokesman for the Huntington Beach Police Department. She was booked into the city jail for investigation of misdemeanor drunken driving and was released on her own recognizance, he said.

The results of a blood test are pending, Feuerstein said.

McGrath declined to discuss the incident in detail but read from a statement in which she admitted making a mistake.

"I am taking responsibility for my actions and the consequences thereto," the statement said. "I deeply apologize for any embarrassment I have caused the city, my family or my friends, and I can assure all of you that this will never happen again."

Huntington Beach Mayor Dave Sullivan declined to comment on McGrath's arrest.

IRVINE, CA -- The Irvine Police Department conducted a sobriety/driver’s license checkpoint during the evening hours on Saturday, December 17, 2005. The checkpoint was located on Mac Arthur Blvd. at Douglas in the city of Irvine. The purpose of this checkpoint was to deter the impaired driver through publicity surrounding the event and by the highly visible presence of officers at the checkpoint. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) estimates that communities that consistently use sobriety checkpoints experience as much as eight times the reduction in DUI incidents as communities that use roving patrols alone. Checkpoints have been highly effective in educating the public to the hazards of impaired driving. According to MADD, in one survey, 79% of the public approved of sobriety checkpoints.

The California Office of Traffic Safety and the National Highway Transportation Administration have given support for this project.

This evening’s checkpoint was staffed by members of the Irvine Police Department, police support staff and volunteers. Statistics related to this checkpoint are as follows:

Total vehicles stopped: 337
DUI arrests: 4
Other arrests: 9
Citations: 17
Vehicles Towed: 10

Lewis pleads not guilty to DUI charge
Associated Press


REDMOND, Wash. -- Seattle SuperSonics forward Rashard Lewis pleaded not guilty Monday to a drunken driving charge.

If convicted, he faces a maximum penalty of a year in jail and a $5,000 fine. The next pretrial hearing is Jan. 19.

Lewis' lawyer won a ruling during a hearing when the judge agreed the player's breath tests won't be used as evidence. Prosecutor spokesman Dan Donohoe said the case will be prosecuted based on field sobriety tests.

Lewis failed field sobriety and breath tests Sept. 30 after he was stopped by a trooper on Interstate 90. Lewis was charged Dec. 5 with driving under the influence of alcohol.

Just one DUI arrest from 1,550 stopped at SR checkpoint

By MICHAEL COIT
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

A DUI checkpoint in Santa Rosa produced seven arrests, dozens of citations and impounded vehicles, police said Saturday.

But of 1,550 vehicles to pass through the checkpoint on Guerneville Road in northwest Santa Rosa, only one driver was found to be over the legal blood-alcohol limit of 0.08 percent and arrested.

"That's a good sign," Sgt. Doug Schlief said Saturday. "The other good sign out of it, there were nine other people that we screened for sobriety. And all of those, although they had been drinking, were under a point-08."

The checkpoint was conducted from 7 to 11:30 p.m. Friday at Guerneville Road and Ridley Avenue.

It was another in an annual series of checkpoints across Sonoma County coordinated by 13 law enforcement agencies and the California Highway Patrol.

The purpose is to raise awareness of drinking and driving during the holiday season and to arrest impaired drivers.

"We know going into them that they're more of an education component than enforcement," Schlief said.

The more than 1,500 vehicles stopped was a high number compared with 800 to 1,200 at most checkpoints in the county. Cars were stopped heading both east and west on Guerneville Road rather than one direction as with most checkpoints, Schlief said.

Five people were arrested on outstanding warrants. Another was arrested for possession with intent for sale of marijuana and unlawful transportation of marijuana, police said.

Twenty-six drivers were given citations for being unlicensed, and another eight received citations for driving on suspended or revoked licenses.

Another 15 drivers were issued citations for unlawful turns near the checkpoint.

Police said 32 vehicles were towed and would be impounded for 30 days because they were driven by drivers who were not licensed or had suspended licenses.

© The Press Democrat.

From: The Washington Post
Driving Under the Influence of ADHD Drugs
Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Three new or soon-to-be-published studies have found that drivers with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) using any of the popular, long-acting ADHD medications -- Concerta, Adderall XR or Strattera -- performed significantly better behind the wheel, and more safely, than those taking a placebo. (The studies were funded by the makers of those drugs.)

The Back Story According to previous research, teens with ADHD are four times more likely to have an auto accident and five times more likely to be at fault than those without the disorder. Adults with ADHD have about twice as many accidents as other people. They lose their licenses fives times more often.



Drivers with ADHD performed better on driving simulators when they took ADHD drugs. (Gary Kay, Washington Neuropsychological Institute)

The Findings "Medication treatment reduces those driving performance problems," Russell Barkley, a research professor of psychiatry at New York's SUNY Upstate Medical School, wrote in an e-mail. He is a co-author of an upcoming review of research on driving with ADHD.

Each of the three studies relied heavily on driving simulators to measure reaction times, speeding, tailgating and other driving behaviors. Daniel Cox, professor of psychiatric medicine at the University of Virginia Health System and Barkley's review co-author, compared Concerta with Adderall XR. In his study, drivers aged 16 to 19 improved significantly compared to placebo while on Concerta but not while on Adderall XR.

In a study by Gary Kay, president of the Washington Neuropsychological Institute, Adderall XR was effective for drivers 19 to 25. In a pilot study not yet published, Barkley reports that Strattera improved the driving of adults aged 22 to 60.

The Take-away "I think it's great to see these kinds of [studies]," said Adelaide Robb, a psychiatrist at Children's National Medical Center. "I spend a lot of time [with parents and patients] on reducing accidents and keeping out of traffic court. . . . Medication helps, and we put [patients] on the medication we think is the best for them."

-- Matt McMillen

IF YOU HAVE ANY LEGAL PROBLEM IN MEXICO, WE CAN HELP YOU.
WE ARE VERY FAST, VERY DETAILED, + VERY THOROUGH.

FINALLY, A REAL LAW FIRM IN MEXICO YOU CAN TRUST TO GIVE PROPER REPRESENTATION.


WE HAVE 3 FAMILY OWNED OFFICES IN THE CITY OF ENSENADA, BAJA CALIFORNIA,(70 MILES SOUTH OF SAN DIEGO) WITH OVER 40 YRS OF COMBINED LEGAL EXPERIENCE IN MEXICO.


EACH OFFICE IS STRATEGICALLY POSITIONED NEAR 3 OF THE MAJOR COURTHOUSES IN ENSENADA, FOR QUICK PROCESSSING OF PAPERWORK, ON THE FEDERAL OR LOCAL LEVEL.

WE HAVE MANY LONG TIME FRIENDS/FAMILY WHO WORK FOR THE LOCAL ADMINISTRATION IN THE COURTS TO GET YOUR PAPERWORK PUT ON THE TOP OF THE PILE, NOT ON THE BOTTOM !!!

BEST ATTORNEY OFFICE REPUTATION IN ENSENADA AMONG THE COURT SYSTEM !!!


WE DO CURRENTLY SERVE ALL NORTH ROSARITO TO SOUTH ENSENADA AREAS ON THE BAJA.


PLANTIFFS AND/OR DEFENDANTS WELCOME.

WE ARE ARE BI-LINGUAL FIRM, SPANISH + ENGLISH.


CIVIL, CRIMINAL, DIVORCE, CUSTODY, MOTOR VEHICLE VIOLATIONS, DUI, ACCIDENTS, CITIZENSHIP, IMMIGRATION, INJURY, INSURANCE, LABOR LAW, WRONGFUL TERMINATION, MEDICAL, CONTRACT VIOLATIONS, BUSINESS, PROPERTY, REAL ESTATE, WILLS, ESTATES, TAXES.

FREE CONSULTATION.

IF YOUR CASE IS OUTSIDE THE BAJA NORTE' AREAS, WE MAY STILL BE ABLE TO HELP YOU, AS WE HAVE RECENTLY HANDLED CLIENTS' CASES IN TIJUANA, MEXICALI, SAN QUENTIN, LA PAZ + MEXICO CITY.

IF YOU ARE READY TO MOVE YOUR LIFE FORWARD, AND BE ENTITLED TO YOUR FREE PHONE CONSULTATION WITH A REAL ATTORNEY IN MEXICO, PLEASE EMAIL US THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION TO GET STARTED.....

PLEASE EMAIL US :

1. YOUR CURRENT LEGAL SITUATION THAT YOU NEED HELP WITH IN MEXICO.
2. A PHONE NUMBER IN THE USA OR MEXICO, SO WE MAY HAVE ONE OF OUR SKILLED ATTORNEYS CONTACT YOU PROMPTLY.


SOUND TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE ???

TRY US OUT FIRST, AND LET US MAKE A BELIEVER OUT OF YOU !!!



THANK US LATER.




DAIBKID MEXICAN ATTORNEYS, LLC.
SAN DIEGO, CA. 91911

Elephants cleared of going on drunken rampages
17 December 2005

From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
ELEPHANTS are big, powerful and can be very dangerous - but they are not drunkards. Anecdotes about African elephants going on alcohol-fuelled rampages after eating the fermented fruit of the marula tree are probably incorrect, says Steven Morris at the University of Bristol, UK.

Assuming an alcohol content of 3 per cent, his team calculates that a 3-tonne elephant would need to eat more than 1200 fruit to get drunk. That would require a diet solely of fermented marula fruit consumed at 400 times the normal maximum food intake.

It is more likely that "drunk" bulls are just defending a prized food source, says Morris. The study will be published in Physiological and Biochemical Zoology next year.

From issue 2530 of New Scientist magazine, 17 December 2005, page 18

VISTA – University of San Diego head football coach Jim Harbaugh, the former Chargers quarterback, pleaded innocent today to a misdemeanor charge of driving under the influence.

The 41-year-old defendant, who just completed his second year as the head of the Toreros, was stopped early on Oct. 30 in Encinitas after allegedly running a stop sign.

According to court documents, Harbaugh refused to take a field sobriety test after he was pulled over.

When his arrest became public, he was upfront with the media about making a mistake.

"I feel I've had a lifetime of good social decision-making, this was a bad one."

Judge Aaron Katz scheduled a Jan. 12 readiness conference and a Feb. 16 trial date.

Harbaugh played with the Chargers, the famous Chicago Bears, Indianapolis Colts, Carolina Panthers and Baltimore Ravens in a 15-year National Football League career. He was the AFC Player of the Year with the Colts in 1995.

His 2005 Toreros finished their season with a school-best 11-1 record and a number one ranking for NCAA Division 1-AA non-scholarship teams.

Harbaugh's name has surfaced as a possible candidate for the open head coaching job across Mission Valley at San Diego State University.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PRESS RELEASE #121505

Subject :

SOBRIETY/ DRIVER’S LICENSE CHECKPOINT
Contact : DAVE FREEDLAND, COMMANDER (949) 724-7156
dfreedland@ci.irvine.ca.us
MIKE HAMEL (949) 724-7163
mhamel@ci.irvine.ca.us


IRVINE, CA -- The Irvine Police Department will be conducting a sobriety/driver’s license checkpoint during the evening hours of Saturday December 17, 2005. The exact location and hours will be announced shortly before checkpoint operations begin.

The purpose of the checkpoint is to deter the impaired driver by publicity surrounding the event and by the highly visible presence of sworn officers at the location of the checkpoint. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) estimates that communities that consistently use sobriety checkpoints experience as much as 8 times the reduction in DUI occurrences as compared to communities that use roving patrols alone. Checkpoints have been highly effective in educating the public to the hazards of impaired driving. According to MADD, in one survey, 79% of the public approved of sobriety checkpoints.

The checkpoint will be clearly marked, and vehicles will be selected to be checked on a pre-set basis to ensure objectivity. Motorists will be greeted and given an informational brochure on impaired driving. Driver’s licenses will be checked, and trained officers will direct impaired drivers to a secondary check area for further evaluation. Most motorists will experience little delay, if any at all.

The Office of Traffic Safety (OTS), State of California, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have expressed their support for this project.

SOBRIETY CHECKPOINT

December 16, 2005



The Traffic Division of the Newport Beach Police Department will conduct a sobriety checkpoint on Friday, December 16, 2005. The location of the checkpoint will be northbound Jamboree Road at Santa Barbara Drive. The hours of operation will from 9:00 p.m. until 3:00 a.m.

The following defendants chose to drive impaired. They caused injury, death and destruction on Maricopa County roadways and paid for their actions with their freedom. Their faces and cases prove that driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs is not tolerated in that community. http://www.stopduiaz.com/

David Lee Mason State v. David Lee Mason
January 19, 2004, the defendant crashed into two parked cars. The defendant admitted drinking vodka and a beer. His blood alcohol concentration was .302 percent. Also, officers found a drug pipe in the truck and in the defendant’s front pocket. The defendant was sentenced to 9 years in prison.


Trina Jackson State v. Trina Jackson
On April 15, 2005, the defendant was driving northbound on I-17. She missed her exit and abruptly swerved across the painted gore area in an attempt to exit the freeway. She struck a disabled car with three people changing the car’s tire, killing 15-year-old Osmond Marquez, and severely injuring 15-year-old Carlo Rivera and Christian Gonzalez. The defendant’s BAC was .267. She admitted 4-5, 12-ounce beers, and 1 Red Bull-and-Vodka. She had one misdemeanor prior DUI. The defendant was sentenced to 10.5 years in prison.


Omar Muniz State v. Omar Muniz
On May 25, 2005, the 16-year-old defendant and his high school-age friends were leaving an afternoon pool party. The defendant brought alcohol to the party and drank alcohol at the party. He crashed his truck into a tree near an apartment complex, killing his passengers Mari-Cruz Medina, 15, and Iban Barrera, 17. The defendant’s BAC was .069 more than four hours after crash. The defendant did not have a driver's license and was driving his parent's truck without permission. The defendant was sentenced to 10.5 years in prison.

DUI checkpoints help deter drunk driving, CHP says
Saturday, December 10, 2005 1:06 AM PST

California Highway Patrol officer Jack Moser tests Rodger Greenwell at a DUI checkpoint on Trancas St. between Soscal Ave. and Silverado Trail Saturday night. Greenwell, in town from San Diego to celebrate his birthday, had a drink earlier in the day but passed the field sobriety test. Jorgen Gulliksen/Register
It's a cold Saturday evening and Kathleen Rhoades and her husband Roger Nelson are driving west along Trancas Street in search of a restaurant.

The couple has just returned from delivering an injured owl to an animal hospital on Silverado Trail and has hit a snag: a sobriety checkpoint set up by California Highway Patrol officers.

Slowly, they make their way through the line of cars backed up on Trancas Street, a little past Silverado Trail, and are asked to pull their car to the side of the road to take a series of field sobriety tests. For Rhoades, it was the first time she's been asked to take such tests.

"It's kind of scary," she said. "I was nervous."


But despite a bit of nervousness about taking the tests -- some of which included touching her thumb to each of her fingers, balancing herself on one leg, patting and twisting her hands together, and breathing into a preliminary testing device that measured blood alcohol content -- Rhoades passed the exams and was sent on her way.

Nearly 800 cars passed through the checkpoint on the first Saturday of December and Rhoades was one of the 16 motorists given sobriety tests that evening. Of those, four were arrested for DUI. But for Rhoades and other motorists, including Roger Greenwell of San Diego, getting out of their warm vehicles and stepping into the cold to do field sobriety tests was a minor inconvenience.

"I think it's important that you have this checkpoint, especially in this region where wine is common," Greenwell said. "Having never done this before, it was kind of strange experience."

"I think it helps save lives because during the holidays there are a lot of people driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol," Rhoades said.

Both drivers agreed that having to take the tests was a small price to pay to make the roads a bit safer. And that's what CHP officials say the checkpoint is all about.

Officer Gerald Rico, a 25-year veteran of the CHP, said sobriety checkpoints help weed out drivers who have had too much to drink.

"It's a process of elimination," he said.

Rico pointed out that more drunk drivers are on the roads during the holidays because of holiday parties, festivities and gatherings, making it a good time to do checkpoints. Officers chose the location of the checkpoint based on the number of alcohol-related accidents on Silverado Trail and Highway 121 and the high probability that motorists traveling on those roads will have to drive west on Trancas Street to get back into Napa, Rico said.

Who gets stopped?

So how does the CHP decide who to stop and give sobriety tests to?

According to Rico, officers rely on their sense of smell and sight and if a motorist answers yes when asked if they've had anything to drink that day. If an officer catches a whiff of alcohol emanating from the driver, or if the driver exhibits signs of being drunk, they ask them to pull to the side for testing. Additionally, if the driver has had something to drink during the day, they are checked.

Officer Jack Moser explained it to the Greenwell family when they asked him if a motorists would still be stopped if they'd been drinking earlier in the day, several hours before driving through the checkpoint.

"I like to play it safe," he told them, adding that he would check them out.

Motorists aren't required by law to take field sobriety tests, but they are required to take breathalyzer or blood tests to determine if they are DUI. Enough probable cause must be present in order to administer either a breathalyzer or blood test, and using field sobriety tests helps officers determine if there is enough probable cause.

At CHP DUI checkpoints, the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizures, is heavily considered. Rico said the only thing they are looking for are DUIs. But should a driver fail a breathalyzer or blood test, it opens them up for police scrutiny, Rico said.

Motorists last week had the option to avoid the checkpoint. Officers posted signs along Trancas Street warning them of the oncoming checkpoint. When motorists turn their cars around, Rico said, officers don't go after them unless they exhibit signs of being under the influence.

According to Mark Boessenecker, Napa County chief deputy district attorney, using sobriety checkpoints is a legal way for law enforcement to get drunk drivers off the street.

"DUI checkpoints have been sanctioned by the courts in California since about 1987," he said. "It's a California Supreme Court case which found they were an appropriate way of deterring impaired drivers. Subsequently it went to the Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court resolved the issue in favor of sobriety checkpoints. They are constitutional and ... it's been law for 18 years."

He said the Napa County District Attorney's office has no problems with DUI cases or citations issued at sobriety checkpoints.

"My sense is the people serving on juries in Napa County are acutely aware of the dangers of drinking and driving," he said. "We have a fairly significant issue that we have to deal with in terms of traffic fatalities."

But at the same time, Napa County doesn't have as many alcohol-related traffic fatalities as neighboring Sonoma County, which Napa's CHP division helps patrol, Rico said.

For the most part, all motorists checked during inspections were not DUI. Others, such as 61-year-old Peter McCrone Dunsmuir, of Napa, were not so lucky.

Dunsmuir was the first person of the evening to get arrested on suspicion of DUI. After Dunsmuir completed field sobriety tests, CHP officer Bill Brewer told him "Mr. Dunsmuir, I have some bad news." Hearing this, Dunsmuir turned around and put his hands together behind his back. Brewer then took Dunsmuir to jail to take a blood test that would determine his blood alcohol level.

Also, one of the motorists Saturday was cited for driving without a license, after officers witnessed him switching from the driver's seat of the vehicle to the passenger seat while waiting in the checkpoint.

ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR UPSET WITH ARREST

Blake Wolf has acknowledged that he was taking prescription Oxycodone for pain at the time of the traffic stop on Nov. 19 when he was arrested for suspicion of driving while intoxicated. He said he had taken only one 40 milligram tablet that day.

His prescription bottle warns that the drug may cause drowsiness and that one should be careful driving while on the drug. But the warning label does not state that the user should not drive.

He wakes up in the middle of the night, unable to get back to sleep, an old craving gnawing at the edge of his consciousness.

He would have to sneak the cigarette, so his wife wouldn't know and be disappointed with him. Couldn't risk the smell of smoke in the house. He would go for a short drive. One smoke and come back. She wouldn't even know he was gone.

He pulls on some clothes and goes out to the car. Heads down County Road 230. Takes a right onto Maverick Road, the smoke and cold night air filling his lungs now, taking the edge off. Another right onto Route D, headed south.

Just past Kafir Road, he decides to head back, and pulls into a driveway to turn around.

He sees the lights of an emergency vehicle closing fast up D from the south. He waits for it to pass before backing out. But it doesn't pass. Instead it stops on the road, blocking his exit. He sees now that it's a patrol car.

The officer backs up to let him out. He backs out and heads north on D.

The officer turns on his lights and pulls him over.

'An Abundance of Caution'

So began the Nov. 19 traffic stop of Blake Wolf, 50, an assistant county prosecutor, head of the criminal justice department at Missouri Southern State University and trainer of many of the officers serving in local law-enforcement agencies.

About 45 minutes later, Wolf would be taken, handcuffed, to the Jasper County Jail under suspicion of driving while intoxicated. At the jail, he'd blow a 0.00 on a breathalyzer machine and yet be asked to provide a urine specimen for testing before being released without a charge.

The incident near a multi-agency sobriety checkpoint at the intersection of Route D and Highway 96 involved officers from the Carterville Police Department and the Jasper County Sheriff's Department.

The incident and its attendant publicity have left Wolf embarrassed and more than a little upset with the officers involved.

"It's given me firsthand experience with something I'd heard about but never encountered myself, that is, these rogue officers who mistreat the public and, frankly, who violate the law," Wolf said in an interview last week.

He said he has not had a drink in more than five years and should never have been mistaken for being intoxicated the night in question. He said he informed the officers involved that he suffered from neuropathy in his legs and feet that made it difficult for him to perform the two field sobriety tests he failed, but it did not seem to matter to them.

Sheriff Archie Dunn has acknowledged that Wolf's medical condition contributed to his inability to perform the field sobriety tests. But Dunn has defended his officers' conduct as appropriate with respect to procedure and says Wolf was taken to the jail for a breathalyzer test "out of an abundance of caution."

Illegal Stop

Wolf believes he was stopped illegally in the first place by a Carterville patrolman, Arthur Perrin. The Jasper County deputies called in by Perrin perpetuated that error, he said. Wolf said Deputy Chad Karr who performed the field sobriety tests on him showed no competency in conducting them, no compassion for someone with a physical ailment and handicap, and poor judgment in concluding that the results of the tests gave him probable cause to make an arrest.

Perrin was assisting the sobriety checkpoint by acting as a traffic-control officer, according to Carterville police Chief Tommy Kitch. As such, he was assigned to keep an eye on traffic approaching the checkpoint. When Wolf turned into the driveway to turn around, it raised suspicion in Perrin that he might be intoxicated and attempting to avoid the checkpoint, Kitch said.

Wolf said he was not even aware there was a checkpoint when he turned into the driveway. He said he was still almost a mile from the intersection of D and Highway 96 and he could not see the intersection from there. He said he was not trying to avoid anything.

"Why would I?" Wolf said. "My registration was current. My insurance was current. My license was current. I had no reason to avoid the checkpoint."

And he gave Perrin no driving reason to stop him either, he said.

He said he questioned Perrin about being out of his jurisdiction when Perrin stopped him and asked Wolf if he had been drinking. Perrin informed him he was working a sobriety checkpoint with officers of the JasCo Metro Police Department and Jasper County deputies, Wolf said.

'Inconclusive'

Perrin called in Jasper County deputies at that point, and Deputy Karr took control of the traffic stop.

Wolf said Karr identified himself to him, and he told Karr that he had heard his name before in the prosecutor's office. He said that was the first he let any officer know he was a local prosecutor. He said he complained to Karr that Perrin had made an illegal stop and Karr told him he did not want to hear "any of your prosecutor crap."

Wolf said Karr told him the problem was he smelled of intoxicants. Wolf accused him of making that up to justify an illegal stop.

"I told him: 'I don't drink. I haven't had a drink in well over five years.' I said: 'This is ludicrous.' "

Karr insisted he could smell intoxicants and told him to be quiet and follow his orders, Wolf said. He said he told Karr he would be compliant, but he was not going to stop complaining about an unlawful stop.

Karr had a Carterville officer administer a portable breath test on Wolf, which Kitch has acknowledged was "inconclusive." Wolf said he blew three times into the machine and was told each time, the result was "inconclusive."

The Tape

Karr then began a series of field sobriety tests, including the one-legged stand and heel-to-toe walk. Carterville police videotaped the traffic stop from one of their squad cars and the Globe has viewed the tape, which begins about 10 minutes into the stop and captures all the tests that were performed.

Wolf is unsteady and wobbly in performing the two tests he reportedly failed. It also appears to be painful to him to perform those tests, and he does not appear intoxicated while in motion in front of the camera between tests.

He also appears to perform a fingers-to-nose test without difficulty.

Karr ultimately placed Wolf under arrest. Wolf asked Karr why he was arresting him since he did not smell of alcohol, had been walking around normally between tests and his speech was not slurred.

He said Karr told him he had failed the two tests.

"I said: 'I told you why I couldn't pass those tests. I'm handicapped. I've got peripheral neuropathy.' "

Wolf said he was subjected to further indignities at the jail when he had difficulty providing Karr with a urine specimen because he was on the drug Lasix for a heart condition. He said Karr repeatedly threatened to put him down as having refused the urine test.

Still Open

The Sheriff's Department declined comment on Wolf's criticism of the way he was treated.

"We still can't give a comment," Chief Deputy Kelly Stephens said. "We're still waiting on the results of the urine test and it's still an open investigation."

Stephens said the Sheriff's Department has "the utmost respect" for Wolf and his contributions to the law-enforcement community. But it would be inappropriate to respond to his criticism while an investigation is in progress, Stephens said.

Kitch told the Globe he regrets that the incident has caused some strain between law-enforcement agencies in Jasper County. He said he intends in the future not to let any of his officers act as traffic-control officers at checkpoints outside their jurisdiction.

Kitch, who was at the checkpoint but never got closer to Wolf than 20 feet, said his own opinion is that Wolf was not intoxicated.

"But I was not the officer conducting the field sobriety," Kitch said.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.highwayrobbery.net is a discussion of red light cameras, including defects that aren't widely known and which may invalidate many tickets in Bakersfield, Beaumont, Berkeley, Beverly Hills, Capitola, Cathedral City, Cerritos, Costa Mesa, near Covina, Culver City, Davis, Del Mar, East LA, El Cajon, El Monte, Emeryville, Encinitas, Escondido, Fairfield, Fremont, Fresno, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Gardena, Glendora, Hacienda Heights, Hawthorne, Indian Wells, Inglewood, Laguna Woods, Loma Linda, Long Beach, Los Alamitos, Los Angeles, Lynwood, Marysville, Maywood, Modesto, Montclair, Montebello, Murrieta, Oceanside, Oxnard, Paramount, Pasadena, Poway, Rancho Cucamonga, Ridgecrest, Rocklin, Roseville, Rowland Heights, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, San Juan Capistrano, San Leandro, San Mateo, Santa Ana, Santa Clarita, Santa Fe Springs, Solana Beach, South Gate, Stockton, Union City, Upland, Ventura, Vista, West Hollywood, Westwood, Whittier, Yuba City, other California localities, and even some world-wide.


Ten of those defects are listed at http://www.highwayrobbery.net/ .

Prosecutor Sentenced for Drunk Driving

December 6, 2005 - A prominent prosecutor in the South Valley will spend a month in jail for driving drunk.

A Tulare County judge today sentenced Kings County Chief Deputy District Attorney Patrick Hart to three years probation after he pleaded guilty to driving under the influence.
Hart was arrested last month while driving home to Three Rivers. Officers say his blood alcohol level was three times the legal limit.

Hart will also spend a month in county jail starting in February, and will pay a $1,600 fine.

Medications & Substances Causing False Positives

False positive drug test results is a major problem. According to a report by the Los Angeles Times New Service, a study of 161 prescription and over the counter medications showed that 65 of them produced false positive results in the most widely administered urine test. Inaccurate urine drug testing which can report false positive drug test results has been called an "epidemic" by Ronald Siegel, a psychopharmacologist at UCLA. He has said that 'The widespread testing and reliance on tell-tale traces of drugs in the urine is simply a panic reaction invoked because the normal techniques for controlling drug use haven't worked very well. The next epidemic will be testing abuse."

Passyourtest.com coaches thousands of victims a month through the steps to fighting a false positive drug test and keeping your job. If you are a victim of a False Positive drug test order our False Postive Test Kit. Any Questions at all ? Call 1-866-588-4927

This contains-

A letter for your employer stating that facts about false positives, a request for a re-test and a spot to provide your testimony.
A Permentant Body Cleansing Kit to flush all toxin traces from your body
2 Day Supply (Herbal Cleansing Pills)
4oz Bottle (Herbal Cleansing Tonic)
Program Instructions
Manditory Diet Menu
Personal Customer Coach
100% Money Back Guarantee!
2 Self Test Kits to know for sure you will test negative
Free consultation with our staff

$89.00


Substances that cause False Positive Drug Test Results

THC - Substances or Conditions which can cause false positives
Dronabinol (Marinol)
Ibuprofen; (Advil, Nuprin, Motrin, Excedrin IB etc)
Ketoprofen (Orudis KT)
Kidney infection (Kidney disease, diabetes) Liver Disease
Naproxen (Aleve)
Promethazine (Phenergan, Promethegan)
Riboflavin (B2, Hempseed Oil)

Amphetamines - Substances or Conditions which can cause false positives
Ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, propylephedrine, phenylephrine, or desoxyephedrine
(Nyquil, Contact, Sudafed, Allerest, Tavist-D, Dimetapp, etc)
Phenegan-D, Robitussin Cold and Flu, Vicks Nyquil
Over-the-counter diet aids with phenylpropanolamine (Dexatrim, Accutrim)
Over-the-counter nasal sprays (Vicks inhaler, Afrin)
Asthma medications (Marax, Bronkaid tablets, Primatine Tablets)
Prescription medications (Amfepramone, Cathne, Etafediabe, Morazone,phendimetrazine, phenmetrazine, benzphetamine, fenfluramine, dexfenfluramine,dexdenfluramine,Redux, mephentermine, Mesocarb, methoxyphenamine, phentermine,amineptine, Pholedrine, hydroymethamphetamine, Dexedrine, amifepramone, clobenzorex,fenproyorex, mefenorex, fenelylline, Didrex, dextroamphetamine, methphenidate, Ritalin,pemoline, Cylert, selegiline, Deprenyl, Eldepryl, Famprofazone) Kidney infection, kidney disease, Liver disease, diabetes

Opiates - Substances or Conditions which can cause false positives
Poppy Seeds
Tylenol with codeine
Most prescription pain medications
Cough suppressants with Dextromethorphan (DXM)
Nyquil
Kidney infection, Kidney Disease
Diabetes, Liver Disease

Ecstacy - Substances or Conditions which can cause false positives
Ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, propylephedrine, phenylephrine, or desoxyephedrine
(Nyquil, Contact, Sudafed, Allerest, Tavist-D, Dimetapp, etc)
Phenegan-D, Robitussin Cold and Flu, Vicks Nyquil
Over-the-counter diet aids with phenylpropanolamine (Dexatrim, Accutrim)
Over-the-counter nasal sprays (Vicks inhaler, Afrin)
Asthma medications (Marax, Bronkaid tablets, Primatine Tablets)
Prescription medications (Amfepramone, Cathne, Etafediabe, Morazone,phendimetrazine, phenmetrazine, benzphetamine, fenfluramine, dexfenfluramine, dexdenfluramine,Redux, mephentermine, Mesocarb, methoxyphenamine, phentermine, amineptine, Pholedrine, hydroymethamphetamine, Dexedrine, amifepramone, clobenzorex, fenproyorex, mefenorex, fenelylline, Didrex, dextroamphetamine, methphenidate, Ritalin, pemoline, Cylert, selegiline, Deprenyl, Eldepryl, Famprofazone) Kidney infection, kidney disease
Liver disease, diabetes

Cocaine - Substances or Conditions which can cause false positives
Kidney infection (kidney disease)
Liver infection (liver disease)
Diabetes
Amoxicillin, tonic water

Medications & Substances Causing False Positives

False positive drug test results is a major problem. According to a report by the Los Angeles Times New Service, a study of 161 prescription and over the counter medications showed that 65 of them produced false positive results in the most widely administered urine test. Inaccurate urine drug testing which can report false positive drug test results has been called an "epidemic" by Ronald Siegel, a psychopharmacologist at UCLA. He has said that 'The widespread testing and reliance on tell-tale traces of drugs in the urine is simply a panic reaction invoked because the normal techniques for controlling drug use haven't worked very well. The next epidemic will be testing abuse."

Passyourtest.com coaches thousands of victims a month through the steps to fighting a false positive drug test and keeping your job. If you are a victim of a False Positive drug test order our False Postive Test Kit. Any Questions at all ? Call 1-866-588-4927

This contains-

A letter for your employer stating that facts about false positives, a request for a re-test and a spot to provide your testimony.
A Permentant Body Cleansing Kit to flush all toxin traces from your body
2 Day Supply (Herbal Cleansing Pills)
4oz Bottle (Herbal Cleansing Tonic)
Program Instructions
Manditory Diet Menu
Personal Customer Coach
100% Money Back Guarantee!
2 Self Test Kits to know for sure you will test negative
Free consultation with our staff

$89.00


Substances that cause False Positive Drug Test Results

THC - Substances or Conditions which can cause false positives
Dronabinol (Marinol)
Ibuprofen; (Advil, Nuprin, Motrin, Excedrin IB etc)
Ketoprofen (Orudis KT)
Kidney infection (Kidney disease, diabetes) Liver Disease
Naproxen (Aleve)
Promethazine (Phenergan, Promethegan)
Riboflavin (B2, Hempseed Oil)

Amphetamines - Substances or Conditions which can cause false positives
Ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, propylephedrine, phenylephrine, or desoxyephedrine
(Nyquil, Contact, Sudafed, Allerest, Tavist-D, Dimetapp, etc)
Phenegan-D, Robitussin Cold and Flu, Vicks Nyquil
Over-the-counter diet aids with phenylpropanolamine (Dexatrim, Accutrim)
Over-the-counter nasal sprays (Vicks inhaler, Afrin)
Asthma medications (Marax, Bronkaid tablets, Primatine Tablets)
Prescription medications (Amfepramone, Cathne, Etafediabe, Morazone,phendimetrazine, phenmetrazine, benzphetamine, fenfluramine, dexfenfluramine,dexdenfluramine,Redux, mephentermine, Mesocarb, methoxyphenamine, phentermine,amineptine, Pholedrine, hydroymethamphetamine, Dexedrine, amifepramone, clobenzorex,fenproyorex, mefenorex, fenelylline, Didrex, dextroamphetamine, methphenidate, Ritalin,pemoline, Cylert, selegiline, Deprenyl, Eldepryl, Famprofazone) Kidney infection, kidney disease, Liver disease, diabetes

Opiates - Substances or Conditions which can cause false positives
Poppy Seeds
Tylenol with codeine
Most prescription pain medications
Cough suppressants with Dextromethorphan (DXM)
Nyquil
Kidney infection, Kidney Disease
Diabetes, Liver Disease

Ecstacy - Substances or Conditions which can cause false positives
Ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, propylephedrine, phenylephrine, or desoxyephedrine
(Nyquil, Contact, Sudafed, Allerest, Tavist-D, Dimetapp, etc)
Phenegan-D, Robitussin Cold and Flu, Vicks Nyquil
Over-the-counter diet aids with phenylpropanolamine (Dexatrim, Accutrim)
Over-the-counter nasal sprays (Vicks inhaler, Afrin)
Asthma medications (Marax, Bronkaid tablets, Primatine Tablets)
Prescription medications (Amfepramone, Cathne, Etafediabe, Morazone,phendimetrazine, phenmetrazine, benzphetamine, fenfluramine, dexfenfluramine, dexdenfluramine,Redux, mephentermine, Mesocarb, methoxyphenamine, phentermine, amineptine, Pholedrine, hydroymethamphetamine, Dexedrine, amifepramone, clobenzorex, fenproyorex, mefenorex, fenelylline, Didrex, dextroamphetamine, methphenidate, Ritalin, pemoline, Cylert, selegiline, Deprenyl, Eldepryl, Famprofazone) Kidney infection, kidney disease
Liver disease, diabetes

Cocaine - Substances or Conditions which can cause false positives
Kidney infection (kidney disease)
Liver infection (liver disease)
Diabetes
Amoxicillin, tonic water

Alcohol field tests under fire

Taking the tests

By BRIGID SCHULTE
THE WASHINGTON POST

Stand up! Heels together. Toes out. Hands at your sides. Raise the leg of your choice in front of you, six inches off the ground, leg straight, toe pointed. Keep your eyes on your raised toe and begin counting aloud from 1,001 until I say stop.
One thousand one. One thousand two…

Some dark night on the side of the road, police lights flashing in your peripheral vision, your freedom may depend on how well you do this.

Did you sway? Raise your arms for balance? Hop, or put your foot down? If you did any two, an officer will conclude with 65 percent accuracy, as stipulated in the prevailing science of inebriation diagnostics, that you may be too drunk to drive.

Did you bend your leg? Stare straight ahead instead of at your foot? Begin too soon? Officers are taught that drunken people don't follow directions well.

This is the one-leg stand. It is one of the three scientifically researched standardized field sobriety tests, blessed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, that officers call "the holy grail" and give on the roadside to help them decide whether to make an arrest.

The NHTSA says officers using scores from all three tests will be 91 percent accurate in making an arrest.

The NHTSA says the most accurate of the three is the "jerking eyeball" test. An officer holds a penlight or small flashlight before you and asks you to track it visually from side to side. If you've drunk too much, your eyeballs will begin shaking about 45 degrees from center.

The two other tests, the one-leg stand and the walk and turn (nine steps forward and back on a straight line), are "divided attention" tests that require both mental concentration and physical coordination. The one-leg stand has its skeptics and its court challenges, but the test is "easily performed by most unimpaired people," the NHTSA says.

Before the one-leg stand, police officers were on their own.

Some threw coins on the ground and ordered that only nickels or quarters be picked up. They would have a driver lean back and touch one finger to his nose. Recite the alphabet without singing. Count backward from 100 by threes. Texas Rangers just chatted for a bit before making a judgment call.

Chuck Hayes, a state trooper for 30 years in Oregon, remembers fellow officers putting a flashlight on the ground and telling drivers to run around it five times.

"How are you going to tell if a person is impaired that way?" asked Hayes, now a field sobriety test trainer. "There was just some weird, weird stuff."

So, in 1975, the NHTSA re-quested proposals to develop a valid standardized test.

Marcelline Burns and her colleagues at the nonprofit Southern California Research Institute in Los Angeles got the job.

Her group recruited 238 subjects from the local unemployment office — anyone over 21 with a driver's license and who admitted to imbibing a few — and paid them $3 a day. Subjects came to the lab and were "dosed" with either a placebo of orange juice or a screwdriver (orange juice with vodka). They were then led to small rooms where 10 police officers waited. The officers gave six different sobriety tests, then decided whether they would make an arrest.

Burns' final report was published in 1977. She recommended the three tests in use today.

Burns did not test the drunken subjects when sober to see how well they could balance on one leg.

"The evidence that it's an easy task comes from the placebo people," she said. "They could do it fine."

Here's a bar chart from her study: Most of them were men, ages 22 to 29. One could argue the placebo people didn't look much like America.

So hundreds of thousands of drivers have been arrested — no doubt many deservedly so — on the basis of a 30-year-old study that, critics argue, has never been published in a scientific journal, never tested on a large scale with a control group and, perhaps more astonishing, has nothing to do with impairment. Burns admits upfront that the tests are designed only to gauge drunkenness, not whether you're a menace on the road.

Burns insists that the average person should be able to balance on one leg for 30 seconds. She can. She practices the one-leg stand every few weeks.

But consider how imbalanced we are. Forty percent of people in the United States will at some point in their lifetime experience a balance disorder, and dizziness and vertigo are the third leading cause of doctor visits, according to the National Institutes of Health.

Ever had encephalitis, meningitis, shingles, chickenpox, ear infections, cardiovascular problems, numbness or tingling in the extremities or migraines? You may be unable to balance.

Hayes, the trainer, said officers are taught to ask about injuries or medical problems. "A lot of the American public just has a tough time with balance, period," he said. "If an officer sees that, and if there weren't any clues on the other two tests, that's a no-brainer: This person is not impaired."

But how many other officers would make the same call?

Some forensic psychologists and a slew of DUI defense attorneys have been assiduously picking apart Burns' research on the standardized field sobriety tests for years. She is unmoved.

"These defense attorneys write all this stuff, but never once do they suggest an optional test. What do they want the officer to do? Toss a coin?" she asked.

Not at all, says Spurgeon Cole, a Georgia forensic scientist and consultant who has been her chief nemesis in court. Maybe videotapes in patrol cars, he argues, would help remove some of the subjectivity.

"How does age or gender affect performance? How does fatigue or practice affect performance?" he has written.

Cole administered the tests to 21 of his students at Clemson University in South Carolina — none of whom had had a drop of alcohol — and showed the videotape of their performance to a group of officers, who reported they'd arrest nearly half the students.

So what's a police officer to do? Scientists are developing roadside saliva tests to measure blood alcohol, but that's years away. A Texas A&M researcher has come up with a video game-like machine to test memory and physical dexterity and record mistakes, timing and accuracy. A computer then calculates your intoxication level.

But previous studies have found that about 20 percent of drivers actually improve with alcohol. "I guess it calms them down," Cole said.

That leaves us right back where we started, with the one-leg stand.

One thousand one. One thousand two. One thousand three…

Fighting DUIs without jail time

By Lauren Vane, Daily Pilot

Twenty court appearances, 48 group therapy sessions and 108 drug and alcohol tests during a 14-month period -- it wasn't easy, but for some people convicted of drunk driving, it was a better path than jail.

Fifteen people who elected a rehabilitation program instead of jail time graduated Friday from the first class of the Orange County Superior Court's DUI court.

The Orange County program at the Harbor Justice Center in Newport Beach is one of only two DUI courts in California. DUI court is designed for repeat offenders who want to address their drinking problem and seek treatment.

"I think it is a humane way to approach DUI cases," said DUI Court Judge Carl Biggs.

But the program isn't for everyone -- they have to want to be there.

"People can change their behavior, but they need some help doing it," Biggs said. "They have to want to accept treatment."

Each of the 15 graduates delivered a speech Friday, each one acknowledging a personal battle with alcoholism and a commitment to address the problem.

One man, whose wife and children were in the audience, reported 16 months of sobriety after years of drinking. He had tried previous rehabilitation programs, but none worked as well as the DUI court program.

Forty-thousand people die on California's roadways each year; between 16,000 and 17,000 of those deaths are the result of drunk driving, said Bill Kootsikis, regional manager for the Western division of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The average DUI offender has driven drunk between 200 and 300 times before getting caught for the first time, Kootsikis said.

Reidel Post, executive director of the Orange County chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, commended the graduates for making it through the program.

"I'd like to thank you for having the courage to stand up to your demons ... But it doesn't end when you leave here," Post said.