Sunday, December 30, 2007
San Diego DUI Drunk Driving arrests down over holidays
San Diego DUI Drunk Driving arrests down
The number of San Diego DUI Drunk Driving drivers arrested on suspicion of San Diego DUI Drunk Driving has decreased statewide and throughout San Diego County this year, according to a Saturday San Diego DUI Drunk Driving report by the California Highway Patrol.
Between 6 p.m. Friday and 6 a.m. Saturday, 18 county motorists were arrested on suspicion of G, down from 33 San Diego DUI Drunk Driving arrests during the same time last year, San Diego DUI Drunk Driving authorities said.
Statewide during the same 12 hours, 362 San Diego DUI Drunk Driving drivers were arrested on suspicion of San Diego DUI Drunk Driving / DWI, compared to 388 San Diego DUI Drunk Driving arrests during the same period last year, according to the San Diego DUI Drunk Driving report.
San Diego DUI Drunk Driving Highway Patrol officers said four fatalities were reported statewide, including one in San Diego County during the reporting period this year. Last year during the same period there were no fatalities in the county and eight fatalities statewide, according to the report.
In Escondido, police issued 15 San Diego DUI Drunk Driving citations and impounded four vehicles between 6 p.m. Friday and 12 a.m. Saturday, San Diego DUI Drunk Driving authorities said.
In Poway, two drivers were arrested on San Diego DUI Drunk Driving - suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, one was arrested for an outstanding warrant, four vehicles were towed and 26 citations were issued between 8 p.m. Friday and 2:30 a.m. Saturday.
Also, between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. Friday on westbound Scripps Poway Parkway, east of Pomerado Road, 75 citations were issued and three vehicles were impounded during a driver's license / San Diego DUI Drunk Driving checkpoint.
The number of San Diego DUI Drunk Driving drivers arrested on suspicion of San Diego DUI Drunk Driving has decreased statewide and throughout San Diego County this year, according to a Saturday San Diego DUI Drunk Driving report by the California Highway Patrol.
Between 6 p.m. Friday and 6 a.m. Saturday, 18 county motorists were arrested on suspicion of G, down from 33 San Diego DUI Drunk Driving arrests during the same time last year, San Diego DUI Drunk Driving authorities said.
Statewide during the same 12 hours, 362 San Diego DUI Drunk Driving drivers were arrested on suspicion of San Diego DUI Drunk Driving / DWI, compared to 388 San Diego DUI Drunk Driving arrests during the same period last year, according to the San Diego DUI Drunk Driving report.
San Diego DUI Drunk Driving Highway Patrol officers said four fatalities were reported statewide, including one in San Diego County during the reporting period this year. Last year during the same period there were no fatalities in the county and eight fatalities statewide, according to the report.
In Escondido, police issued 15 San Diego DUI Drunk Driving citations and impounded four vehicles between 6 p.m. Friday and 12 a.m. Saturday, San Diego DUI Drunk Driving authorities said.
In Poway, two drivers were arrested on San Diego DUI Drunk Driving - suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, one was arrested for an outstanding warrant, four vehicles were towed and 26 citations were issued between 8 p.m. Friday and 2:30 a.m. Saturday.
Also, between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. Friday on westbound Scripps Poway Parkway, east of Pomerado Road, 75 citations were issued and three vehicles were impounded during a driver's license / San Diego DUI Drunk Driving checkpoint.
A San Diego DUI can be prevented this New Year's!
San Diego California DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI attorney news on how to prevent getting a San Diego California DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI over New Year's
December 31, 2007
Welcoming the new year is a time-honored tradition around the world, replete with parties and innumerable toasts. It is also a time of increased San Diego California DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI police patrols, DUI checkpoints, automobile crashes and fatalities.
North County residents planning a New Year's night on the town will find plenty of transportation options but few programs designed to help unprepared San Diego California DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI intoxicated drivers.
If you plan on drinking and don't have a designated driver, finding alternative transportation is imperative, San Diego California DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI police say.
“The time to look for an alternative is before, not when you're already at the party having a couple of drinks,” Escondido police Lt. Robert Benton said. “DUI is always a priority around the holidays, and we step up our efforts. We will have officers whose full-time assignment will be to look for DUI drivers.”
So what is actually available?
New Year's Eve is one of the biggest business nights of the year for limousine services and taxi companies, the operators say. Cabs and limos may be plentiful, but demand will limit availability. That means longer waits, higher prices or both.
Many limousine companies in North County offer packages for New Year's Eve. Charlie Martin, owner of A VIP Limousines in Carlsbad, said getting one is tricky without an advance reservation.
By Christmas, 10 of the 12 limos in A VIP's fleet were reserved for New Year's Eve. The company's package deal of a limo that seats eight with driver and minibar from 6 p.m. to 1 a.m. costs $6,999.
Martin said most limo companies earn more than half of their January income on New Year's Eve, so few will offer deals charging less than the standard rate of $100 per hour.
“I generally sell out by the 29th or 30th,” Martin said. “You (have) got to have it reserved ahead of time. To get one on the day of New Year's Eve is like getting the winning lotto numbers.”
Taxi companies will be near full capacity, and the extra demand can add 50 percent to the waiting time and even double that at the peak time of midnight to 1 a.m., said Erich Humphrey, a dispatcher at Coastal Cab in Oceanside.
While all 10 of Coastal Cab's cars and drivers will be on the streets, Humphrey recommends that you call the taxi company 45 minutes before your intended departure. Providing the exact address and cell phone number will help the driver find you, he said.
“We'll flag (take passengers) off the street, but it's going to be tough to find an empty one,” Humphrey said. “Also, try to have as close to the exact change as possible. Don't use $50s or $100s.”
If a limo or taxi doesn't fit your budget, there are few alternatives. The North County Transit District will be offering free rides on New Year's Eve on its buses and the Coaster starting at 6 p.m., spokeswoman Sarah Benson said, but public transportation stops at 10 p.m.
“We've struggled with this,” Benson said. “If there was any big one event in North County, then we could organize it. But it's just people going to bars, restaurants and private parties.”
The Automobile Club of Southern California will offer its Tipsy Tow service starting at 6 p.m. today until midnight Wednesday. Both AAA members and nonmembers can call the club dispatch line at (800) 400-4222. The organization will send one of its contracted towing companies to tow your car home and drive you as well, spokeswoman Marie Montgomery said.
The service doesn't include any passengers, she said, but is free for the first seven miles, after which the driver must pay the tow company's rate.
“It is not meant to be the first resort,” Montgomery said. “But if you find yourself in a situation and you're stranded and you're thinking you don't want to leave your car, we will tow your car home and take you home.”
Pat Hodgkin, executive director for Mothers Against Drunk Driving in San Diego County, said she found no other free service available in North County. “We put the responsibility on the individual,” Hodgkin said. “It's up to the individual to have a designated driver or to find alternative transportation. If you can't afford alternative transportation, you shouldn't be drinking and driving. It's pretty simple. Even if you had one drink, even if you don't feel impaired, it's just not worth taking the chance.”
San Diego California DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI lawyers are a last resort.
December 31, 2007
Welcoming the new year is a time-honored tradition around the world, replete with parties and innumerable toasts. It is also a time of increased San Diego California DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI police patrols, DUI checkpoints, automobile crashes and fatalities.
North County residents planning a New Year's night on the town will find plenty of transportation options but few programs designed to help unprepared San Diego California DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI intoxicated drivers.
If you plan on drinking and don't have a designated driver, finding alternative transportation is imperative, San Diego California DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI police say.
“The time to look for an alternative is before, not when you're already at the party having a couple of drinks,” Escondido police Lt. Robert Benton said. “DUI is always a priority around the holidays, and we step up our efforts. We will have officers whose full-time assignment will be to look for DUI drivers.”
So what is actually available?
New Year's Eve is one of the biggest business nights of the year for limousine services and taxi companies, the operators say. Cabs and limos may be plentiful, but demand will limit availability. That means longer waits, higher prices or both.
Many limousine companies in North County offer packages for New Year's Eve. Charlie Martin, owner of A VIP Limousines in Carlsbad, said getting one is tricky without an advance reservation.
By Christmas, 10 of the 12 limos in A VIP's fleet were reserved for New Year's Eve. The company's package deal of a limo that seats eight with driver and minibar from 6 p.m. to 1 a.m. costs $6,999.
Martin said most limo companies earn more than half of their January income on New Year's Eve, so few will offer deals charging less than the standard rate of $100 per hour.
“I generally sell out by the 29th or 30th,” Martin said. “You (have) got to have it reserved ahead of time. To get one on the day of New Year's Eve is like getting the winning lotto numbers.”
Taxi companies will be near full capacity, and the extra demand can add 50 percent to the waiting time and even double that at the peak time of midnight to 1 a.m., said Erich Humphrey, a dispatcher at Coastal Cab in Oceanside.
While all 10 of Coastal Cab's cars and drivers will be on the streets, Humphrey recommends that you call the taxi company 45 minutes before your intended departure. Providing the exact address and cell phone number will help the driver find you, he said.
“We'll flag (take passengers) off the street, but it's going to be tough to find an empty one,” Humphrey said. “Also, try to have as close to the exact change as possible. Don't use $50s or $100s.”
If a limo or taxi doesn't fit your budget, there are few alternatives. The North County Transit District will be offering free rides on New Year's Eve on its buses and the Coaster starting at 6 p.m., spokeswoman Sarah Benson said, but public transportation stops at 10 p.m.
“We've struggled with this,” Benson said. “If there was any big one event in North County, then we could organize it. But it's just people going to bars, restaurants and private parties.”
The Automobile Club of Southern California will offer its Tipsy Tow service starting at 6 p.m. today until midnight Wednesday. Both AAA members and nonmembers can call the club dispatch line at (800) 400-4222. The organization will send one of its contracted towing companies to tow your car home and drive you as well, spokeswoman Marie Montgomery said.
The service doesn't include any passengers, she said, but is free for the first seven miles, after which the driver must pay the tow company's rate.
“It is not meant to be the first resort,” Montgomery said. “But if you find yourself in a situation and you're stranded and you're thinking you don't want to leave your car, we will tow your car home and take you home.”
Pat Hodgkin, executive director for Mothers Against Drunk Driving in San Diego County, said she found no other free service available in North County. “We put the responsibility on the individual,” Hodgkin said. “It's up to the individual to have a designated driver or to find alternative transportation. If you can't afford alternative transportation, you shouldn't be drinking and driving. It's pretty simple. Even if you had one drink, even if you don't feel impaired, it's just not worth taking the chance.”
San Diego California DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI lawyers are a last resort.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Canada's MADD going a little too far in DUI fight?
http://3edgesword.blogspot.com/2007/12/madd-should-change-its-name-to-bocb.html DUI blog news
MADD Canada is going off the deep end yet again: this time using the results of a survey to propose massive impositions on our fredoms:
The poll, commissioned by Transport Canada and Mothers Against Drunk Driving, found that there was virtual unanimity among those surveyed that impaired driving is the number one road safety concern, far ahead of running red lights, road rage and speeding.
The public opinion poll, to be released today, also found broad acceptance of get-tough measures. For example:
66 per cent think police should be able to conduct random breath tests;
83 per cent believe the vehicles of convicted impaired drivers should be fitted with ignition interlocks, devices that ensure a vehicle cannot be started without a breath test;
56 per cent of those polled said that all new cars should be equipped with ignition interlock devices;
89 per cent of respondents say repeat impaired drivers should have their vehicles confiscated;
89 per cent say the acceptable blood-alcohol level for underage drinkers should be zero.
Over half of Canadians are willing to have breathalyzers placed in their own vehicles? Over half??
The results of focus groups conducted across Canada found similarly hard-line views, including calls to lower the Criminal Code limit for blood-alcohol concentration to 0.05 (50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood) from the current level of 0.08.
Why? What is really so wrong about 4 Bloody Marys over two hours? Is it any worse than any other number of far more common driving dangers, such as being tired or distracted by kids?
Similarly, Mr. Murie noted that the technology exists to equip all cars with ignition interlock devices at a minimal cost, and that the poll showed strong support for such an approach. He said that, like seat belts and infant car seats, the devices will likely become standard in the years to come.
The MADD CEO said that the oft-cited concern that cracking down on impaired driving will violate civil liberties is unfounded.
1) How funny is it that an organization called "Mothers Against Drunk Driving" has a male CEO?
2) Exactly how is it unfounded there buddy boy? Random checks? Devices in our cars to check our alcohol content? Care to explain this one? Or do you want to just stand by your story with your fingers in your ears. [again, why not call the organization "Mothers against Impaired Driving?" Its acronym would be far more accurate. -ed]
Bonus "alcohol, elixir of life" story: BC plans to tax alcohol based on its liquor content:
Almost half of a group of male University of Victoria students who took a taste test of their favourite frothy friend couldn't tell the difference between low- and regular-strength beer, a study released yesterday shows.
The findings by the UVic-based Centre for Addictions Research B.C. will be used by researchers and health experts next week to appeal to the B.C. government to tie liquor prices to alcohol content.
The idea behind the sin-tax policy is that if low-alcohol beverages were cheaper and high-alcohol drinks more expensive -- thus resulting in a neutral impact on provincial coffers -- consumer tastes would change toward less potent beverages.
How often do we have to say this to get the message across: we do not drink beer because we like the taste of decaying barley in our mouths. We drink beer because it gets us drunk. Some beers do have delicious and easy-drinking tastes: Guinness and Sleeman Honey Brown come to mind. Alley Kat Brewery out of Edmonton has a really good citrus-ey drink called "Full Moon Ale" as well. Regardless, take the alcohol out, and keep the taste 100% identical, I wouldn't touch the stuff again in my life.
Although there was a preference for the taste of the 5.3 per cent beer, 45 per cent couldn't tell the difference between the two, and 66 per cent were as happy drinking the low-alcohol beer as the high-alcohol beer. About half reported no differences in their perceived intoxication.
of course they wouldn't notice an intoxication difference: they each had two beers stretched over two sessions!
MADD Canada is going off the deep end yet again: this time using the results of a survey to propose massive impositions on our fredoms:
The poll, commissioned by Transport Canada and Mothers Against Drunk Driving, found that there was virtual unanimity among those surveyed that impaired driving is the number one road safety concern, far ahead of running red lights, road rage and speeding.
The public opinion poll, to be released today, also found broad acceptance of get-tough measures. For example:
66 per cent think police should be able to conduct random breath tests;
83 per cent believe the vehicles of convicted impaired drivers should be fitted with ignition interlocks, devices that ensure a vehicle cannot be started without a breath test;
56 per cent of those polled said that all new cars should be equipped with ignition interlock devices;
89 per cent of respondents say repeat impaired drivers should have their vehicles confiscated;
89 per cent say the acceptable blood-alcohol level for underage drinkers should be zero.
Over half of Canadians are willing to have breathalyzers placed in their own vehicles? Over half??
The results of focus groups conducted across Canada found similarly hard-line views, including calls to lower the Criminal Code limit for blood-alcohol concentration to 0.05 (50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood) from the current level of 0.08.
Why? What is really so wrong about 4 Bloody Marys over two hours? Is it any worse than any other number of far more common driving dangers, such as being tired or distracted by kids?
Similarly, Mr. Murie noted that the technology exists to equip all cars with ignition interlock devices at a minimal cost, and that the poll showed strong support for such an approach. He said that, like seat belts and infant car seats, the devices will likely become standard in the years to come.
The MADD CEO said that the oft-cited concern that cracking down on impaired driving will violate civil liberties is unfounded.
1) How funny is it that an organization called "Mothers Against Drunk Driving" has a male CEO?
2) Exactly how is it unfounded there buddy boy? Random checks? Devices in our cars to check our alcohol content? Care to explain this one? Or do you want to just stand by your story with your fingers in your ears. [again, why not call the organization "Mothers against Impaired Driving?" Its acronym would be far more accurate. -ed]
Bonus "alcohol, elixir of life" story: BC plans to tax alcohol based on its liquor content:
Almost half of a group of male University of Victoria students who took a taste test of their favourite frothy friend couldn't tell the difference between low- and regular-strength beer, a study released yesterday shows.
The findings by the UVic-based Centre for Addictions Research B.C. will be used by researchers and health experts next week to appeal to the B.C. government to tie liquor prices to alcohol content.
The idea behind the sin-tax policy is that if low-alcohol beverages were cheaper and high-alcohol drinks more expensive -- thus resulting in a neutral impact on provincial coffers -- consumer tastes would change toward less potent beverages.
How often do we have to say this to get the message across: we do not drink beer because we like the taste of decaying barley in our mouths. We drink beer because it gets us drunk. Some beers do have delicious and easy-drinking tastes: Guinness and Sleeman Honey Brown come to mind. Alley Kat Brewery out of Edmonton has a really good citrus-ey drink called "Full Moon Ale" as well. Regardless, take the alcohol out, and keep the taste 100% identical, I wouldn't touch the stuff again in my life.
Although there was a preference for the taste of the 5.3 per cent beer, 45 per cent couldn't tell the difference between the two, and 66 per cent were as happy drinking the low-alcohol beer as the high-alcohol beer. About half reported no differences in their perceived intoxication.
of course they wouldn't notice an intoxication difference: they each had two beers stretched over two sessions!
NFL Star Warren Moon arrested for DUI
DUI celebrity news
Football legend Warren Moon was arrested on suspicion of DUI and driving with a suspended license early Friday morning.
A Medina police officer spotted Moon's vehicle on the Highway 520 Bridge at about 2:10 a.m. Friday and noticed it had expired tabs.
Moon had a valid Texas driver's license, but his driving privileges have been revoked in Washington.
Moon, 51, was arrested and taken to a Kirkland police station, where he was processed and released.
In August, Moon pleaded guilty to negligent driving, a charge stemming from a DUI arrest in April. In that case Moon had been pulled over for DUI, but he tested below the legal limit for alcohol. A judge ordered Moon to perform 40 hours of community service and pay a $350 fine.
Moon was a star quarterback for the Washington Huskies. He went on to play in the NFL for 17 seasons, mostly with the Houston Oilers, and also played for the Seahawks. He was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 2006.
Football legend Warren Moon was arrested on suspicion of DUI and driving with a suspended license early Friday morning.
A Medina police officer spotted Moon's vehicle on the Highway 520 Bridge at about 2:10 a.m. Friday and noticed it had expired tabs.
Moon had a valid Texas driver's license, but his driving privileges have been revoked in Washington.
Moon, 51, was arrested and taken to a Kirkland police station, where he was processed and released.
In August, Moon pleaded guilty to negligent driving, a charge stemming from a DUI arrest in April. In that case Moon had been pulled over for DUI, but he tested below the legal limit for alcohol. A judge ordered Moon to perform 40 hours of community service and pay a $350 fine.
Moon was a star quarterback for the Washington Huskies. He went on to play in the NFL for 17 seasons, mostly with the Houston Oilers, and also played for the Seahawks. He was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 2006.
San Diego California Drunk Driving DUI news
San Diego California Drunk Driving DUI checkpoints this weekend
More San Diego California Drunk Driving DUI police will be on the lookout for San Diego California Drunk Driving DUI drivers under the influence this weekend as authorities expect more San Diego California Drunk Driving DUI drunk drivers on the roads ahead of New Year's Eve.
The Sheriff's Department announced it will conduct a San Diego California Drunk Driving DUI checkpoint tonight from 8 p.m. to 2 a.m. in Santee.
In San Marcos, a San Diego California Drunk Driving DUI checkpoint will take place Saturday and Sunday from 7:30 p.m. to 1 a.m. somewhere in the city.
The Sheriff's Department also announced it will not release anyone from jail who is arrested in connection with San Diego California Drunk Driving DUI driving under the influence until the first court appearence, set for next week, or unless bail is posted.
Local San Diego California Drunk Driving DUI law enforcement agencies are preparing for one of the state's most aggressive San Diego California Drunk Driving DUI crackdowns of the year, with five agencies taking part in the Avoid the Five campaign as part of California's holiday San Diego California Drunk Driving DUI DWI crackdown. California's effort coincides with the national Drunk Driving. Over the Limit, Under Arrest campaign taking part across the country.
The California Office of Traffic Safety, which provided grant funding for the Avoid program's efforts including officer overtime for San Diego California Drunk Driving DUI sobriety checkpoints and saturation patrols, is also asking for the public's help in reporting suspected San Diego California Drunk Driving DUI drunk drivers by calling 911.
"Law enforcement can only do so much," said OTS Director Christopher J. Murphy. "Knowing that other motorists are going to report drunk drivers is a significant deterrent. All of our efforts are aimed at preventing a drunken driver from getting behind the wheel in the first place. One phone call really can save a life." The Tehama County Avoid the Five DUI Task Force will conduct a sobriety checkpoint in the Los Molinos area today and a saturation patrol in the northern part of the county on Monday, Dec. 31.
As of the end of Tuesday night, the North State Regional Avoid has arrested 198 drivers for DUI throughout all five counties: Butte, 60 ; Glenn, 29 arrests; Shasta, 85 arrests; Siskiyou, 12 arrests and Tehama, 12 arrests.
There were no reported DUI fatal collisions.
Law enforcement agencies report 2006 marks the eighth consecutive year in which alcohol-related fatalities have increased in California, with a 0.015 percent increase between 2005 and 2006.
"We want motorists to exercise common sense and good judgment when calling 911 to report a suspected drunken driver," said Corning Police Chief Tony Cardenas. "Under no circumstances should the public make an attempt to follow or stop the vehicle or interact with the driver. Please leave that to the trained professionals by calling 911."
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the following clues can help motorists detect a drunk driver:
Appearing to be impaired or drinking in the car.
Turning with a wide radius or straddling the center of the road or lane marker.
Almost striking another object or vehicle and weaving or zigzagging across the road.
Turning abruptly or illegally and driving slower than 10 mph below the speed limit.
Following others too closely, drifting or moving in a straight line at an angle and erratic braking.
Driving into opposing or crossing traffic or driving with headlights off.
In 2006, 1,597 people were killed and 31,099 were injured in alcohol-related crashes in California, compared to 1,574 fatalities and 30,810 injuries in 2005.
The Office of Traffic Safety, through the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency , awarded $4 million in grants to 98 local police departments to conduct sobriety checkpoints throughout the year, including the upcoming holiday period.
In addition, OTS has allocated $4.8 million to fund 38 DUI Avoid campaigns in 41 counties, counties, involving the California Highway Patrol and more than 400 police and sheriff's departments.
Information is available on DUI related activities and statistics from the North State Regional Avoid by contacting www.californiaavoid.org.
San Diego California Drunk Driving DUI attorneys are ready to assist ordinary people.
More San Diego California Drunk Driving DUI police will be on the lookout for San Diego California Drunk Driving DUI drivers under the influence this weekend as authorities expect more San Diego California Drunk Driving DUI drunk drivers on the roads ahead of New Year's Eve.
The Sheriff's Department announced it will conduct a San Diego California Drunk Driving DUI checkpoint tonight from 8 p.m. to 2 a.m. in Santee.
In San Marcos, a San Diego California Drunk Driving DUI checkpoint will take place Saturday and Sunday from 7:30 p.m. to 1 a.m. somewhere in the city.
The Sheriff's Department also announced it will not release anyone from jail who is arrested in connection with San Diego California Drunk Driving DUI driving under the influence until the first court appearence, set for next week, or unless bail is posted.
Local San Diego California Drunk Driving DUI law enforcement agencies are preparing for one of the state's most aggressive San Diego California Drunk Driving DUI crackdowns of the year, with five agencies taking part in the Avoid the Five campaign as part of California's holiday San Diego California Drunk Driving DUI DWI crackdown. California's effort coincides with the national Drunk Driving. Over the Limit, Under Arrest campaign taking part across the country.
The California Office of Traffic Safety, which provided grant funding for the Avoid program's efforts including officer overtime for San Diego California Drunk Driving DUI sobriety checkpoints and saturation patrols, is also asking for the public's help in reporting suspected San Diego California Drunk Driving DUI drunk drivers by calling 911.
"Law enforcement can only do so much," said OTS Director Christopher J. Murphy. "Knowing that other motorists are going to report drunk drivers is a significant deterrent. All of our efforts are aimed at preventing a drunken driver from getting behind the wheel in the first place. One phone call really can save a life." The Tehama County Avoid the Five DUI Task Force will conduct a sobriety checkpoint in the Los Molinos area today and a saturation patrol in the northern part of the county on Monday, Dec. 31.
As of the end of Tuesday night, the North State Regional Avoid has arrested 198 drivers for DUI throughout all five counties: Butte, 60 ; Glenn, 29 arrests; Shasta, 85 arrests; Siskiyou, 12 arrests and Tehama, 12 arrests.
There were no reported DUI fatal collisions.
Law enforcement agencies report 2006 marks the eighth consecutive year in which alcohol-related fatalities have increased in California, with a 0.015 percent increase between 2005 and 2006.
"We want motorists to exercise common sense and good judgment when calling 911 to report a suspected drunken driver," said Corning Police Chief Tony Cardenas. "Under no circumstances should the public make an attempt to follow or stop the vehicle or interact with the driver. Please leave that to the trained professionals by calling 911."
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the following clues can help motorists detect a drunk driver:
Appearing to be impaired or drinking in the car.
Turning with a wide radius or straddling the center of the road or lane marker.
Almost striking another object or vehicle and weaving or zigzagging across the road.
Turning abruptly or illegally and driving slower than 10 mph below the speed limit.
Following others too closely, drifting or moving in a straight line at an angle and erratic braking.
Driving into opposing or crossing traffic or driving with headlights off.
In 2006, 1,597 people were killed and 31,099 were injured in alcohol-related crashes in California, compared to 1,574 fatalities and 30,810 injuries in 2005.
The Office of Traffic Safety, through the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency , awarded $4 million in grants to 98 local police departments to conduct sobriety checkpoints throughout the year, including the upcoming holiday period.
In addition, OTS has allocated $4.8 million to fund 38 DUI Avoid campaigns in 41 counties, counties, involving the California Highway Patrol and more than 400 police and sheriff's departments.
Information is available on DUI related activities and statistics from the North State Regional Avoid by contacting www.californiaavoid.org.
San Diego California Drunk Driving DUI attorneys are ready to assist ordinary people.
1 million dollar Bail for Booze & Cocaine DUI Death
San Diego DUI lawyer news
Bail was set Friday at $950,000 for a Chicago man accused of driving drunk and with cocaine in his system after a crash in Park Ridge on Christmas that killed a passenger in another car.
Cook County prosecutors said Branko Curcic, 28, of the 5200 block of North Reserve Avenue had a blood-alcohol level of 0.271 and tested positive for cocaine after the car he was driving struck the rear of a Mitsubishi Lancer that was stopped at Devon Avenue and Canfield Road shortly after midnight Tuesday. The legal limit for blood-alcohol level in Illinois is 0.08.
Curcic has been charged with four counts of aggravated DUI driving under the influence and failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident. A passenger in the Lancer, Justin Prendergast, 20, of the 5400 block of West Sunnyside Avenue, Chicago, died unfortunately.
Bail was set Friday at $950,000 for a Chicago man accused of driving drunk and with cocaine in his system after a crash in Park Ridge on Christmas that killed a passenger in another car.
Cook County prosecutors said Branko Curcic, 28, of the 5200 block of North Reserve Avenue had a blood-alcohol level of 0.271 and tested positive for cocaine after the car he was driving struck the rear of a Mitsubishi Lancer that was stopped at Devon Avenue and Canfield Road shortly after midnight Tuesday. The legal limit for blood-alcohol level in Illinois is 0.08.
Curcic has been charged with four counts of aggravated DUI driving under the influence and failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident. A passenger in the Lancer, Justin Prendergast, 20, of the 5400 block of West Sunnyside Avenue, Chicago, died unfortunately.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Former San Diego Padres Player faces DUI - homicide
san diego criminal defense lawyer news
Former major league catcher Jim Leyritz was jailed in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., Friday on DUI and vehicular homicide charges.
The South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported Leyritz, who turned 44 Thursday, was arrested early Friday morning. Fort Lauderdale police spokeswoman Kathy Collins said a 30-year-old woman died in nearby Plantation after she was ejected from her car during a drunk driving collision with the vehicle driven by Leyritz.
Collins said Leyritz was charged with manslaughter and DUI property damage. Other reports said he refused a Breathalyzer test.
The woman was pronounced dead from undisclosed injuries at Broward General Medical Center.
Leyritz, once called "''The King,'' played catcher and first base during a 10-year career with the New York Yankees, Anaheim Angels, Texas Rangers, Boston Red Sox, San Diego Padres and Los Angeles Dodgers.
His biggest moment came in the 1996 World Series when his three-run homer against the Atlanta Braves fueled a 4-2 series victory for the Yankees.
Leyritz posted an undisclosed DUI bail Friday .
Former major league catcher Jim Leyritz was jailed in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., Friday on DUI and vehicular homicide charges.
The South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported Leyritz, who turned 44 Thursday, was arrested early Friday morning. Fort Lauderdale police spokeswoman Kathy Collins said a 30-year-old woman died in nearby Plantation after she was ejected from her car during a drunk driving collision with the vehicle driven by Leyritz.
Collins said Leyritz was charged with manslaughter and DUI property damage. Other reports said he refused a Breathalyzer test.
The woman was pronounced dead from undisclosed injuries at Broward General Medical Center.
Leyritz, once called "''The King,'' played catcher and first base during a 10-year career with the New York Yankees, Anaheim Angels, Texas Rangers, Boston Red Sox, San Diego Padres and Los Angeles Dodgers.
His biggest moment came in the 1996 World Series when his three-run homer against the Atlanta Braves fueled a 4-2 series victory for the Yankees.
Leyritz posted an undisclosed DUI bail Friday .
DUI Patrol successful in Northern California
Authorities stop scores of drivers in Lamorinda DUI sweep
DUI patrol successful in Northern California
12/28/2007
A California DUI patrol in Lamorinda netted 10 California DUI arrests Thursday night, California DUI police said. Eight drivers were arrested for California DUI driving under the influence; two more were arrested for outstanding California DUI Drunk Driving warrants.
Between 7 p.m. and 2 a.m., 25 California DUI officers from eight East Bay agencies stopped 126 vehicles in Lafayette, Moraga and Orinda, said Lafayette Police Chief Michael Hubbard. They issued 15 citations and performed California DUI field sobriety tests on 34 drivers.
The effort was part of the Avoid the 25 anti-DUI campaign, named for Contra Costa County's 25 California DUI police agencies.
Officers chose to do a saturated California DUI patrol rather than a California DUI checkpoint because of the rain, which makes it more dangerous for California DUI officers to man a California DUI checkpoint, Hubbard said.
"We were thrilled about the results," Hubbard said. "We took some very potentially dangerous drivers off the road. The sad part of those statistics is we still have people drinking and driving."
DUI patrol successful in Northern California
12/28/2007
A California DUI patrol in Lamorinda netted 10 California DUI arrests Thursday night, California DUI police said. Eight drivers were arrested for California DUI driving under the influence; two more were arrested for outstanding California DUI Drunk Driving warrants.
Between 7 p.m. and 2 a.m., 25 California DUI officers from eight East Bay agencies stopped 126 vehicles in Lafayette, Moraga and Orinda, said Lafayette Police Chief Michael Hubbard. They issued 15 citations and performed California DUI field sobriety tests on 34 drivers.
The effort was part of the Avoid the 25 anti-DUI campaign, named for Contra Costa County's 25 California DUI police agencies.
Officers chose to do a saturated California DUI patrol rather than a California DUI checkpoint because of the rain, which makes it more dangerous for California DUI officers to man a California DUI checkpoint, Hubbard said.
"We were thrilled about the results," Hubbard said. "We took some very potentially dangerous drivers off the road. The sad part of those statistics is we still have people drinking and driving."
Checkpoint info (Montebello, California) for DUI enforcement
San Diego dui attorney news
The Montebello Police Department will be conducting a DUI sobriety and driver's license checkpoint this week to kick off its winter DUI enforcement program.
It's also part of the national campaign, "Drunk Driving, Over the Limit. Under Arrest."
Beginning at 6 p.m. tonight, officers will pull over drivers at an undisclosed location, checking for those driving under the influence as well as those without a valid driver's license, said Cpl. R. Yap of the Montebello police Traffic Bureau.
"The department is dedicated to keeping our roadways safe through enforcement and education," he said.
The MPD - in cooperation with the California Office of Traffic Safety, the California Highway Patrol, the Department of Motor Vehicles, the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and the California Department of Transportation - is promoting the use of the 9-1-1 emergency phone number system to report drunk drivers.
A total of six DUI checkpoints be held into 2008 using a $41,837 grant from the Office of Traffic Safety.
The department gets funding from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
The grant is to assist local law enforcement agencies with reducing impaired driving and the number of people killed and injured in alcohol- and drug-related traffic collisions.
The Montebello Police Department will be conducting a DUI sobriety and driver's license checkpoint this week to kick off its winter DUI enforcement program.
It's also part of the national campaign, "Drunk Driving, Over the Limit. Under Arrest."
Beginning at 6 p.m. tonight, officers will pull over drivers at an undisclosed location, checking for those driving under the influence as well as those without a valid driver's license, said Cpl. R. Yap of the Montebello police Traffic Bureau.
"The department is dedicated to keeping our roadways safe through enforcement and education," he said.
The MPD - in cooperation with the California Office of Traffic Safety, the California Highway Patrol, the Department of Motor Vehicles, the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and the California Department of Transportation - is promoting the use of the 9-1-1 emergency phone number system to report drunk drivers.
A total of six DUI checkpoints be held into 2008 using a $41,837 grant from the Office of Traffic Safety.
The department gets funding from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
The grant is to assist local law enforcement agencies with reducing impaired driving and the number of people killed and injured in alcohol- and drug-related traffic collisions.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Illinois Counties pay $100 Reward if Tip results in DUI arrest
San Diego DUI lawyers are appalled:
The Kane County state's attorney says citizens who report drunken drivers to the police can receive a $100 reward if the tip results in a DUI arrest.
The office says the Drunkbusters program starts New Years Eve.
The office started the program along with the Schaumburg-based Alliance Against Intoxicated Motorists and Kane County police agencies.
To receive the $100, witnesses should call 911 with a description of the vehicle, the erratic driving, the location, license plate number and direction of travel.
Drunkbusters also is used in DuPage, Lake, Will and McHenry counties.
The Kane County state's attorney says citizens who report drunken drivers to the police can receive a $100 reward if the tip results in a DUI arrest.
The office says the Drunkbusters program starts New Years Eve.
The office started the program along with the Schaumburg-based Alliance Against Intoxicated Motorists and Kane County police agencies.
To receive the $100, witnesses should call 911 with a description of the vehicle, the erratic driving, the location, license plate number and direction of travel.
Drunkbusters also is used in DuPage, Lake, Will and McHenry counties.
DUI New Year's Warning by San Diego California Highway Patrol
San Diego DUI criminal defense lawyer warning
SAN DIEGO DUI
A DUI warning from San Diego's California Highway Patrol Thursday to San Diego DUI / Drunk Driving motorists who are naughty instead of nice this New Year's holiday: CHP officers are prepared to hand out San Diego DUI tickets and put San Diego DUI scofflaws behind bars.
"We really don't like being the Grinch, but if that's what it takes to save lives on the roadway, we're prepared to play that role," said CHP Capt. Cary McGagin, commander of the agency's San Diego office.
"We expect a lot of traffic this holiday season, so allow yourself plenty of time to get where you are going, be patient and courteous to other motorists, and be aware of changing weather conditions," said McGagin.
McGagin urged motorists not to speed or drink and drive, and said people can report suspected San Diego DUI drunk drivers by calling 911.
He also reminded motorists to wear their seat belts and make sure their children are properly secured in child safety seats.
About 80 percent of CHP San Diego DUI officers will be out patrolling local roadways during the New Year's Maximum San Diego DUI Enforcement Period, which runs from 6 p.m. Friday to 11:59 p.m. Tuesday.
SAN DIEGO DUI
A DUI warning from San Diego's California Highway Patrol Thursday to San Diego DUI / Drunk Driving motorists who are naughty instead of nice this New Year's holiday: CHP officers are prepared to hand out San Diego DUI tickets and put San Diego DUI scofflaws behind bars.
"We really don't like being the Grinch, but if that's what it takes to save lives on the roadway, we're prepared to play that role," said CHP Capt. Cary McGagin, commander of the agency's San Diego office.
"We expect a lot of traffic this holiday season, so allow yourself plenty of time to get where you are going, be patient and courteous to other motorists, and be aware of changing weather conditions," said McGagin.
McGagin urged motorists not to speed or drink and drive, and said people can report suspected San Diego DUI drunk drivers by calling 911.
He also reminded motorists to wear their seat belts and make sure their children are properly secured in child safety seats.
About 80 percent of CHP San Diego DUI officers will be out patrolling local roadways during the New Year's Maximum San Diego DUI Enforcement Period, which runs from 6 p.m. Friday to 11:59 p.m. Tuesday.
.55 Blood Alcohol Level!
San diego dui attorney news
Woman In Drive .55 Bust
Oregon DUI arrestee sets female blood alcohol content record
DECEMBER 27
Meet Meagan Harper. The Oregon woman recorded a whopping .55 blood alcohol level content reading after DUI / DWI police found her passed out last month in a car parked outside a pizza joint. The 30-year-old Harper, who has several prior dui / drunk driving convictions, yesterday appeared in a Clackamas County court, where a judge set her bail at $50,000.
At the time of her DUI arrest, Harper was taken to an Oregon hospital, where her BAC was measured at nearly seven times the state's .08 drunk driving limit. Considering her clear eyes and alert appearance, it seems that the below mug shot of the 5' 11", 130-pound Harper was taken after she sobered up.
Harper's .55 ranks her third on the list of arrestees with towering BAC contents (as covered by TSG). She trails only Indiana's Willard Ashley III, who blew a remarkable .69 in October 2003 and the record is a .72 reported in Riga , Latvia in 2003.
At least she wasn't driving at the time, comments a San Diego DUI lawyer.
Woman In Drive .55 Bust
Oregon DUI arrestee sets female blood alcohol content record
DECEMBER 27
Meet Meagan Harper. The Oregon woman recorded a whopping .55 blood alcohol level content reading after DUI / DWI police found her passed out last month in a car parked outside a pizza joint. The 30-year-old Harper, who has several prior dui / drunk driving convictions, yesterday appeared in a Clackamas County court, where a judge set her bail at $50,000.
At the time of her DUI arrest, Harper was taken to an Oregon hospital, where her BAC was measured at nearly seven times the state's .08 drunk driving limit. Considering her clear eyes and alert appearance, it seems that the below mug shot of the 5' 11", 130-pound Harper was taken after she sobered up.
Harper's .55 ranks her third on the list of arrestees with towering BAC contents (as covered by TSG). She trails only Indiana's Willard Ashley III, who blew a remarkable .69 in October 2003 and the record is a .72 reported in Riga , Latvia in 2003.
At least she wasn't driving at the time, comments a San Diego DUI lawyer.
$ to fight California DUI activity
San Diego DUI lawyers news
The California DUI special grant is to assist in efforts to deal with increased impaired driving problems and reduce the number of persons killed and injured in alcohol and drug related traffic collisions. Last year 1597 people were killed and over 31,000 injured in California in drug and California DUI alcohol related crashes.
The California DUI grant activities will specifically target California DUI / DWI / Drunk Driving offenders and drivers with suspended or revoked licenses. This will be done through the use of California DUI checkpoints set up to screen for drivers who may be impaired or operating without a valid driver’s license.
California DUI Checkpoints have been shown to significantly reduce DUI fatalities when utilized aggressively and consistently. The most positive aspects of California DUI Drunk Driving checkpoints are their ability to increase public awareness, to prevent impaired driving in the first place, and to encourage designating a sober driver.
The California DUI special grant is to assist in efforts to deal with increased impaired driving problems and reduce the number of persons killed and injured in alcohol and drug related traffic collisions. Last year 1597 people were killed and over 31,000 injured in California in drug and California DUI alcohol related crashes.
The California DUI grant activities will specifically target California DUI / DWI / Drunk Driving offenders and drivers with suspended or revoked licenses. This will be done through the use of California DUI checkpoints set up to screen for drivers who may be impaired or operating without a valid driver’s license.
California DUI Checkpoints have been shown to significantly reduce DUI fatalities when utilized aggressively and consistently. The most positive aspects of California DUI Drunk Driving checkpoints are their ability to increase public awareness, to prevent impaired driving in the first place, and to encourage designating a sober driver.
San Leandro police will have a California DUI checkpoint
San Leandro police will have a California DUI checkpoint set up in the 14800 block of East 14th Street on Friday, ...
... Dec. 28, from 9 p.m. to 3 a.m. They will be checking for drunk and unlicenced drivers in accordance with the “Avoid the 21” drunk driving campaign. This is the first California DUI checkpoint set up in San Leandro in five years.
For the last few years, California DUI police relied on California DUI saturation patrols to find drunk drivers, in which police patrolled the streets with the sole intent of finding drunk drivers, said San Leandro Police Sgt. Randy Hudson.
“Saturation patrols are very effective,” said Husdon. “We are able to designate officers strictly for DUI enforcement, so they are not hindered by other duties.”
But this year, San Leandro police received a federal grant of $20,455.56 from the Office of Traffic Safety, allowing them to set up the California DUI checkpoint and continue saturation patrols.
“There’s benefits in both, but we’re only able to do the checkpoint because of the grant,” said Hudson.
San Leandro police helped run a California DUI CHP checkpoint on Mission Boulevard two weeks ago, and helped the Hayward police run a California DUI checkpoint last week on Foothill Boulevard.
By federal case law, police have to put up signs on the road leading to the checkpoint, giving people plenty of warning to avoid it. These laws were placed by the Supreme Court to make sure the checkpoints are run correctly. But according to police, the checkpoints still work.
“If a driver is intoxicated, their judgment is impaired anyway,” said Hudson. “Even with the CHP and Hayward checkpoints, drunk drivers came right to us.”
The Alameda County Sheriff ’s Office, the driving force behind “Avoid the 21,” gave San Leandro police $3,000 of federal grant money to fund overtime work for police working the saturation patrols.
The federal grant given by the Office of Traffic Safety will fund all the California DUI police necessary to run a California DUI checkpoint, including jailers, community compliance officers to fill out proper car-tow forms, administrative assistants to check driver’s licenses, and blood technicians for drunk drivers wanting blood tests.
Representatives from MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, will be at the California DUI checkpoint passing out flyers.
“Hopefully the checkpoint will be productive,” said Hudson. “The bottom line of preventing drunk driving accidents is public awareness.”
Last year, 1,023 people in Alameda County were injured in accidents involving a California DUI drunk driver, and 41 were killed.
San Leandro police will post another California DUI checkpoint next Labor Day.
... Dec. 28, from 9 p.m. to 3 a.m. They will be checking for drunk and unlicenced drivers in accordance with the “Avoid the 21” drunk driving campaign. This is the first California DUI checkpoint set up in San Leandro in five years.
For the last few years, California DUI police relied on California DUI saturation patrols to find drunk drivers, in which police patrolled the streets with the sole intent of finding drunk drivers, said San Leandro Police Sgt. Randy Hudson.
“Saturation patrols are very effective,” said Husdon. “We are able to designate officers strictly for DUI enforcement, so they are not hindered by other duties.”
But this year, San Leandro police received a federal grant of $20,455.56 from the Office of Traffic Safety, allowing them to set up the California DUI checkpoint and continue saturation patrols.
“There’s benefits in both, but we’re only able to do the checkpoint because of the grant,” said Hudson.
San Leandro police helped run a California DUI CHP checkpoint on Mission Boulevard two weeks ago, and helped the Hayward police run a California DUI checkpoint last week on Foothill Boulevard.
By federal case law, police have to put up signs on the road leading to the checkpoint, giving people plenty of warning to avoid it. These laws were placed by the Supreme Court to make sure the checkpoints are run correctly. But according to police, the checkpoints still work.
“If a driver is intoxicated, their judgment is impaired anyway,” said Hudson. “Even with the CHP and Hayward checkpoints, drunk drivers came right to us.”
The Alameda County Sheriff ’s Office, the driving force behind “Avoid the 21,” gave San Leandro police $3,000 of federal grant money to fund overtime work for police working the saturation patrols.
The federal grant given by the Office of Traffic Safety will fund all the California DUI police necessary to run a California DUI checkpoint, including jailers, community compliance officers to fill out proper car-tow forms, administrative assistants to check driver’s licenses, and blood technicians for drunk drivers wanting blood tests.
Representatives from MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, will be at the California DUI checkpoint passing out flyers.
“Hopefully the checkpoint will be productive,” said Hudson. “The bottom line of preventing drunk driving accidents is public awareness.”
Last year, 1,023 people in Alameda County were injured in accidents involving a California DUI drunk driver, and 41 were killed.
San Leandro police will post another California DUI checkpoint next Labor Day.
California DUI holiday information
The California Highway Patrol reported that California drunk driving arrests are up statewide from this time last year.
So far, more than 1,500 California drunk driving drivers have been arrested on charges of drinking and driving.
Santa Cruz County drunken-driving arrests, however, are down by 38 percent from last year -- with 50 DUI arrests since the Avoid the Nine Campaign began last week.
The stepped-up California drunk driving patrols began about a week ago and will continue through New Year's Eve.
California drunk driving Patrols will stake out around the county after the bars close and will put an emphasis on the 41st Avenue corridor. Billboards have also been erected calling for other drivers to call 911 and report California drunk driving or drunken drivers.
The Capitola Police Department will also set up another California drunk driving DUI checkpoint, on Dec. 30 at 41st Avenue and Capitola Road.
So far, there haven't been any alcohol-related fatalities on Santa Cruz County roadways, but there have been three accidents where alcohol was involved, said CHP.
Highway officials said there are options if drivers have one too many: AAA's Tipsy Tow program runs on New Year's Eve from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. and gives free tows to drivers who live within a 5-mile radius.
So far, more than 1,500 California drunk driving drivers have been arrested on charges of drinking and driving.
Santa Cruz County drunken-driving arrests, however, are down by 38 percent from last year -- with 50 DUI arrests since the Avoid the Nine Campaign began last week.
The stepped-up California drunk driving patrols began about a week ago and will continue through New Year's Eve.
California drunk driving Patrols will stake out around the county after the bars close and will put an emphasis on the 41st Avenue corridor. Billboards have also been erected calling for other drivers to call 911 and report California drunk driving or drunken drivers.
The Capitola Police Department will also set up another California drunk driving DUI checkpoint, on Dec. 30 at 41st Avenue and Capitola Road.
So far, there haven't been any alcohol-related fatalities on Santa Cruz County roadways, but there have been three accidents where alcohol was involved, said CHP.
Highway officials said there are options if drivers have one too many: AAA's Tipsy Tow program runs on New Year's Eve from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. and gives free tows to drivers who live within a 5-mile radius.
Coachella Valley Taxi Owners Association to help stop DUI problems
san diego dui attorney news
It is the holiday season, which means it's time to celebrate, but authorities warn that having a cocktail and getting behind the wheel is no way to ring in the new year.
Federal traffic safety data shows that the daily death toll from drunk driving crashes during Christmas and New Year's is significantly higher than during the rest of the year, according to U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters.
"Arrests have been numerous already this weekend," said Robert McLoud, a spokesman for the Riverside County Sheriff's Department.
Earlier this week, the Desert Sun reported that Cathedral City ranks second among California cities its size with the worst rates of alcohol-involved traffic fatalities and injuries.
Fifty-seven people were injured and two were killed in 2006, a California Highway Patrol report shows.
Fines and punishments for those caught driving under the influence this holiday season are high, however the data from local DUI checkpoints will not be released until after the holidays, according to McLoud.
Initially a DUI arrest, without causing injury, results in a misdemeanor, according to police.
Drivers charged with the DUI are transported to jail, where they stay for four to five hours, and then are released on their own recognizance, according to McLoud.
The court fines for this type of crime often exceed nearly $2,000, which does not take into account the increase in car insurance, police said.
Traffic collisions while under the influence that cause injury result in a more severe punishment.
The driver is charged with a felony, and remains in jail until he or she can post bail or is arraigned, according to police.
"A felony will affect you throughout your life, and if you take someone's life while under the influence you could be charged with murder. It's a lot safer to get a ride or a taxi that chance it if you have been drinking at all," McLoud said.
Make it home safe this holiday season.
Beginning today, The Coachella Valley Taxi Owners Association will once again implement the "Safe Ride Home" program.
In the past two years the program has provided nearly 700 taxi rides to individuals who thought it was safer to take a taxi than drive drive home, officials said.
The program begins at noon today and runs through 2 a.m. Wednesday and will start up again at noon on Dec. 31 and run up until 11:59 p.m. on New Year's Day.
Taxi companies participating include:
A Valley Cabousine: 340-5845.
Airport Taxi: 862-9000.
American Cab: 416-7447.
Big Horn Taxi: 321-4599.
Classic Cab: 322-3111.
Mirage Taxi: 322-2008.
United Taxi: 327-4222.
USA Taxi: 416-1200.
VIP Taxi Express: 322-2264.
It is the holiday season, which means it's time to celebrate, but authorities warn that having a cocktail and getting behind the wheel is no way to ring in the new year.
Federal traffic safety data shows that the daily death toll from drunk driving crashes during Christmas and New Year's is significantly higher than during the rest of the year, according to U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters.
"Arrests have been numerous already this weekend," said Robert McLoud, a spokesman for the Riverside County Sheriff's Department.
Earlier this week, the Desert Sun reported that Cathedral City ranks second among California cities its size with the worst rates of alcohol-involved traffic fatalities and injuries.
Fifty-seven people were injured and two were killed in 2006, a California Highway Patrol report shows.
Fines and punishments for those caught driving under the influence this holiday season are high, however the data from local DUI checkpoints will not be released until after the holidays, according to McLoud.
Initially a DUI arrest, without causing injury, results in a misdemeanor, according to police.
Drivers charged with the DUI are transported to jail, where they stay for four to five hours, and then are released on their own recognizance, according to McLoud.
The court fines for this type of crime often exceed nearly $2,000, which does not take into account the increase in car insurance, police said.
Traffic collisions while under the influence that cause injury result in a more severe punishment.
The driver is charged with a felony, and remains in jail until he or she can post bail or is arraigned, according to police.
"A felony will affect you throughout your life, and if you take someone's life while under the influence you could be charged with murder. It's a lot safer to get a ride or a taxi that chance it if you have been drinking at all," McLoud said.
Make it home safe this holiday season.
Beginning today, The Coachella Valley Taxi Owners Association will once again implement the "Safe Ride Home" program.
In the past two years the program has provided nearly 700 taxi rides to individuals who thought it was safer to take a taxi than drive drive home, officials said.
The program begins at noon today and runs through 2 a.m. Wednesday and will start up again at noon on Dec. 31 and run up until 11:59 p.m. on New Year's Day.
Taxi companies participating include:
A Valley Cabousine: 340-5845.
Airport Taxi: 862-9000.
American Cab: 416-7447.
Big Horn Taxi: 321-4599.
Classic Cab: 322-3111.
Mirage Taxi: 322-2008.
United Taxi: 327-4222.
USA Taxi: 416-1200.
VIP Taxi Express: 322-2264.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Xbox goes anti - Drunk Driving / DWI
San Diego DUI lawyer
Scotland's Transportation Ministry is planning to spend £10,000 to subtly insert ads into Xbox 360 titles warning players away from driving while drunk.
This new advertising tactic comes in the wake of claims made recently by Transportation Minister Stewart Stevenson saying, "statistics showing that road deaths, particularly among young people, are continuing to rise."
Targeted games include Need for Speed: Carbon, Project Gotham Racing 4 and Pro Evolution Soccer 2008 and according to the Ministry, the ads would be non-intrusive and would only be visible to Scotland's online players.
While we're always in support of people not dying, oddly Stevenson's words contradict data gathered by his own administration.
This government-published statistics sheet (published in November of this year) shows that road deaths in Scotland fell by 12% last year, and that the number of people killed on Scottish roads in 2006 was the fifth lowest amount in the last half-century.
Then again, it takes an unhealthy amount of paranoia to try to find shadowy conspiracies in government efforts to prevent people from killing others or themselves. Until Stevenson is unmasked as a Freemason or member of The Illuminati, we're going to applaud his efforts to prevent drunk driving.
Scotland's Transportation Ministry is planning to spend £10,000 to subtly insert ads into Xbox 360 titles warning players away from driving while drunk.
This new advertising tactic comes in the wake of claims made recently by Transportation Minister Stewart Stevenson saying, "statistics showing that road deaths, particularly among young people, are continuing to rise."
Targeted games include Need for Speed: Carbon, Project Gotham Racing 4 and Pro Evolution Soccer 2008 and according to the Ministry, the ads would be non-intrusive and would only be visible to Scotland's online players.
While we're always in support of people not dying, oddly Stevenson's words contradict data gathered by his own administration.
This government-published statistics sheet (published in November of this year) shows that road deaths in Scotland fell by 12% last year, and that the number of people killed on Scottish roads in 2006 was the fifth lowest amount in the last half-century.
Then again, it takes an unhealthy amount of paranoia to try to find shadowy conspiracies in government efforts to prevent people from killing others or themselves. Until Stevenson is unmasked as a Freemason or member of The Illuminati, we're going to applaud his efforts to prevent drunk driving.
DUI news out of California (Petaluma)
San Diego California drunk driving / dwi / dui news
Petaluma California police average 30 to 40 California DUI arrests per month. This year they have arrested more people for DUI / DWI / drunk driving / driving under the influence than in any other year in the history of the police department, according to Sgt. Tim Lyons.
Since Jan. 1, police have made 570 California DUI arrests, up from 455 in the previous year and the third highest in the state for cities with populations between 50,000 and 100,000.
Holiday California DUI saturation patrols have made 23 California drunk driving/ DUI arrests since Thursday night, and 61 this month. Lots of California DUI defense attorneys may be needed at this rate.
Petaluma California police average 30 to 40 California DUI arrests per month. This year they have arrested more people for DUI / DWI / drunk driving / driving under the influence than in any other year in the history of the police department, according to Sgt. Tim Lyons.
Since Jan. 1, police have made 570 California DUI arrests, up from 455 in the previous year and the third highest in the state for cities with populations between 50,000 and 100,000.
Holiday California DUI saturation patrols have made 23 California drunk driving/ DUI arrests since Thursday night, and 61 this month. Lots of California DUI defense attorneys may be needed at this rate.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
NHL star in jail for California DUI
December 25, 2007
California DUI attorney news
San Jose Sharks forward Ryane Clowe was arrested early Monday morning on suspicion of a California DUI or California drunk driving. Clowe, who has been out of the Sharks' lineup for two months after undergoing knee surgery, was stopped by police in suburban Los Gatos for a minor traffic violation. Authorities said the 25-year-old failed a California DUI / DWI / Drunk Driving field sobriety test and was booked into the Santa Clara County jail.
California DUI attorney news
San Jose Sharks forward Ryane Clowe was arrested early Monday morning on suspicion of a California DUI or California drunk driving. Clowe, who has been out of the Sharks' lineup for two months after undergoing knee surgery, was stopped by police in suburban Los Gatos for a minor traffic violation. Authorities said the 25-year-old failed a California DUI / DWI / Drunk Driving field sobriety test and was booked into the Santa Clara County jail.
"50-50" chance of getting a California DUI during crackdown
California DUI criminal defense attorney news
December 25, 2007
Stepped-up California DUI patrols by California DUI law enforcement agencies throughout the north state have accounted for more than 170 California DUI drunk driving arrests since mid-December. The crackdown will continue through New Year's Day, California DUI officials said.
Fifty California DUI arrests had been made in Butte County as of Saturday night, according to Anderson police officer Scott Neimeth, of the North State Regional Avoid program.
Chico California DUI police have made nearly two-thirds of the Butte County arrests by putting extra officers on duty just to watch for motorists suspected of California DUI impaired driving.
For the period of Dec. 14-16, Chico police arrested 17 California DUI drivers, and an additional 16 last weekend.
California DUI Agencies participating in Butte County include the California Highway Patrol, and the Chico, Paradise, Oroville, Gridley-Biggs and Chico State University police departments.
"If you drink and drive during the holidays, you have better than a 50-50 chance of being arrested," predicted Chico police Sgt. Dave Barrow.
Glenn County's version of the DUI crackdown has seen California DUI officers from the California Highway Patrol office in Willows, Willows police and Orland police arrest 29 motorists for suspected California DUI / intoxication since mid-December.
"This number is far higher than last year," said Sgt. J.C. Tolle of the Orland police.
Stepped-up California DUI enforcement in Glenn County will also continue through New Year's, said Tolle.
Neimeth noted no California DUI deaths from DUI-related traffic accidents had occurred in the north state as of midnight.
December 25, 2007
Stepped-up California DUI patrols by California DUI law enforcement agencies throughout the north state have accounted for more than 170 California DUI drunk driving arrests since mid-December. The crackdown will continue through New Year's Day, California DUI officials said.
Fifty California DUI arrests had been made in Butte County as of Saturday night, according to Anderson police officer Scott Neimeth, of the North State Regional Avoid program.
Chico California DUI police have made nearly two-thirds of the Butte County arrests by putting extra officers on duty just to watch for motorists suspected of California DUI impaired driving.
For the period of Dec. 14-16, Chico police arrested 17 California DUI drivers, and an additional 16 last weekend.
California DUI Agencies participating in Butte County include the California Highway Patrol, and the Chico, Paradise, Oroville, Gridley-Biggs and Chico State University police departments.
"If you drink and drive during the holidays, you have better than a 50-50 chance of being arrested," predicted Chico police Sgt. Dave Barrow.
Glenn County's version of the DUI crackdown has seen California DUI officers from the California Highway Patrol office in Willows, Willows police and Orland police arrest 29 motorists for suspected California DUI / intoxication since mid-December.
"This number is far higher than last year," said Sgt. J.C. Tolle of the Orland police.
Stepped-up California DUI enforcement in Glenn County will also continue through New Year's, said Tolle.
Neimeth noted no California DUI deaths from DUI-related traffic accidents had occurred in the north state as of midnight.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Stepped up DUI crackdown over holidays
DUI attorneys of San Diego story
WASHINGTON — As millions of Americans hit the roads for the holiday season, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) stand united in support of the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) nationwide crackdown, Drunk Driving. Over the Limit. Under Arrest.
Comprised of stepped-up, high-visibility law enforcement including saturation patrols and sobriety checkpoints, a multi-million ad campaign aims to increase awareness and ultimately deter drunk driving. Between the Thanksgiving and New Year’s holidays, travelers share the roads with more than 2.8 million drunk drivers with three or more convictions and of those, more than half a million have five or more convictions.
With state highway safety agencies and law enforcement officers from around the country ramping up efforts to stop drunk driving, the nation’s capital set the stage to announce details of increased law enforcement efforts and a $7 million national TV and radio ad campaign. New data released recently from NHTSA showed that while an average of 36 fatalities occur daily involving drivers impaired by alcohol throughout the year, the daily average jumps to 45 per day surrounding the Christmas holiday and even higher to 54 per day over the New Year’s holiday.
“With the help of law enforcement, MADD is looking forward to the day when we can eliminate this deadly crime once and for all,” said MADD’s National President Glynn Birch, whose 21-month-old son, Courtney, was killed by a repeat drunk driving offender nearly 20 years ago. The Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving calls for increased law enforcement, such as sobriety checkpoints, mandating alcohol ignition interlocks for all convicted drunk drivers, exploration and development of advanced technologies to prevent a vehicle from being driven by someone who is drunk, and mobilization of grassroots support for the Campaign. “By displaying a MADD red ribbon in support of enforcement and the Campaign, the public can take action that does remind other motorists to never drive drunk.”
GHSA Chairman Christopher J. Murphy noted that states across the country are increasing their efforts to stop the tragic epidemic of drunk driving. “Drunk Driving. Over the Limit. Under Arrest. isn’t just a slogan, but is a reflection of states’ increasing intolerance of drunk driving. The time for excuses and exceptions has long passed,” Murphy said. “States are funding overtime enforcement, drunk driving checkpoints and saturation patrols to keep the roads safe during the holidays.”
A detailed listing of state activities is available at www.ghsa.org.
“We know that sobriety checkpoints and other law enforcement efforts help reduce impaired driving and the needless deaths and injuries that go hand in hand with it,” IACP President Ronald Ruecker, director of public safety, Sherwood, Ore., said. “Law enforcement officers will be out in full force this holiday season to crack down on impaired drivers, getting them off our nation’s roads and behind bars.”
DUI lawyers of San Diego brought this update.
WASHINGTON — As millions of Americans hit the roads for the holiday season, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) stand united in support of the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) nationwide crackdown, Drunk Driving. Over the Limit. Under Arrest.
Comprised of stepped-up, high-visibility law enforcement including saturation patrols and sobriety checkpoints, a multi-million ad campaign aims to increase awareness and ultimately deter drunk driving. Between the Thanksgiving and New Year’s holidays, travelers share the roads with more than 2.8 million drunk drivers with three or more convictions and of those, more than half a million have five or more convictions.
With state highway safety agencies and law enforcement officers from around the country ramping up efforts to stop drunk driving, the nation’s capital set the stage to announce details of increased law enforcement efforts and a $7 million national TV and radio ad campaign. New data released recently from NHTSA showed that while an average of 36 fatalities occur daily involving drivers impaired by alcohol throughout the year, the daily average jumps to 45 per day surrounding the Christmas holiday and even higher to 54 per day over the New Year’s holiday.
“With the help of law enforcement, MADD is looking forward to the day when we can eliminate this deadly crime once and for all,” said MADD’s National President Glynn Birch, whose 21-month-old son, Courtney, was killed by a repeat drunk driving offender nearly 20 years ago. The Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving calls for increased law enforcement, such as sobriety checkpoints, mandating alcohol ignition interlocks for all convicted drunk drivers, exploration and development of advanced technologies to prevent a vehicle from being driven by someone who is drunk, and mobilization of grassroots support for the Campaign. “By displaying a MADD red ribbon in support of enforcement and the Campaign, the public can take action that does remind other motorists to never drive drunk.”
GHSA Chairman Christopher J. Murphy noted that states across the country are increasing their efforts to stop the tragic epidemic of drunk driving. “Drunk Driving. Over the Limit. Under Arrest. isn’t just a slogan, but is a reflection of states’ increasing intolerance of drunk driving. The time for excuses and exceptions has long passed,” Murphy said. “States are funding overtime enforcement, drunk driving checkpoints and saturation patrols to keep the roads safe during the holidays.”
A detailed listing of state activities is available at www.ghsa.org.
“We know that sobriety checkpoints and other law enforcement efforts help reduce impaired driving and the needless deaths and injuries that go hand in hand with it,” IACP President Ronald Ruecker, director of public safety, Sherwood, Ore., said. “Law enforcement officers will be out in full force this holiday season to crack down on impaired drivers, getting them off our nation’s roads and behind bars.”
DUI lawyers of San Diego brought this update.
San Diego DUI arrests same as last year
San Diego DUI attorney news
There were 76 San Diego DUI arrests and one fatality from 6 p.m. Friday through 6 a.m. Sunday in areas of San Diego County patrolled by the California Highway Patrol, exactly the same as during the comparable period last year, the San Diego CHP reported Monday.
Statewide, California DUI arrests totaled 973, up from 953 last year, according to the CHP. But fatalities were down, 13 this year compared to 20 in 2006.
76 folks will need San Diego DUI lawyers. There is an important 10 day deadline to contact San Diego DMV. www.sandiegodrunkdrivingattorney.net
There were 76 San Diego DUI arrests and one fatality from 6 p.m. Friday through 6 a.m. Sunday in areas of San Diego County patrolled by the California Highway Patrol, exactly the same as during the comparable period last year, the San Diego CHP reported Monday.
Statewide, California DUI arrests totaled 973, up from 953 last year, according to the CHP. But fatalities were down, 13 this year compared to 20 in 2006.
76 folks will need San Diego DUI lawyers. There is an important 10 day deadline to contact San Diego DMV. www.sandiegodrunkdrivingattorney.net
Sunday, December 23, 2007
San Diego DUI Tips during National DUI Prevention Month
San Diego DUI attorney news
It is National Drunk and Drugged Driving Prevention Month. Be reminded of the dangers and costs of a San Diego DUI - driving under the influence of any alcohol or other drugs. In 2005, 16, 885 people died in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes in the U.S. This accounted for 39 percent of all traffic related deaths.
In San Diego County, 106 people were killed and 2,057 injured in alcohol-related crashes in 2005. The yearly cost of these alcohol related crashes is approximately $51 billion nationwide. Drugs such as marijuana, methamphetamine and cocaine are involved in about 18 percent of motor vehicle deaths. According to local San Diego DUI program surveys, 44 percent of people arrested for San Diego DUI were coming from a private residence, and 36 percent were coming from a bar or restaurant. Thirteen percent report being at parties where minors were drinking.
How to Protect Yourself, Friends and Family: Don't drink and drive. Don't ride with anyone who has had too much to drink. Volunteer to be a designated driver. Don't use illegal drugs, or drive under the influence of prescription drugs that recommend not operating heavy machinery. If you do, you risk a San Diego DUI and having to hire a SAn Diego dui lawyer. Don't drive when you are tired. Driving while tired is equal to driving when drunk. Whether you are drunk or tired, it means you have slowed reactions and impaired judgment. Report San Diego DUI drunk drivers to San Diego DUI law enforcement.
If you are hosting a San Diego party, create a setting where people feel comfortable socializing with one another. Encourage conversation and social interaction. Never encourage excessive drinking. Serve food before serving alcohol. Place more emphasis on the food than the alcohol. Do provide an open bar. Be responsible when serving alcohol. Be prepared to say "no" when someone has had enough. Don't let friends drive after drinking or they risk a San Diego DUI. Help guests arrange safe transportation options. Don't allow minors to have access to alcohol. Under local ordinances, you could be fined or serve jail time for being a social host for underage drinking. According to Oceanside's Social Host ordinance, for example, hosts are responsible for controlling the quantity and access to alcohol, verifying age, and supervising the activities of minors. Serve non-alcoholic drinks, too, but remember that coffee and energy drinks do not "sober" your guests. Respect anyone's choice not to drink. Remember that a guest's reason for not drinking is private. Respect it.
A bottle of beer, a glass of wine, or a mixed drink contain almost identical amounts of pure alcohol. Know your limit. Federal dietary guidelines define moderate drinking as no more than 1 drink per day for women and no more than 2 drinks per day for men. Eat food while you drink. High-protein food helps to slow the absorption of alcohol into your body. Don't gulp your drink. Sip it. Don't let anyone force a drink on you. Don't participate in drinking games. Beware of unfamiliar drinks. Some drinks can be deceiving: You may not taste the alcohol in them, but they still can get you drunk. Do not mix alcohol and any prescription medicines. Ask your pharmacist about any precautions or prohibitions with alcohol and your over-the-counter and behind-the-counter medicine.
San Diego DUI lawyers are available to help answer questions.
It is National Drunk and Drugged Driving Prevention Month. Be reminded of the dangers and costs of a San Diego DUI - driving under the influence of any alcohol or other drugs. In 2005, 16, 885 people died in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes in the U.S. This accounted for 39 percent of all traffic related deaths.
In San Diego County, 106 people were killed and 2,057 injured in alcohol-related crashes in 2005. The yearly cost of these alcohol related crashes is approximately $51 billion nationwide. Drugs such as marijuana, methamphetamine and cocaine are involved in about 18 percent of motor vehicle deaths. According to local San Diego DUI program surveys, 44 percent of people arrested for San Diego DUI were coming from a private residence, and 36 percent were coming from a bar or restaurant. Thirteen percent report being at parties where minors were drinking.
How to Protect Yourself, Friends and Family: Don't drink and drive. Don't ride with anyone who has had too much to drink. Volunteer to be a designated driver. Don't use illegal drugs, or drive under the influence of prescription drugs that recommend not operating heavy machinery. If you do, you risk a San Diego DUI and having to hire a SAn Diego dui lawyer. Don't drive when you are tired. Driving while tired is equal to driving when drunk. Whether you are drunk or tired, it means you have slowed reactions and impaired judgment. Report San Diego DUI drunk drivers to San Diego DUI law enforcement.
If you are hosting a San Diego party, create a setting where people feel comfortable socializing with one another. Encourage conversation and social interaction. Never encourage excessive drinking. Serve food before serving alcohol. Place more emphasis on the food than the alcohol. Do provide an open bar. Be responsible when serving alcohol. Be prepared to say "no" when someone has had enough. Don't let friends drive after drinking or they risk a San Diego DUI. Help guests arrange safe transportation options. Don't allow minors to have access to alcohol. Under local ordinances, you could be fined or serve jail time for being a social host for underage drinking. According to Oceanside's Social Host ordinance, for example, hosts are responsible for controlling the quantity and access to alcohol, verifying age, and supervising the activities of minors. Serve non-alcoholic drinks, too, but remember that coffee and energy drinks do not "sober" your guests. Respect anyone's choice not to drink. Remember that a guest's reason for not drinking is private. Respect it.
A bottle of beer, a glass of wine, or a mixed drink contain almost identical amounts of pure alcohol. Know your limit. Federal dietary guidelines define moderate drinking as no more than 1 drink per day for women and no more than 2 drinks per day for men. Eat food while you drink. High-protein food helps to slow the absorption of alcohol into your body. Don't gulp your drink. Sip it. Don't let anyone force a drink on you. Don't participate in drinking games. Beware of unfamiliar drinks. Some drinks can be deceiving: You may not taste the alcohol in them, but they still can get you drunk. Do not mix alcohol and any prescription medicines. Ask your pharmacist about any precautions or prohibitions with alcohol and your over-the-counter and behind-the-counter medicine.
San Diego DUI lawyers are available to help answer questions.
Escondido DUI Checkpoint
San Diego DUI lawyers news
ESCONDIDO ---- Police arrested five drivers on suspicion of San Diego DUI driving under the influence of alcohol Friday night at a checkpoint at the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Fig Street, according to San Diego county DUI police.
Police also confiscated 55 vehicles because their drivers reportedly did not have a valid driver's license, and one driver was arrested on suspicion of auto theft, authorities said.
The San Diego DUI checkpoint was set up from 6:30 p.m. Friday until 2:30 a.m. Saturday.
The Escondido Police Department said 82 citations were issued at the San Diego DUI checkpoint, designed to detect intoxicated and unlicensed drivers and provide a highly visible operation to deter San Diego DUI people from driving under the influence of alcohol.
ESCONDIDO ---- Police arrested five drivers on suspicion of San Diego DUI driving under the influence of alcohol Friday night at a checkpoint at the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Fig Street, according to San Diego county DUI police.
Police also confiscated 55 vehicles because their drivers reportedly did not have a valid driver's license, and one driver was arrested on suspicion of auto theft, authorities said.
The San Diego DUI checkpoint was set up from 6:30 p.m. Friday until 2:30 a.m. Saturday.
The Escondido Police Department said 82 citations were issued at the San Diego DUI checkpoint, designed to detect intoxicated and unlicensed drivers and provide a highly visible operation to deter San Diego DUI people from driving under the influence of alcohol.
SAN DIEGO DUI deaths so far, this weekend
SAN DIEGO DUI attorney news
There was one person was killed on San Diego County highways during the first 36 hours of the Christmas holiday weekend, the California Highway Patrol said.
During the same period last year, there was also one fatality reported in the county, the CHP said.
Statewide, there were 13 fatalities in the first day and a hald of the holiday period this year, down from last year's total of 20.
SAN DIEGO DUI
In San Diego County, CHP officers this year made accounted for 76 arrests for SAN DIEGO DUI drunk driving -- the same amount as last year.
Statewide this year, there were 973 DUI arrests by state officers, in comparison to 953 last year.
Although the fatality totals are for all police jurisdictions in California, the CHP's drunk driving totals do not include those arrested by various city police departments or county sheriff's offices across the state.
There was one person was killed on San Diego County highways during the first 36 hours of the Christmas holiday weekend, the California Highway Patrol said.
During the same period last year, there was also one fatality reported in the county, the CHP said.
Statewide, there were 13 fatalities in the first day and a hald of the holiday period this year, down from last year's total of 20.
SAN DIEGO DUI
In San Diego County, CHP officers this year made accounted for 76 arrests for SAN DIEGO DUI drunk driving -- the same amount as last year.
Statewide this year, there were 973 DUI arrests by state officers, in comparison to 953 last year.
Although the fatality totals are for all police jurisdictions in California, the CHP's drunk driving totals do not include those arrested by various city police departments or county sheriff's offices across the state.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
San Diego DUI arrests this weekend, so far
SAN DIEGO DUI Attorney California news
December 22, 2007
San Diego's California Highway Patrol arrested 42 drivers on county roads on suspicion of SAN DIEGO DUI / drunk driving / driving under the influence of alcohol between 6:01 p.m. Friday and 6 a.m. Saturday, according to a highway patrol report.
During the same time period in 2006, 39 drivers were arrested on suspicion of SAN DIEGO DUI - drunk driving in San Diego County, SAN DIEGO DUI authorities said.
There were no SAN DIEGO DUI fatalities in the county during the reporting period, highway patrol officers said.
Statewide, authorities said there were 480 drivers arrested on suspicion of DUI, drunk driving or driving under the influence of alcohol, up from 447 in 2006.
According to the report, two drivers were killed on state roads during the reported period, compared with five in 2006.
December 22, 2007
San Diego's California Highway Patrol arrested 42 drivers on county roads on suspicion of SAN DIEGO DUI / drunk driving / driving under the influence of alcohol between 6:01 p.m. Friday and 6 a.m. Saturday, according to a highway patrol report.
During the same time period in 2006, 39 drivers were arrested on suspicion of SAN DIEGO DUI - drunk driving in San Diego County, SAN DIEGO DUI authorities said.
There were no SAN DIEGO DUI fatalities in the county during the reporting period, highway patrol officers said.
Statewide, authorities said there were 480 drivers arrested on suspicion of DUI, drunk driving or driving under the influence of alcohol, up from 447 in 2006.
According to the report, two drivers were killed on state roads during the reported period, compared with five in 2006.
California drunk driving attorneys report California DUI news updates
San Diego / California DUI drunk driving attorney news
Police officials are asking that the inebriated stay off the roads this season — and that the public report anyone who breaks that California DUI law.
To help prevent California DUI drunk driving accidents, California police have launched their annual three week-long campaign, called the “AVOID Anti-DUI Program,” with the help of 350 state law enforcement agencies. Efforts include checkpoints, patrols, stakeouts and court stings — which aim to “reduce the number of injuries and deaths caused by this totally preventable crime,” said Wendy Soos, Glendora Police Department community service officer and coordinator for one of several police coalitions.
“Drunk driving can cost you approximately $10,000 for a first time arrest — that is, if you’re lucky enough not to kill innocent people or yourself,” she said.
California DUI Enforcement affecting the Long Beach area began Dec. 14 in South Gate with a multi-agency checkpoint. California DUI Checkpoints continue on Friday (Dec. 21) in the city of Long Beach at a site that has yet to be announced by California DUI officials.
Another multi-agency California DUI checkpoint most likely will take place in Long Beach on Dec. 31, Soos said. Her coalition, known as the AVOID the 40, is made up of 40 police, sheriff and California Highway Patrol agencies.
In addition to California DUI checkpoints, California DUI police will conduct a number of California DUI saturation patrols, which strategically place police officers where DUI driving incidents happen most often to concentrate efforts on those types of California DUI arrests. In total, 36 California DUI checkpoints and about 200 patrols will take place throughout the county during the DUI crackdown.
“Saturation patrols are normally multiple two-officer patrol units, who saturate certain high-incident areas related to DUI crashes or arrests,” Soos explained.
The California DUI task force has seen an increase in support from the public since its inception, she said.
“More agencies are participating in the countywide DUI Task Force, resulting in an increased number of checkpoints, patrols, education and media,” she added.
Officials call it one of the state’s most aggressive California DUI impaired driving crackdowns to keep would-be drunk drivers from getting behind the wheel. It is part of the nationwide “Drunk Driving. Over the Limit. Under Arrest.” effort.
California DUI Law enforcement officials began the program in 1973 to suppress the number of drunk drivers and alcohol-related accidents on the road. State grants help pay for the services.
California Highway Patrol and the Department of Motor Vehicles statistics indicate that California DUI alcohol-related car crashes in California have risen in number, from 1,574 deaths and 30,810 injuries in 2005 to 1,597 deaths and 31,099 injuries in 2006.
Officials have asked that members of the public report suspected California DUI drunk drivers by calling 9-1-1. According to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports, California DUI - drunk drivers can usually be distinguished by either slow or erratic driving as well as abrupt or wide turns.
For details, visit www.californiaavoid.org.
The California DUI countywide law enforcement campaign against California DUI drunk driving, called "Avoid the 25," resulted in more than 20 arrests Thursday of people with outstanding warrants related to DUI charges.
Officers in the California DUI program, which is a partnership between 25 agencies in the county, have arrested 125 people on suspicion of California DUI or drunken driving since the winter campaign began Dec. 14, said Jimmy Lee, spokesman for the county Sheriff's Office.
"Tonight, we're focusing on people with DUI warrants," Lee said Thursday evening. "We're going door-to-door arresting people and taking them to jail and they'll have to go to court tomorrow."
There have been no fatal car collisions related to California DUI / drunken driving since the campaign began, Lee said. The California DUI court issues warrants for people who have been charged with California DUI drunk driving if they do not follow up on their court-ordered programs, fail to make California DUI court appearances or do not pay their fines. The California DUI campaign will last through New Year's Day.
A 22-year-old man is suspected of driving drunk and triggering a California DUI accident Wednesday that killed his three best friends and closed a mountain highway overnight.
It was just the type of tragic California DUI accident law-enforcement agencies throughout San Bernardino County are trying to avert during the holiday season by stepping up patrols and DUI checkpoints.
Jose Ricki Flores, who authorities said lost control of his vehicle at 8:41 p.m. as he rounded a curve on Highway 18, was taken to Loma Linda University Medical Center.
Authorities were waiting for California DUI test results on Flores' blood, but he is expected to be arrested on suspicion of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated.
Flores and three passengers were south of Lower Waterman Canyon Road when he lost control of his 1991 Nissan Sentra, spun around and skidded backward into oncoming traffic, crashing into a 2006 Cadillac Escalade.
All three of Flores' passengers - brothers Moises Figuereo, 18, and Jose Figuereo, 17, and their cousin, Oscar Jareguy, 25, all of San Bernardino - were killed.
San Bernardino police Detective John Cardillo lamented the loss of life, disappointed that his department's DUI program didn't save these three.
A countywide California DUI program called Avoid the 25- referring to the 25 California DUI agencies participating in the program - has been in effect since Dec. 14 and will continue through the end of the year.
About $40,000 in grant money is funding 72 California DUI saturation.
San Diego DUI attorneys would like to help any way possible.
Police officials are asking that the inebriated stay off the roads this season — and that the public report anyone who breaks that California DUI law.
To help prevent California DUI drunk driving accidents, California police have launched their annual three week-long campaign, called the “AVOID Anti-DUI Program,” with the help of 350 state law enforcement agencies. Efforts include checkpoints, patrols, stakeouts and court stings — which aim to “reduce the number of injuries and deaths caused by this totally preventable crime,” said Wendy Soos, Glendora Police Department community service officer and coordinator for one of several police coalitions.
“Drunk driving can cost you approximately $10,000 for a first time arrest — that is, if you’re lucky enough not to kill innocent people or yourself,” she said.
California DUI Enforcement affecting the Long Beach area began Dec. 14 in South Gate with a multi-agency checkpoint. California DUI Checkpoints continue on Friday (Dec. 21) in the city of Long Beach at a site that has yet to be announced by California DUI officials.
Another multi-agency California DUI checkpoint most likely will take place in Long Beach on Dec. 31, Soos said. Her coalition, known as the AVOID the 40, is made up of 40 police, sheriff and California Highway Patrol agencies.
In addition to California DUI checkpoints, California DUI police will conduct a number of California DUI saturation patrols, which strategically place police officers where DUI driving incidents happen most often to concentrate efforts on those types of California DUI arrests. In total, 36 California DUI checkpoints and about 200 patrols will take place throughout the county during the DUI crackdown.
“Saturation patrols are normally multiple two-officer patrol units, who saturate certain high-incident areas related to DUI crashes or arrests,” Soos explained.
The California DUI task force has seen an increase in support from the public since its inception, she said.
“More agencies are participating in the countywide DUI Task Force, resulting in an increased number of checkpoints, patrols, education and media,” she added.
Officials call it one of the state’s most aggressive California DUI impaired driving crackdowns to keep would-be drunk drivers from getting behind the wheel. It is part of the nationwide “Drunk Driving. Over the Limit. Under Arrest.” effort.
California DUI Law enforcement officials began the program in 1973 to suppress the number of drunk drivers and alcohol-related accidents on the road. State grants help pay for the services.
California Highway Patrol and the Department of Motor Vehicles statistics indicate that California DUI alcohol-related car crashes in California have risen in number, from 1,574 deaths and 30,810 injuries in 2005 to 1,597 deaths and 31,099 injuries in 2006.
Officials have asked that members of the public report suspected California DUI drunk drivers by calling 9-1-1. According to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports, California DUI - drunk drivers can usually be distinguished by either slow or erratic driving as well as abrupt or wide turns.
For details, visit www.californiaavoid.org.
The California DUI countywide law enforcement campaign against California DUI drunk driving, called "Avoid the 25," resulted in more than 20 arrests Thursday of people with outstanding warrants related to DUI charges.
Officers in the California DUI program, which is a partnership between 25 agencies in the county, have arrested 125 people on suspicion of California DUI or drunken driving since the winter campaign began Dec. 14, said Jimmy Lee, spokesman for the county Sheriff's Office.
"Tonight, we're focusing on people with DUI warrants," Lee said Thursday evening. "We're going door-to-door arresting people and taking them to jail and they'll have to go to court tomorrow."
There have been no fatal car collisions related to California DUI / drunken driving since the campaign began, Lee said. The California DUI court issues warrants for people who have been charged with California DUI drunk driving if they do not follow up on their court-ordered programs, fail to make California DUI court appearances or do not pay their fines. The California DUI campaign will last through New Year's Day.
A 22-year-old man is suspected of driving drunk and triggering a California DUI accident Wednesday that killed his three best friends and closed a mountain highway overnight.
It was just the type of tragic California DUI accident law-enforcement agencies throughout San Bernardino County are trying to avert during the holiday season by stepping up patrols and DUI checkpoints.
Jose Ricki Flores, who authorities said lost control of his vehicle at 8:41 p.m. as he rounded a curve on Highway 18, was taken to Loma Linda University Medical Center.
Authorities were waiting for California DUI test results on Flores' blood, but he is expected to be arrested on suspicion of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated.
Flores and three passengers were south of Lower Waterman Canyon Road when he lost control of his 1991 Nissan Sentra, spun around and skidded backward into oncoming traffic, crashing into a 2006 Cadillac Escalade.
All three of Flores' passengers - brothers Moises Figuereo, 18, and Jose Figuereo, 17, and their cousin, Oscar Jareguy, 25, all of San Bernardino - were killed.
San Bernardino police Detective John Cardillo lamented the loss of life, disappointed that his department's DUI program didn't save these three.
A countywide California DUI program called Avoid the 25- referring to the 25 California DUI agencies participating in the program - has been in effect since Dec. 14 and will continue through the end of the year.
About $40,000 in grant money is funding 72 California DUI saturation.
San Diego DUI attorneys would like to help any way possible.
Denied entry into Canada because of drunk driving / DUI / DWI?
If you've been denied entry into Canada solely because of a DWI conviction, Star Tribune reporter Larry Oakes would like to hear from you.
He's conducting interviews for a story on Canada's policy of refusing entry to people with such convictions.
Sharing your experience could help raise awareness of this issue and perhaps help others avoid an unpleasant surprise at the border.
You can reach Oakes at 1-800-266-9648 or loakes@startribune.com
He's conducting interviews for a story on Canada's policy of refusing entry to people with such convictions.
Sharing your experience could help raise awareness of this issue and perhaps help others avoid an unpleasant surprise at the border.
You can reach Oakes at 1-800-266-9648 or loakes@startribune.com
DUI very expensive this holiday season
San Diego DUI attorney news - penalties update
People celebrating the holidays by drinking at a bar or party and deciding to drive home might wake up to an unexpected, expensive bill to pay.
The average cost for a first-time DUI conviction is $3,200, including fines, fees, jail costs and an ignition interlock device for a year. That doesn't include the expense of an attorney, the increase in insurance costs, or the bill if the car gets towed.
Compare that to the average price of a cab ride home from north Scottsdale to Chandler at $31 or asking a friend to be the designated driver.
The Arizona Governor's Office of Highway Safety hopes by educating drivers of the steep costs of driving under the influence that more people will plan for a safe way home this season.
One of the reasons for the effort is that drunken driving fatalities rose 9 percent in Arizona last year. Drunken drivers killed 375 people in 2005 and 409 in 2006. State DUI Task Forces have already reeled in 1,254 arrests since Thanksgiving.
"We want people to enjoy themselves, but they need to find a sober way to get home. You could hurt yourself or other motorists," GOHS spokesman Michael Hegarty said. "There is no silver bullet to stop drunk driving. Some people need to go to jail and for some, it comes down to cost."
In the past three years, drunken driving costs have continued to escalate.
"The costs of DUIs are so high not just in terms of money but potential loss of human life. People better think twice," Mesa city prosecutor John Pombier said. "Whether they are worried about safety or their individual pocketbooks, if either of these reasons keeps you from drinking and driving then we are safer and better off."
In September, a new state law required everyone convicted of drunken driving to use an interlock system on their car, increasing the cost by $960 for 12 months.
In 2005, lawmakers added an Arizona Department of Public Safety fund assessment fee of $500 for a first-time DUI and $1,000 for extreme DUIs. In 2004, they approved a $500 prison fee for first-time DUI and $1,000 prison fee for extreme DUIs. The legal limit for DUI is 0.08 percent blood alcohol content. An extreme DUI is 0.15.
Supreme DUI, aimed at career or problem drinkers, went into effect in September. It's for drivers having registering 0.20 or higher.
A dui defense lawyer is someone who can help.
People celebrating the holidays by drinking at a bar or party and deciding to drive home might wake up to an unexpected, expensive bill to pay.
The average cost for a first-time DUI conviction is $3,200, including fines, fees, jail costs and an ignition interlock device for a year. That doesn't include the expense of an attorney, the increase in insurance costs, or the bill if the car gets towed.
Compare that to the average price of a cab ride home from north Scottsdale to Chandler at $31 or asking a friend to be the designated driver.
The Arizona Governor's Office of Highway Safety hopes by educating drivers of the steep costs of driving under the influence that more people will plan for a safe way home this season.
One of the reasons for the effort is that drunken driving fatalities rose 9 percent in Arizona last year. Drunken drivers killed 375 people in 2005 and 409 in 2006. State DUI Task Forces have already reeled in 1,254 arrests since Thanksgiving.
"We want people to enjoy themselves, but they need to find a sober way to get home. You could hurt yourself or other motorists," GOHS spokesman Michael Hegarty said. "There is no silver bullet to stop drunk driving. Some people need to go to jail and for some, it comes down to cost."
In the past three years, drunken driving costs have continued to escalate.
"The costs of DUIs are so high not just in terms of money but potential loss of human life. People better think twice," Mesa city prosecutor John Pombier said. "Whether they are worried about safety or their individual pocketbooks, if either of these reasons keeps you from drinking and driving then we are safer and better off."
In September, a new state law required everyone convicted of drunken driving to use an interlock system on their car, increasing the cost by $960 for 12 months.
In 2005, lawmakers added an Arizona Department of Public Safety fund assessment fee of $500 for a first-time DUI and $1,000 for extreme DUIs. In 2004, they approved a $500 prison fee for first-time DUI and $1,000 prison fee for extreme DUIs. The legal limit for DUI is 0.08 percent blood alcohol content. An extreme DUI is 0.15.
Supreme DUI, aimed at career or problem drinkers, went into effect in September. It's for drivers having registering 0.20 or higher.
A dui defense lawyer is someone who can help.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Prosecutor charged with Drunk Driving / DUI
San Diego DUI lawyer news
A prosecutor will be suspended without pay for at least 60 days after being charged with drunk driving / DUI .
District Attorney Richard Consiglio says he will suspend his assistant, Deanne Paul, effective Jan. 2. Ms. Paul was stopped for alleged drunk driving on Dec. 12 and waived a hearing on that charge yesterday.
Mr. Consiglio says Ms. Paul's suspension is indefinite but will be re-evaluated no sooner than 60 days after it takes effect.
The 38-year-old Ms. Paul was stopped by Allegheny Township police.
A prosecutor will be suspended without pay for at least 60 days after being charged with drunk driving / DUI .
District Attorney Richard Consiglio says he will suspend his assistant, Deanne Paul, effective Jan. 2. Ms. Paul was stopped for alleged drunk driving on Dec. 12 and waived a hearing on that charge yesterday.
Mr. Consiglio says Ms. Paul's suspension is indefinite but will be re-evaluated no sooner than 60 days after it takes effect.
The 38-year-old Ms. Paul was stopped by Allegheny Township police.
Pitbull arrested for DUI
San Diego DUI attorney news
Miami rapper PITBULL has been arrested and charged with driving under the influence (DUI). The Latino hip hop star - real name Armando Perez - was booked into Miami's county jail in the early hours of Friday (21Dec07) morning. As WENN went to press, representatives for the Miami-Dade county jail had not yet provided information on the DUI charge. However the rapper is expected stand in front of a judge and be released on a $1,000 (GBP500) bond on Friday (21Dec07) afternoon, according to AllHipHop.com. Pitbull's latest album - his fourth - hit U.S. stores last month (27Nov07). The Cuban-American star also goes under the nicknames Lil' Chico or Mr. 305.
Miami rapper PITBULL has been arrested and charged with driving under the influence (DUI). The Latino hip hop star - real name Armando Perez - was booked into Miami's county jail in the early hours of Friday (21Dec07) morning. As WENN went to press, representatives for the Miami-Dade county jail had not yet provided information on the DUI charge. However the rapper is expected stand in front of a judge and be released on a $1,000 (GBP500) bond on Friday (21Dec07) afternoon, according to AllHipHop.com. Pitbull's latest album - his fourth - hit U.S. stores last month (27Nov07). The Cuban-American star also goes under the nicknames Lil' Chico or Mr. 305.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Life in Prison for killing grandmother?
San Diego California DUI lawyers news
A man with a history of DUI convictions who is now accused of driving drunk and causing a freeway crash that killed a 75-year-old grandmother must stand trial on murder and other charges, a judge ruled Monday.
John Joseph Taskey, 46, faces more than 15 years to life in prison if convicted, said Deputy District Attorney David Grapilon.
The defendant was on parole for a DUI conviction when the crash occurred.
The car the victim was riding in was one of two cars carrying family members to watch the sunset at Sunset Cliffs when the 6:30 p.m. collision happened Sept. 13.
Witness John Covey testified during a two-hour preliminary hearing that he was driving westbound on Interstate 8 when the crash occurred.
Covey said he was slowing down as the roadway ended and noticed a truck going by him at freeway speeds.
"It was going substantially faster than me," Covey testified. "I saw him rear-end a vehicle."
The truck, driven by Taskey, slammed into the back of a Ford Focus that was stopped or close to stopped, causing the vehicle to roll over a number of times.
Covey said the Ford Focus "flipped, twisted and spun" right in front of his car.
"It was literally a blur," the witness said.
Covey said he checked on Taskey and his passenger, then turned his attention to the victims' vehicle.
The driver of that vehicle was outside of the car, but three people were dazed in the back seat and one person was in the front passenger seat, the witness said.
Rosa Degerman, sitting in the back seat, was seriously injured and died the next morning at a hospital.
A 7-year-old girl in the victims' car suffered a fractured left shoulder and a male passenger suffered a concussion, the prosecutor said.
CHP Officer Jesus Magdaleno testified Taskey was driving on a suspended driver's license, appeared very disoriented and had an odor of alcohol and an injured finger.
The officer said he had Taskey blow into a breathalyzer to check his blood-alcohol level and the defendant registered a .112 percent and then a .118 percent on a second test. The legal limit for operating a motor vehicle is .08 percent.
Speed was the main reason for the crash, Magdaleno testified.
Besides second-degree murder, Taskey is also charged with gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, felony DUI and driving with a .08 percent blood-alcohol level or higher.
The defendant has five prior DUI convictions between 1997 and 2006, Grapilon said.
Because of his prior DUI convictions and his taking court-ordered classes on the dangers of drinking and driving, Taskey was on notice that his actions could result in him seriously injuring or killing someone and being charged with murder.
A man with a history of DUI convictions who is now accused of driving drunk and causing a freeway crash that killed a 75-year-old grandmother must stand trial on murder and other charges, a judge ruled Monday.
John Joseph Taskey, 46, faces more than 15 years to life in prison if convicted, said Deputy District Attorney David Grapilon.
The defendant was on parole for a DUI conviction when the crash occurred.
The car the victim was riding in was one of two cars carrying family members to watch the sunset at Sunset Cliffs when the 6:30 p.m. collision happened Sept. 13.
Witness John Covey testified during a two-hour preliminary hearing that he was driving westbound on Interstate 8 when the crash occurred.
Covey said he was slowing down as the roadway ended and noticed a truck going by him at freeway speeds.
"It was going substantially faster than me," Covey testified. "I saw him rear-end a vehicle."
The truck, driven by Taskey, slammed into the back of a Ford Focus that was stopped or close to stopped, causing the vehicle to roll over a number of times.
Covey said the Ford Focus "flipped, twisted and spun" right in front of his car.
"It was literally a blur," the witness said.
Covey said he checked on Taskey and his passenger, then turned his attention to the victims' vehicle.
The driver of that vehicle was outside of the car, but three people were dazed in the back seat and one person was in the front passenger seat, the witness said.
Rosa Degerman, sitting in the back seat, was seriously injured and died the next morning at a hospital.
A 7-year-old girl in the victims' car suffered a fractured left shoulder and a male passenger suffered a concussion, the prosecutor said.
CHP Officer Jesus Magdaleno testified Taskey was driving on a suspended driver's license, appeared very disoriented and had an odor of alcohol and an injured finger.
The officer said he had Taskey blow into a breathalyzer to check his blood-alcohol level and the defendant registered a .112 percent and then a .118 percent on a second test. The legal limit for operating a motor vehicle is .08 percent.
Speed was the main reason for the crash, Magdaleno testified.
Besides second-degree murder, Taskey is also charged with gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, felony DUI and driving with a .08 percent blood-alcohol level or higher.
The defendant has five prior DUI convictions between 1997 and 2006, Grapilon said.
Because of his prior DUI convictions and his taking court-ordered classes on the dangers of drinking and driving, Taskey was on notice that his actions could result in him seriously injuring or killing someone and being charged with murder.
Bears: Don't get a DUI - get a Designated Driver
San Diego DUI news
CHICAGO, IL -- 12/20/07 -- The Chicago Bears are one of six NFL teams being recognized for their large number of fans pledging to be designated drivers at home games this season, the TEAM Coalition (Techniques for Effective Alcohol Management) announced today. The Bears join the Baltimore Ravens, Washington Redskins, San Diego Chargers, Jacksonville Jaguars, and Detroit Lions in this prestigious ranking to save lives on our nation's highways.
At the Bears home game against the Green Bay Packers, Sunday, Dec. 23, TEAM Coalition will recognize the Bears and their fans at a pre-game ceremony for their continued effort to make our roadways safe. Representatives of the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), the Chicago Police Department, the Illinois Liquor Control Commission, Miller Brewing Company, and Delaware North Companies Sportservice, the building's concessionaire and club and suite food service provider, will join TEAM at the event.
"We want the game-day experience to continue to be safe and enjoyable for Bears fans while they enjoy Soldier Field and as they travel home after the games," said Ted Phillips, president and CEO of the Chicago Bears. "We are proud of our fans' commitment to responsible behavior and thrilled to reward them with such a great opportunity."
Through the Miller Live Responsibly program, nearly 6,000 Bears fans promised to refrain from drinking and be the designated drivers to get their friends and family home safely from Soldier Field this season. TEAM Coalition has been aggressively promoting designated-driver programs like Live Responsibly at NFL stadiums since 2003 with a league-wide campaign called Responsibility Has Its Rewards. The campaign encourages fans to participate in designated-driver programs supported by beer and concessionaire companies at every NFL stadium nationwide.
"Miller Brewing Company has worked closely with professional sports teams like the Bears for more than two decades to encourage responsible consumption at sporting events, and to help prevent underage access to alcohol and drunk driving," said Kim Marotta, director of Social Responsibility for Miller Brewing Company. "We see our support of the Bears designated driver program as an important complement to our overall responsibility initiatives."
"Sobriety is no accident," said Sportservice president Rick Abramson. "That's why we work closely with our clients to strongly promote and advocate that fans make responsible decisions when it comes to alcohol and to take appropriate action, including declining to serve them, when they do not. The designated driver program is an important component of the alcohol management program at Soldier Field."
During the 2006 NFL season, more than 100,000 football fans planned ahead and make the responsible, winning play by pledging to be designated drivers. This season, the league-wide total is estimated to be 110,000.
"This promotion is an opportunity for the NFL to show support for the teams' efforts in coordination with the concessionaire, brewer, and beer wholesaler to encourage responsible fan behavior. And for the fans, it's a great reminder that responsibility really does have its rewards," said Jill Pepper, executive director of the TEAM Coalition.
One lucky Bears fan will be selected by TEAM Coalition as the Bears' Designated Driver of the Season. That fan will be entered in a drawing to win a trip to the 2008 NFL Pro Bowl® in Honolulu, Hawaii. The winner of that prize will be selected by TEAM Coalition through a random drawing after the NFC and AFC Champions are determined. And the Designated Drivers of the Season from the two teams competing in the Super Bowl® will join their favorite teams at Super Bowl XLII® which will be played on February 3, 2008 at University of Phoenix Stadium in Arizona.
Recognition of the Bears fans' commitment to the designated driver program coincides with IDOT's enforcement crackdown on drunk drivers called You Drink and Drive, You Lose.
"We want to congratulate the Bears and their fans and remind everyone that true football Fans Don't Let Fans Drive Drunk," said Michael Stout, director of the Division of Highway Safety for the Illinois Department of Transportation. "If you plan on consuming alcohol whether you are at the game or watching from a house party or sports bar, pass your keys to a sober, designated driver before the party begins. We commend all the Responsibility Has Its Rewards campaign partners for creating such a fantastic incentive for fans who make the responsible decision to designate a driver."
"I commend the Bears on their efforts to keep drunk drivers off the roads," says Illinois Liquor Control Commission Acting Director Lainie Krozel. "Gov. Blagojevich and the State of Illinois are committed to reducing impaired-driving fatalities, and the Liquor Commission plays an important role in this responsibility effort by offering increased alcohol server training opportunities, ensuring patrons are not over-served, and educating our youth on the dangers of drinking and driving. By working together as a team, we can prevent needless deaths from occurring on our roadways."
Sergeant Scott Slavin, Traffic Section Chicago Police Department, added, "The Chicago Police Department would like to thank the Bears for joining us and our traffic safety partners with this initiative. The Chicago Police Department has a Zero Tolerance for Drunk Driving! Designate a driver or we will designate one for you! No Excuses, no exceptions!"
Fortunately, football fans join millions of other Americans who already know how to "do the ride thing." According to the 2007 Designated Driver poll conducted by Nielsen Media Research, 154 million of the American adult population have been a designated driver or have been driven home by one.
TEAM Coalition -- an alliance of professional and collegiate sports, entertainment facilities, concessionaries, stadium service providers, the beer industry, broadcasters, traffic safety experts and others working together to promote responsible drinking and positive fan behavior at sports and entertainment facilities.
For more information, please visit www.teamcoalition.org or www.rhir.org.
CHICAGO, IL -- 12/20/07 -- The Chicago Bears are one of six NFL teams being recognized for their large number of fans pledging to be designated drivers at home games this season, the TEAM Coalition (Techniques for Effective Alcohol Management) announced today. The Bears join the Baltimore Ravens, Washington Redskins, San Diego Chargers, Jacksonville Jaguars, and Detroit Lions in this prestigious ranking to save lives on our nation's highways.
At the Bears home game against the Green Bay Packers, Sunday, Dec. 23, TEAM Coalition will recognize the Bears and their fans at a pre-game ceremony for their continued effort to make our roadways safe. Representatives of the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), the Chicago Police Department, the Illinois Liquor Control Commission, Miller Brewing Company, and Delaware North Companies Sportservice, the building's concessionaire and club and suite food service provider, will join TEAM at the event.
"We want the game-day experience to continue to be safe and enjoyable for Bears fans while they enjoy Soldier Field and as they travel home after the games," said Ted Phillips, president and CEO of the Chicago Bears. "We are proud of our fans' commitment to responsible behavior and thrilled to reward them with such a great opportunity."
Through the Miller Live Responsibly program, nearly 6,000 Bears fans promised to refrain from drinking and be the designated drivers to get their friends and family home safely from Soldier Field this season. TEAM Coalition has been aggressively promoting designated-driver programs like Live Responsibly at NFL stadiums since 2003 with a league-wide campaign called Responsibility Has Its Rewards. The campaign encourages fans to participate in designated-driver programs supported by beer and concessionaire companies at every NFL stadium nationwide.
"Miller Brewing Company has worked closely with professional sports teams like the Bears for more than two decades to encourage responsible consumption at sporting events, and to help prevent underage access to alcohol and drunk driving," said Kim Marotta, director of Social Responsibility for Miller Brewing Company. "We see our support of the Bears designated driver program as an important complement to our overall responsibility initiatives."
"Sobriety is no accident," said Sportservice president Rick Abramson. "That's why we work closely with our clients to strongly promote and advocate that fans make responsible decisions when it comes to alcohol and to take appropriate action, including declining to serve them, when they do not. The designated driver program is an important component of the alcohol management program at Soldier Field."
During the 2006 NFL season, more than 100,000 football fans planned ahead and make the responsible, winning play by pledging to be designated drivers. This season, the league-wide total is estimated to be 110,000.
"This promotion is an opportunity for the NFL to show support for the teams' efforts in coordination with the concessionaire, brewer, and beer wholesaler to encourage responsible fan behavior. And for the fans, it's a great reminder that responsibility really does have its rewards," said Jill Pepper, executive director of the TEAM Coalition.
One lucky Bears fan will be selected by TEAM Coalition as the Bears' Designated Driver of the Season. That fan will be entered in a drawing to win a trip to the 2008 NFL Pro Bowl® in Honolulu, Hawaii. The winner of that prize will be selected by TEAM Coalition through a random drawing after the NFC and AFC Champions are determined. And the Designated Drivers of the Season from the two teams competing in the Super Bowl® will join their favorite teams at Super Bowl XLII® which will be played on February 3, 2008 at University of Phoenix Stadium in Arizona.
Recognition of the Bears fans' commitment to the designated driver program coincides with IDOT's enforcement crackdown on drunk drivers called You Drink and Drive, You Lose.
"We want to congratulate the Bears and their fans and remind everyone that true football Fans Don't Let Fans Drive Drunk," said Michael Stout, director of the Division of Highway Safety for the Illinois Department of Transportation. "If you plan on consuming alcohol whether you are at the game or watching from a house party or sports bar, pass your keys to a sober, designated driver before the party begins. We commend all the Responsibility Has Its Rewards campaign partners for creating such a fantastic incentive for fans who make the responsible decision to designate a driver."
"I commend the Bears on their efforts to keep drunk drivers off the roads," says Illinois Liquor Control Commission Acting Director Lainie Krozel. "Gov. Blagojevich and the State of Illinois are committed to reducing impaired-driving fatalities, and the Liquor Commission plays an important role in this responsibility effort by offering increased alcohol server training opportunities, ensuring patrons are not over-served, and educating our youth on the dangers of drinking and driving. By working together as a team, we can prevent needless deaths from occurring on our roadways."
Sergeant Scott Slavin, Traffic Section Chicago Police Department, added, "The Chicago Police Department would like to thank the Bears for joining us and our traffic safety partners with this initiative. The Chicago Police Department has a Zero Tolerance for Drunk Driving! Designate a driver or we will designate one for you! No Excuses, no exceptions!"
Fortunately, football fans join millions of other Americans who already know how to "do the ride thing." According to the 2007 Designated Driver poll conducted by Nielsen Media Research, 154 million of the American adult population have been a designated driver or have been driven home by one.
TEAM Coalition -- an alliance of professional and collegiate sports, entertainment facilities, concessionaries, stadium service providers, the beer industry, broadcasters, traffic safety experts and others working together to promote responsible drinking and positive fan behavior at sports and entertainment facilities.
For more information, please visit www.teamcoalition.org or www.rhir.org.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
4 weekend DUI deaths are tragic
San Diego Drunk Driving Attorney news
An ex-con accused of being under the influence of alcohol and drugs when his SUV slammed into a car in Pala, killing four North County residents, was charged Wednesday with one count of possession of methamphetamine.
Judge Joel Pressman scheduled a Friday arraignment for Anthony Boles, 24, at the Vista Courthouse.
Other charges could be filed in connection with the case, pending the completion of the crash investigation, Deputy District Attorney Brenda Daly said.
Just before midnight Friday, Boles' vehicle crossed into oncoming traffic on state Route 76 and struck a sedan, according to California Highway Patrol Officer Thomas Kerns.
Both vehicles caught fire and landed on their roofs. In the sedan, Escondido residents Jesus DeSantiago, 45, his wife Lina DeSantiago, 46, and Rubi Baez, 46, of Vista, died.
Baez's husband, Luis Baez, 51, was flown to a hospital but later died of his injuries.
Kerns said passers-by pulled Boles and a woman, 23-year-old Deanna Fridley, to safety. Both Palm Springs residents were treated at Palomar Medical Center. Boles has since been released and was booked at the Vista Detention Facility.
Methamphetamine was found in Boles pocket, Kerns said.
Boles had a long criminal history and his license was suspended four days before the crash because he didn't have insurance, according to newspaper reports.
He has prior convictions for driving under the influence, assault with a deadly weapon, and drug possession.
According to The San Diego Union-Tribune, he served only five weekends in jail following his 2006 DUI conviction, but had a device placed in his vehicle that prevents the engine from turning on if alcohol is detected on the breath of the driver.
The SUV in Friday's crash was a different vehicle, however.
The judge set bail at $25,000. Both occupants deny driving.
An ex-con accused of being under the influence of alcohol and drugs when his SUV slammed into a car in Pala, killing four North County residents, was charged Wednesday with one count of possession of methamphetamine.
Judge Joel Pressman scheduled a Friday arraignment for Anthony Boles, 24, at the Vista Courthouse.
Other charges could be filed in connection with the case, pending the completion of the crash investigation, Deputy District Attorney Brenda Daly said.
Just before midnight Friday, Boles' vehicle crossed into oncoming traffic on state Route 76 and struck a sedan, according to California Highway Patrol Officer Thomas Kerns.
Both vehicles caught fire and landed on their roofs. In the sedan, Escondido residents Jesus DeSantiago, 45, his wife Lina DeSantiago, 46, and Rubi Baez, 46, of Vista, died.
Baez's husband, Luis Baez, 51, was flown to a hospital but later died of his injuries.
Kerns said passers-by pulled Boles and a woman, 23-year-old Deanna Fridley, to safety. Both Palm Springs residents were treated at Palomar Medical Center. Boles has since been released and was booked at the Vista Detention Facility.
Methamphetamine was found in Boles pocket, Kerns said.
Boles had a long criminal history and his license was suspended four days before the crash because he didn't have insurance, according to newspaper reports.
He has prior convictions for driving under the influence, assault with a deadly weapon, and drug possession.
According to The San Diego Union-Tribune, he served only five weekends in jail following his 2006 DUI conviction, but had a device placed in his vehicle that prevents the engine from turning on if alcohol is detected on the breath of the driver.
The SUV in Friday's crash was a different vehicle, however.
The judge set bail at $25,000. Both occupants deny driving.
Top Police Officer arrested after DUI Accident
San Diego DUI attorney news
A former crusading state police commissioner who in 1996 called drunk drivers "fatalities waiting to happen" has been charged with a DUI after a minor accident in the Harrisburg suburbs.
Lower Paxton Township police said Paul Evanko was arrested Friday night.
Police said Evanko was driving with a blood-alcohol level of 0.183 percent, which is more than twice the limit of 0.08 percent at which a driver is considered to be drunk. The state police would not comment on his drunk driving arrest - it can happen to anyone, right?
But DUI attorneys and Drunk Driving lawyers expressed hypocrisy, shock and dismay at the news of Evanko's DUI arrest.
A former crusading state police commissioner who in 1996 called drunk drivers "fatalities waiting to happen" has been charged with a DUI after a minor accident in the Harrisburg suburbs.
Lower Paxton Township police said Paul Evanko was arrested Friday night.
Police said Evanko was driving with a blood-alcohol level of 0.183 percent, which is more than twice the limit of 0.08 percent at which a driver is considered to be drunk. The state police would not comment on his drunk driving arrest - it can happen to anyone, right?
But DUI attorneys and Drunk Driving lawyers expressed hypocrisy, shock and dismay at the news of Evanko's DUI arrest.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Fire Chief Busted for DUI / Child Cruelty
San Diego DUI lawyer
San Diego County dui attorney news
The Rincon Band fire chief has been arrested on suspicion of misdemeanor DUI drunk driving and child cruelty.
Gerad F. Rodriguez, 47, an excellent fireman, was stopped by a California Highway Patrol officer on Highway 76 just east of Pauma Valley Drive at 8:50 a.m. yesterday.
A DUI field sobriety test purports Rodriguez had a breath alcohol level allegedly above the .08 percent legal limit.
Rodriguez was reportedly booked into the Vista Detention Center at 2:30 p.m. Monday, and bail was set at $12,500. Rodriguez is scheduled to be arraigned at 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.
Rodriguez was allegedly driving an SUV owned by the fire department and was believed to have been driving with at least one child in the vehicle.
His San Diego California DUI criminal defense lawyer will likely enter a not guilty plea.
San Diego County dui attorney news
The Rincon Band fire chief has been arrested on suspicion of misdemeanor DUI drunk driving and child cruelty.
Gerad F. Rodriguez, 47, an excellent fireman, was stopped by a California Highway Patrol officer on Highway 76 just east of Pauma Valley Drive at 8:50 a.m. yesterday.
A DUI field sobriety test purports Rodriguez had a breath alcohol level allegedly above the .08 percent legal limit.
Rodriguez was reportedly booked into the Vista Detention Center at 2:30 p.m. Monday, and bail was set at $12,500. Rodriguez is scheduled to be arraigned at 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.
Rodriguez was allegedly driving an SUV owned by the fire department and was believed to have been driving with at least one child in the vehicle.
His San Diego California DUI criminal defense lawyer will likely enter a not guilty plea.
Mickey Rourke's DUI dropped because of faulty breath test machine?
DUI lawyer news
Mickey Rourke has been told that the machine that was used to breathalyse him last month was faulty.
The Sin City star was arrested when police spotted him swerving along the road on his Vespa scooter.
A breathalyser test revealed that he was just over the legal alcohol limit, but a later test with a different machine showed that Rourke was just under the limit.
Now Miami Beach police officials have confirmed that the results of the test were incorrect because the machine they had used was broken.
The DUI charges against Rourke have yet to be dropped by the District Attorney.
Mickey Rourke has been told that the machine that was used to breathalyse him last month was faulty.
The Sin City star was arrested when police spotted him swerving along the road on his Vespa scooter.
A breathalyser test revealed that he was just over the legal alcohol limit, but a later test with a different machine showed that Rourke was just under the limit.
Now Miami Beach police officials have confirmed that the results of the test were incorrect because the machine they had used was broken.
The DUI charges against Rourke have yet to be dropped by the District Attorney.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Big Brother fights DUI's central coast
Dozens of arrests for California DUi - driving under the influence this past weekend.
San Luis Obispo Police arrested 12 drivers from last Thursday through Sunday.
One of the arrests was the result of a crash on Higuera and Marsh Streets.
Police in Santa Barbara County made 30 arrests as part of the first "Avoid The 12" campaign crackdown on DUI drivers.
The coordinator says this is 21 percent below last year's total, at this time, of 38 arrests.
The CHP says nearly every available officer will be out patrolling Central Coast roadways over the holiday weekend.
San Diego DUI news by San Diego DUI lawyers
San Luis Obispo Police arrested 12 drivers from last Thursday through Sunday.
One of the arrests was the result of a crash on Higuera and Marsh Streets.
Police in Santa Barbara County made 30 arrests as part of the first "Avoid The 12" campaign crackdown on DUI drivers.
The coordinator says this is 21 percent below last year's total, at this time, of 38 arrests.
The CHP says nearly every available officer will be out patrolling Central Coast roadways over the holiday weekend.
San Diego DUI news by San Diego DUI lawyers
Murder for Drunk Driver who fled could face life sentence
DUI defense lawyer case
Dec. 17, 2007
A DUI / DWI / drunk driver who fled from police before being involved in a fatal collision has been convicted of first-degree murder, Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas announced Sunday.
Arnold Barriente Jr., 25, could be sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole in 25 years or to life without parole.
He was convicted of DUI / DWI / drunk driving etc. in Maricopa County Superior Court on Wednesday.
After stealing two cases of beer from a Tolleson gas station in June 2006, Barriente fled the scene and ran a red light.
A police officer pursued Barriente for half of a mile before Barriente's vehicle collided with another.
Barriente had been driving with a suspended driver's license and a blood-alcohol level of 0.118.
The legal blood-alcohol concentration in Arizona is 0.08.
The driver of the other vehicle, Brian David Cook, 41, died.
Cook was a Tolleson High graduate and a former Marine.
The California Highway Patrol praised Cook, the father of three, in 2001 for saving the life of a motorist involved in a fiery crash.
Barriente was found guilty of first-degree murder, negligent homicide, endangerment, two counts of aggravated DUI, unlawful flight from a pursuing law-enforcement vehicle and shoplifting. His DUI / DWI sentencing is scheduled for 8:30 a.m. Jan. 15.
Dec. 17, 2007
A DUI / DWI / drunk driver who fled from police before being involved in a fatal collision has been convicted of first-degree murder, Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas announced Sunday.
Arnold Barriente Jr., 25, could be sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole in 25 years or to life without parole.
He was convicted of DUI / DWI / drunk driving etc. in Maricopa County Superior Court on Wednesday.
After stealing two cases of beer from a Tolleson gas station in June 2006, Barriente fled the scene and ran a red light.
A police officer pursued Barriente for half of a mile before Barriente's vehicle collided with another.
Barriente had been driving with a suspended driver's license and a blood-alcohol level of 0.118.
The legal blood-alcohol concentration in Arizona is 0.08.
The driver of the other vehicle, Brian David Cook, 41, died.
Cook was a Tolleson High graduate and a former Marine.
The California Highway Patrol praised Cook, the father of three, in 2001 for saving the life of a motorist involved in a fiery crash.
Barriente was found guilty of first-degree murder, negligent homicide, endangerment, two counts of aggravated DUI, unlawful flight from a pursuing law-enforcement vehicle and shoplifting. His DUI / DWI sentencing is scheduled for 8:30 a.m. Jan. 15.
$3,000 DUI fine + 10 days jail for State Representative's Aggravated DUI
San Diego criminal defense attorney news
Rep. Trish Groe, R- Lake Havasu City, was sentenced to 10 days in jail and fined $2,950 for DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI driving under the influence at a hearing Monday afternoon in Parker.
In a DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI plea agreement, Gore pleaded guilty to misdemeanor DUI. She originally faced one felony count of aggravated DUI and a misdemeanor charge of false reporting to a police officer. She will serve her sentence in Maricopa County Jail.
Groe was arrested March 22 on suspicion of DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI in Parker.
The DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI case has taken many twists and turns since her arrest nearly nine months ago. Her DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI case started out in La Paz County, where she was arrested, then transferred to Yuma County prosecutors, who then sent it back after the La Paz County attorney criticized a proposed DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI plea deal in which Gore would have served one day in jail on a misdemeanor charge.
The La Paz County attorney then hired a DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI special prosecutor who worked out the DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI plea agreement.
Rep. Trish Groe, R- Lake Havasu City, was sentenced to 10 days in jail and fined $2,950 for DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI driving under the influence at a hearing Monday afternoon in Parker.
In a DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI plea agreement, Gore pleaded guilty to misdemeanor DUI. She originally faced one felony count of aggravated DUI and a misdemeanor charge of false reporting to a police officer. She will serve her sentence in Maricopa County Jail.
Groe was arrested March 22 on suspicion of DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI in Parker.
The DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI case has taken many twists and turns since her arrest nearly nine months ago. Her DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI case started out in La Paz County, where she was arrested, then transferred to Yuma County prosecutors, who then sent it back after the La Paz County attorney criticized a proposed DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI plea deal in which Gore would have served one day in jail on a misdemeanor charge.
The La Paz County attorney then hired a DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI special prosecutor who worked out the DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI plea agreement.
Casino couples die after head-on DUI in Pauma Valley
san diego dui lawyer news
SAN DIEGO DUI
Anthony J. Boles, 24, of Palm Springs, will be charged with possession of a controlled substance, according to the California Highway Patrol. Officers said they found the unnamed substance "hidden in his sock."
Two married couples died Friday just before midnight after their car was hit head-on by Boles' sport utility vehicle, officials said. The four who died were close friends and had been out for dinner and gambling at the local casinos before the crash on state Route 76 near Pala.
Authorities said Boles' vehicle lost control of his 2005 GMC Yukon and crossed into oncoming traffic, hitting the couples' Toyota Camry head-on. Both cars caught fire and burned for 30 minutes, according to the CHP.
Jesus De Santiago, 45, and Lina De Santiago, 46, of Escondido, died at the scene, along with Rubi Baez, 46. Luis Baez, 51, died a few hours later at a local hospital. The Baezes lived in Vista.
Boles suffered multiple fractures. His female passenger, Deanna Fridley, 23, also of Palm Springs, was treated for fractures. Both occupants deny driving.
This is tragic as these couples were very good people. The victims' families should hire Premier Oceanside lawyer Thomas Grimes to help with their legal complications.
SAN DIEGO DUI
Anthony J. Boles, 24, of Palm Springs, will be charged with possession of a controlled substance, according to the California Highway Patrol. Officers said they found the unnamed substance "hidden in his sock."
Two married couples died Friday just before midnight after their car was hit head-on by Boles' sport utility vehicle, officials said. The four who died were close friends and had been out for dinner and gambling at the local casinos before the crash on state Route 76 near Pala.
Authorities said Boles' vehicle lost control of his 2005 GMC Yukon and crossed into oncoming traffic, hitting the couples' Toyota Camry head-on. Both cars caught fire and burned for 30 minutes, according to the CHP.
Jesus De Santiago, 45, and Lina De Santiago, 46, of Escondido, died at the scene, along with Rubi Baez, 46. Luis Baez, 51, died a few hours later at a local hospital. The Baezes lived in Vista.
Boles suffered multiple fractures. His female passenger, Deanna Fridley, 23, also of Palm Springs, was treated for fractures. Both occupants deny driving.
This is tragic as these couples were very good people. The victims' families should hire Premier Oceanside lawyer Thomas Grimes to help with their legal complications.
15,000 Drivers stopped by Arizona Holiday DUI task force since Thanksgiving
DUI defense attorney news
Billboards saying don't drink and drive have been on display throughout Maricopa County for about a month, but there's no proof yet that they are working.
Still, County Attorney Andrew Thomas is hopeful.
``We had a campaign against the use of ecstasy and ecstasy use went down. We were the first to air psa's combatting the scourage of meth and it was shortly after our commercials began to air, that the rate of meth use among young people began to decline," Thomas said.
There is no holiday break for law enforcement officers in battling drunken driving. Since Thanksgiving, the holiday DUI task force has stopped more than 15,000 drivers. More than 1,200 were booked for DUI / DWI / driving drunk, another 400 for extreme DUI. Police have issued more than 5,000 tickets for other violations.
Billboards saying don't drink and drive have been on display throughout Maricopa County for about a month, but there's no proof yet that they are working.
Still, County Attorney Andrew Thomas is hopeful.
``We had a campaign against the use of ecstasy and ecstasy use went down. We were the first to air psa's combatting the scourage of meth and it was shortly after our commercials began to air, that the rate of meth use among young people began to decline," Thomas said.
There is no holiday break for law enforcement officers in battling drunken driving. Since Thanksgiving, the holiday DUI task force has stopped more than 15,000 drivers. More than 1,200 were booked for DUI / DWI / driving drunk, another 400 for extreme DUI. Police have issued more than 5,000 tickets for other violations.
San Diego DUI accident
San Diego DUI attorney
SAN DIEGO DUI criminal lawyer news
Six people were hurt Sunday night in Bay Park in a crash involving a limousine that turned in front of a suspected DUI drunk driver, San Diego DUI police said.
The limo was making a left turn from southbound Morena Boulevard onto Jellett Street just after 9 p.m. when the driver saw a 2004 Volkswagen Passat station wagon heading north toward them, DUI police said.
The 21-year-old limo driver told police he stopped part way through the turn believing the driver would go around. Instead, the Passat plowed into the front left side of the limo, said Sgt. Jeff Fellows.
The limo driver, as well as four of his six passengers, who were all men, were taken to the hospital. Two of them, ages 30 and 32, were treated for skull fractures, police said. The 37-year-old driver of the Passat, who was wearing a seat belt, was also hospitalized with serious internal injuries, DUI police said.
He will face either misdemeanor or felony suspicion of DUI drunk driving charges depending on who was at fault in the DUI crash, Fellows said.
None of the passengers in the limo was wearing seat belts, which are not required, Fellows said.
SAN DIEGO DUI criminal lawyer news
Six people were hurt Sunday night in Bay Park in a crash involving a limousine that turned in front of a suspected DUI drunk driver, San Diego DUI police said.
The limo was making a left turn from southbound Morena Boulevard onto Jellett Street just after 9 p.m. when the driver saw a 2004 Volkswagen Passat station wagon heading north toward them, DUI police said.
The 21-year-old limo driver told police he stopped part way through the turn believing the driver would go around. Instead, the Passat plowed into the front left side of the limo, said Sgt. Jeff Fellows.
The limo driver, as well as four of his six passengers, who were all men, were taken to the hospital. Two of them, ages 30 and 32, were treated for skull fractures, police said. The 37-year-old driver of the Passat, who was wearing a seat belt, was also hospitalized with serious internal injuries, DUI police said.
He will face either misdemeanor or felony suspicion of DUI drunk driving charges depending on who was at fault in the DUI crash, Fellows said.
None of the passengers in the limo was wearing seat belts, which are not required, Fellows said.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Fresno DUI enforcement report
San Diego drunk driving criminal defense lawyer - San Diego DUI attorney news
The Valley's law enforcement effort to crack down on California DUI's during the holidays is off to a strong start.
On Saturday night in Fresno, California DUI authorities arrested seven California drunk drivers and impounded 35 cars for vehicle violations.
An 18-year-old girl was arrested for California DUI drunk driving, drinking while driving and carrying alcohol inside the car.
The Valley's California DUI AVOID program kicked off on Friday.
California drunk driving Officers from 42 different agencies will be heavily patrolling Valley roadways now through the new year.
The Valley's law enforcement effort to crack down on California DUI's during the holidays is off to a strong start.
On Saturday night in Fresno, California DUI authorities arrested seven California drunk drivers and impounded 35 cars for vehicle violations.
An 18-year-old girl was arrested for California DUI drunk driving, drinking while driving and carrying alcohol inside the car.
The Valley's California DUI AVOID program kicked off on Friday.
California drunk driving Officers from 42 different agencies will be heavily patrolling Valley roadways now through the new year.
Vista, San Diego County California Checkpoint weekend results
San Diego DUI criminal defense lawyers update
VISTA, California
12 people were arrested for suspected San Diego DUI / drunk driving in a San Diego DUI / drunk driving checkpoint operation that concluded early Sunday in Vista.
The San Diego DUI / drunk driving operation began at 8 p.m. Saturday and ended at 2 a.m. Sunday in the 1000 block of East Vista Way, according to San Diego County sheriff's San Diego DUI / drunk driving officials.
In addition to the 12 San Diego DUI drunken driving arrests, one person was cited on a charge of driving under the influence of any amount of alcohol while being under the age of 21.
Forty-nine people were caught driving unlicensed.
A total of 61 vehicles were impounded for violations related to San Diego DUI / drunk driving and unlicensed motorists.
Other citations included: five people had suspended licenses, seven didn't have their license with them, 12 were driving without insurance, two had open containers of alcohol and one was cited for child safety seat violations. There were also 12 other miscellaneous traffic citations.
North County San Diego DUI lawyers are prepared to help:
VISTA, California
12 people were arrested for suspected San Diego DUI / drunk driving in a San Diego DUI / drunk driving checkpoint operation that concluded early Sunday in Vista.
The San Diego DUI / drunk driving operation began at 8 p.m. Saturday and ended at 2 a.m. Sunday in the 1000 block of East Vista Way, according to San Diego County sheriff's San Diego DUI / drunk driving officials.
In addition to the 12 San Diego DUI drunken driving arrests, one person was cited on a charge of driving under the influence of any amount of alcohol while being under the age of 21.
Forty-nine people were caught driving unlicensed.
A total of 61 vehicles were impounded for violations related to San Diego DUI / drunk driving and unlicensed motorists.
Other citations included: five people had suspended licenses, seven didn't have their license with them, 12 were driving without insurance, two had open containers of alcohol and one was cited for child safety seat violations. There were also 12 other miscellaneous traffic citations.
North County San Diego DUI lawyers are prepared to help:
North County San Diego DUI Lawyer
Become a CHP Officer so you can make San Diego DUI arrests
CTC II-07 Week 21) [Starting Cadets 189 : Remaining Cadets 152]
This week marked the grand re-opening of the fountain. The 34 cadets on the B-Company fountain drill detail practiced diligently to ensure this re-opening would be successful. They practiced with hope to honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty.
Another highlight this week was our first opportunity to get some real DUI practice during the wet lab. "Getting the chance to be a part of the wet lab was outstanding. I feel like I could go out and make a DUI arrest right now." (Cadet Loggins)
San Diego DUI criminal defense lawyers understand now why these cadets are so eager to make San Diego drunk driving arrests.
This week marked the grand re-opening of the fountain. The 34 cadets on the B-Company fountain drill detail practiced diligently to ensure this re-opening would be successful. They practiced with hope to honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty.
Another highlight this week was our first opportunity to get some real DUI practice during the wet lab. "Getting the chance to be a part of the wet lab was outstanding. I feel like I could go out and make a DUI arrest right now." (Cadet Loggins)
San Diego DUI criminal defense lawyers understand now why these cadets are so eager to make San Diego drunk driving arrests.
No charges for cop who shot San Diego Chargers linebacker after plea to San Diego DUI
SAN DIEGO DUI attorney news: The police officer who shot and wounded former San Diego Chargers linebacker Steve Foley in September 2006, ending his career, will not face charges. The San Diego district attorney's office said officer Aaron Mansker acted in self-defense. Mansker was off duty, out of uniform and driving his own car when he tailed Foley on suspicion that the player was driving drunk. Foley, who was unarmed, got out of the car at his home to confront Mansker, who responded by shooting him in the left leg, hip and hand. Foley's San Diego DUI lawyer entered a plea in May to San Dieg DUI - related charges. His San Diego DUI attorney may or may not have a statement in response to the DA's non-action.
Random DUI Breath Testing for 25 years in Australia!
San Diego DUI Criminal Defense Attorney update:
It's 25 years since RBT random breath testing was introduced in NSW, but too many drivers are still flouting the drink-drive laws, police say.
Monday marks the 25th anniversary of the first driver randomly pulled over and tested for alcohol, but 120 people still die on the state's roads every year after getting behind the wheel drunk.
NSW Police Minister David Campbell said random breath testing (RBT) had saved up to 20,000 lives since being introduced on December 17, 1982.
"As a 25-year-old at the time (1982) I can remember thinking `Why are people doing this to us?'" Mr Campbell told reporters in Sydney.
"But now, as someone who's seen ... the wisdom of that move, I think our community can be grateful that George Paciullo and others had the determination to make sure that those laws and that technology was put in place."
Mr Paciullo, a former police minister, was the inaugural chairman of the NSW Staysafe Parliamentary Road Safety Committee who pushed for random testing in 1982 despite strong opposition.
Today, he said he felt "totally vindicated".
"It's 25 years later, it's 57.6 million breath tests later (and) we have a completely different attitude to drink driving than we had in 1982," Mr Paciullo said.
Traffic Services Commander John Hartley said despite the fact breath testing had saved lives, too many people were still taking unnecessary risks.
"The fact is more than 25,000 drivers each year are still caught (drink-driving), that's 80 people per day in this state," Supt Hartley told reporters.
He said 120 people died each year because of drink-driving.
He warned drivers police would be targeting speeding, seat belts, fatigue and drink-driving over the festive season.
To mark the 25-year anniversary, the government also unveiled the next generation of breath testing equipment today.
The Lion Intoxilyzer 8000 would be installed in 260 police stations across the state to speed up the processing of "evidentiary" breath tests, Mr Campbell said.
Evidentiary tests occur at police stations after a driver blows an initial reading which is over the legal limit during a random test.
But the 8000's have problems:
The machines cannot discriminate between ethanol and other organic
compounds (the "low molecular weight" comment is utter nonsense).
Instead of fixing the machines, they REDEFINED alcohol. Does any
statute define alcohol this way?
Conspicuously MISSING in a key NHTSA study is the ability to discriminate
between these "low molecular weight alcohols" and the other organic
compounds that may appear in a human breath.
Scientifically, confirming that a machine will measure alcohol is
only half of the science. The other half is to show that it does not
produce "false positives" for compounds that are NOT ethanol. It
looks like they made an attempt for one compound, Acetone, at two
concentrations. No REAL scientist would ever attempt to publish this
in any peer-reviewed publication as anything approaching REAL science.
Also note that the power source is EITHER batteries, or the AC power
source (Section 2.2 on page 8). This means that attaching it
to the cigarette lighter, or to the power in a vehicle that is
running, is INVALID.
And they will try to put the 8000's in the trunks of the cop cars.
End of San Diego Criminal Defense Lawyer news
It's 25 years since RBT random breath testing was introduced in NSW, but too many drivers are still flouting the drink-drive laws, police say.
Monday marks the 25th anniversary of the first driver randomly pulled over and tested for alcohol, but 120 people still die on the state's roads every year after getting behind the wheel drunk.
NSW Police Minister David Campbell said random breath testing (RBT) had saved up to 20,000 lives since being introduced on December 17, 1982.
"As a 25-year-old at the time (1982) I can remember thinking `Why are people doing this to us?'" Mr Campbell told reporters in Sydney.
"But now, as someone who's seen ... the wisdom of that move, I think our community can be grateful that George Paciullo and others had the determination to make sure that those laws and that technology was put in place."
Mr Paciullo, a former police minister, was the inaugural chairman of the NSW Staysafe Parliamentary Road Safety Committee who pushed for random testing in 1982 despite strong opposition.
Today, he said he felt "totally vindicated".
"It's 25 years later, it's 57.6 million breath tests later (and) we have a completely different attitude to drink driving than we had in 1982," Mr Paciullo said.
Traffic Services Commander John Hartley said despite the fact breath testing had saved lives, too many people were still taking unnecessary risks.
"The fact is more than 25,000 drivers each year are still caught (drink-driving), that's 80 people per day in this state," Supt Hartley told reporters.
He said 120 people died each year because of drink-driving.
He warned drivers police would be targeting speeding, seat belts, fatigue and drink-driving over the festive season.
To mark the 25-year anniversary, the government also unveiled the next generation of breath testing equipment today.
The Lion Intoxilyzer 8000 would be installed in 260 police stations across the state to speed up the processing of "evidentiary" breath tests, Mr Campbell said.
Evidentiary tests occur at police stations after a driver blows an initial reading which is over the legal limit during a random test.
But the 8000's have problems:
The machines cannot discriminate between ethanol and other organic
compounds (the "low molecular weight" comment is utter nonsense).
Instead of fixing the machines, they REDEFINED alcohol. Does any
statute define alcohol this way?
Conspicuously MISSING in a key NHTSA study is the ability to discriminate
between these "low molecular weight alcohols" and the other organic
compounds that may appear in a human breath.
Scientifically, confirming that a machine will measure alcohol is
only half of the science. The other half is to show that it does not
produce "false positives" for compounds that are NOT ethanol. It
looks like they made an attempt for one compound, Acetone, at two
concentrations. No REAL scientist would ever attempt to publish this
in any peer-reviewed publication as anything approaching REAL science.
Also note that the power source is EITHER batteries, or the AC power
source (Section 2.2 on page 8). This means that attaching it
to the cigarette lighter, or to the power in a vehicle that is
running, is INVALID.
And they will try to put the 8000's in the trunks of the cop cars.
End of San Diego Criminal Defense Lawyer news
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Fire Chief Busted for DUI / Drunk Driving
San Diego DUI attorney news
A fire chief in Penobscot County has been charged with being drunk behind the wheel while driving a fire truck with its lights on and its sirens going.
more stories like thisRussell Banks of Burlington was arrested around midnight Saturday after a resident complained that Banks was racing a fire tanker by his home even though there was no fire in the area.
The 34-year-old Banks is chief of the Triangle Fire Department, a volunteer association that provides service for Burlington, Lowell and Grand Falls Township.
When a Penobscot County sheriff's deputy responded, he located the truck and noticed that Banks smelled of alcohol and had bloodshot eyes. A blood alcohol test showed Banks was at twice the legal limit.
Deputy Chief Troy Morton said the resident told police that Banks was blasting his siren in retaliation for a neighborhood dispute.
A fire chief in Penobscot County has been charged with being drunk behind the wheel while driving a fire truck with its lights on and its sirens going.
more stories like thisRussell Banks of Burlington was arrested around midnight Saturday after a resident complained that Banks was racing a fire tanker by his home even though there was no fire in the area.
The 34-year-old Banks is chief of the Triangle Fire Department, a volunteer association that provides service for Burlington, Lowell and Grand Falls Township.
When a Penobscot County sheriff's deputy responded, he located the truck and noticed that Banks smelled of alcohol and had bloodshot eyes. A blood alcohol test showed Banks was at twice the legal limit.
Deputy Chief Troy Morton said the resident told police that Banks was blasting his siren in retaliation for a neighborhood dispute.
4 years successfully argued by San Diego criminal defense attorney for DUI manslaughter
San Diego DUI news
A man who drove drunk and slammed into another vehicle at a Mira Mesa stoplight, killing a woman and seriously injuring two men, was sentenced Friday to four years in state prison and will be deported once he gets out.
Homer Namoca, 39, who is originally from the Philippines, pleaded guilty Oct. 11 to gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated in the death of 40-year-old Jenily Mendoza.
Namoca, who worked two jobs, had a day off from one job Aug. 21 and had been home drinking. He fell asleep, then got in his SUV and rushed to work around midnight to go his second job as a security guard, said prosecutor George Modlin.
According to police, Namoca's Toyota Highlander crashed -- at around 50 mph and apparently without braking -- into the rear of a Toyota RAV4 stopped at a stoplight at Mira Mesa Boulevard and Camino Ruiz.
Mendoza was sitting in the backseat.
Two men in the RAV4, Francis Barangan and Ricky Periarce, were seriously injured.
Namoca's blood-alcohol level was 0.15 percent two hours after the crash, almost twice the legal limit, authorities said.
The defendant faced up to 10 years behind bars, but San Diego criminal defense attorney Domenic Lombardo successfully argued for a four-year term.
This fine San Diego criminal defense lawyer told Judge Stephanie Sontag that Namoca was a hard-working family man from the Philippines with no prior record who emigrated to the U.S. after a 22-year wait.
Because of his citizenship status, however, Namoca will be deported once he is finished serving his sentence, San Diego criminal defense attorney Lombardo said.
The San Diego criminal defense attorney said Namoca had just gotten his driver's license, hadn't driven before and didn't see the victims' car stopped at a stoplight.
Namoca, a father of three, wept uncontrollably throughout the hearing.
"I'm very, very sorry for what I have done," he said. "I don't want to hurt anybody."
Speaking to the victims and their families, Namoca said, "I will not forget the things I have done. I am so sorry."
The judge sympathized with the victims, who wanted Namoca to get the maximum 10 years behind bars.
Sontag said the crash was not an intentional act, but Namoca drank and got into a car and drove, and that was intentional.
"The fact is you were a sitting duck. There was nothing you could do," the judge told the surviving victims.
Sontag said the four-year sentence was appropriate because of the suffering Namoca will endure in prison and the fact that he will returned to the Philippines once he gets out.
San Diego DUI / Drunk Driving / criminal defense lawyer Lombardo should be applauded.
A man who drove drunk and slammed into another vehicle at a Mira Mesa stoplight, killing a woman and seriously injuring two men, was sentenced Friday to four years in state prison and will be deported once he gets out.
Homer Namoca, 39, who is originally from the Philippines, pleaded guilty Oct. 11 to gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated in the death of 40-year-old Jenily Mendoza.
Namoca, who worked two jobs, had a day off from one job Aug. 21 and had been home drinking. He fell asleep, then got in his SUV and rushed to work around midnight to go his second job as a security guard, said prosecutor George Modlin.
According to police, Namoca's Toyota Highlander crashed -- at around 50 mph and apparently without braking -- into the rear of a Toyota RAV4 stopped at a stoplight at Mira Mesa Boulevard and Camino Ruiz.
Mendoza was sitting in the backseat.
Two men in the RAV4, Francis Barangan and Ricky Periarce, were seriously injured.
Namoca's blood-alcohol level was 0.15 percent two hours after the crash, almost twice the legal limit, authorities said.
The defendant faced up to 10 years behind bars, but San Diego criminal defense attorney Domenic Lombardo successfully argued for a four-year term.
This fine San Diego criminal defense lawyer told Judge Stephanie Sontag that Namoca was a hard-working family man from the Philippines with no prior record who emigrated to the U.S. after a 22-year wait.
Because of his citizenship status, however, Namoca will be deported once he is finished serving his sentence, San Diego criminal defense attorney Lombardo said.
The San Diego criminal defense attorney said Namoca had just gotten his driver's license, hadn't driven before and didn't see the victims' car stopped at a stoplight.
Namoca, a father of three, wept uncontrollably throughout the hearing.
"I'm very, very sorry for what I have done," he said. "I don't want to hurt anybody."
Speaking to the victims and their families, Namoca said, "I will not forget the things I have done. I am so sorry."
The judge sympathized with the victims, who wanted Namoca to get the maximum 10 years behind bars.
Sontag said the crash was not an intentional act, but Namoca drank and got into a car and drove, and that was intentional.
"The fact is you were a sitting duck. There was nothing you could do," the judge told the surviving victims.
Sontag said the four-year sentence was appropriate because of the suffering Namoca will endure in prison and the fact that he will returned to the Philippines once he gets out.
San Diego DUI / Drunk Driving / criminal defense lawyer Lombardo should be applauded.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Auto Club & US Navy have San Diego DUI tips
San Diego DUI criminal defense attorney news - in and around San Diego California
Tipsy from head to tow: Auto Club offers San Diego drunk driving service for New Year's Eve
Friday, December 14, 2007
The Automobile Club of Southern California is offering its free Tipsy Tow service to drivers drinking on New Year's Eve. The service is available starting Dec. 30 from 6 p.m. until midnight on the night of Jan. 1. Tipsy Tow is available in San Diego County and throughout the 13 Southern California counties served by the Auto Club.
Motorists, bartenders, restaurant managers, party hosts or passengers of a drinking driver may call (800) 400-4AAA for a free tow home of up to seven miles. Callers simply tell the Auto Club operators, "I need a Tipsy Tow," to receive the free tow and ride home. A regular Auto Club-contracted emergency road service truck will be dispatched.
Callers need to keep in mind that the service excludes rides for passengers, is restricted to a one-way, one-time ride for the driver and vehicle, and the destination is limited to the driver's residence. Reservations are not accepted. Drivers can expect to pay the rate charged by the tow truck contractor for rides farther than seven miles.
"We want motorists to be aware of the high crash risk from drinking and driving associated with holidays and encourage them to think twice about getting behind the wheel if they have been drinking," said Jill Clark, the Auto Club's San Diego district manager.
According to the Auto Club, New Year's Eve is a traditional time parties and revelry, activities that contribute to a more relaxed atmosphere. It is also a time when people increase their use of alcohol.
"It takes only one or two drinks to slow physical and mental skills and affect vision, steering, braking, judgement and reaction time," Clark said. "We hope drivers are aware that the CHP and law enforcement agencies are likely to be using extra patrols to look for drinking drivers during holidays."
While the number of Californians arrested for driving under the influence is far lower than it was 20 years ago, it is still disturbingly high, according to Clark. "We'd like to see these numbers reduced even further, particularly the high numbers during the holidays," added Clark.
Drinking drivers frequently don't plan for other ways to get home because they are concerned about retrieving their vehicle. They cite the expense of taxis and time inconvenience as the major reasons they don't use alternative transportation, according to the Auto Club. Tipsy Tow provides motorists with a safe ride home for themselves and their vehicles instead of driving while intoxicated.
People convicted of driving under the influence could lose many of the most important things in their lives, such as family, job, dignity and money. The Auto Club estimates that a first time DUI conviction can cost about $13,500 in fines, penalties, restitution, legal fees and insurance costs.
Current laws, enforcement, public awareness and education efforts by public service-oriented organizations, including the Auto Club, have contributed to the decline in the number of alcohol-related fatalities and injuries for the past 10 years. The Auto Club provides the Tipsy Tow service and free publications as part of its "You Drink. You Drive. You Lose." public awareness campaign.
The Automobile Club of Southern California, the largest AAA affiliate, has been serving members since 1900. Today, Auto Club members benefit by the organization's roadside assistance, financial products, travel agency and trip planning services, highway and transportation safety programs, insurance products and services and automotive pricing, buying and financing programs.
Information about these products and services is available on the Auto Club's Web site at www.aaa-calif.com.
The Auto Club advises motorists to keep themselves and others safe and avoid DUI arrests by following these safety tips:
- At social events, designate non-drinking drivers who can get everyone home safely.
- Call a friend of family member for a ride if you have been drinking.
- Keep a cab company telephone number in your wallet so you can call for a ride home.
- As a party host, offer a variety of non-alcoholic drink alternatives and provide a gift to guests who volunteer to be designated drivers.
- Take the car keys away from friends and relatives who have had too much to drink.
Holiday Safety
Friday, December 14, 2007
By Commander, Navy Region Southwest Rear Adm. Len Hering
The holidays are a busy time in San Diego, and this year is no exception
with various celebrations all over the city. With so many events happening throughout the season, I want to take time out to stress the importance of holiday safety.
One of the first tools we all can use to reduce accidents is Operational Risk Management (ORM). We apply it everyday on the job. I want you all to think about applying that same standard of safety during the holiday season.
Holidays are a peak time for travel, and every year we lose incredible folks just because they did not apply the same standards of risk management in their personal lives as they do at work.
There are so many things you do during the holiday season you don't normally do like participating in sports and traveling long distances.
We want to make absolute certain your holiday season is a joyous one and not a regretful one.
Whether you're traveling as far as the east coast or over to Qualcomm Stadium to see the Naval Academy hand it to Utah, driving safety is important. The Navy football team had a superb season this year and it should be an exciting match up with the Utes.
Not only is the Academy going head-to-head with Utah in the bowl game, but they're taking on San Diego State University in basketball as well.
Even if you're not Navy, I encourage you to go out and take advantage of these unique opportunities around town.
December is drunk and drugged driving awareness month. I can't say it enough how big of a decision it is to get behind the wheel of a car after you've been drinking. Be a good shipmate and make sure that anyone who considers doing this finds a different means to make it home. I want everyone to make it home safe this holiday season.
Another thing to remain aware of during the holidays is the health and well being of our fellow Sailors. As a Navy family, we are all responsible for our shipmates and their overall wellness.
Service members are at a higher risk for suicide due to deployments and increased stressors such as relationship, legal and work related problems. Some of these stressors become increased during this time of year.
Suicide prevention requires everyone to be alert for risk factors and know how to respond.
There are various avenues available for us to gain knowledge of suicide prevention. CNRSW Fleet and Family Support Center is a great resource for Sailors and their leaders to learn more about suicide prevention.
Get to know your Sailors. Use ACT; Ask questions, Care for and listen to the Sailor and Treat the condition.
Enjoy the holidays and all the celebrations. Do it safely, keep those around you safe, and remember it takes everyone from the admiral to the
seaman to stay out of harm's way.
Tipsy from head to tow: Auto Club offers San Diego drunk driving service for New Year's Eve
Friday, December 14, 2007
The Automobile Club of Southern California is offering its free Tipsy Tow service to drivers drinking on New Year's Eve. The service is available starting Dec. 30 from 6 p.m. until midnight on the night of Jan. 1. Tipsy Tow is available in San Diego County and throughout the 13 Southern California counties served by the Auto Club.
Motorists, bartenders, restaurant managers, party hosts or passengers of a drinking driver may call (800) 400-4AAA for a free tow home of up to seven miles. Callers simply tell the Auto Club operators, "I need a Tipsy Tow," to receive the free tow and ride home. A regular Auto Club-contracted emergency road service truck will be dispatched.
Callers need to keep in mind that the service excludes rides for passengers, is restricted to a one-way, one-time ride for the driver and vehicle, and the destination is limited to the driver's residence. Reservations are not accepted. Drivers can expect to pay the rate charged by the tow truck contractor for rides farther than seven miles.
"We want motorists to be aware of the high crash risk from drinking and driving associated with holidays and encourage them to think twice about getting behind the wheel if they have been drinking," said Jill Clark, the Auto Club's San Diego district manager.
According to the Auto Club, New Year's Eve is a traditional time parties and revelry, activities that contribute to a more relaxed atmosphere. It is also a time when people increase their use of alcohol.
"It takes only one or two drinks to slow physical and mental skills and affect vision, steering, braking, judgement and reaction time," Clark said. "We hope drivers are aware that the CHP and law enforcement agencies are likely to be using extra patrols to look for drinking drivers during holidays."
While the number of Californians arrested for driving under the influence is far lower than it was 20 years ago, it is still disturbingly high, according to Clark. "We'd like to see these numbers reduced even further, particularly the high numbers during the holidays," added Clark.
Drinking drivers frequently don't plan for other ways to get home because they are concerned about retrieving their vehicle. They cite the expense of taxis and time inconvenience as the major reasons they don't use alternative transportation, according to the Auto Club. Tipsy Tow provides motorists with a safe ride home for themselves and their vehicles instead of driving while intoxicated.
People convicted of driving under the influence could lose many of the most important things in their lives, such as family, job, dignity and money. The Auto Club estimates that a first time DUI conviction can cost about $13,500 in fines, penalties, restitution, legal fees and insurance costs.
Current laws, enforcement, public awareness and education efforts by public service-oriented organizations, including the Auto Club, have contributed to the decline in the number of alcohol-related fatalities and injuries for the past 10 years. The Auto Club provides the Tipsy Tow service and free publications as part of its "You Drink. You Drive. You Lose." public awareness campaign.
The Automobile Club of Southern California, the largest AAA affiliate, has been serving members since 1900. Today, Auto Club members benefit by the organization's roadside assistance, financial products, travel agency and trip planning services, highway and transportation safety programs, insurance products and services and automotive pricing, buying and financing programs.
Information about these products and services is available on the Auto Club's Web site at www.aaa-calif.com.
The Auto Club advises motorists to keep themselves and others safe and avoid DUI arrests by following these safety tips:
- At social events, designate non-drinking drivers who can get everyone home safely.
- Call a friend of family member for a ride if you have been drinking.
- Keep a cab company telephone number in your wallet so you can call for a ride home.
- As a party host, offer a variety of non-alcoholic drink alternatives and provide a gift to guests who volunteer to be designated drivers.
- Take the car keys away from friends and relatives who have had too much to drink.
Holiday Safety
Friday, December 14, 2007
By Commander, Navy Region Southwest Rear Adm. Len Hering
The holidays are a busy time in San Diego, and this year is no exception
with various celebrations all over the city. With so many events happening throughout the season, I want to take time out to stress the importance of holiday safety.
One of the first tools we all can use to reduce accidents is Operational Risk Management (ORM). We apply it everyday on the job. I want you all to think about applying that same standard of safety during the holiday season.
Holidays are a peak time for travel, and every year we lose incredible folks just because they did not apply the same standards of risk management in their personal lives as they do at work.
There are so many things you do during the holiday season you don't normally do like participating in sports and traveling long distances.
We want to make absolute certain your holiday season is a joyous one and not a regretful one.
Whether you're traveling as far as the east coast or over to Qualcomm Stadium to see the Naval Academy hand it to Utah, driving safety is important. The Navy football team had a superb season this year and it should be an exciting match up with the Utes.
Not only is the Academy going head-to-head with Utah in the bowl game, but they're taking on San Diego State University in basketball as well.
Even if you're not Navy, I encourage you to go out and take advantage of these unique opportunities around town.
December is drunk and drugged driving awareness month. I can't say it enough how big of a decision it is to get behind the wheel of a car after you've been drinking. Be a good shipmate and make sure that anyone who considers doing this finds a different means to make it home. I want everyone to make it home safe this holiday season.
Another thing to remain aware of during the holidays is the health and well being of our fellow Sailors. As a Navy family, we are all responsible for our shipmates and their overall wellness.
Service members are at a higher risk for suicide due to deployments and increased stressors such as relationship, legal and work related problems. Some of these stressors become increased during this time of year.
Suicide prevention requires everyone to be alert for risk factors and know how to respond.
There are various avenues available for us to gain knowledge of suicide prevention. CNRSW Fleet and Family Support Center is a great resource for Sailors and their leaders to learn more about suicide prevention.
Get to know your Sailors. Use ACT; Ask questions, Care for and listen to the Sailor and Treat the condition.
Enjoy the holidays and all the celebrations. Do it safely, keep those around you safe, and remember it takes everyone from the admiral to the
seaman to stay out of harm's way.
11 years prison for San Diego man who killed 9 year old son
San Diego DUI lawyer news
A Linda Vista man convicted of San Diego DUI drunk driving and fleeing the site of a freeway crash that killed his 9 year-old son was sentenced Thursday to 11 years in prison.
Marcos Muñoz, 33, pleaded guilty last month to charges of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and felony child abuse in connection with the death of his son, Alex.
San Diego Superior Court Judge David Danielsen sentenced Muñoz according to a San Diego DUI plea bargain reached between San Diego DUI defense lawyer and San Diego DUI prosecuting attorney in the case.
Prosecutors said Muñoz was driving on Interstate 8 near Texas Street on July 14 when he crashed into a car parked on the shoulder around 1:40 a.m. Alex was in the passenger seat and died as a result of the impact.
A witness saw a man running from the area shortly after the crash. Later, police saw a white pickup circling a nearby parking lot.
Police saw the same truck later that day near the family's apartment and contacted the men inside. Muñoz, the passenger, had minor injuries and glass in his hair and clothes, prosecutors said.
The driver, Raul Muñoz Sanchez, 32, pleaded guilty to felony accessory after the fact and San Diego DUI drunken driving. He also admitted he had a prior drunken-driving conviction from 2004.
Muñoz Sanchez was sentenced Thursday to a year in jail, after which he will be placed on five years' probation.
Deputy District Attorney Melissa Vasel has said that two men are brothers, both of whom worked in construction.
She said Marcos Muñoz's blood-alcohol content was 0.11 percent about three hours after the collision. Raul Muñoz Sanchez's blood-alcohol content was 0.15 after his San Diego DUI arrest.
A Linda Vista man convicted of San Diego DUI drunk driving and fleeing the site of a freeway crash that killed his 9 year-old son was sentenced Thursday to 11 years in prison.
Marcos Muñoz, 33, pleaded guilty last month to charges of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and felony child abuse in connection with the death of his son, Alex.
San Diego Superior Court Judge David Danielsen sentenced Muñoz according to a San Diego DUI plea bargain reached between San Diego DUI defense lawyer and San Diego DUI prosecuting attorney in the case.
Prosecutors said Muñoz was driving on Interstate 8 near Texas Street on July 14 when he crashed into a car parked on the shoulder around 1:40 a.m. Alex was in the passenger seat and died as a result of the impact.
A witness saw a man running from the area shortly after the crash. Later, police saw a white pickup circling a nearby parking lot.
Police saw the same truck later that day near the family's apartment and contacted the men inside. Muñoz, the passenger, had minor injuries and glass in his hair and clothes, prosecutors said.
The driver, Raul Muñoz Sanchez, 32, pleaded guilty to felony accessory after the fact and San Diego DUI drunken driving. He also admitted he had a prior drunken-driving conviction from 2004.
Muñoz Sanchez was sentenced Thursday to a year in jail, after which he will be placed on five years' probation.
Deputy District Attorney Melissa Vasel has said that two men are brothers, both of whom worked in construction.
She said Marcos Muñoz's blood-alcohol content was 0.11 percent about three hours after the collision. Raul Muñoz Sanchez's blood-alcohol content was 0.15 after his San Diego DUI arrest.
DUI, eh?
San Diego DUI attorney news
Sid Sorenson is not entirely happy with a recent provincial government directive urging Crown prosecutors to apply for forfeiture of the vehicles of repeat drunk drivers.
“I don’t think it’s enough,” the Prince Albert resident said.
“Incarceration, I believe, would scare people.”
Sorenson’s 15-year-old daughter Kimberley was killed July 28, 2002 after the car in which she was riding was hit by a female drunk driver who, said Sorenson, was a repeat drunk-driving offender.
The woman was sentenced to two and a half years. She served 51 days, and then went to a sweat lodge.
“Two and a half years is a holiday for taking a life,” said Sorenson, adding he would like to see the current legislation more strictly enforced.
“This was the perfect case for a stiff, hard sentence.”
The directive urges Crown prosecutors to proceed by way of indictment, and on conviction apply for forfeiture of the vehicle, where the Criminal Code of Canada permits in the following circumstances:
•if the offender has two or more convictions for impaired driving within two years of the date of the current offense
•if the offender does not have a previous impaired driving conviction within two years of the date of the current offense but has three or more impaired driving convictions within four years; or
•if the offender has a prior conviction for impaired driving within two years of the date of the current offence plus two or more impaired driving convictions within four years.
Justice Minister Don Morgan said what he heard on the campaign trail this fall provided incentive for the move.
“We had a number of people who had lost a family member or a friend through impaired driving,” said Morgan.
Morgan said seized vehicles would be sold and, although a decision has not yet been made where the money would go, “we would want to target (the money) towards victims or education programs.”
Morgan called the initiative “one more tool” for police and Crown prosecutors to use to help stop repeat drunk drivers.
“We’re hoping that the threat of (forfeiture) will be sufficient (to stop people).”
Prince Albert Northcote MLA Darcy Furber said he supports laws designed to cut down on the frequency of drinking and driving but would like to see treatment made more available for those with multiple offences.
Sid Sorenson is not entirely happy with a recent provincial government directive urging Crown prosecutors to apply for forfeiture of the vehicles of repeat drunk drivers.
“I don’t think it’s enough,” the Prince Albert resident said.
“Incarceration, I believe, would scare people.”
Sorenson’s 15-year-old daughter Kimberley was killed July 28, 2002 after the car in which she was riding was hit by a female drunk driver who, said Sorenson, was a repeat drunk-driving offender.
The woman was sentenced to two and a half years. She served 51 days, and then went to a sweat lodge.
“Two and a half years is a holiday for taking a life,” said Sorenson, adding he would like to see the current legislation more strictly enforced.
“This was the perfect case for a stiff, hard sentence.”
The directive urges Crown prosecutors to proceed by way of indictment, and on conviction apply for forfeiture of the vehicle, where the Criminal Code of Canada permits in the following circumstances:
•if the offender has two or more convictions for impaired driving within two years of the date of the current offense
•if the offender does not have a previous impaired driving conviction within two years of the date of the current offense but has three or more impaired driving convictions within four years; or
•if the offender has a prior conviction for impaired driving within two years of the date of the current offence plus two or more impaired driving convictions within four years.
Justice Minister Don Morgan said what he heard on the campaign trail this fall provided incentive for the move.
“We had a number of people who had lost a family member or a friend through impaired driving,” said Morgan.
Morgan said seized vehicles would be sold and, although a decision has not yet been made where the money would go, “we would want to target (the money) towards victims or education programs.”
Morgan called the initiative “one more tool” for police and Crown prosecutors to use to help stop repeat drunk drivers.
“We’re hoping that the threat of (forfeiture) will be sufficient (to stop people).”
Prince Albert Northcote MLA Darcy Furber said he supports laws designed to cut down on the frequency of drinking and driving but would like to see treatment made more available for those with multiple offences.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Barona gets liquor license, San Diego DUI cases to increase
San Diego DUI attorneys expect to be called on to assist those who gamble in protecting their constitutional rights in criminal defense cases.
December 12.2007
SAN DIEGO California -- The state Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control has granted a limited liquor license for the Barona Valley Ranch Resort and Casino, despite concerns about San Diego California DUI / drunk driving, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported Wednesday.
Under the license, formally approved last week, the resort is allowed to sell alcohol only to golfers, hotel guests, steakhouse diners, high-roller gamblers and people attending special events, but not on the main casino floor.
Neighbors and county officials plan to appeal. They argue that an administrative law judge who sided with the casino on the liquor license was biased in ignoring San Diego California DUI / DWI / drunk-driving and crime concerns, a charge disputed by the ABC.
As the battle continues, San Diego DUI lawyers are ready to help those in need.
December 12.2007
SAN DIEGO California -- The state Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control has granted a limited liquor license for the Barona Valley Ranch Resort and Casino, despite concerns about San Diego California DUI / drunk driving, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported Wednesday.
Under the license, formally approved last week, the resort is allowed to sell alcohol only to golfers, hotel guests, steakhouse diners, high-roller gamblers and people attending special events, but not on the main casino floor.
Neighbors and county officials plan to appeal. They argue that an administrative law judge who sided with the casino on the liquor license was biased in ignoring San Diego California DUI / DWI / drunk-driving and crime concerns, a charge disputed by the ABC.
As the battle continues, San Diego DUI lawyers are ready to help those in need.
Superior Court Judge charged with DWI
San Diego DUI attorney news
Superior Court Judge Karl Adkins of Charlotte N.C. has been charged with DWI driving while impaired and speeding in Randolph County.
The 61-year-old judge had an alcohol level of 0.08 percent, according to court records. It's against the law in North Carolina to drive with an alcohol level of 0.08 percent or more.
Adkins, released on $2,000 unsecured bond following his October arrest, also has been accused of driving 83 mph in a 55 mph zone.
The judge had glassy eyes and a moderate odor of alcohol on his breath, a court document says.
Adkins, appointed to a special Superior Court judgeship by Gov. Mike Easley in 2005, will not be holding criminal court until the charges are resolved.
Adkins said Monday he didn't want to talk about the charges while they're pending.
Judges convicted of DWI do face possible disciplinary action by the Judicial Standards Commission.
In June, the commission publicly reprimanded N.C. Court of Appeals Judge Douglas McCullough for driving while impaired in Carteret County.
McCullough pleaded guilty in January to DWI. He had an alcohol level of 0.12 percent.
Superior Court Judge Karl Adkins of Charlotte N.C. has been charged with DWI driving while impaired and speeding in Randolph County.
The 61-year-old judge had an alcohol level of 0.08 percent, according to court records. It's against the law in North Carolina to drive with an alcohol level of 0.08 percent or more.
Adkins, released on $2,000 unsecured bond following his October arrest, also has been accused of driving 83 mph in a 55 mph zone.
The judge had glassy eyes and a moderate odor of alcohol on his breath, a court document says.
Adkins, appointed to a special Superior Court judgeship by Gov. Mike Easley in 2005, will not be holding criminal court until the charges are resolved.
Adkins said Monday he didn't want to talk about the charges while they're pending.
Judges convicted of DWI do face possible disciplinary action by the Judicial Standards Commission.
In June, the commission publicly reprimanded N.C. Court of Appeals Judge Douglas McCullough for driving while impaired in Carteret County.
McCullough pleaded guilty in January to DWI. He had an alcohol level of 0.12 percent.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Pain Killers & Vehicular Manslaughter (DUI - related)
San Diego criminal defense attorney - San Diego DUI lawyer case
Filed 12/11/07 P. v. Davey CA3
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
MICHAEL JAMES DAVEY,
Defendant and Appellant.
C053309
(Super. Ct. No. 05F04772)
Defendant Michael James Davey killed 20-year-old Kathleen Springer in a traffic collision. Based on evidence defendant was driving erratically and speeding and had taken two different kinds of pain medication, the jury found him guilty of gross negligence vehicular manslaughter. (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (c)(1).) The sole issue on appeal is whether remarks the prosecutor made in rebuttal to defendant’s closing argument constitute the type of egregious misconduct that requires reversal of the jury verdict. Considered in context, we conclude the prosecutor’s rebuttal did not constitute misconduct. We affirm.
FACTS
A brief synopsis of the facts is all that is necessary to frame our discussion of prosecutorial misconduct. On October 29, 2004, several witnesses observed defendant passing multiple vehicles on Highway 160; passing vehicles in illegal passing zones, driving over the double yellow line, and entering the left turn lane to pass; “peeking” his truck over the centerline; tailgating; and weaving inside his lane. Eyewitness John Fedorchak testified that for the first time in his life, he had been so concerned about a driver’s erratic and aggressive driving that he called 911, and he had been on his cell phone with the operator when he saw defendant cross over the center double-yellow line by about two to four feet and strike a towed travel trailer. Lucille Kinnaman also testified that after defendant passed her in his truck, she called her husband and told him that she thought the driver was going to kill someone. He did.
The decedent’s car was one of five vehicles that were involved in the collision. The Volvo she was driving sustained such heavy damage that it took rescue personnel over an hour to extract her; she sustained horrific injuries and died later that night during emergency surgery.
At the scene of the collision, defendant’s speech was slow and “thick tongued.” An eyewitness reported seeing defendant talking to fire personnel. He was pacing and praying that the victim in the Volvo “wouldn’t pass away because he said he was driving carelessly and passing people and shouldn’t have been driving like that.” He admitted to a California Highway Patrol officer that he had crossed the centerline prior to the collision, and that he had taken prescription painkillers at 3:30 p.m. When the officer asked defendant what had happened, his first response was that “he [defendant] was being an asshole.” He mentioned the sun had been in his eyes.
At trial, defendant testified in his own defense. He insisted the pain medications, which he had taken at 7:30 a.m., between 10:30 a.m. and 11:00 a.m., and at 3:00 p.m., did not impair his driving. He acknowledged, however, that the pamphlet that accompanied his prescriptions contained a warning about driving while taking the medication. He denied the eyewitness accounts of his driving. He reported that he was very familiar with the road, he had safely passed other vehicles three miles before the collision, and he crashed because the sun was in his eyes.
The jury deliberated for less than three hours and convicted defendant of one count of gross negligence vehicular manslaughter. (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (c)(1).) The trial court sentenced him to the middle term of four years in state prison.
DISCUSSION
The prosecutor has a solemn obligation to protect a criminal defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial. It is as much the prosecutor’s duty “to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.” (Berger v. United States (1935) 295 U.S. 78, 88 [79 L.Ed. 1314].) The prosecutor’s responsibility is to seek justice, not merely convictions.
Nevertheless, a prosecutor is given wide latitude during closing argument and it is entirely proper for him to argue vigorously that the evidence shows the defendant is guilty of all of the elements of the charged offense. (People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 447-448; People v. Wharton (1991) 53 Cal.3d 522, 567.) “[A] court should not lightly infer that a prosecutor intends an ambiguous remark to have its most damaging meaning or that a jury, sitting through lengthy exhortation, will draw that meaning from the plethora of less damaging interpretations.” (Donnelly v. DeChristoforo (1974) 416 U.S. 637, 647 [40 L.Ed.2d 431].)
Defendant raises no complaints about the prosecutor’s opening argument. The prosecutor argued that the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of gross negligence vehicular manslaughter as charged and not the lesser included offense of ordinary negligence vehicular manslaughter based on evidence that he had been under the influence of prescription pain medications at the time of the collision, the various eyewitness accounts describing his aggressive driving prior to the collision, and evidence of his own statements and conduct immediately following the collision. Without objection, the prosecutor referred to the lesser included offense as “misdemeanor negligence.”
Defense counsel thereafter urged the jury to find defendant guilty of ordinary negligence. He conceded defendant’s negligence caused the victim’s death, but he rejected the notion that his driving constituted gross negligence. Defense counsel argued: “Now, we’re not talking about Mr. Davey walking free, letting him go as the prosecution would say. No. It’s a negligent act causing death. People that use ordinary care do not cross the centerline. We have laws like that in order to prevent things like this from happening. He crossed the centerline and hit this trailer.
“The question becomes whether he was being intentionally reckless when he crossed the centerline or whether it was a mistake in judgment insofar as he didn’t intend, because the prosecution’s going to look at the driving that occurred before as circumstantial evidence for you to imply something here at the moment of truth. And it just isn’t there. It was an accident. He crossed the centerline inadvertently, by mistake in judgment, and caused this horrible accident.”
In rebuttal, the prosecutor needed to convince the jury that defendant was guilty as charged of the greater offense of gross negligence vehicular manslaughter and not ordinary negligence vehicular manslaughter as defendant had argued. He began by pointing out to the jury that it can be appealing when a defendant admits he did it. Implying that jurors can be seduced by such an admission, the prosecutor warned them that once a defendant admits the act he then urges the jury to exonerate him of the greater offense. In this case, the prosecutor reminded them, defendant asked them to find him innocent of gross negligence and convict him only of “simple negligent vehicular manslaughter.”
The prosecutor entreated the jury to reject the ploy. It is true the prosecutor became vigorous in his rebuttal. “To call what Michael Davey did on October 29th a misdemeanor is offensive. And if you were to do as Mr. Conner says they would dance out of these doors. In this scenario in this case there is essentially no difference between saying he’s guilty of a misdemeanor and just straight acquitting him. Okay. So there’s some appeal to that.
“And we have to take the big step back and see the forest for the trees when we hear it because it’s -- it’s appealing at first and it seems like they’re conceding everything. So that must be true; right? But it’s not. So I want to start with that understanding.”
In final summation, the prosecutor concluded: “And I am asking you to find the defendant guilty of count one, driving -- committing vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence, not a misdemeanor. Okay. Not a misdemeanor. This case is absolutely not a misdemeanor.
“So I’m asking you to force the defendant to take responsibility for what he did. Force him to take full responsibility for the death of Katie Springer. I’m going to ask you to find him guilty of count one.”
We must review the prosecutor’s remarks within the state and federal standards defining prosecutorial misconduct. “The applicable federal and state standards regarding prosecutorial misconduct are well established. A prosecutor’s . . . intemperate behavior violates the federal Constitution when it comprises a pattern of conduct so egregious that it infects the trial with such unfairness as to make the conviction a denial of due process. Conduct by a prosecutor that does not render a criminal trial fundamentally unfair is prosecutorial misconduct under state law only if it involves the use of deceptive or reprehensible methods to attempt to persuade either the court or the jury. . . . Additionally, when the claim focuses upon comments made by the prosecutor before the jury, the question is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury construed or applied any of the complained-of remarks in an objectionable fashion.” (People v. Ochoa (1998) 19 Cal.4th 353, 427, internal quotation marks and citations omitted, quoting People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 841.)
Defendant analogizes the prosecutor’s argument to the blatant misconduct described in a sanity trial in People v. Sorenson (1964) 231 Cal.App.2d 88 (Sorenson). The analogy fails. In Sorenson, the defendant entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity to charges that he had written three bad checks. (Id. at p. 90.) He had a history of writing bad checks. (Ibid.) The prosecutor argued: “‘[W]e get caught and we tried this other road before, and it doesn’t work so now let’s have a new plea, let’s try something different, nothing worked before, let’s try a plea of insanity this time. “If I am going to be confined for anything at all, let’s make it some time in the hospital instead of jail.” If the doctor feels he is not in one of these states of being manic depressive this particular minute, this turns him loose.’” (Id. at p. 91.)
We found the prosecutor’s argument “obvious misconduct” for several reasons. (Sorenson, supra, 231 Cal.App.2d at p. 91.) We explained: “Defendant’s immediate or ultimate destination -- whether state hospital, state prison or to be ‘turned loose’ -- was a judgment which the law reposed in other hands than the jury’s. [Fn. omitted.] The prosecutor’s statement was a thinly disguised appeal to the jurors to abdicate their lawful role and to decide the issue of sanity in terms of their own opinion that imprisonment, not hospitalization, was defendant’s proper fate. In effect, the district attorney was urging the jury to usurp functions reposed by statute in other hands. The statement was an appeal to prejudice, an attempt to arouse aversion toward a verdict which might ‘turn him loose’ to victimize innocent people with more bad checks. Finally, the argument misstated the law, telling the jury that after defendant’s commitment to a state hospital, ‘the doctor’ could release him. Penal Code sections 1026 and 1026a, to the contrary, prevent the release of a defendant without a judicial hearing and a finding of restoration to sanity.” (Id. at p. 92.)
The prosecutor’s rebuttal in this case had none of the infirmities we identified in Sorenson. Defendant insists the prosecutor’s remark that a conviction of a misdemeanor, the lesser included offense, would allow defendant to “dance out of these doors” had the same effect on this jury as the prosecutor’s argument in Sorenson that the defendant would prefer time in a hospital to time in jail and that the doctor had the discretion to set him loose. But in our case the prosecutor did not appeal to the jurors to abdicate their lawful role or to usurp the sentencing function of the judge. There was no appeal to prejudice, and he did not misstate the law. We reject defendant’s attempt to torture a reasonable interpretation of the prosecutor’s remarks to fit the Sorenson template.
The prosecutor’s rebuttal followed an impassioned argument by the defense to find defendant guilty of ordinary negligence and to reject the prosecutor’s argument that defendant was guilty of gross negligence. The use of the terminology “misdemeanor negligence” was merely the prosecutor’s shorthand phraseology for the lesser included offense of ordinary negligence vehicular manslaughter. Defendant failed to object to the phraseology during argument probably because there was no valid objection to be raised. The shorthand does not refer to punishment but to the reality that the lesser included offense was a misdemeanor, whereas the offense charged, gross negligence vehicular manslaughter, constitutes a felony.
But more importantly, the prosecutor’s comment that “they would dance out of these doors” if the jury convicted defendant of the lesser offense is not the same as the prosecutor’s statement in Sorenson that the defendant could be set loose. We agree with the Attorney General that a more reasonable construction of the prosecutor’s remark was that “they” referred to both defendant and defense counsel, who would have celebrated a conviction of the lesser offense given that defendant had admitted that offense, and the two of them would gleefully leave the courtroom if they achieved such a success. Given the overwhelming evidence that defendant’s aggressive and erratic driving caused the collision and constituted gross negligence, the prosecutor’s argument that defendant and his lawyer would “dance out of” the courtroom if handed a victory was a reasonable argument to the jury and was devoid of any of the dangerous argument we condemned in Sorenson.
Thus, we do not believe that the prosecutor’s rebuttal risked jury nullification. Obviously, a defendant who admitted his negligence caused death would be overjoyed with a verdict exonerating him of gross negligence. The prosecutor’s mere characterization of the lesser charge as a misdemeanor did not raise the potential for the jury to improperly consider punishment; it stated the simple fact that in this case the lesser charge was a misdemeanor. We will not presume the jury violated the express instructions that it “must reach [its] verdict without any consideration of punishment” (CALCRIM No. 200), that it was not to let “bias, sympathy, prejudice, or public opinion influence [its] decision” (CALCRIM No. 200), that it must base its verdict on only the evidence presented at trial (CALCRIM No. 222), and that nothing said by the attorneys, including closing argument, is evidence (CALCRIM No. 222).
DISPOSITION (not to be published)
The judgment is affirmed.
RAYE , J.
We concur:
NICHOLSON , Acting P.J.
MORRISON , J.
Filed 12/11/07 P. v. Davey CA3
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
MICHAEL JAMES DAVEY,
Defendant and Appellant.
C053309
(Super. Ct. No. 05F04772)
Defendant Michael James Davey killed 20-year-old Kathleen Springer in a traffic collision. Based on evidence defendant was driving erratically and speeding and had taken two different kinds of pain medication, the jury found him guilty of gross negligence vehicular manslaughter. (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (c)(1).) The sole issue on appeal is whether remarks the prosecutor made in rebuttal to defendant’s closing argument constitute the type of egregious misconduct that requires reversal of the jury verdict. Considered in context, we conclude the prosecutor’s rebuttal did not constitute misconduct. We affirm.
FACTS
A brief synopsis of the facts is all that is necessary to frame our discussion of prosecutorial misconduct. On October 29, 2004, several witnesses observed defendant passing multiple vehicles on Highway 160; passing vehicles in illegal passing zones, driving over the double yellow line, and entering the left turn lane to pass; “peeking” his truck over the centerline; tailgating; and weaving inside his lane. Eyewitness John Fedorchak testified that for the first time in his life, he had been so concerned about a driver’s erratic and aggressive driving that he called 911, and he had been on his cell phone with the operator when he saw defendant cross over the center double-yellow line by about two to four feet and strike a towed travel trailer. Lucille Kinnaman also testified that after defendant passed her in his truck, she called her husband and told him that she thought the driver was going to kill someone. He did.
The decedent’s car was one of five vehicles that were involved in the collision. The Volvo she was driving sustained such heavy damage that it took rescue personnel over an hour to extract her; she sustained horrific injuries and died later that night during emergency surgery.
At the scene of the collision, defendant’s speech was slow and “thick tongued.” An eyewitness reported seeing defendant talking to fire personnel. He was pacing and praying that the victim in the Volvo “wouldn’t pass away because he said he was driving carelessly and passing people and shouldn’t have been driving like that.” He admitted to a California Highway Patrol officer that he had crossed the centerline prior to the collision, and that he had taken prescription painkillers at 3:30 p.m. When the officer asked defendant what had happened, his first response was that “he [defendant] was being an asshole.” He mentioned the sun had been in his eyes.
At trial, defendant testified in his own defense. He insisted the pain medications, which he had taken at 7:30 a.m., between 10:30 a.m. and 11:00 a.m., and at 3:00 p.m., did not impair his driving. He acknowledged, however, that the pamphlet that accompanied his prescriptions contained a warning about driving while taking the medication. He denied the eyewitness accounts of his driving. He reported that he was very familiar with the road, he had safely passed other vehicles three miles before the collision, and he crashed because the sun was in his eyes.
The jury deliberated for less than three hours and convicted defendant of one count of gross negligence vehicular manslaughter. (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (c)(1).) The trial court sentenced him to the middle term of four years in state prison.
DISCUSSION
The prosecutor has a solemn obligation to protect a criminal defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial. It is as much the prosecutor’s duty “to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.” (Berger v. United States (1935) 295 U.S. 78, 88 [79 L.Ed. 1314].) The prosecutor’s responsibility is to seek justice, not merely convictions.
Nevertheless, a prosecutor is given wide latitude during closing argument and it is entirely proper for him to argue vigorously that the evidence shows the defendant is guilty of all of the elements of the charged offense. (People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 447-448; People v. Wharton (1991) 53 Cal.3d 522, 567.) “[A] court should not lightly infer that a prosecutor intends an ambiguous remark to have its most damaging meaning or that a jury, sitting through lengthy exhortation, will draw that meaning from the plethora of less damaging interpretations.” (Donnelly v. DeChristoforo (1974) 416 U.S. 637, 647 [40 L.Ed.2d 431].)
Defendant raises no complaints about the prosecutor’s opening argument. The prosecutor argued that the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of gross negligence vehicular manslaughter as charged and not the lesser included offense of ordinary negligence vehicular manslaughter based on evidence that he had been under the influence of prescription pain medications at the time of the collision, the various eyewitness accounts describing his aggressive driving prior to the collision, and evidence of his own statements and conduct immediately following the collision. Without objection, the prosecutor referred to the lesser included offense as “misdemeanor negligence.”
Defense counsel thereafter urged the jury to find defendant guilty of ordinary negligence. He conceded defendant’s negligence caused the victim’s death, but he rejected the notion that his driving constituted gross negligence. Defense counsel argued: “Now, we’re not talking about Mr. Davey walking free, letting him go as the prosecution would say. No. It’s a negligent act causing death. People that use ordinary care do not cross the centerline. We have laws like that in order to prevent things like this from happening. He crossed the centerline and hit this trailer.
“The question becomes whether he was being intentionally reckless when he crossed the centerline or whether it was a mistake in judgment insofar as he didn’t intend, because the prosecution’s going to look at the driving that occurred before as circumstantial evidence for you to imply something here at the moment of truth. And it just isn’t there. It was an accident. He crossed the centerline inadvertently, by mistake in judgment, and caused this horrible accident.”
In rebuttal, the prosecutor needed to convince the jury that defendant was guilty as charged of the greater offense of gross negligence vehicular manslaughter and not ordinary negligence vehicular manslaughter as defendant had argued. He began by pointing out to the jury that it can be appealing when a defendant admits he did it. Implying that jurors can be seduced by such an admission, the prosecutor warned them that once a defendant admits the act he then urges the jury to exonerate him of the greater offense. In this case, the prosecutor reminded them, defendant asked them to find him innocent of gross negligence and convict him only of “simple negligent vehicular manslaughter.”
The prosecutor entreated the jury to reject the ploy. It is true the prosecutor became vigorous in his rebuttal. “To call what Michael Davey did on October 29th a misdemeanor is offensive. And if you were to do as Mr. Conner says they would dance out of these doors. In this scenario in this case there is essentially no difference between saying he’s guilty of a misdemeanor and just straight acquitting him. Okay. So there’s some appeal to that.
“And we have to take the big step back and see the forest for the trees when we hear it because it’s -- it’s appealing at first and it seems like they’re conceding everything. So that must be true; right? But it’s not. So I want to start with that understanding.”
In final summation, the prosecutor concluded: “And I am asking you to find the defendant guilty of count one, driving -- committing vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence, not a misdemeanor. Okay. Not a misdemeanor. This case is absolutely not a misdemeanor.
“So I’m asking you to force the defendant to take responsibility for what he did. Force him to take full responsibility for the death of Katie Springer. I’m going to ask you to find him guilty of count one.”
We must review the prosecutor’s remarks within the state and federal standards defining prosecutorial misconduct. “The applicable federal and state standards regarding prosecutorial misconduct are well established. A prosecutor’s . . . intemperate behavior violates the federal Constitution when it comprises a pattern of conduct so egregious that it infects the trial with such unfairness as to make the conviction a denial of due process. Conduct by a prosecutor that does not render a criminal trial fundamentally unfair is prosecutorial misconduct under state law only if it involves the use of deceptive or reprehensible methods to attempt to persuade either the court or the jury. . . . Additionally, when the claim focuses upon comments made by the prosecutor before the jury, the question is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury construed or applied any of the complained-of remarks in an objectionable fashion.” (People v. Ochoa (1998) 19 Cal.4th 353, 427, internal quotation marks and citations omitted, quoting People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 841.)
Defendant analogizes the prosecutor’s argument to the blatant misconduct described in a sanity trial in People v. Sorenson (1964) 231 Cal.App.2d 88 (Sorenson). The analogy fails. In Sorenson, the defendant entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity to charges that he had written three bad checks. (Id. at p. 90.) He had a history of writing bad checks. (Ibid.) The prosecutor argued: “‘[W]e get caught and we tried this other road before, and it doesn’t work so now let’s have a new plea, let’s try something different, nothing worked before, let’s try a plea of insanity this time. “If I am going to be confined for anything at all, let’s make it some time in the hospital instead of jail.” If the doctor feels he is not in one of these states of being manic depressive this particular minute, this turns him loose.’” (Id. at p. 91.)
We found the prosecutor’s argument “obvious misconduct” for several reasons. (Sorenson, supra, 231 Cal.App.2d at p. 91.) We explained: “Defendant’s immediate or ultimate destination -- whether state hospital, state prison or to be ‘turned loose’ -- was a judgment which the law reposed in other hands than the jury’s. [Fn. omitted.] The prosecutor’s statement was a thinly disguised appeal to the jurors to abdicate their lawful role and to decide the issue of sanity in terms of their own opinion that imprisonment, not hospitalization, was defendant’s proper fate. In effect, the district attorney was urging the jury to usurp functions reposed by statute in other hands. The statement was an appeal to prejudice, an attempt to arouse aversion toward a verdict which might ‘turn him loose’ to victimize innocent people with more bad checks. Finally, the argument misstated the law, telling the jury that after defendant’s commitment to a state hospital, ‘the doctor’ could release him. Penal Code sections 1026 and 1026a, to the contrary, prevent the release of a defendant without a judicial hearing and a finding of restoration to sanity.” (Id. at p. 92.)
The prosecutor’s rebuttal in this case had none of the infirmities we identified in Sorenson. Defendant insists the prosecutor’s remark that a conviction of a misdemeanor, the lesser included offense, would allow defendant to “dance out of these doors” had the same effect on this jury as the prosecutor’s argument in Sorenson that the defendant would prefer time in a hospital to time in jail and that the doctor had the discretion to set him loose. But in our case the prosecutor did not appeal to the jurors to abdicate their lawful role or to usurp the sentencing function of the judge. There was no appeal to prejudice, and he did not misstate the law. We reject defendant’s attempt to torture a reasonable interpretation of the prosecutor’s remarks to fit the Sorenson template.
The prosecutor’s rebuttal followed an impassioned argument by the defense to find defendant guilty of ordinary negligence and to reject the prosecutor’s argument that defendant was guilty of gross negligence. The use of the terminology “misdemeanor negligence” was merely the prosecutor’s shorthand phraseology for the lesser included offense of ordinary negligence vehicular manslaughter. Defendant failed to object to the phraseology during argument probably because there was no valid objection to be raised. The shorthand does not refer to punishment but to the reality that the lesser included offense was a misdemeanor, whereas the offense charged, gross negligence vehicular manslaughter, constitutes a felony.
But more importantly, the prosecutor’s comment that “they would dance out of these doors” if the jury convicted defendant of the lesser offense is not the same as the prosecutor’s statement in Sorenson that the defendant could be set loose. We agree with the Attorney General that a more reasonable construction of the prosecutor’s remark was that “they” referred to both defendant and defense counsel, who would have celebrated a conviction of the lesser offense given that defendant had admitted that offense, and the two of them would gleefully leave the courtroom if they achieved such a success. Given the overwhelming evidence that defendant’s aggressive and erratic driving caused the collision and constituted gross negligence, the prosecutor’s argument that defendant and his lawyer would “dance out of” the courtroom if handed a victory was a reasonable argument to the jury and was devoid of any of the dangerous argument we condemned in Sorenson.
Thus, we do not believe that the prosecutor’s rebuttal risked jury nullification. Obviously, a defendant who admitted his negligence caused death would be overjoyed with a verdict exonerating him of gross negligence. The prosecutor’s mere characterization of the lesser charge as a misdemeanor did not raise the potential for the jury to improperly consider punishment; it stated the simple fact that in this case the lesser charge was a misdemeanor. We will not presume the jury violated the express instructions that it “must reach [its] verdict without any consideration of punishment” (CALCRIM No. 200), that it was not to let “bias, sympathy, prejudice, or public opinion influence [its] decision” (CALCRIM No. 200), that it must base its verdict on only the evidence presented at trial (CALCRIM No. 222), and that nothing said by the attorneys, including closing argument, is evidence (CALCRIM No. 222).
DISPOSITION (not to be published)
The judgment is affirmed.
RAYE , J.
We concur:
NICHOLSON , Acting P.J.
MORRISON , J.
San Diego DUI holiday patrols
San Diego DUI attorney news
To get DUI / drunk drivers off the roads during the holiday season, San Diego police will step up DUI enforcement Friday night in San Diego.
They'll be sending out three saturation patrols to Pacific Beach, downtown and Mid-City areas, say the San Diego DUI police. They want to get the word out that they'll be out and about this holiday season.
They want to let people know we are serious about San Diego DUI and alcohol enforcement. Their primary way of getting the word out is through education and strict DUI enforcement.
The San Diego Police Department has big money grants that fund anti-DUI efforts -- "Avoid the 14" and "Arrive Alive."
Avoid the 14 is a county-wide grant, and Arrive Alive money comes from the California Highway Patrol.
Both grants are paying overtime for the officers involved in Friday's San Diego drunk driving patrols. San Diego DUI lawyers await to help.
To get DUI / drunk drivers off the roads during the holiday season, San Diego police will step up DUI enforcement Friday night in San Diego.
They'll be sending out three saturation patrols to Pacific Beach, downtown and Mid-City areas, say the San Diego DUI police. They want to get the word out that they'll be out and about this holiday season.
They want to let people know we are serious about San Diego DUI and alcohol enforcement. Their primary way of getting the word out is through education and strict DUI enforcement.
The San Diego Police Department has big money grants that fund anti-DUI efforts -- "Avoid the 14" and "Arrive Alive."
Avoid the 14 is a county-wide grant, and Arrive Alive money comes from the California Highway Patrol.
Both grants are paying overtime for the officers involved in Friday's San Diego drunk driving patrols. San Diego DUI lawyers await to help.
Monday, December 10, 2007
New Jersey Source Code Attack on DUI Breath Test Machines
San Diego DUI criminal defense attorney news
State v. Chun, Defendants' Source Code Latest Attack
INTRODUCTION
In a case which will set precedent for determining the admissibility of computer-created evidence in criminal prosecutions, this Court is called on to evaluate the scientific reliability of software version 3.11 used to program the Alcotest model 7110 MK-III-C and the admissibility of its results in not only the politically sensitive area of prosecuting alleged drunk drivers but other areas as well.
With unprecedented hubris, Intervenor Draeger Safety Diagnostics, Inc., defrauded the State Police, this Court, and the general public. With lies about reliability based, inter alia, on two “independent” technologies -- infrared [“IR”] and electrochemical fuel cell [“EC”] -- coupled with routine calibrations and bracketing control tests, Draeger induced the Attorney General to adopt a device using a computer program so poorly written and so disdainful of generally accepted computer science that, with each revision, the code becomes more and more unreliable and just as likely to convict innocents as to free the culpable.
Compounding Draeger’s culture of fraud and concealment is our own Attorney General’s culture of calculated ignorance, even in the face of its own expert’s assertion of the need for such a review.1 While the Attorney General’s office knew it was embarking into a novel scientific field with equipment dependent on a computer, it failed to consult anyone with the requisite expertise in computer science, at best a negligent lack of inquisitiveness. They not only failed to see any problems; they did not even look. Once their eyes were opened, they persisted in their strategic blindness by rolling out this flawed technology and increasing backlog pressure.
This Court, in a leap of misplaced faith, required municipal courts to receive this sham as proof beyond a reasonable doubt, disregarding the Constitution with the promise of a stay pending an expedited review of this chimera.
Against these clearly untenable circumstances, we are now faced with managing the aftermath of this Big Lie2 told first by Draeger, then repeated by the State. They hope to tell this lie so often that this Court and the public might buy into their propaganda by convicting the inordinate backlog of defendants unjustly charged on incompetent evidence.
In this brief, we urge this Court to dispel the lie and, in the meantime, restart the machinery of justice to right the wrongs already committed before it becomes too late to do so.
MATTER INVOLVED
On certification assumed sua sponte by the New Jersey Supreme Court, pursuant to its Order issued December 14, 2005,3 the Hon. Michael Patrick King, J.A.D. (retired on recall), served as Special Master to conduct hearings on “the reliability of Alcotest breath test instruments....” The Court entered a subsequent Order4 on January 10, 2006, addressing municipal court proceedings. After hearings between September 18, 2006, and January 10, 2007, Judge King issued his report on February 14, 2007, which, as to the version 3.11 source code for the Alcotest 7110 MK-III-C, concluded:
We do not think that this dispute about the source codes has any substantial relevance to our ultimate conclusion, that the Alcotest 7110 instrument is very good at measuring breath alcohol.5
The firmware currently in the Alcotest NJ Version 3.11, and any future modifications or upgrades of that present firmware, does not impact upon or affect the scientific reliability, accuracy or precision of the Alcotest evidential breath test instrument to detect, analyze and accurately report a breath alcohol reading.6
This was because Judge King saw “no hint of source code problems or failure throughout this litigation.”7
However, after oral argument before this Court on April 5, 2007, this Court remained unsatisfied on these points and remanded
for the limited purpose of providing defendants the opportunity to conduct, at defendants' expense, an analysis of the software referred to as Firmware version...3.11 used in the Alcotest 7110..., which analysis is to be limited to determining whether Firmware version...3.11 reliably analyze[s], record[s] and report[s] alcohol breath test results....8
This Court directed Draeger to provide an independent software house for the purpose of “conducting that analysis...in accordance with the methodology previously agreed upon by defendants and DSDI, as set forth in Addendum A....”9 Addendum A, a.k.a. the “Sachs Protocol” and D-232, provides:
This software house will examine the source code for obvious concerns within the code, and also for consistency with the algorithms as documented in the software.... [and to] certify to the State and the public that the software properly employs the algorithms and that no errors exist in the source code.10
When Draeger and Defendants could not agree on a software house, the Court directed them to designate their respective experts to “provide a report ... consistent with the examination and protective aspects contemplated by Paragraph 1 of Addendum A in the Special Master's report....”11 Two examiners were retained, and each issued a report: (a) BaseOne through John Wisniewski,12 and (b) SysTest through Bruce Geller.13
SysTest limited its review to “’obvious issues within the code,’ and ‘consistency with the algorithms as documented in the software....’”14 BaseOne, however, sought to comprehensively review the code for errors.15 Neither SysTest nor BaseOne exercised the hardware against the software.16 From their respective examinations, neither examiner could certify that the software properly employs the algorithms or that no errors exist in the source code.17 SysTest did not even consider this their charge. Thus, without going any further, the State and Draeger have failed to meet requirements established by the Court for making its software admissible.
Nonetheless, after 13 days of supplemental hearings, Judge King found “that the Alcotest is reliable, both as to software and hardware, in reporting alcohol breath testing results for evidentiary purposes,”18 albeit, “subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Special Master’s initial report and this supplemental report.”19 To the extent that Judge King holds the Alcotest “scientifically reliable,” Defendants disagree.
COMMENTS ON SPECIAL MASTER’S REPORT
Would Draeger’s version 3.11 software in use in its Alcotest 7110 MK-III-C be considered generally acceptable for an important application like evidentiary breath testing? The answer is a resounding, NO,20 for many reasons, including:
There is no sign of any standard developmental methodology ever being used.21 If one were to analogize software development standards to a building code, Draeger’s software would be a slapped-together slipshod tumbled-down shack.
There is no documentation for Draeger’s code -- no initial requirements document, no pre-development pseudo-code, nothing.22
Draeger’s source code is too complex23 and disorganized.24 As changes are made from one version to the next, errors will be inserted and the code will become more and more unreliable with each revision. This was exemplified with the buffer overflow error.25 It contains blind alleys within a maze of unused, walled-off, and errant code.26
The range of accepted deviation between breath samples was increased to mask potential error.27 In New Jersey, the legal standard for agreement of results from two breath samples was .01,28 then 10 percent.29 That increased to the greater of .02 or 20 percent,30 effectively eliminating any need for requiring third test verification.31
There are no metrics and insufficient data on which to base a reliability determination.32
Furthermore, both SysTest and BaseOne found specific problems in the code that raise serious questions as to its reliability, including the disabling of fundamental safeguards, incorrect functions as fundamental as averaging, arbitrary substitution of data values at various points, and forcing drifting fuel cells to agree with the IR sensors, thereby exposing the lie to the claim that these two technologies, IR and EC, cross check and verify each other. These and other “Show Stoppers” are discussed elsewhere herein.
I.
Version 3.11 Is Riddled with Error:
A Hidden Fuel Cell Manipulation Software Routine Renders the Alcotest Scientifically Unreliable
Lint, a software tool designed to discover potential coding errors, found more than 19,000 defects in the Alcotest source code.33 While the probability that any single random defect will cause a failure in a breath test is low, the thousands of defects here increase that probability quite significantly.34 Such random errors could manifest themselves as, inter alia, high readings, low readings, a report of an insufficient sample which the Alcotest should accept, or missing data.35 They can arise from a number being written as a letter.36
No source code is perfect.37 Judge King recognized that software errors exist.38 A number of anomalies exemplify error:
In the case of Alberto C. Gonzalez,39 he was tested by the same officer on May 15, 2006, in East Brunswick, Milltown, and South River40 at 4:03, 4:36, and 5:14 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time, respectively.41 Although apparently exonerated by his first to breath tests, the officer persisted in his belief that Gonzalez was culpable.42 His errors would have never come to light but for being tested on the same night on three different machines,43 all using the same source code -- New Jersey version 3.11.44
Another alcohol influence report in New Brunswick reported a .13 despite preliminary results ranging from .139 to .169.45 This anomaly, which contravenes the requirement that two separate breath samples yield results within 0.010 of each other expressed in prior New Jersey case law requirements,46 was not unique.47
Yet another is the example in the alcohol influence report from Longport,48 where a test result reported despite the omission of key information concerning simulator solution lot number, expiration date, and bottle number. Other anomalies include:
Accepting clearly erroneous data, yet reporting apparently valid results.49
Accepting breath samples less than two minutes after a previously submitted sample,50 even though New Jersey version 3.11 requires a two minute lockout between breaths.
EC and IR results more than .008 apart51 -- again, beyond stated program limits.
A report that “Subject Refused” as an error message for an individual sample rather than as the reported result at the end of the entire testing sequence.52
Calling an apparently disabled “Control Gas Supply” error.53
Reporting an inappropriate “Ambient Air Blank” as “---.--“ rather than a correctly formatted numerical value of “0.000%.”54
But we should distinguish between such apparently random defects and errors discussed above and the dishonest data manipulation and serious coding errors discussed below -- any one of which, in and of themselves, alone and in concert, undermine reliability to such a degree that this Court should exclude all Alcotest results. These include the Big Lie about EC and IR technologies verifying each other.
Fuel Cell Drift Exposes the Lie to Draeger’s Claim that Independent Technologies Verify Each Other and Assure Reliability
When telling the Big Lie, it has been said, “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.”55 Draeger’s “Big Lie” about the Alcotest 7110 MK-III-C is its alleged used of independent technologies to analyze a single sample:
[I]t's the only instrument on the market...that is capable of...analyzing and quantifying the alcohol concentration of the same specimen by two independent technologies. This has added a significant amount of integrity to the testing result of this type of process.56
[I]s this instrument scientifically reliable[?] [T]he instrument performs this task correctly within the specified tolerances and...it does this twice, actually, with two independent technologies.57
[I]t is doubling the integrity of the tests performed that you have two independent technologies analyzing the same specimen.58
[W]e produce actually two independent readings by measuring the same specimen....59
Others unwittingly repeated the lie as if true:
The Hon. Francis J. Orlando, A.J.S.C.: “The 7110 is an evidential breath testing instrument which uses infrared (IR) absorption analysis and electrochemical (EC) cell technology analysis to simultaneously determine the presence of ethanol in a breath sample. Each method of analysis operates independently.”60
NHTSA’s Edward Conde: “It is a bench-top breath alcohol device that uses dual sensors, an infrared and a fuel cell sensor, to come up with independent measurements of breath alcohol content on the breath.”61
State’s Witness Rod G. Gullberg: “The 7110 plays two separate, independent analytical methods....”62
Then Chief Forensic Scientist Thomas A. Brettell, Ph.D.: [For an accepted breath tests, the EC is independent of the IR, correct?] “Yes, they're independent measurements, yes.”63
Brettell: “Well, dual -- independent measurements are two measurements independent of each other using different technologies, independent technologies, okay. There's different ways to do that. You can take one sample and put it in the IR and take another sample and put it in the EC. That's not how this instrument works. This instrument measures one breath sample with two different technologies and it's the same stream of breath. It's not a different stream of breath.”64
Dep.Atty.Gen. Stephen H. Monson: “What essentially is new or novel...is that you have both systems in the same instrument measuring the same sample of breath as a dual system.... But each one is measuring independently....”65
Shaffer, after persistent cross examination,66 exposed the lie:
During the control tests, when we're assured that we are looking at ethanol standards only, no interfering substances, the fuel cell does have an awareness of where it is in relation to the IR sensor.67
Wisniewski verified the lie’s existence. At defense request after Shaffer’s revelation, Wisniewski found the lines of source code where the software routine makes the EC reading a function of the IR reading, reproducing it in an exhibit, DR-14, and explaining it in detail.68 Workman explained how the lie works:
This adjustment basically says that the EC value is going to be calculated using the IR value....69 The effect of that defect is to corrupt the ability to tell whether the two results are close or not because they'll always be close....70 It substitutes IR values in the calculation of EC values.71
To a scientist, [using the interaction of the infrared and electrochemical technology as something that verifies the reliability of an alcohol influence report result is] probably the ultimate insult to the science because the machine is designed so that if the EC and IR differ by more than a certain amount, that is the mechanism by which the machine detects problems.72
By comparing the EC and the IR. Those are supposed to be very close together. And, in fact, the code snippet that Base One produced shows that when the EC is out of tolerance...the value from the IR is used to re-calibrate the EC. So, what you have is a dependent function, not an independent function.73
We talk about data pollution sometimes, which you might imagine is not a good thing, but when you have two functions that are supposed to be independent and they use variables that are calculated from the other area, you cannot have independence. It's a dependent function.74
Judge King even understood the lie:
Never once did they ever mention that there was this interrelationship of dependence between IR and EC values, so this comes as somewhat of a surprise. All of a sudden this battery is dying inch by inch and they got to get a little juice from someplace else to make it fit into the grand scheme. Now, I must admit I'm terribly cynical based on all my experience, but it's starting to sound a little funny.75
And this statement here which was emphasized by counsel about two independent examinations. And this was the big selling point for Draeger, inherently entirely corroborative, independent test, and Hans Ryser describes how we take a bite out of the sample in the cuvette and run it through this completely independent process. Meanwhile, I see this fuel cell limping along.76
Inexplicably, Judge King abandoned this well-grounded and inquisitive cynicism to become Draeger’s apologist, ignoring the essential point: that manipulation of fuel cell drift completely undermines reliance on the Alcotest’s allegedly most important feature. The revelation was a seminal moment in the remand hearing. Testimony confirmed that a previously unknown algorithm in the source code manipulates the output of an aging fuel cell to bring it within tolerance of the IR during control tests.77 Whether one calls this manipulation a fuel cell aging compensation routine,78 fine tuning,79 or adjustment,80 there was no evidence concerning the frequency by which this manipulation occurs. Nonetheless, this manipulation completely undermines previous reliance on the two most important features of New Jersey’s Alcotest program: the so-called independent dual technologies utilizing EC and IR for measuring alcohol and (b) using control tests both before and after each subject’s breath tests as a basis for ensuring reliability.
The Lie About Independent Technologies
Fuel cell drift requires that the EC result be manipulated periodically to conform to the IR result during a subject’s testing sequence. Such drift puts the lie to Draeger’s longstanding claim that the Alcotest is the only breath testing device in the world that employs two independent technologies to measure alcohol in a single sample. Draeger also claims that its primary competitors do not.
In State v. Foley,81 the first published opinion on supposed Alcotest reliability, Judge Orlando relied on Draeger’s representations about EC/IR independence seven times.82 A most salient example was Judge Orlando’s repetition of the lie quoted above. Similarly, each State’s expert last year opined that the allegedly independent dual technology in the Alcotest provided a foundation for reliability. Yet no testimony was advanced to cast doubt on this flawed premise. Judge King’s initial report trumpeted the Alcotest independent dual technology no less than seven times.83 Now, he does acknowledge the falsity of these claims by Draeger.84
The Lie About Control Tests
Likewise, the control test aspect of New Jersey’s Alcotest program is viewed as an additional and essential part of the foundation for Alcotest reliability. Unlike the Breathalyzer’s periodic inspections with a known solution of alcohol often performed months apart, Alcotest control tests use the solution as an accuracy safeguard both before and after each subject’s breath tests to bracket and assure reliability via the sequence of an ambient air check to detect any atmospheric contaminants, the control test, another ambient air check, breath test one, an ambient air check, breath test two, an ambient air check, a second control test, and a final ambient air check.85
Every State’s expert approved of New Jersey’s use of control tests and testing sequence as fundamental to ensuring reliability. For example, State’s expert Barry K. Logan, Ph.D., testified:
It helps to insure that you can state with confidence the instrument is measuring accurately and reliably at the time of the subject’s test. The instrument will accurately measure a breath sample that is provided to it and the control sample that is provided to it providing all the standards or criteria for the test are met.86
More significantly, Dr. Brettel, the overseer of New Jersey’s Alcotest program, testified extensively about the importance of the control test procedures:
The control test makes sure the instrument is operating properly...with a known concentration of ethanol vapor.87
We have a control test on the instrument so that, you know, it’s--the instrument is checking itself every test, every subject test.88
[W]e run control tests. You know, when we run the control tests, we run two control tests, so if there’s something wrong with the instrument it shows up in the control test.89
Q. You don’t know whether there’s anything in the source code that may be self-correcting or self-calibrating, fair enough? A. No, I do know that. We run control tests. We’re checking the calibration twice on every subject test, so I do know that the instrument’s not doing that.90
Careful review of the testimony of each State’s expert who offered an opinion last year concerning Alcotest control tests reveals no awareness of fuel cell drift or its manipulation during control tests. The experts considered the independence of the IR and EC to be sacrosanct. Thus, previous reliance by the Foley court, Judge King, and every expert witness on the so-called independent dual technologies and the institutional safeguard represented by control tests as a basis for finding Alcotest reliability is torn asunder and must be reconsidered and disregarded. One cannot assume that the experts would still support Alcotest reliability, given the ramifications of fuel cell drift. Expert opinions rendered in both the Foley hearings in 2003 and the Chun hearings last year would be substantively different concerning overall reliability if fuel cell drift correction algorithm was known.
Judge King’s Remedy Is Unsupported
Even after disclosure of this algorithm, Judge King proposes a remedy unsupported by any evidence in the record. After referring to fuel cell drift throughout his report,91 Judge King specifically but arbitrarily recommends “that the Alcotest should be calibrated every six months rather than every twelve months and the fuel cell replaced at that time, if necessary.”92 No testimony shows that either a six month calibration or annual fuel cell replacement would solve the problems presented by the need to correct for fuel cell drift. Draeger’s own software engineer rejected such a proposal:
Q. And if the fuel cell changes over time, it would be more accurate to do it on the lower end like the six months rather than the 12 months, correct?
A. I –- I disagree. Because of the aging compensation routine that we were talking about yesterday, that’s the reason that –- that Germany put that algorithm within the code.93
Moreover, no evidence supports the notion that more frequent calibration will alleviate concerns associated with fuel cell drift. The testimony is silent concerning the frequency by which the fuel cell aging compensation algorithm in the source code is activated to manipulate the control tests. Draeger never supplied or published any studies regarding how a fuel cell drifts and degrades. Without such evidence, Judge King’s recommendation is merely net opinion -- an abstract suggestion that ignores the fundamental facts that (a) fuel cell drift will occur after an Alcotest is placed in service and (b) its output will be manipulated to make its result match the IR result. No contrary evidence was introduced below that adduced otherwise.
Furthermore, Judge King’s conclusion -- that “the standard of measurement is adjusted for fuel cell depletion, not for any other alcohol content” -- is a fallacy which lays bare the most important consequence of fuel cell drift. The same fuel cell manipulated output used in the first control test is the same fuel cell manipulated output used to measure a defendant’s breath sample two minutes later in New Jersey’s breath testing sequence. Once the fuel cell reading is manipulated in the control test to account for fuel cell drift, it will affect every ensuing measurement by the Alcotest.
Neither a six- nor 12-month calibration can hide this most basic truth. As soon as manipulation occurs, every succeeding measurement relies on the prior fuel cell manipulation even though the fuel cell continues to drift unabated.94 Therein lies the overarching conundrum presented by fuel cell drift. The most galling aspect of fuel cell drift manipulation is that Draeger had never revealed its use to anyone before.
Draeger’s History of Concealment
Draeger’s discussions with New Jersey about replacing the Breathalyzer with the Alcotest for evidential use in drunk driving prosecutions date back to 1995. In 1998, Draeger provided the first Alcotest to the New Jersey State Police. The parties entered into a software licensing agreement in September 2002.95 Camden County held the first Alcotest reliability hearing in 2003. This extensive hearing resulted in the Foley opinion. Four State’s experts and one defense expert testified during Foley.96 There was no mention of manipulation of fuel cell drift in any Draeger manual or document in Foley or the Foley opinion.
Substantive changes to the Alcotest software occurred by virtue of the Foley hearing and resultant opinion. Manuals concerning its use and operation specific to New Jersey were updated to comport with such changes. Still, Draeger never disclosed the existence of fuel cell drift manipulation.
In January 2005, the State began evidential use of Alcotest firmware 3.11 in Middlesex County for drunk driving prosecutions, leading to the current Chun litigation which spawned a four month hearing before Judge King between September 2006 and January 2007. Eleven State’s experts and two defense experts testified during this lengthy hearing. Draeger’s counsel participated in this hearing. Draeger’s vice-president for marketing testified three times in seven days. Still, there was no mention of fuel cell drift manipulation. Although this expert witness was questioned by the defense about fuel cell drift caused by aging, the existence of an algorithm to manipulate the EC to account for fuel cell drift was never disclosed.
Following the four month hearing, Judge King issued his 268-page report. Extensive briefs were submitted to the Court including a 16-page brief by Draeger’s counsel. On April 5, 2007, nine attorneys, including Draeger’s counsel, argued before this Court. Still, no mention was made of manipulation of fuel cell drift. After oral argument, the Court issued two remand Orders resulting in separate examinations of the Alcotest source code. One such review was performed by a software house both selected and paid by Draeger. Both examinations yielded lengthy reports to the Special Master. Still no one mentions fuel cell drift manipulation.
During the foregoing entire process, the Alcotest replaced Breathalyzers for evidential use in drunk driving prosecutions in 17 of New Jersey’s 21 counties. No defendant, municipal court judge, municipal prosecutor, defense attorney or any other entity except Draeger was aware of the existence of an algorithm within the source code to manipulate fuel cell drift.
Judge King ordered an additional testimonial hearing after receiving BaseOne’s and SysTest’s reports. During the first week of the remand hearing, two experts testified for the State concerning the Alcotest source code. Still, no one mentions fuel cell drift manipulation. Draeger’s software engineer ultimately reveals the fuel cell drift manipulation during defense cross-examination in the second week of the remand hearing.
Judge King does not mention this in his 108-page report.
Twelve years elapsed from Draeger’s first discussions with New Jersey about the Alcotest to disclosure of fuel cell drift and fuel cell drift manipulation during defense cross-examination in the remand hearing. Surely, there was a deliberate effort by Draeger to keep secret the existence of fuel cell drift manipulation for the Alcotest in New Jersey. Judge King fails to mention this calculated concealment in his supplemental report.
Significantly, the State was not made aware of fuel cell drift by Draeger. During summation, Dep.Atty.Gen. Christine A. Hoffman admitted:
I do understand the Court’s concerns. I was as surprised as the Court. I was away on vacation. I was quite shocked to see in the transcript that this is being done.
So this was the first time the State of New Jersey knew about it.97
Draeger’s counsel proclaimed no such surprise about fuel cell drift manipulation in his summation. Draeger’s affirmative and deliberate efforts to mislead us, this Court, the Special Master, the Attorney General, the municipal courts, and every citizen affected by Alcotest evidence about the existence of fuel cell drift should not be countenanced. To conclude otherwise would be tantamount to accepting stonewalling and deliberate deception as acceptable tenets of New Jersey criminal practice. This Court has always recognized that full disclosure is a prerequisite to the ascertainment of truth. Such a search for the truth has always been the legal foundation by which the adversarial process insures due process in the context of criminal practice.
II.
Version 3.11 Is Riddled with Error:
“Show Stoppers” like, inter alia, Disabled Catastrophic Error Detection, No Positive Feedback, and Expanded Agreement Criteria, Whether Alone and in Concert, Render the Alcotest Scientifically Unreliable
Disabled Catastrophic Error Detection Leads to Unpredictable Results
Catastrophic error detection,98 which encompasses illegal operational code [“opcode”], is a hardware function resident in the microprocessor “brain” of the Alcotest. John Wisniewski discovered that this safeguard function is disabled in the Alcotest by the present source code. If there is a major fault that happens in the processing of the data by the microprocessor the instrument doesn't necessarily shut down. Mr. Shaffer hypothesizes that it might shut down but can not definitively conclude that it does. He explains that a catastrophic error occurs when the microprocessor loses its way, and the Alcotest can report improper data. Shaffer, conceding that disabling catastrophic error detection is not a good idea, went so far as to consult Draeger personnel in Germany during the hearing to verify that it could be re-enabled.99
Without Positive Feedback, Software Assumes but Does Not Verify
Hardware Actions
Positive feedback is directly verifying that a computer command issued by the microprocessor is executed by the hardware. The Alcotest has no positive feedback,100 except in one isolated instance. As Wisniewski explained by the BaseOne report, the need for positive feedback can be analogized to the landing gear on an aircraft. The pilot gives the onboard computer a command, and the computer sends a signal to the landing gear to deploy. A sensor detects the actual opening of the landing gear and sends that information back to the computer, which then notifies the pilot that the landing gear has actually deployed.
In the Alcotest, the microprocessor, in most instances, gives instructions to the hardware to perform certain functions. Most of those functions are not monitored directly to see whether they happen. They're just assumed to happen. Alcotest hardware is told pump, purge, fill the EC cell, and time a certain period, but almost none of this is directly measured.
Draeger contends that the Alcotest indirectly checks mechanical functions. That is like contending that, in an airplane, someone in Seat A of Aisle 42 is going to look down and notice that the landing gear has not deployed and then report it to the pilot. That is not positive feedback. This is a problem with the instrument itself. This hardware issue was discovered only because the software was examined during the source code inspection before the remand hearing.
The plane crashing because the landing gear did not deploy is also indirect feedback, but hardly acceptable. Neither is accepting a breath tester that yields either inculpatory evidence against an innocent defendant or exculpatory evidence against a guilty accused.
Failed Diagnostics Force Software to Adjust and Substitute Data for
Breath Measurements
The software adjusts and substitutes data readings if a reading is too high or too low.101 If the reading is outside what the software considers the proper range, the software takes a too high or too low reading and forces it into the range. This essentially falsifies the resultant reading.
Inconsistent Error Detection Logic Suppresses Error Messages Unless
the Error Occurs a Large Number of Times
The error detection logic in the software ignores what it clearly assesses as improper data readings unless it occurs more than 31 times in a row.102 There can be 31 consecutive times that the computer interrogates the hardware and gets what is considered an error, and it will still not report it as such. Only on the 32nd time is an error reported.
The characterization of using only one of 32 samples as a fault-tolerance is misleading and incorrect, since fault-tolerance depends on alternate sensors like those in an aircraft.103 “The whole concept of fault tolerance is not to use bad values. It’s to find an alternate way to compute the results so that they’re correct. The notion of ignoring 31 consecutive errors and using the data that are computed with those 31 values is...bad science. It’s junk science.”104 “The 7110 ignores the fact that errors have occurred, calculates what the faulty value is, and then produces wrong results....the antithesis of fault tolerance.”105
Incorrect Averaging Algorithm Is Not Scientifically Valid and
Improperly Weighs Last Measurement
The so-called averaging algorithm is not an average at all.106 The improper calculation invalidates the science underlying breath alcohol testing.107 Workman never encountered a formula like this used in any equipment he had ever seen.108
The calculation adds two values; that sum is added to a third value, and that sum is divided by two; that sum is added to a fourth value, and that sum is divided by two; and so on.109 It is not a weighted average, which simply accounts for the distribution of repeated variables110 but is still like an arithmetic average based on the associative property of numbers taught in elementary school.111 Draeger knows what an average is and how to use it.112 They didn’t do it here, but rather adopted a method of increasing results not based in science.
Analog to Digital Conversion Routines Reduce Accuracy and
Precision
Analog to digital conversion involves sampling points on an analog sine wave to develop, through semiconductor chips, a digital approximation of the wave form generated by a voltage that the computer can process as a binary signal.113 The sampling occurs at an interrupt every 8.192 milliseconds, and the sample is read into the software, which makes the impulse available as a number for the source code to use to make computations about the breath alcohol level.114 With the current program, 31 of 32 samples can be wrong, and “one may count for the entire ball of wax,”115 thus calling the reliability of the ultimate result into question.116 Although viewing the wave form provides a way to diagnose problems, there is no way for the Alcotest to display the wave form.117 Yet copiers and cars often log wave forms.118
Buffer Overflow Compromises Reliability of Test Sequences Requiring Third Samples (Although Such Sequences Would Rarely Present Themselves Given the Extraordinarily Wide Agreement Between Results
Accepted by Version 3.11)
This buffer overflow was an inadvertent error inserted into the source code when Shaffer failed to change the number of registers needed to track breath test results from four to six.119 This error would present itself when the second EC value is less than .08 by substituting another value.120 While SysTest identifies this clearly apparent error,121 the error is, in reality, inconsequential, given the extraordinary widening of the permissible range within which the results from two breath samples are deemed acceptable. It is as if SysTest identified this one and only obvious error so that they could simply say they found something. The buffer overflow is the straw dog offered by an organization that performed only a cursory review.
Other Concerns Raised by BaseOne Undermine Alcotest Reliability
Other notable errors and defects include (a) unsynchronized timing intervals running at fixed points rather than from the latest request for a time delay which lead to actual timing that is highly variable and inconsistent122 and (b) the making of airflow measurements with no reasonableness testing or quality checks, further undermine confidence in calibration123 already compromised by the fuel cell manipulation noted above. BaseOne’s examination raised so many errors and defects, Draeger’s source code cannot be found reliable without an extensive rewrite.
III.
Faulty Software Design Renders Draeger Source Code Unreliable
Software Fails to Adhere to Any Discernable Standard, Leading to
Unreliable, Error Prone Code
Alcotest source adheres to no discernable standard.124 The basic method of testing source code is to first test at the module level -- i.e., to test the facilities within a particular routine -- before testing at the integrated software package.125 No quality assurance organization exists within Draeger.126 The Alcotest 7110 cannot be used for medical purposes in that it fails to meet Food and Drug Administration standards.127
Draeger’s Ryser testified about a rigid distinction in the source code between (a) “core software”128 which pertains to the breath test calculations and is never touched, and (b) “custom software”129 tailored for each jurisdiction to report and format the readings. Based on good practices, as attested to by Wisniewski and Workman, core and custom software should be delineated in a very distinctive way in the software to prevent inadvertent modification.
Unfortunately Mr. Shaffer, testified that he was “told” what he was not supposed to touch, so he “kind of walls it off in his mind.”130 When is that ever acceptable, in an evidential instrument? Shaffer testified as to how he accidentally inserted the buffer overflow error. What protects the core software from such inadvertent error insertion in the core software?
Highly Complex Coding Leads to Error Insertion and Degradation on “Upgrades” and, with Excessive Use of Global Variables, Further
Compromises Reliability
Alcotest source code is much too complex.131 Complexity invites error both in the original coding and in updates to the present code. Both SysTest and BaseOne found complexity to be a real problem undermining any finding of reliability.132
Based on McCabe complexity metrics, complexity levels should exceed no more than 10, with a level of less than 7 recommended, according to SysTest.133 After all, software engineers, being human beings, can only track so many things at one time.134 With most of Draeger’s source code modules well exceeding this level, the code is prone to corruption and unpredictable execution.135 Indeed, one snippet of the code produced by the version 3.11 proponents shows how Draeger’s programmer Shaffer unintentionally inserted error when he “upgraded” the source code from version 3.8 to 3.11 by failing to correct buffer capacity and thereby creating the famous buffer overflow.136
The prospect of error insertion is very real, given that source code revisions must be made to the present program to account for several factors, including:
Changes in the law,137 including the change in Daylight Savings Time.138
The need to list the temperature probe serial number and probe value of that temperature probe on any report where such information is relevant, including the AIR, New Standard Solution Change Report, and Calibration, Control Test, and Linearity Reports.139
The need to “deploy a software program to create and maintain a centralized data base of digital information stored by all Alcotest 7110s throughout the State.”140
Further changes to source code will be inevitable as the law and other circumstances change.141
Adding to this complexity is the presence of an excessive number of global variables.142 A programmer should properly encapsulate data to avoid inadvertent destruction of data.143 “The real sad thing here is that if global variables had been used correctly, this problem [of having the EC and IR working correctly and independently] probably would not have occurred.”144
The Alcotest code also presents a rat’s nest of excess, irrelevant, and purportedly unused code.145 This isn’t just bad housekeeping. These excessive bits and pieces of superfluous code are invitations for error and unnecessarily expose anyone tested on the Alcotest to undetectable error. As Workman said of the Middlesex County data, while the 1900+ AIRs in that universe may appear to be reliable, in actuality, none can be considered reliable. The notion that, compared to the Breathalyzer, “the Alcotest 7110 uses newer technology and is more transparent because it produces a printout”146 is simply incorrect.
III.
Institutional Deficiencies Evidenced by Draeger’s Culture of Concealment and the State Police Forensic Laboratory’s Culture of Ignorance Undermines Confidence in the Present Alcotest Program and Any Determination of Alcotest Reliability
Complexity, excessive use of global variables, and the specific defects compromise the scientific reliability of Alcotest source code. So, too, is Draeger’s failure to document its coding processes and its failure to use standards. This betrays the biggest problem of all -- the institutional problem. Draeger’s corporate culture elevates false appearances above scientific reliability, so-called trade secrecy above objective verification, and profits above justice. As Judge King noted:
All through this matter, Draeger wanted to keep this thing secret and they said we'll give you eight hours in a tin can or someplace in Durango where you can look at it and not make notes. And now I see 200 hours, 300 hours by these experts who examined this code. So, that sounds a little fishy to me. Why are they this restrictive and secretive? Is it some kind of cabal of opposition to information being disseminated or perhaps a cultural norm? In Europe they do things differently than here? I don't know. But it makes me suspicious.147
Adding to these suspicions is utter disregard of the generally accepted practice of logging errors and operational data. Systems traditionally log information so that a programmer can analyze the data, reconstruct what the software is doing, find faults, and debug the program.148 Most embedded systems used by consumers today have some type of data logging to facilitate efficient repairs, preserving profitability for manufacturers, and maintaining standards.149 For example, this is common practice with cars,150 copiers,151 and laptop computers.152 Draeger showed no evidence of any meaningful error logging.153
A culture oriented to scientific reliability encourages consumers to report problems to the manufacturer so the manufacturer can make a better product.154 If the culture wants to find errors (even errors like those in the Gonzalez example above), it establishes a mechanism to do so.155
Unfortunately, there is no quality assurance organization within Draeger responsible for measuring overall quality, implementing proper techniques, and adhering to standards -- no standards, no testing, no quality assurance.156 Draeger’s culture appears to be not one of improving overall reliability, but rather one of responding to bugs and scrambling to fix them.157
While “sticking its head in the sand” to avoid finding errors, no one within the organization listens to and tries to assimilate problems.158 Misrepresentations about software and hardware capabilities are endemic in the computer industry.159 If Draeger finds software errors in one jurisdiction, it does not recall units in others160 or give advice about the errors. While some manufacturers provide algorithms and source code to attorneys and defense experts,161 Draeger baselessly claims that all of its software is proprietary and resists disclosure.
While source code documentation is necessary, Draeger does not document its software.162 While Draeger’s vice-president Hansueli Ryser claims to maintain ISO 9000 certification and supervise Shaffer about compliance,163 Shaffer does not know what ISO 9000 or any other standard is.164
Meanwhile, our chief forensic scientist embarked into a novel scientific field, but failed to consult anyone with the requisite expertise in computer science.165 The State never asked Draeger or anyone else about software errors.166 They not only failed to see any problems. They did not even look.
As a general rule, New Jersey does not log problems.167 New Jersey has no protocol to determine whether its software functions properly.168 Thus, reliability issues will be hidden, except in individual cases when errors are manifest on an alcohol influence report.169 Such observable errors undermine confidence in the unobservable.170 Examples of observed errors in the present matter include alcohol influence reports from East Brunswick, Milltown, South River, New Brunswick, Longport, and many other police departments.171 Without error logging like that done in Alabama and Massachusetts,172 and with no one within the organization to report problems to,173 no reliability assessment either at the outset or on an on-going basis is possible.
Draeger can implement standards and possibly correct the Alcotest software problems,174 but such implementation may fail if their culture of concealment persists. The State may find an appropriate breath testing instrument, but only if they seek an accurate and scientific program.
Despite these complementary cultures of concealment and ignorance, perhaps Draeger and the State can save the Alcotest -- but not with its present source code version. It is impossible to make the Alcotest using version 3.11 reliable. All readings must be excluded. To save the Alcotest -- to make it scientifically reliable -- to avoid the necessity of serial courtroom proceedings to determine whether the device is scientifically reliable -- Draeger, with direction from the State, must adopt recognized standards. They must make sure to take a scientific approach to source code development, error detection, and error correction -- just as they do with their medical devices. Standards will force Draeger to:
Assure that, in initial coding, most common errors are avoided.
Assume that all released code is still imperfect.
Institutionalize a systematic search for imperfections.
Require documentation at both implementation and for each correction.
In short, Alcotest source code must be rewritten from scratch and deployed correctly, scientifically, according to a recognized standard, and in a traceable provable documented way. Only then it may be considered scientifically reliable.
COMMENTS ON WITNESSES
I.
Source Code Witnesses Geller, Shaffer, and Wisniewski
Generally, a source code review is a methodical way to examine code for problems; it is usually done by a third party in a more formal way than an informal desk check.175 The code reviews in this case did not involve any exercising of the software with the hardware.176 Geller, Shaffer, and Wisniewski had the advantage of having actually reviewed the source code itself, albeit from three distinctly different perspectives.
SysTest was able to compile the Alcotest code early with the help of Draeger’s Shaffer.177 Geller, who wrote less than half of the report178 on which he collaborated with SysTest’s Dan McNamee and Geoffrey Pollich,179 used certain automated tools for his examination, including something called “Module Finder EX,” a “proprietary” program created by SysTest which apparently has problems of its own given the way it has been developed in secret and not according to any recognizable standard.180 When asked, “Were any development standards adhered to when Module Finder was built?” Geller lamented, “Sadly, not.”181 It is ironic that Geller examined secret Alcotest code with another secret program for which SysTest could only claim reliability by asserting its trade secrecy gave SysTest a competitive edge. Geller regrets Module Finder’s lack of standardization because of how hard it has become to maintain with each revision.
Like Wisniewski, Geller used “Understand,” an appropriate tool for determining a program’s complexity and the number of global variables.182 But Geller’s use of “Fortify SCA” was inappropriate, since that tool is intended to detect and fix security vulnerabilities, not coding errors.183 By using “Fortify SCA,” SysTest postulates a hacker, a red herring, a straw dog. Would anyone hack into the Alcotest the way one might hack into a voting machine? Overall, either SysTest was either not looking very hard for defects or did not know how to find them.184
Geller, a senior software engineer at SysTest185 educated at Metropolitan State College with a Bachelor of Science degree in computer science in 1992186 and three additional courses thereafter,187 had no experience with either electronic metrological equipment or software doing analog to digital conversion.188 He managed voting machine source code review.189
John Wisniewski, however, has more than 30 years experience with software, hardware, and embedded systems,190 along with well-rounded comprehensive experience in all phases of the software development life cycle, including writing, testing, analyzing, reviewing, and documenting source code.191 Specifically, he has:
a Bachelor of Arts degree in computer science from State University of New York at Potsdam in 1976.192
taught undergraduate classes in Assembly language and systems analysis.193
written many programs in Assembly and C languages,194 among others.195
written196 and tested code197 for various applications.
written spacecraft tracking software for the National Aeronautic and Space Administration198 and Jet Propulsion Laboratories.199
written, analyzed, and troubleshot code for embedded systems like the B-1 Bomber200 Voyager spacecraft,201 satellite and spacecraft telemetry (including analog to digital conversion),202 among other software and hardware projects.203
integrated software and hardware, including projects involving the B-1 Bomber,204 voice recognition systems,205 and washing machines.206
worked with various software tools, including Lint.207
developed software in conformance to standards.208
Wisniewski conducted his review using different automated tools than SysTest -- notably, a program called lint, a generally available open-source tool which prolifically finds defects.209 Indeed, Lint’s function is to find defects and problems in the source code.210 Coupled with his demonstrably superior practical experience in embedded system programming for applications from aerospace to washing machines, Wisniewski homed in on very significant specific problems in Alcotest source code.211
Shaffer, Draeger’s programmer of the application now before us,212 has no familiarity with ISO 9000, Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineers [“IEEE”], or other standards for software.213 He uses no standard methodology himself, other than walling off key routines in his head.214 He neglects headers within the code that would ordinarily provide signposts for others to follow.215 He has introduced unintentional error like the buffer overflow. His experience with embedded systems programming prior to his employment with Draeger was in the model railroading field working with train whistles.216 With Shaffer, “all I have to do is wonder how much interest he has. Job at stake? This enterprise at stake?”217
Neither Geller,218 Wisniewski,219 nor Shaffer had testified in court before. Geller was somewhat evasive when answering questions, often pausing for long periods before responding, often disclaiming a challenge citing the limited scope of his assigned task.220 Geller lacked command of the powers of two.221 Shaffer, even though constrained by his status as a Draeger employee, disclosed the fraud within Draeger’s code that neither SysTest nor BaseOne detected -- the algorithm that forced EC and IR results to agree when the EC value drifts too far from the IR value.222 His confession of engaging in questionable practices like disregarding header information within the code seems borne more of ignorance than intent to deceive.223 Like Geller, he had difficulty with powers of two224 and no engineering experience.225
Wisniewski was a most objective and credible witness. As Judge King found, Wisniewski was, indeed, “very negative and deconstructive,”226 given the nature of his task and what he actually found. He began his task under the mistaken impression that he worked for the State,227 and is the epitome of the independent software reviewer this Court probably had in mind on remand. For the most part, he was able to document every error he discovered and reported. His discomfort with the use of the term “standards” seemed more semantic than substantive, preferring the term “developmental methodologies” -- a term more consistent with the way he himself reviewed and developed reliable code throughout his career.228
II.
Expert Witnesses Seidman, Dee, and Workman
The remaining experts -- Stephen Seidman last year and Norman Dee and Thomas Workman this year -- did not have the benefit of actually seeing source code, except for the few snippets offered in evidence. But patent attorney Workman -- with more than 30 years experience working in high technology for various corporations in many capacities, including management, engineering, research, quality assurance, and software development -- is probably most representative of the relevant scientific community for this case. Specifically, he has
written, developed, and reviewed source code standards as HP’s representative on the IEEE Computer Standards Board.229
used and applied standards in the course of source code review, vendor selection, and systems verification for such massive technology-based companies as Hewlett-Packard, Digital Equipment, Xerox, and Texas Instruments, among others.230
peer reviewed the work of Thomas McCabe, recognized by both BaseOne and SysTest for developing ways to measure cyclomatic complexity.231
performed ISO 9000 certification for Digital, a major corporation with operations here and in Scotland.232
worked with embedded systems dependent on sensors, much as the Alcotest is dependent on sensors.233
formulated a major scientific principle in the field, “Workman’s Law,” which is named after him!234
testified not only in courts but also before Congress as an expert on computer software issues.235
been unrebutted by anyone else who has testified in this hearing.
Stephen Seidman, Ph.D., an academic, former Dean of the College of Computer Science at N.J. Institute of Technology, and current Dean of the College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics at the University of Central Arkansas,236 was qualified as an expert in software engineering.237 He testified last year about source code with errors and the need for coding standards.238 Judge King stated:
“If there were errors in the software, Seidman would want to know about them as they would raise questions in his mind about the instrument's accuracy....”239
“When shown several AIRs with apparent errors, Seidman said that he would want to understand the reasons for them before he gave an opinion on the accuracy of New Jersey's breath-testing program....”240
Norman Dee, on the other hand, still holds the opinion that source code review is unnecessary and minimizes the importance of reviews done for the present hearings -- a view clearly at odds with the instructions handed down from this Court. He has no experience in legal metrology or analog systems.241 His coding experience is extremely limited, sporadic, and unrelated to analyzing measurements to produce results.242 He has almost no experience with embedded systems like the Alcotest’s,243 and has never written code for such systems.244
III.
Special Master’s Credibility Determinations
Judge King, a self-professed Luddite245 proud of not owning a cell phone or using e-mail,246 did a remarkable job during the first hearing last year seeking to understand the Alcotest technology. At one point near the end of this remand, he appeared to understand. “It's like I got off the subway in Times Square and I got a little three card monte going on.”247 Unfortunately, he either failed to grasp or chose to ignore the significance of examining source code and bought the State’s argument that black box testing was sufficient to prove reliability. He either never appreciated or declined to acknowledge the significance of source code hidden by Draeger.
With all due respect to this distinguished and accomplished jurist, Judge King clearly was confused,248 bored,249 and disinterested in the complexity and intricacies of source code examination and the highly technical expert testimony, calling it “electrical mysticism.”250 In considering Wisniewski’s qualifications, he confessed, “I don’t know what it means to be qualified.”251 He sought to severely limit defense cross-examination, but did relent to defense repeated demands for fairness and justice and the urging of your amicus New Jersey State Bar Association for fairness and justice.252 The defense experts’ credentials and the lack of the proponents was amply demonstrated in the record before this Court. His findings of credibility and reliability are inconsistent with the record and suggest an unwarranted commitment to his previous, but now discredited, acceptance of black box testing. For example:
His swipe at John Wisniewski, expressing “doubt that he was as experienced as portrayed,”253 was offensive and gratuitous, especially given the fact that no challenge whatsoever to his credentials was ever raised at any time in this matter. Wisniewski is a “rocket scientist” with familiarity with all aspects of embedded computer hardware and software systems. To cast Bruce Geller as “technically impressive”254 especially in light of the comparison of his meager credentials against Wisniewski’s extraordinary experience begs credulity.
The same can be said of Judge King giving “considerable weight” to the “impressive witness” Norman Dee, yet dismissing Thomas Workman’s testimony as unpersuasive255 and relegating him to the limbo of “excluded evidence” under R. 1:7-3 -- a position he stated before Workman even began his testimony.256 Of course, rather than outright exclusion, Judge King assigned it his own weight within the confines of his limited understanding of the subject matter to which Workman testified.257
Overall, Judge King’s credibility findings and his finding of software reliability is unfortunately grounded in lack of a grasp of this technology and not a fair assessment of the testimony.
APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES
I.
Draeger’s Failure to Adhere to Any Recognizable Standard Precludes a Finding that Its Source Code for the Alcotest Has Gained General Acceptance in the Scientific Community
Overall Alcotest reliability is a function of three sub-parts: its hardware, its software, and its testing processes.258 In the present remand, this Court focuses on software and its testing.259 The legal standard we must apply to version 3.11 has been stated in our cases thus:
“[T]he thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.”260
“Thus, the test in criminal cases remains whether the scientific community generally accepts the evidence.”261
In applying these legal requirements, we (a) define the particular field in which source code analysis resides, (b) consider who is the scientific community encompassing this particular field, and (c) consider whether the source code in question here would be generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.
The Particular Scientific Field
The particular fields with which we are concerned in this case are those of computer science, electrical engineering, and software programming -- fields separate and distinct from that of forensic science with which we were so concerned last year. We know this because:
NHTSA [National Highway Traffic Safety Administration] has no programming standards. NHTSA’s Edward Conde relied on incomplete computer generated data -- the alcohol influence reports -- and flawed data, accepting one test that the Alcotest itself rejected.262
All of the State’s witnesses from last year that purported to be members of the forensic science field -- Edward Conde,263 Samuel Chappell,264 Barry Logan,265 Rod Gullberg,266 J. Robert Zettl,267 Patrick Harding,268 Thomas Brettell269 -- not only professed no knowledge of computer science but affirmatively disavowed such knowledge.
No one from that community of forensic scientists put it more poetically than Robert Zettl, who declared that, for all he knew, “two magic rocks from Ireland banging together will give you a .10....”270 Rod Gullberg, recognizing his limitations as a statistician and forensic scientist, specifically recommended that source code be independently verified.271
The Relevant Scientific Community
Thus, we leave the field of endeavor in which we examined the Alcotest last year -- that of the forensic science community -- and consider it in these new and closely aligned fields of computer science, electrical engineering, and software programming that encompass source code review. This community includes software engineers and software management worldwide.272 The relevant witnesses presented by the State last year were Stephen Seidman, Norman Dee, and Hansuli Ryser. This year, the State called SysTest’s Bruce Geller and Dee. Judge King called Draeger’s Brian Shaffer. The defense called expert examiner John Wisniewski of BaseOne and standards expert Thomas Workman.
General Acceptance Defined
Having defined the scientific community and discussed how they are represented in this case, we can ask: How does a court determine what scientific reliability is, and what are the hallmarks of general acceptance in this community? To answer these questions, let us examine what science and the scientific method is. Scientific method rests on a foundation of testing, standards, and peer review and publication. The U.S. Supreme Court described scientific method this way:
Testing: “Scientific methodology today is based on generating hypotheses and testing them to see if they can be falsified; indeed, this methodology is what distinguishes science from other fields of human inquiry.”273
Standards: “[T]he court ordinarily should consider the known or potential rate of error...and the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation....”274
Peer Review and Publication. “Another pertinent consideration is whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication.”275 This is because “submission to the scrutiny of the scientific community is a component of ‘good science,’ in part because it increases the likelihood that substantive flaws in methodology will be detected.276 **** The fact of publication (or lack thereof) in a peer reviewed journal thus will be a relevant, though not dispositive, consideration in assessing the scientific validity of a particular technique or methodology on which an opinion is premised.”277
General acceptance is demonstrated by a super-majority of scientists in the software community -- on the order of 80 to 90 percent.278 It is codified in industry standards.279 It is vetted until it is no longer controversial.280 Its methods must be objective, repeatable, quantifiable, and standardized.281 Determinations of reliability and general acceptance are based on measurements and observations.282
The Quality and Burden of Proof
Our cases hold that “a belief that the device is broadly accurate is not sufficient.”283 “Proving general acceptance ‘entails the strict application of the scientific method, which requires an extraordinarily high level of proof based on prolonged, controlled, consistent, and validated experience.’"284
All four pillars -- prolonged, controlled, consistent, and validated experience -- must stand to support a finding of scientific reliability by that highest of the civil burdens of proof, clear and convincing evidence -- a standard of proof defined as evidence that
“produce[s] in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established,” evidence “so clear, direct and weighty and convincing as to enable [the fact finder] to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the precise facts in issue."285
“[T]he responsibility for establishing all conditions as to the admissibility of [Alcotest] results is properly allocated to the State”286 and, by extension, Draeger as an intervenor with a blatant mercenary interest. As we have seen, they failed to meet that burden. While Defendants have no burden whatsoever, they have not only called the code and Alcotest into question but also affirmatively demonstrated that it is unreliable:287
Q. If you were to characterize this software on that scale of 1 to 10, where you keep on working and try to get a 10, where would you put this, having reviewed all the code?
A. I hadn't thought about that. There's so much missing in other documentation, I would have to say it's about a two or a three.288
Indeed, Defendants submit that the appropriate burden for admissibility should be beyond a reasonable doubt, given the nearly presumptive nature of per se breath evidence.289 After all, when Romano v. Kimmelman was decided, this Court considered breath test evidence for municipal court cases decided under a statutory scheme that made breath test results merely presumptive and not conclusive evidence of guilt.290
In the present case, Defendants have raised many factual issues that we have characterized as “Show Stoppers,” since any one of them alone should sufficiently call into question Alcotest reliability so as to make its results inadmissible. Indeed, given these facts, among others -- (a) the limited time perimeters within which source code review occurred, (b) two different examiners using different review tools and methods found discreet problems which the other did not, (c) the lie, discovered only on cross examination, that two allegedly independent technologies verify each other, (d) the morass of unexamined code still hidden by a culture of concealment and the absence of any systematic standardized method for discovering and correcting errors. What Judge King calls “speculation” is, in fact, unreliability. It was never Defendants’ burden to prove that the Alcotest was unreliable. Rather, it was the State’s and Draeger’s to prove it reliable. They failed.
Methods of Proof
A proponent of newly-devised scientific technology can prove its general acceptance in three ways: (1) by expert testimony as to general acceptance, among those in the profession, of the premises on which the proffered expert witness based his or her analysis; (2) by authoritative scientific and legal writings indicating that the scientific community accepts the premises underlying the proffered testimony; and (3) by judicial opinions that indicate the expert's premises have gained general acceptance.291 Reviewing these three methods of proof in the present case in reverse order:
This case is the first of its kind. While adversaries in other jurisdictions fight over source code discovery, and in others, production was ordered, nowhere else has a review of code taken place as it has here. Thus, no judicial opinions about Draeger source code reliability exist. Nor are there any authoritative scientific or legal writings about Draeger source code. There is ample authority in the scientific community about what makes source code and computer programs reliable.292
The great weight of credible expert testimony in this case clearly demonstrates what it takes for source code to be considered scientifically reliable. Judge King’s credibility findings notwithstanding, the witnesses most qualified to assess Alcotest version 3.11 found it unreliable.293 The objective record clearly demonstrates that John Wisniewski is more qualified and more credible than Bruce Geller, that Thomas Workman is more qualified and more credible than Norman Dee.
The Application of Standards
For the computer science community, the hallmarks of scientific reliability are embodied in standards -- or more descriptively -- standardized developmental methodologies.294 Tom Workman, from his education and career experience,295 testified to how standards were developed,296 how they are codified,297 and what makes them scientific.298 John Wisniewski, in the context of his experience and the present code review, discussed such standardized developmental methodologies as yielding more reliable code,299 saying: “You can’t just write code and then review it yourself and test it yourself. There has to be an independent review of it by someone else so that you’re not tainted in your judgment.”300
Standards take into account the first requirement of science by requiring the statement of hypotheses through documentation -- with a requirements document at the outset of coding301 and further documentation for error detection and error correction.302 Standards were developed in a collaborative fashion, subjected to rigorous peer review, and requiring a high degree of consensus on the order of 80 percent.303
Standards were developed by industry and IEEE. Governments adopt them as part of product specifications when a high degree of reliability is required. Standards are used to keep rockets from blowing up and satellites from crashing, to keep hearts beating304 and maintain geosynchronous satellite positioning305 for TV programs. Standards are important because code, like human beings, can never be perfect.306 But, through the application of standards, code can be scientifically reliable.307
Standards have been in use for a long time. While there may have been some debate whether coding standards were necessary decades ago, there is no true debate today. If an application is sufficiently important, it must be developed and maintained according to some standard.308 There is nothing new or novel about this concept. The use of standards is a prerequisite to a determination that source code is scientifically reliable.
The application with which we are concerned here is clearly important. Evidence developed with this technology will send people to jail. The importance of the application here is more on par with airplane landing gear, pace maker functioning, and satellite navigation than with model train whistles or even voting machines.
II.
Presently Unknowable Source Code Deprives Any Challenger of a Reported Breath Test Result Any Meaningful Right of Confrontation
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him."309 This right to confrontation is fundamental and essential to a fair trial in a criminal prosecution.310 "[A] major reason underlying the constitutional confrontation rule is to give a defendant charged with crime an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him."311 As a result, "it cannot seriously be doubted at this late date that the right of cross-examination is included in the right of an accused in a criminal case to confront the witnesses against him."312 In fact:
There are few subjects, perhaps, upon which this Court and other courts have been more nearly unanimous than in their expressions of belief that the right of confrontation and cross-examination is an essential and fundamental requirement for the kind of fair trial which is this country's constitutional goal. Indeed, we have expressly declared that to deprive an accused of the right to cross-examine the witnesses against him is a denial of the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due process of law.313
Because of Crawford v. Washington,314 New Jersey courts have been establishing a body of case law on Confrontation Clause issues.315
This Court recently recognized the enormity of Crawford in State v. Branch,316 when it reversed a conviction because a detective testified that he developed Branch as a suspect "based on the information received" and included Branch's picture in a photographic array shown to witnesses. This “information” constituted inadmissible hearsay, and the admission of testimony about this information violated defendant's confrontation rights in a burglary and robbery trial. The Court ultimately decided the case on state evidentiary grounds, but warned:
Although we decide this case based on our interpretation of an evidentiary rule, our analysis is informed by the principles undergirding the Confrontation Clause jurisprudence of our federal and state constitutions. In that regard, we must take notice of the potential impact that the recent watershed decision in Crawford, supra, will have on the introduction of "testimonial" hearsay through the excited utterance exception and other hearsay exceptions.317
In Branch, the Court did not further assess what testimonial hearsay was, stating, "[W]e do not have to decide whether Detective Calvin's questioning of Juliana was ‘police interrogation’ or whether her statement was ‘testimonial’ in the manner understood in Crawford...because we can resolve this case on state evidentiary grounds."318 However, the court noted, “Crawford...is a reminder that even firmly established exceptions to the hearsay rule must bow to the right of confrontation.”319 “Courts must be mindful, as well, of the requirements placed by Crawford...on the admission of testimonial evidence, whether in the context of the excited utterance exception or any other exception to the hearsay rule.”320
In the present matter, this Court is confronted with an entirely new application of Crawford: confrontation of a machine. This Court recognized, inter alia, the significance of the issue in its remand of this case, ordering Draeger to produce the source code for testing and analysis.
From the examination of that code, Defendants determined that the code was so complex and badly organized as to make meaningful examination impossible. Neither BaseOne nor SysTest could fully analyze the code and its exponential number of analytical paths.
EC results are set, at least in part, as a function of IR results calculated via operation of an algorithm which no one can directly observe. This deprives Defendants of any opportunity to challenge, through confrontation, results generated or fabricated by the Alcotest.
With the Breathalyzer, despite its human manipulation and technological limitations, a defendant could still cross examine the machine’s operator about the testing process. With the Alcotest, such questions are essentially limited to, "Did you press the orange button; did you enter the information requested by the machine; did the machine print a result?" If it produces a result above the per se limit, even with the safeguards suggested by Judge King in his initial report, there is no assurance that the machine reports accurate information. The true process of how various measurements are received by the hardware and interpreted by the software will remain always concealed. Nonetheless, even if Judge King’s recommendations are followed, municipal courts will accept the Alcotest’s final result printed on the alcohol influence report as if conclusive, depriving a defendant of any ability to confront and challenge the process used to achieve the result.
Although the aim of the proceedings before Judge King was to analyze the machine and its processes so that there would be no need for individual challenges in each and every case, nonetheless, there can be no credible assessment that the machine produces scientifically acceptable results based on the record before this Court. It is prettier than the Breathalyzer, apparently more modern in its appearance. But this pretty package conceals a presently unknowable process which no one can confront through cross examination.
III.
Draeger Source Code, by Its Overly Complex Nature, Conceals Material Exculpatory Information Which No Defendant Will Ever Discover and Which the State Can Never Reveal
“One of the most basic elements of fairness in a criminal trial is...that the State in its zeal to convict a defendant not suppress evidence that might exonerate him.”321 “[S]uppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.”322 After all, the prosecutor
is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor -- indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.323
In the context of private prosecutions, this Court noted that “dual responsibilities to the complaining witness and to the State breed numerous problems. Representation of the complainant in a related civil action could invest the prosecutor with a monetary interest in the outcome of the matter. That risk is particularly high if the prosecutor has agreed to receive a contingent fee in the civil action.”324 “Conflicting interests, moreover, can undermine a prosecutor's impartiality.”325 “Also implicated are the [private] prosecutor's ethical obligation ‘to see that the defendant is accorded procedural justice and that guilt is decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence.’”326
Draeger, of course, has a vested interest in protecting its multi-million dollar investment and the profits it seeks not only from this State but from other jurisdictions should the Alcotest receive this Court’s imprimatur. The State, with its multi-million dollar investment in this new technology, has a similarly compelling interest in its approval, albeit moderated (one hopes) by its obligation to do justice.
To this end, this Court, working in tandem with defendants, must consistently seek to overcome “the natural tendency of the prosecutor to overlook evidence favorable to the defense, and [the] incentive for the prosecutor to resolve close questions of disclosure in favor of concealment.”327 This Court must remain cognizant of even the appearance of impropriety engendered by Draeger’s participation in a quasi-criminal proceeding.328
Has the Attorney General's failure to fully explore the computer program running the Alcotest 7110 MK-III-C deprived all Defendants in the present case and all other defendants similarly situated of a fair trial?329 Does providing defense counsel with a limited opportunity to partially inspect the software here a realistic way to assure due process for individual defendants in the future, given the extraordinary expense which may potentially fall on the individual defendant?
The answer to the question depends on (1) a review of the facts, (2) the defense request for the material and the limited opportunity to explore missing material, and (3) the standard by which the prosecution's failure to volunteer exculpatory material should be judged.330 Here, Defendants specifically requested the source code more than one year ago, so the standard by which the proponents’ actions are judged is an objective one making any prosecutorial awareness of the evidence’s exculpatory nature irrelevant. Thus, we need only review the facts on which the due process claim is made. In that vein, “the defendant must show that: (1) the prosecution [and its alter ego Draeger] suppressed evidence; (2) the evidence is favorable to the defense; and (3) the evidence is material.”331
Once again in reverse order, we examine these requirements:
First, information about the prerequisite conditions for establishing breath test reliability is highly relevant and extremely material.332 Such evidence is material "if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different."333
Second, the evidence should be deemed favorable to the defense. A wide variety of materials in the State's possession could constitute exculpatory information to which a defendant is entitled.334 Specific discovery concerning the chemical testing machine is exculpatory, because this information is the only "alternate means" available to the defendant to debunk the reliability and accuracy of the chemical test result; and the Due Process Clause "require[s] that criminal defendants be afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense."335
Thus, we are left with the final question: Is the State and Draeger suppressing this material favorable evidence? “[I]f the omitted evidence creates a reasonable doubt that did not otherwise exist, constitutional error has been committed.”336
Despite Draeger’s disgorgement of source code pursuant to this Court’s explicit direction, its processes remain hidden within the billions of paths within the Code. Despite the limited reviews conducted within the limited time allotted by this Court, the interdependence of the EC and IR technologies remained hidden until a lucky exchange on cross examination. In the context of due process as discussed in this point, the EC/IR revelation sharpens the realization that so much more is hidden that, given the complexity and disorganization of the code, material exculpatory information will always remain undisclosed.
Aside from the unreliability issues discussed elsewhere in this brief, the code itself makes the State’s use of the Alcotest a due process violation. How this Court handles this suppression of information at this juncture will affect the lives of the thousands of individuals whose cases are pending resolution of this matter. We cannot assess whether this machine’s reported result will convict innocent people or free guilty ones. It will define how this landmark case is viewed by other jurisdictions. Accepting results from a device which, by its nature suppresses material relevant information will make New Jersey and this Court look foolish. There is but one remedy to this nonsense: Suppress results from all cases with Alcotest using firmware version 3.11.
CONCLUSION
What We Have Learned
We have learned a number of things in these hearings that no one other than Draeger knew or appreciated when we started.
First, the methodology expressed in Addendum A337 assumed but omitted reference to some standard by which the software house would examine the code. A cursory review where no concerted effort is made to find “obvious concerns” will yield a report with innocuous findings and conclusions which, on the surface, sound impressive but, on closer examination, mean nothing.
Second, no source code is error free. Code can be written in a way that makes it reliable. In reliable code, programmers constantly search for errors and, when found, correct them according to a systematic, standardized, well-thought-out method that is documented at every step. Each time a correction is made over the life of such code, it just gets better and better. Unfortunately, as discussed herein, Alcotest source code is not reliable and, when modified, gets worse and worse.338
Third, version 3.11 is rife with many errors, anyone of which, by itself, makes this code and this device unreliable. The present Alcotest is just as likely to produce results that inculpate the innocent and exculpate the guilty.339 The code, and, thus, the instrument itself, is not scientifically reliable. The right thing to do is to throw out all of its results from every case now pending.
Knowing the Right Thing and Doing It
Knowing the right thing and doing it are often two different things. Factors beyond the realm of objective scientific principles should not affect these decisions. The fear is that extraneous unrelated facts having nothing to do with Alcotest unreliability will dictate an unjust outcome to this case. Those facts relate to the way both the State and this Court have handled the Alcotest and disserved the public to date.
The State selected, approved, and implemented the Alcotest program improperly by (a) formulating a bid specification that permitted only one manufacturer’s product and precluded any competition in the selection process, (b) delaying replacement of the antiquated Breathalyzer until it became so out of date that it could no longer be equipped or maintained or continued as a viable technology, (c) rolling out the Alcotest in such a reckless and overpowering way that it is now the only technology available for breath testing in most of New Jersey, and (d) ordering arbitrary changes to the source code such that range of agreement between breath test results would obscure issues third tests might otherwise flush out.
This Court disregarded well-established evidentiary principles and constitutional protections by, inter alia, (a) entering its January 2006 Order sua sponte without providing the parties with an opportunity to be heard, (b) requiring municipal courts to receive Alcotest results, (c) encompassing within the Order not only the present parties to the above captioned matter but all similarly situated defendants [i.e., those defendants with cases involving Alcotest 7110 breath test evidence], (d) requiring defendants to face conviction based on unreliable incompetent evidence, (e) creating a presumption of guilt based on presumably incompetent evidence,340 (f) precluding the right of defendants to timely confront this evidence against them,341 (g) causing undue prejudice, unfair trials, and collateral consequences like insurance premium increases, job loss, and driving privilege revocations for out-of-State drivers, and (h) unduly delaying dispositions and implicating the right to a speedy trial.342
An Untenable Situation
As a result, based on incompetent evidence, innocents have faced conviction and guilty people have been released. Those whose driving privileges should have been revoked were allowed to drive, and those whose driving privileges should not have been revoked lost jobs, went broke, failed friends and families. Some were jailed.
This Court’s January 2006 Order compelled municipal courts to receive Alcotest readings into evidence, even though these hearings remained pending. Draeger, the State, and the Public might have reasonably assumed that acceptance of the Alcotest would be a foregone conclusion. Given the way the State and this Court have created an almost untenable situation in the administration of DUI defendants, the present Defendants are concerned that this Court will whitewash the terrible truth uncovered in this case and, to save face, not only convict innocent people but also create precedent that has the potential to infect our jurisprudence in any application relying on computerized scientific evidence.
Unfortunately, there is no easy, face-saving way to rationalize these extraneous mistakes away. This Court and the Attorney General can only acknowledge that mistakes were made, learn from them, and move on.
“The principle...is not punishment of society for misdeeds of a prosecutor but avoidance of an unfair trial to the accused.”343 “Society wins not only when the guilty are convicted but when criminal trials are fair; our system of the administration of justice suffers when any accused is treated unfairly.”344
The Only Reasonable Findings
Judge King’s conclusions about source code reliability here are wrong: He should have drawn adverse inferences against Draeger for its stonewalling. Overwhelming evidence on remand undermines any confidence in supposed Alcotest reliability. The only reasonable findings this Court can make are these:
The Alcotest 7110 using firmware version 3.11 is unreliable and unscientific.
All Alcotest results in all prosecutions affected by this Court’s January 2006 Order are excluded.
Each case in which guilt is based on Alcotest results will be returned to the municipal court for trial or disposition as the requirements of the particular case require.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Samuel L. Sachs
Samuel Louis Sachs, Esquire
s/ Matthew W. Reisig
Matthew W. Reisig, Esquire
s/ John Menzel
John Menzel, J.D.
s/ Evan M. Levow
Evan M. Levow, Esquire
s/ Jonathan Kessous
Jonathan Kessous, Esquire
s/ Christopher Hewitt
Christopher, Hewitt, Esq.
_________________________________________________________________
12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345
1 13T52-13/24, 13T53-24/54-4; D-16.
2 http://encarta.msn.com (“a gross misrepresentation of the facts concerning a major issue, especially for political purposes”), http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie, http://www.sourcewatch. org.
3 Da1-4.
4 Da5-8.
5 SMR45.
6 SMR233.
7 SMR45.
8 Da10, State v. Chun, 191 N.J. 308 (2007). See Da13-14 denying, inter alia, a defense request for funding; see also Da19.
9 Da11.
10 Da15 (emphasis added).
11 Da18.
12 BaseOne’s 57-page report appears at Da20-76.
13 SysTest’s 57-page report appears at Da77-133.
14 See Da78.
15 See Da28-29.
16 See 9TR219-13/220-10.
17 See Da15.
18 2SMR80.
19 2SMR6.
20 9RT187-5/19.
21 See Da32 (BaseOne p.13), Da145 (Workman p.3).
22 Da47 (BaseOne p.28), Da145 (Workman p.145).
23 9RT200-20/201-7, see Da146 (Workman p.4).
24 See Da33 (BaseOne p.14).
25 Exh.DR-4, see 10RT59-6/8.
26 See Da43 (BaseOne p.24).
27 See 34T87-6/10
28 See State v. Downie, 117 N.J. 450 (1990); Romano v. Kimmelman, 96 N.J. 66 (1984).
29 38T86-17/88-2.
30 10RT51-21/52-8, 52-22/25, 55-23/56-1; see 9T26-11/16. See State v. Foley, 370 N.J.Super. 341, 355 (Law Div. 2003).
31 See, e.g., Da203-04; see also 10RT51-21/52-8, 52-22/25, 55-23/56-1.
32 9RT211-21/212-25.
33 8RT24-9/11.
34 9RT224-13/225-1.
35 9RT225-2/24; see, e.g., Exh.AB-2; see also 10RT65-2/7.
36 See, e.g., 10RT66-11/67-9; see also Da57.
37 See 2SMR52.
38 See 2SMR78, 107.
39 See Da201-206 (Exh.D-197).
40 10RT, 9-16/19, 11-14/25.
41 10RT14-20/22.
42 Cf., from 2006 hearing, e.g., Da275-76 (Exh.D-149, 0.02), Da277 (Exh.D-150, 0.00), Da282 (Exh.D-153, 0.03), Da291-92 (Exh.D-155, 0.04), Da296 (Exh.D-155, 0.03), Da303 (Exh.D-155, 0.01), Da311 (Exh.D-157, p.2, 0.04), Da313 (Exh.D-157, p.8, 0.02).
43 10RT12-1/24.
44 10RT42-7/43-21.
45 Da207-08 (Exh.D-8); see 10RT48-23/49-19, 50-15/24.
46 See Romano v. Kimmelman, supra, and State v. Downie, supra.
47 See, from 2006 hearings, e.g., Da211-12 (Exh.D-13, .030 apart), Da217-18 (Exh.D-61, .014), Da230-31 (Exh.130, .144), Da235-36 (Exh.D-135, p.2-3, .030), Da237 (Exh.136, p.1, .013), Da242-43 (Exh.140, .014), Da268-69 (Exh.D-145, .024), Da270-71 (Exh.D-146, .024), Da272-73 (D-147, .030), Da274 (Exh.D-148, .026), Da278-79 (Exh.D-151, p.8-9, .023), Da280 (Exh.D-151, p.13, .012), Da281 (Exh.D-152, .011), Da282-83 (Exh.D-153, .014), Da286 (Exh.D-154, p.4, .014), Da287-88 (Exh.D-154, p.6-7, .011), Da289-90 (Exh.D-154, p.9-10, .011), Da293-94 (Exh.D-155, p.3-4, .013), Da295 (Exh.D-155, p.5, .012), Da301-02 (Exh.D-155, p.12-13, .012), Da304 (Exh.D-155, p.16, .018), Da305 (Exh.D-156, p.4, .013), Da306-07 (Exh.D-156, p.5-6, .012), Da308-09 (Exh.D-156, p.7-8, .011), Da312 (Exh.D157, p.6, .021).
48 Da318 (Exh.AB-3), see 10RT102-22/104-6; see also, from 2006 hearing, e.g., Da264-65 (Exh.D-143).
49 See Da221-29 (Exh.D-63) (In Milltown, CU-34 type listed incorrectly as “4” rather than correctly as “WET”), Da244-63 (Exh.D-142) (In Princeton Borough, serial number listed incorrectly as “4” rather than correctly).
50 See, from 2006 hearing, e.g., Da209-10 (Exh.D-12, once in three attempts), Da219 (Exh.D-62, once in two), Da240-41 (Exh.D-137, once in three), Da266-67 (Exh.D-144, once in four), Da278-79 (Exh.D-151, p.8-9, twice in five), Da284-85 (Exh.D-154, p.1-2, once in four), Da286 (Exh.D-154, p.4, once in four), Da297-98 (Exh.D-155, p.8-9, once in four), Da299-300 (Exh.D-155, p.10-11, twice in five), Da306-07 (Exh.D-156, p.5-6, twice in four), Da310 (Exh.D-157, p.1, once in three), Da314-15 (Exh.D-157, 9-10, once in nine).
51 See, from 2006 hearing, e.g., Da217-18 (Exh.D-61).
52 Da242-43 (Exh.D-140).
53 Da316-17 (Exh.S-61).
54 Da216 (Exh.D-60), cf. Da219 (Exh.D-62).
55 Hitler, Adolph, Mein Kampf p.134 (James Murphy translation, 1933).
56 20T21-10/21-17 (Ryser).
57 20T48-19/49-4 (Ryser).
58 23T85-8/85-12 (Ryser).
59 50T31-18/20 (Ryser).
60 State v. Foley, supra, 370 N.J.Super. at 346.
61 1T85-6/85-10.
62 12T59-5/6.
63 37T166-10/166-13.
64 42T14-5/15-12.
65 70T33-7/12.
66 5RT220-2/231-5.
67 5RT224-11/14 (emphasis added); see also 5RT226-19/24, 227-17/21, 230-6/13.
68 8RT187-9/19, 189-20/197-7.
69 10RT137-5/6.
70 10RT138-22/24. See discussion re “soll_aak” file at 10RT138-12/139-9.
71 10RT140-18/19.
72 10RT132-10/133-2.
73 10RT133-3/18.
74 10RT132-20/133-8, 137-8/15; see Exh.DR-14.
75 12RT39-21/40-4.
76 12RT40-9/19.
77 See 5RT220-2/231-5; 6RT104-14/112-5, 125-17/126-24, 129-10/131-4; 8RT182-14/199-3; 10RT129-1/6, 132-10/146-11, 149-1/17, 232-9/234-9, 241-15/243-13, 249-6/254-5.
78 6RT129-21.
79 10RT233-13.
80 5RT227-21.
81 370 N.J. Super. 341 (Law Div. 2003).
82 See id., 370 N.J.Super. at 345-47, 351, 356, and 359.
83 See SMR33, 52, 67, 75, 177, 186, and 252.
84 See 2SMR84.
85 See SMR42.
86 See 5T69-4/69-10.
87 33T81-1/4.
88 35T110-1116.
89 37T:15-4 to 15-11.
90 37T156-13/18.
91 See 2SMR13, 15-16, 47, 57-58, 61-61, 76-78, and 81-84.
92 See 2SMR84.
93 6RT105-3/9.
94 50T27-6/9 (Ryser).
95 See SMR50.
96 See State v. Foley, supra, 370 N.J.Super. at 350-351.
97 12RT43-4/9.
98 See Da23, Da37 (BaseOne p.4, 18); Da147 (Workman p.5).
99 6RT36-7/10, 98-12/99-3.
100 See Da23, Da37 (BaseOne p.4, 18).
101 See Da23, Da37 (BaseOne p 4, 18); Da146 (Workman p.4).
102 See Da24, Da40 (BaseOne p 5, 21); Da146 (Workman p.4).
103 10RT128-5/129-6.
104 10RT130-13/18.
105 10RT130-5/11.
106 10RT78-12/15; see Da36 (BaseOne p.17), Da146 (Workman p.4).
107 10RT69-17/70-1, 77-8/14, 79-2/4, 86-25/87-11, 121-17/122-7.
108 10RT83-6/13, 87-16/23.
109 10RT71-6/18; see 10RT72-15/73-8; see also DR-19, DR-20.
110 10RT80-22/3; see DR-23.
111 10RT83-1/8.
112 See 10RT83-14/21, 84-15/85-21; see also Exh.CR-3.
113 10RT124-2/126-6.
114 10RT126-10/19.
115 10RT118-1/6.
116 See Da36, Da40 (BaseOne p.17, 21).
117 10RT126-24/127-10.
118 10RT127-18/24.
119 Exh.DR-4; see 9RT229-24/232-5.
120 9RT232-9/13, see 9RT235-24/235-8.
121 See Da78-79 (SysTest p.3-4), Da81 (SysTest p.81).
122 See Da41-42 (BaseOne p.22-23).
123 See Da24, Da37-38 (BaseOne p.5, 18-19).
124 See Da32, Da35 (BaseOne p.13, 16); Da145 (Workman p.3). See also Da79 (SysTest p.4).
125 9RT213-6/9.
126 10RT35-8/20.
127 See 21 C.F.R. 862.3050, see also www.accessdata.fda.gov.
128 D-99.
129 D-101.
130 6RT28-22/29-2.
131 See Da22-23, 40 (BaseOne pp.3-4, 21); Da146 (Workman p.4); Da81-82, Da97-98 (SysTest pp.6-7, 22-23).
132 9RT195-8/19.
133 9RT195-20/197-17, see 9RT199-12/200-5.
134 10RT97-9/98-2.
135 See 9RT200-20/201-7.
136 Exh.DR-4.
137 9RT201-15/19.
138 9RT201-20/25, 10RT88-2289-3; see 10RT90-6/24.
139 53T35-25/36-20.
140 SMR247; see 9RT207-11/20.
141 See 9RT201-13/25.
142 10RT34-5/6. See Da40 (BaseOne p.21); Da146 (Workman p.4). See also Da86 (SysTest p.10).
143 10RT34-2/4.
144 10RT133-9/14.
145 See 9RT218-14/20.
146 SMR108, citing 57T23-24.
147 12RT39-10/20.
148 10RT15-24/16-9, 19-14/18.
149 10RT18-22/19-5.
150 10RT16-12/15.
151 10RT18-17/21.
152 10RT21-2/15.
153 10RT19-20/21-7.
154 See, e.g., 10RT22-6/23-15.
155 10RT20-12/21, see 10RT24-17/24, see also 10RT23-10/12.
156 10RT34-22/35-20.
157 10RT91-12/16.
158 See 10RT24-25/25-4.
159 30T36-37.
160 25T40-41.
161 See 5T90-20/91-6.
162 See 24T57-8/59-1.
163 30T30-20/23.
164 5RT38-23/39-23.
165 See, generally, 10RT24-12/17.
166 See 48T28-2/18.
167 41T45-6/8.
168 See, e.g., 41T39-7/40-4, 41-12/42-21, 64-6/12.
169 9RT207-11/20, see 41T44-22/24.
170 9RT208-18/209-12, 10RT101-2/12.
171 See Da201-318.
172 9RT211-24/213-2; 10RT27-19/28-2, 28-16/22.
173 10RT24-24/25-4.
174 10RT32-25/33-4; see 10RT34-7/12, 37-1/16.
175 9RT209-24/210-6.
176 9RT219-13/220-10.
177 See 1RT94-4/95-13.
178 1RT37-9/12.
179 1RT36-12/18.
180 See 10RT41-8/22.
181 2RT155-8/10.
182 10RT40-14/41-5.
183 10RT40-1/6.
184 10RT65-14/21.
185 1RT18-21/24, see Da124-27 (SysTest pp. 49-52).
186 1RT29-7/8.
187 1RT43-9/19.
188 1RT44-6/45-1.
189 1RT28-2/3; see 1RT19-12/15, 2RT170-5/13.
190 6RT183-18/184-1, see Da66-74 (BaseOne pp. 47-55).
191 6RT177-7/15.
192 6RT197-21/198-8.
193 6RT199-3/10.
194 6RT213-24/214-3, 214-13/16, 217-6/11, 218-13/21, 222-16/224-3; 7RT16-23/17-1.
195 6RT178-15/21, 206-16/19,208-14/17; 7RT6-4/12, 7-22/8-7, 13-20/14-6, 17-10/21.
196 6RT208-18/209-14, 213-24/214-6, 214-13/20, 216-22/217-11, 217-25/218-21, 222-6/223-8.
197 6RT209-15/20, 214-7/9.
198 6RT203-18/24.
199 6RT204-11/15.
200 6RT200-1/201-25.
201 6RT204-16/205-1.
202 6RT207-8/209-14.
203 6RT179-15/180-25, 212-5/13.
204 6RT178-22/179-11.
205 6RT219-9/220-7.
206 6RT177-18/178-14; 7RT6-4/12, 18-23/19-2.
207 6RT185-3/194-14, see 6RT187-6/10 for Lint reference.
208 6RT194-15/195-23, 213-6/23, 217-17/21; 7RT16-3/7.
209 9RT220-13/221-7, 222-1/5, 222-16/23; 10RT38-15/39-15, 65-9/13.
210 9RT223-22/224-5.
211 10RT39-16/20.
212 5RT5-21/6-2.
213 6RT38-23/39-23.
214 , see 24T26-6/28-1.
215 5RT119-3/120-6, see Da34 (BaseOne p.15).
216 5RT169-7/170-5.
217 12RT40-5/9.
218 1RT34-25/35-5.
219 6RT186-14/17.
220 See, e.g.: 1RT183-8/183-22; 2RT148-19, 149-12, 150-8, 171-20.
221 1RT79-18/81-13; see 10RT60-10/61-2, 63-6/64-15; see DR-18.
222 5RT224-11/14 (emphasis added); see also 5RT226-19/24, 227-17/21, 230-6/13.
223 5RT119-3/120-6.
224 6RT32-2/6.
225 5RT6-15/20.
226 2SMR48.
227 7RT96-1/4.
228 See 6RT194-17/21, 9RT173-17/21.
229 9RT170-7/172-5.
230 9RT153-2/154-21, 163-5/165-12, 168-18/169-10, 173-5/16, 203-1/12.
231 9RT172-15/20.
232 9RT168-22/170-6, see 9RT153-7/23.
233 9RT154-22/158-22, 160-22/161-2, 161-14/162-25.
234 9RT174-13/175-14.
235 9RT180-22/181-8, 184-14/185-14; see 9RT204-4/19.
236 16T21-1/14.
237 16T69-12/14.
238 18T12-17/20-25; see D-47 Da154 et seq.
239 SMR108, citing 18T67.
240 SMR108, citing 18T77, D-59, D-60, D-61, D-62, D-63, D-64).
241 30T41-25/42-6.
242 30T42-7/23, 43-13/17.
243 30T47-13/18, see 30T46-9/11.
244 30T47-15/18.
245 1RT25-17.
246 68T48-18/21.
247 12RT40-20/21.
248 3RT164-13/165-13; 4RT112-20/25, 172-1/3; 6RT107-10/11; 7RT127-5/12.
249 See, e.g., 7RT14-22/24 during Wisniewski’s voir dire.
250 1RT37-17/19.
251 7RT35-22/24.
252 2RT204-17/211-23; 3RT86-8/87-2, 100-18/24, 103-19/21.
253 2SMR48.
254 2SMR28.
255 2SMR61.
256 9RT5-1/19.
257 2SMR61-62.
258 10RT5-18/21, 7-3/14.
259 10RT7-15/21, 8-12/20, 9-1/4.
260 State v. Harvey, 151 N.J. 117, 169 (1997), quoting Frye v. U.S., 293 F. 1013, 1013-14 (D.C.Cir. 1923) (emphasis added).
261 State v. Harvey, supra, 151 N.J. at 170.
262 See 2T102-6/105-18, 107-25/109-22; 3T8-7/24, 11-21/24, 12-9, 13-4/14-21; 10RT104-19/23,106-1/5, 107-18/108-10, 112-10/21, 119-3/17.
263 See 2T8-12, 54-1/5, 113-10/12.
264 See 3T160-7/11, 162-15/20, 164-5/10.
265 See 5T21-11/15, 82-13/17.
266 See 12T82-1/7, 13T52-20/24.
267 See 13T81-12/21; 14T64-24/65-1; 15T8-8/12, 18-8.
268 See 26T88-8/89-7.
269 See 37T47-5, 168-24/169-1; 39T8-18/25; 41T58-5/15, 135-12/21; 44T26-1/4.
270 15T7-21/23.
271 13T52-13/24, 13T53-24/54-4; D-16.
272 See 9RT188-9/16, 190-14/191-16.
273 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 593, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993); see 10RT19-7/13.
274 Id., 509 U.S. at 594 (citations omitted).
275 Id., 509 U.S. at 593.
276 Id.
277 Id., 509 U.S. at 594.
278 9RT188-19/23.
279 9RT191-8/16.
280 9RT191-20/192-7.
281 9RT192-14/193-1.
282 9RT194-14/23.
283 In re LTI Marksman 20-20 Laser Speed Detection System, 314 N.J.Super. 211, 230 (Law Div. 1996) [“Laser I”].
284 State v. Harvey, supra, 151 N.J. at 171, quoting Rubanic v. Witco Chemical Corp., 125 N.J. 421, 436 (1991).
285 In re Seaman, 133 N.J. 67, 74 (1993) (citations omitted).
286 Romano v. Kimmelman, supra, 96 N.J. at 91.
287 See 8RT199-7/13; 9RT208-11/209-12; 10RT146-5/11, 147-7/21.
288 8RT129-25/130-6.
289 Romano v. Kimmelman, supra, 96 N.J. at 90.
290 See N.J.S. 39:4-50 and its history.
291 State v. Harvey, supra, 151 N.J. at 170.
292 See Thomas Workman’s bibliography at Da140-41. See also, e.g., FDA standards bibliography at Da193-200.
293 9RT174-1/3, 187-5/19.
294 6RT194-17/21, see 9RT173-17/21.
295 9RT150-21/152-10, 152-24/158-22, 159-17/161-2, 161-14/165-17, 168-15/173-16, 184-14/185-14.
296 9RT171-6/172-5.
297 9RT191-8/16.
298 9RT191-20/195-19.
299 6RT196-16/23.
300 6RT195-25/196-3.
301 10RT37-21/22, see 10RT38-5/10, see also Da151.
302 10RT15-24/16-15, 18-17/19-18, 26-5/9.
303 9RT171-6/172-5, 188-19/23.
304 9RT203-16/21.
305 See 6RT209-24/212-13.
306 9RT201-10/11.
307 9RT203-16/21.
308 18T12-17/20-25; see D-47 at Da154 et seq.
309 U.S.Const., Amend.VI.
310 Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 403-04, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965).
311 Id. at 406-07.
312 Id. at 404.
313 Id. at 405.
314 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004).
315 State v. Nyhammer, 396 N.J.Super. 72 (App.Div. 2007) (officer's testimony about child victim's out-of-court statements re alleged sexual assault by defendant, with admission of victim's videotaped statement, violated defendant's right of confrontation in trial for sexual assault and endangering welfare of child); State v. Byrd, 393 N.J.Super. 218 (App.Div. 2007) (trial court's in camera interview with witness violated defendants' right of confrontation, and admission of witness' inculpatory statement to police re events surrounding robbery and murder after witness refused to testify violated defendants' right of confrontation); State v. Dorman, 393 N.J.Super. 28 (App.Div.), cert.gr. in part, 192 N.J. 475 (2007) (trial court's admission of breath-test machine operability certificates under business records exception to hearsay rule did not violate right of confrontation); State v. Burr, 392 N.J.Super. 538 (App.Div. 2007) (no confrontation violation found where defendant was able to cross-examine child victim through counsel); State v. Kent, 391 N.J.Super. 352 (App.Div. 2007) (State Police laboratory report and related worksheets were testimonial under Crawford, and as were blood test certificate prepared by hospital employee who extracted blood from defendant at police officer's request); State v. Renshaw, 390 N.J.Super. 456 (App.Div. 2007) (admission of certification for bodily specimen taken in medically acceptable manner absent defendant’s opportunity to cross-examine nurse who prepared certification violated defendant's confrontation rights); State v. Buda, 389 N.J.Super. 241 (App.Div. 2006), cert.gr. 191 N.J. 317 (2007) (statements of non-testifying child to DYFS worker were ‘testimonial,’ such that admission violated Confrontation Clause); State v. Berezansky, 386 N.J.Super. 84 (App.Div. 2006), cert.gr. 191 N.J. 317 (2007) (trial court's admission of lab certificate reporting defendant's blood alcohol concentration without testimony of its preparer violated defendant's constitutional right of confrontation); State ex rel. J.A., 385 N.J.Super. 544 (App.Div. 2006), cert.gr. 191 N.J. 317 (2007) (admission of eyewitness' statements to police as witness perceived robbery came within either present sense impression or excited utterance exceptions to hearsay rule and did not violate juvenile's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation); State v. Sweet, 191 N.J. 318 (2007) (certification granted re admission of certificates re the contents of Breathalyzer ampoules).
316 182 N.J. 338 (2005).
317 State v. Branch, id., 182 N.J. at 368.
318 Id. at 370.
319 Id. at 369-70.
320 Id. at 370-71.
321 U.S. v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 116, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 343 (1976) (Marshall dissenting).
322 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).
323 Berger v. U.S., 295 U.S. 78, 55 S.Ct. 629, 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1935); U.S. v. Agurs, supra, 427 U.S. at 110-11.
324 State v. Storm, 141 N.J. 245, 253-53 (1995).
325 Id. at 253.
326 Id., citing Model Rules of Professional Responsibility 3.8, comment (1994).
327 U.S. v. Agurs, supra, 427 U.S. at 117 (Marshall dissenting).
328 See State v. Storm, supra, 141 N.J. at 253.
329 See U.S. v. Agurs, supra, 427 U.S. at 98-99.
330 Id., 427 U.S. at 99.
331 State v. Martini, 160 N.J. 248, 268-69 (1999), citing Brady v. Maryland, supra; see also State v. Parsons, 341 N.J.Super. 448, 454 (App.Div. 2001), citing Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786, 794, 92 S.Ct. 2562, 33 L.Ed.2d 706 (1972).
332 State v. Ford, 240 N.J.Super. 44, 50-51 (App.Div. 1990).
333 Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 280-81, 119 S.Ct. 1936, 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999) (citations omitted) (affirmed denial of habeas petition).
334 State v. Ford, supra, 240 N.J.Super. at 52.
335 California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 and 490, 104 S.Ct. 2528, 81 L.Ed.2d 413 (1984).
336 U.S. v. Agurs, supra, 427 U.S. at 112.
337 Da15, D-232.
338 In any event, the final step of the Addendum A protocol -- that the Alcotest be “tested against and measured in compliance with O.I.M.L. [International Organization of Legal Metrology] specifications adopted and current at the time of such tests” -- is not yet applicable to this case. See Da16, par.3.
339 See, e.g., 9RT235-24/237-3.
340 Romano v. Kimmelman, supra, 96 N.J. at 90. See In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970).
341 See Pointer v. Texas, supra, 380 U.S. at 406; see also Crawford v. Washington, supra, 541 U.S. at 59.
342 See State v. Farrell, 320 N.J.Super. 425 (App.Div. 1999); Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972).
343 Brady v. Maryland, supra, 373 U.S. at 87.
344 Id.
State v. Chun, Defendants' Source Code Latest Attack
INTRODUCTION
In a case which will set precedent for determining the admissibility of computer-created evidence in criminal prosecutions, this Court is called on to evaluate the scientific reliability of software version 3.11 used to program the Alcotest model 7110 MK-III-C and the admissibility of its results in not only the politically sensitive area of prosecuting alleged drunk drivers but other areas as well.
With unprecedented hubris, Intervenor Draeger Safety Diagnostics, Inc., defrauded the State Police, this Court, and the general public. With lies about reliability based, inter alia, on two “independent” technologies -- infrared [“IR”] and electrochemical fuel cell [“EC”] -- coupled with routine calibrations and bracketing control tests, Draeger induced the Attorney General to adopt a device using a computer program so poorly written and so disdainful of generally accepted computer science that, with each revision, the code becomes more and more unreliable and just as likely to convict innocents as to free the culpable.
Compounding Draeger’s culture of fraud and concealment is our own Attorney General’s culture of calculated ignorance, even in the face of its own expert’s assertion of the need for such a review.1 While the Attorney General’s office knew it was embarking into a novel scientific field with equipment dependent on a computer, it failed to consult anyone with the requisite expertise in computer science, at best a negligent lack of inquisitiveness. They not only failed to see any problems; they did not even look. Once their eyes were opened, they persisted in their strategic blindness by rolling out this flawed technology and increasing backlog pressure.
This Court, in a leap of misplaced faith, required municipal courts to receive this sham as proof beyond a reasonable doubt, disregarding the Constitution with the promise of a stay pending an expedited review of this chimera.
Against these clearly untenable circumstances, we are now faced with managing the aftermath of this Big Lie2 told first by Draeger, then repeated by the State. They hope to tell this lie so often that this Court and the public might buy into their propaganda by convicting the inordinate backlog of defendants unjustly charged on incompetent evidence.
In this brief, we urge this Court to dispel the lie and, in the meantime, restart the machinery of justice to right the wrongs already committed before it becomes too late to do so.
MATTER INVOLVED
On certification assumed sua sponte by the New Jersey Supreme Court, pursuant to its Order issued December 14, 2005,3 the Hon. Michael Patrick King, J.A.D. (retired on recall), served as Special Master to conduct hearings on “the reliability of Alcotest breath test instruments....” The Court entered a subsequent Order4 on January 10, 2006, addressing municipal court proceedings. After hearings between September 18, 2006, and January 10, 2007, Judge King issued his report on February 14, 2007, which, as to the version 3.11 source code for the Alcotest 7110 MK-III-C, concluded:
We do not think that this dispute about the source codes has any substantial relevance to our ultimate conclusion, that the Alcotest 7110 instrument is very good at measuring breath alcohol.5
The firmware currently in the Alcotest NJ Version 3.11, and any future modifications or upgrades of that present firmware, does not impact upon or affect the scientific reliability, accuracy or precision of the Alcotest evidential breath test instrument to detect, analyze and accurately report a breath alcohol reading.6
This was because Judge King saw “no hint of source code problems or failure throughout this litigation.”7
However, after oral argument before this Court on April 5, 2007, this Court remained unsatisfied on these points and remanded
for the limited purpose of providing defendants the opportunity to conduct, at defendants' expense, an analysis of the software referred to as Firmware version...3.11 used in the Alcotest 7110..., which analysis is to be limited to determining whether Firmware version...3.11 reliably analyze[s], record[s] and report[s] alcohol breath test results....8
This Court directed Draeger to provide an independent software house for the purpose of “conducting that analysis...in accordance with the methodology previously agreed upon by defendants and DSDI, as set forth in Addendum A....”9 Addendum A, a.k.a. the “Sachs Protocol” and D-232, provides:
This software house will examine the source code for obvious concerns within the code, and also for consistency with the algorithms as documented in the software.... [and to] certify to the State and the public that the software properly employs the algorithms and that no errors exist in the source code.10
When Draeger and Defendants could not agree on a software house, the Court directed them to designate their respective experts to “provide a report ... consistent with the examination and protective aspects contemplated by Paragraph 1 of Addendum A in the Special Master's report....”11 Two examiners were retained, and each issued a report: (a) BaseOne through John Wisniewski,12 and (b) SysTest through Bruce Geller.13
SysTest limited its review to “’obvious issues within the code,’ and ‘consistency with the algorithms as documented in the software....’”14 BaseOne, however, sought to comprehensively review the code for errors.15 Neither SysTest nor BaseOne exercised the hardware against the software.16 From their respective examinations, neither examiner could certify that the software properly employs the algorithms or that no errors exist in the source code.17 SysTest did not even consider this their charge. Thus, without going any further, the State and Draeger have failed to meet requirements established by the Court for making its software admissible.
Nonetheless, after 13 days of supplemental hearings, Judge King found “that the Alcotest is reliable, both as to software and hardware, in reporting alcohol breath testing results for evidentiary purposes,”18 albeit, “subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Special Master’s initial report and this supplemental report.”19 To the extent that Judge King holds the Alcotest “scientifically reliable,” Defendants disagree.
COMMENTS ON SPECIAL MASTER’S REPORT
Would Draeger’s version 3.11 software in use in its Alcotest 7110 MK-III-C be considered generally acceptable for an important application like evidentiary breath testing? The answer is a resounding, NO,20 for many reasons, including:
There is no sign of any standard developmental methodology ever being used.21 If one were to analogize software development standards to a building code, Draeger’s software would be a slapped-together slipshod tumbled-down shack.
There is no documentation for Draeger’s code -- no initial requirements document, no pre-development pseudo-code, nothing.22
Draeger’s source code is too complex23 and disorganized.24 As changes are made from one version to the next, errors will be inserted and the code will become more and more unreliable with each revision. This was exemplified with the buffer overflow error.25 It contains blind alleys within a maze of unused, walled-off, and errant code.26
The range of accepted deviation between breath samples was increased to mask potential error.27 In New Jersey, the legal standard for agreement of results from two breath samples was .01,28 then 10 percent.29 That increased to the greater of .02 or 20 percent,30 effectively eliminating any need for requiring third test verification.31
There are no metrics and insufficient data on which to base a reliability determination.32
Furthermore, both SysTest and BaseOne found specific problems in the code that raise serious questions as to its reliability, including the disabling of fundamental safeguards, incorrect functions as fundamental as averaging, arbitrary substitution of data values at various points, and forcing drifting fuel cells to agree with the IR sensors, thereby exposing the lie to the claim that these two technologies, IR and EC, cross check and verify each other. These and other “Show Stoppers” are discussed elsewhere herein.
I.
Version 3.11 Is Riddled with Error:
A Hidden Fuel Cell Manipulation Software Routine Renders the Alcotest Scientifically Unreliable
Lint, a software tool designed to discover potential coding errors, found more than 19,000 defects in the Alcotest source code.33 While the probability that any single random defect will cause a failure in a breath test is low, the thousands of defects here increase that probability quite significantly.34 Such random errors could manifest themselves as, inter alia, high readings, low readings, a report of an insufficient sample which the Alcotest should accept, or missing data.35 They can arise from a number being written as a letter.36
No source code is perfect.37 Judge King recognized that software errors exist.38 A number of anomalies exemplify error:
In the case of Alberto C. Gonzalez,39 he was tested by the same officer on May 15, 2006, in East Brunswick, Milltown, and South River40 at 4:03, 4:36, and 5:14 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time, respectively.41 Although apparently exonerated by his first to breath tests, the officer persisted in his belief that Gonzalez was culpable.42 His errors would have never come to light but for being tested on the same night on three different machines,43 all using the same source code -- New Jersey version 3.11.44
Another alcohol influence report in New Brunswick reported a .13 despite preliminary results ranging from .139 to .169.45 This anomaly, which contravenes the requirement that two separate breath samples yield results within 0.010 of each other expressed in prior New Jersey case law requirements,46 was not unique.47
Yet another is the example in the alcohol influence report from Longport,48 where a test result reported despite the omission of key information concerning simulator solution lot number, expiration date, and bottle number. Other anomalies include:
Accepting clearly erroneous data, yet reporting apparently valid results.49
Accepting breath samples less than two minutes after a previously submitted sample,50 even though New Jersey version 3.11 requires a two minute lockout between breaths.
EC and IR results more than .008 apart51 -- again, beyond stated program limits.
A report that “Subject Refused” as an error message for an individual sample rather than as the reported result at the end of the entire testing sequence.52
Calling an apparently disabled “Control Gas Supply” error.53
Reporting an inappropriate “Ambient Air Blank” as “---.--“ rather than a correctly formatted numerical value of “0.000%.”54
But we should distinguish between such apparently random defects and errors discussed above and the dishonest data manipulation and serious coding errors discussed below -- any one of which, in and of themselves, alone and in concert, undermine reliability to such a degree that this Court should exclude all Alcotest results. These include the Big Lie about EC and IR technologies verifying each other.
Fuel Cell Drift Exposes the Lie to Draeger’s Claim that Independent Technologies Verify Each Other and Assure Reliability
When telling the Big Lie, it has been said, “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.”55 Draeger’s “Big Lie” about the Alcotest 7110 MK-III-C is its alleged used of independent technologies to analyze a single sample:
[I]t's the only instrument on the market...that is capable of...analyzing and quantifying the alcohol concentration of the same specimen by two independent technologies. This has added a significant amount of integrity to the testing result of this type of process.56
[I]s this instrument scientifically reliable[?] [T]he instrument performs this task correctly within the specified tolerances and...it does this twice, actually, with two independent technologies.57
[I]t is doubling the integrity of the tests performed that you have two independent technologies analyzing the same specimen.58
[W]e produce actually two independent readings by measuring the same specimen....59
Others unwittingly repeated the lie as if true:
The Hon. Francis J. Orlando, A.J.S.C.: “The 7110 is an evidential breath testing instrument which uses infrared (IR) absorption analysis and electrochemical (EC) cell technology analysis to simultaneously determine the presence of ethanol in a breath sample. Each method of analysis operates independently.”60
NHTSA’s Edward Conde: “It is a bench-top breath alcohol device that uses dual sensors, an infrared and a fuel cell sensor, to come up with independent measurements of breath alcohol content on the breath.”61
State’s Witness Rod G. Gullberg: “The 7110 plays two separate, independent analytical methods....”62
Then Chief Forensic Scientist Thomas A. Brettell, Ph.D.: [For an accepted breath tests, the EC is independent of the IR, correct?] “Yes, they're independent measurements, yes.”63
Brettell: “Well, dual -- independent measurements are two measurements independent of each other using different technologies, independent technologies, okay. There's different ways to do that. You can take one sample and put it in the IR and take another sample and put it in the EC. That's not how this instrument works. This instrument measures one breath sample with two different technologies and it's the same stream of breath. It's not a different stream of breath.”64
Dep.Atty.Gen. Stephen H. Monson: “What essentially is new or novel...is that you have both systems in the same instrument measuring the same sample of breath as a dual system.... But each one is measuring independently....”65
Shaffer, after persistent cross examination,66 exposed the lie:
During the control tests, when we're assured that we are looking at ethanol standards only, no interfering substances, the fuel cell does have an awareness of where it is in relation to the IR sensor.67
Wisniewski verified the lie’s existence. At defense request after Shaffer’s revelation, Wisniewski found the lines of source code where the software routine makes the EC reading a function of the IR reading, reproducing it in an exhibit, DR-14, and explaining it in detail.68 Workman explained how the lie works:
This adjustment basically says that the EC value is going to be calculated using the IR value....69 The effect of that defect is to corrupt the ability to tell whether the two results are close or not because they'll always be close....70 It substitutes IR values in the calculation of EC values.71
To a scientist, [using the interaction of the infrared and electrochemical technology as something that verifies the reliability of an alcohol influence report result is] probably the ultimate insult to the science because the machine is designed so that if the EC and IR differ by more than a certain amount, that is the mechanism by which the machine detects problems.72
By comparing the EC and the IR. Those are supposed to be very close together. And, in fact, the code snippet that Base One produced shows that when the EC is out of tolerance...the value from the IR is used to re-calibrate the EC. So, what you have is a dependent function, not an independent function.73
We talk about data pollution sometimes, which you might imagine is not a good thing, but when you have two functions that are supposed to be independent and they use variables that are calculated from the other area, you cannot have independence. It's a dependent function.74
Judge King even understood the lie:
Never once did they ever mention that there was this interrelationship of dependence between IR and EC values, so this comes as somewhat of a surprise. All of a sudden this battery is dying inch by inch and they got to get a little juice from someplace else to make it fit into the grand scheme. Now, I must admit I'm terribly cynical based on all my experience, but it's starting to sound a little funny.75
And this statement here which was emphasized by counsel about two independent examinations. And this was the big selling point for Draeger, inherently entirely corroborative, independent test, and Hans Ryser describes how we take a bite out of the sample in the cuvette and run it through this completely independent process. Meanwhile, I see this fuel cell limping along.76
Inexplicably, Judge King abandoned this well-grounded and inquisitive cynicism to become Draeger’s apologist, ignoring the essential point: that manipulation of fuel cell drift completely undermines reliance on the Alcotest’s allegedly most important feature. The revelation was a seminal moment in the remand hearing. Testimony confirmed that a previously unknown algorithm in the source code manipulates the output of an aging fuel cell to bring it within tolerance of the IR during control tests.77 Whether one calls this manipulation a fuel cell aging compensation routine,78 fine tuning,79 or adjustment,80 there was no evidence concerning the frequency by which this manipulation occurs. Nonetheless, this manipulation completely undermines previous reliance on the two most important features of New Jersey’s Alcotest program: the so-called independent dual technologies utilizing EC and IR for measuring alcohol and (b) using control tests both before and after each subject’s breath tests as a basis for ensuring reliability.
The Lie About Independent Technologies
Fuel cell drift requires that the EC result be manipulated periodically to conform to the IR result during a subject’s testing sequence. Such drift puts the lie to Draeger’s longstanding claim that the Alcotest is the only breath testing device in the world that employs two independent technologies to measure alcohol in a single sample. Draeger also claims that its primary competitors do not.
In State v. Foley,81 the first published opinion on supposed Alcotest reliability, Judge Orlando relied on Draeger’s representations about EC/IR independence seven times.82 A most salient example was Judge Orlando’s repetition of the lie quoted above. Similarly, each State’s expert last year opined that the allegedly independent dual technology in the Alcotest provided a foundation for reliability. Yet no testimony was advanced to cast doubt on this flawed premise. Judge King’s initial report trumpeted the Alcotest independent dual technology no less than seven times.83 Now, he does acknowledge the falsity of these claims by Draeger.84
The Lie About Control Tests
Likewise, the control test aspect of New Jersey’s Alcotest program is viewed as an additional and essential part of the foundation for Alcotest reliability. Unlike the Breathalyzer’s periodic inspections with a known solution of alcohol often performed months apart, Alcotest control tests use the solution as an accuracy safeguard both before and after each subject’s breath tests to bracket and assure reliability via the sequence of an ambient air check to detect any atmospheric contaminants, the control test, another ambient air check, breath test one, an ambient air check, breath test two, an ambient air check, a second control test, and a final ambient air check.85
Every State’s expert approved of New Jersey’s use of control tests and testing sequence as fundamental to ensuring reliability. For example, State’s expert Barry K. Logan, Ph.D., testified:
It helps to insure that you can state with confidence the instrument is measuring accurately and reliably at the time of the subject’s test. The instrument will accurately measure a breath sample that is provided to it and the control sample that is provided to it providing all the standards or criteria for the test are met.86
More significantly, Dr. Brettel, the overseer of New Jersey’s Alcotest program, testified extensively about the importance of the control test procedures:
The control test makes sure the instrument is operating properly...with a known concentration of ethanol vapor.87
We have a control test on the instrument so that, you know, it’s--the instrument is checking itself every test, every subject test.88
[W]e run control tests. You know, when we run the control tests, we run two control tests, so if there’s something wrong with the instrument it shows up in the control test.89
Q. You don’t know whether there’s anything in the source code that may be self-correcting or self-calibrating, fair enough? A. No, I do know that. We run control tests. We’re checking the calibration twice on every subject test, so I do know that the instrument’s not doing that.90
Careful review of the testimony of each State’s expert who offered an opinion last year concerning Alcotest control tests reveals no awareness of fuel cell drift or its manipulation during control tests. The experts considered the independence of the IR and EC to be sacrosanct. Thus, previous reliance by the Foley court, Judge King, and every expert witness on the so-called independent dual technologies and the institutional safeguard represented by control tests as a basis for finding Alcotest reliability is torn asunder and must be reconsidered and disregarded. One cannot assume that the experts would still support Alcotest reliability, given the ramifications of fuel cell drift. Expert opinions rendered in both the Foley hearings in 2003 and the Chun hearings last year would be substantively different concerning overall reliability if fuel cell drift correction algorithm was known.
Judge King’s Remedy Is Unsupported
Even after disclosure of this algorithm, Judge King proposes a remedy unsupported by any evidence in the record. After referring to fuel cell drift throughout his report,91 Judge King specifically but arbitrarily recommends “that the Alcotest should be calibrated every six months rather than every twelve months and the fuel cell replaced at that time, if necessary.”92 No testimony shows that either a six month calibration or annual fuel cell replacement would solve the problems presented by the need to correct for fuel cell drift. Draeger’s own software engineer rejected such a proposal:
Q. And if the fuel cell changes over time, it would be more accurate to do it on the lower end like the six months rather than the 12 months, correct?
A. I –- I disagree. Because of the aging compensation routine that we were talking about yesterday, that’s the reason that –- that Germany put that algorithm within the code.93
Moreover, no evidence supports the notion that more frequent calibration will alleviate concerns associated with fuel cell drift. The testimony is silent concerning the frequency by which the fuel cell aging compensation algorithm in the source code is activated to manipulate the control tests. Draeger never supplied or published any studies regarding how a fuel cell drifts and degrades. Without such evidence, Judge King’s recommendation is merely net opinion -- an abstract suggestion that ignores the fundamental facts that (a) fuel cell drift will occur after an Alcotest is placed in service and (b) its output will be manipulated to make its result match the IR result. No contrary evidence was introduced below that adduced otherwise.
Furthermore, Judge King’s conclusion -- that “the standard of measurement is adjusted for fuel cell depletion, not for any other alcohol content” -- is a fallacy which lays bare the most important consequence of fuel cell drift. The same fuel cell manipulated output used in the first control test is the same fuel cell manipulated output used to measure a defendant’s breath sample two minutes later in New Jersey’s breath testing sequence. Once the fuel cell reading is manipulated in the control test to account for fuel cell drift, it will affect every ensuing measurement by the Alcotest.
Neither a six- nor 12-month calibration can hide this most basic truth. As soon as manipulation occurs, every succeeding measurement relies on the prior fuel cell manipulation even though the fuel cell continues to drift unabated.94 Therein lies the overarching conundrum presented by fuel cell drift. The most galling aspect of fuel cell drift manipulation is that Draeger had never revealed its use to anyone before.
Draeger’s History of Concealment
Draeger’s discussions with New Jersey about replacing the Breathalyzer with the Alcotest for evidential use in drunk driving prosecutions date back to 1995. In 1998, Draeger provided the first Alcotest to the New Jersey State Police. The parties entered into a software licensing agreement in September 2002.95 Camden County held the first Alcotest reliability hearing in 2003. This extensive hearing resulted in the Foley opinion. Four State’s experts and one defense expert testified during Foley.96 There was no mention of manipulation of fuel cell drift in any Draeger manual or document in Foley or the Foley opinion.
Substantive changes to the Alcotest software occurred by virtue of the Foley hearing and resultant opinion. Manuals concerning its use and operation specific to New Jersey were updated to comport with such changes. Still, Draeger never disclosed the existence of fuel cell drift manipulation.
In January 2005, the State began evidential use of Alcotest firmware 3.11 in Middlesex County for drunk driving prosecutions, leading to the current Chun litigation which spawned a four month hearing before Judge King between September 2006 and January 2007. Eleven State’s experts and two defense experts testified during this lengthy hearing. Draeger’s counsel participated in this hearing. Draeger’s vice-president for marketing testified three times in seven days. Still, there was no mention of fuel cell drift manipulation. Although this expert witness was questioned by the defense about fuel cell drift caused by aging, the existence of an algorithm to manipulate the EC to account for fuel cell drift was never disclosed.
Following the four month hearing, Judge King issued his 268-page report. Extensive briefs were submitted to the Court including a 16-page brief by Draeger’s counsel. On April 5, 2007, nine attorneys, including Draeger’s counsel, argued before this Court. Still, no mention was made of manipulation of fuel cell drift. After oral argument, the Court issued two remand Orders resulting in separate examinations of the Alcotest source code. One such review was performed by a software house both selected and paid by Draeger. Both examinations yielded lengthy reports to the Special Master. Still no one mentions fuel cell drift manipulation.
During the foregoing entire process, the Alcotest replaced Breathalyzers for evidential use in drunk driving prosecutions in 17 of New Jersey’s 21 counties. No defendant, municipal court judge, municipal prosecutor, defense attorney or any other entity except Draeger was aware of the existence of an algorithm within the source code to manipulate fuel cell drift.
Judge King ordered an additional testimonial hearing after receiving BaseOne’s and SysTest’s reports. During the first week of the remand hearing, two experts testified for the State concerning the Alcotest source code. Still, no one mentions fuel cell drift manipulation. Draeger’s software engineer ultimately reveals the fuel cell drift manipulation during defense cross-examination in the second week of the remand hearing.
Judge King does not mention this in his 108-page report.
Twelve years elapsed from Draeger’s first discussions with New Jersey about the Alcotest to disclosure of fuel cell drift and fuel cell drift manipulation during defense cross-examination in the remand hearing. Surely, there was a deliberate effort by Draeger to keep secret the existence of fuel cell drift manipulation for the Alcotest in New Jersey. Judge King fails to mention this calculated concealment in his supplemental report.
Significantly, the State was not made aware of fuel cell drift by Draeger. During summation, Dep.Atty.Gen. Christine A. Hoffman admitted:
I do understand the Court’s concerns. I was as surprised as the Court. I was away on vacation. I was quite shocked to see in the transcript that this is being done.
So this was the first time the State of New Jersey knew about it.97
Draeger’s counsel proclaimed no such surprise about fuel cell drift manipulation in his summation. Draeger’s affirmative and deliberate efforts to mislead us, this Court, the Special Master, the Attorney General, the municipal courts, and every citizen affected by Alcotest evidence about the existence of fuel cell drift should not be countenanced. To conclude otherwise would be tantamount to accepting stonewalling and deliberate deception as acceptable tenets of New Jersey criminal practice. This Court has always recognized that full disclosure is a prerequisite to the ascertainment of truth. Such a search for the truth has always been the legal foundation by which the adversarial process insures due process in the context of criminal practice.
II.
Version 3.11 Is Riddled with Error:
“Show Stoppers” like, inter alia, Disabled Catastrophic Error Detection, No Positive Feedback, and Expanded Agreement Criteria, Whether Alone and in Concert, Render the Alcotest Scientifically Unreliable
Disabled Catastrophic Error Detection Leads to Unpredictable Results
Catastrophic error detection,98 which encompasses illegal operational code [“opcode”], is a hardware function resident in the microprocessor “brain” of the Alcotest. John Wisniewski discovered that this safeguard function is disabled in the Alcotest by the present source code. If there is a major fault that happens in the processing of the data by the microprocessor the instrument doesn't necessarily shut down. Mr. Shaffer hypothesizes that it might shut down but can not definitively conclude that it does. He explains that a catastrophic error occurs when the microprocessor loses its way, and the Alcotest can report improper data. Shaffer, conceding that disabling catastrophic error detection is not a good idea, went so far as to consult Draeger personnel in Germany during the hearing to verify that it could be re-enabled.99
Without Positive Feedback, Software Assumes but Does Not Verify
Hardware Actions
Positive feedback is directly verifying that a computer command issued by the microprocessor is executed by the hardware. The Alcotest has no positive feedback,100 except in one isolated instance. As Wisniewski explained by the BaseOne report, the need for positive feedback can be analogized to the landing gear on an aircraft. The pilot gives the onboard computer a command, and the computer sends a signal to the landing gear to deploy. A sensor detects the actual opening of the landing gear and sends that information back to the computer, which then notifies the pilot that the landing gear has actually deployed.
In the Alcotest, the microprocessor, in most instances, gives instructions to the hardware to perform certain functions. Most of those functions are not monitored directly to see whether they happen. They're just assumed to happen. Alcotest hardware is told pump, purge, fill the EC cell, and time a certain period, but almost none of this is directly measured.
Draeger contends that the Alcotest indirectly checks mechanical functions. That is like contending that, in an airplane, someone in Seat A of Aisle 42 is going to look down and notice that the landing gear has not deployed and then report it to the pilot. That is not positive feedback. This is a problem with the instrument itself. This hardware issue was discovered only because the software was examined during the source code inspection before the remand hearing.
The plane crashing because the landing gear did not deploy is also indirect feedback, but hardly acceptable. Neither is accepting a breath tester that yields either inculpatory evidence against an innocent defendant or exculpatory evidence against a guilty accused.
Failed Diagnostics Force Software to Adjust and Substitute Data for
Breath Measurements
The software adjusts and substitutes data readings if a reading is too high or too low.101 If the reading is outside what the software considers the proper range, the software takes a too high or too low reading and forces it into the range. This essentially falsifies the resultant reading.
Inconsistent Error Detection Logic Suppresses Error Messages Unless
the Error Occurs a Large Number of Times
The error detection logic in the software ignores what it clearly assesses as improper data readings unless it occurs more than 31 times in a row.102 There can be 31 consecutive times that the computer interrogates the hardware and gets what is considered an error, and it will still not report it as such. Only on the 32nd time is an error reported.
The characterization of using only one of 32 samples as a fault-tolerance is misleading and incorrect, since fault-tolerance depends on alternate sensors like those in an aircraft.103 “The whole concept of fault tolerance is not to use bad values. It’s to find an alternate way to compute the results so that they’re correct. The notion of ignoring 31 consecutive errors and using the data that are computed with those 31 values is...bad science. It’s junk science.”104 “The 7110 ignores the fact that errors have occurred, calculates what the faulty value is, and then produces wrong results....the antithesis of fault tolerance.”105
Incorrect Averaging Algorithm Is Not Scientifically Valid and
Improperly Weighs Last Measurement
The so-called averaging algorithm is not an average at all.106 The improper calculation invalidates the science underlying breath alcohol testing.107 Workman never encountered a formula like this used in any equipment he had ever seen.108
The calculation adds two values; that sum is added to a third value, and that sum is divided by two; that sum is added to a fourth value, and that sum is divided by two; and so on.109 It is not a weighted average, which simply accounts for the distribution of repeated variables110 but is still like an arithmetic average based on the associative property of numbers taught in elementary school.111 Draeger knows what an average is and how to use it.112 They didn’t do it here, but rather adopted a method of increasing results not based in science.
Analog to Digital Conversion Routines Reduce Accuracy and
Precision
Analog to digital conversion involves sampling points on an analog sine wave to develop, through semiconductor chips, a digital approximation of the wave form generated by a voltage that the computer can process as a binary signal.113 The sampling occurs at an interrupt every 8.192 milliseconds, and the sample is read into the software, which makes the impulse available as a number for the source code to use to make computations about the breath alcohol level.114 With the current program, 31 of 32 samples can be wrong, and “one may count for the entire ball of wax,”115 thus calling the reliability of the ultimate result into question.116 Although viewing the wave form provides a way to diagnose problems, there is no way for the Alcotest to display the wave form.117 Yet copiers and cars often log wave forms.118
Buffer Overflow Compromises Reliability of Test Sequences Requiring Third Samples (Although Such Sequences Would Rarely Present Themselves Given the Extraordinarily Wide Agreement Between Results
Accepted by Version 3.11)
This buffer overflow was an inadvertent error inserted into the source code when Shaffer failed to change the number of registers needed to track breath test results from four to six.119 This error would present itself when the second EC value is less than .08 by substituting another value.120 While SysTest identifies this clearly apparent error,121 the error is, in reality, inconsequential, given the extraordinary widening of the permissible range within which the results from two breath samples are deemed acceptable. It is as if SysTest identified this one and only obvious error so that they could simply say they found something. The buffer overflow is the straw dog offered by an organization that performed only a cursory review.
Other Concerns Raised by BaseOne Undermine Alcotest Reliability
Other notable errors and defects include (a) unsynchronized timing intervals running at fixed points rather than from the latest request for a time delay which lead to actual timing that is highly variable and inconsistent122 and (b) the making of airflow measurements with no reasonableness testing or quality checks, further undermine confidence in calibration123 already compromised by the fuel cell manipulation noted above. BaseOne’s examination raised so many errors and defects, Draeger’s source code cannot be found reliable without an extensive rewrite.
III.
Faulty Software Design Renders Draeger Source Code Unreliable
Software Fails to Adhere to Any Discernable Standard, Leading to
Unreliable, Error Prone Code
Alcotest source adheres to no discernable standard.124 The basic method of testing source code is to first test at the module level -- i.e., to test the facilities within a particular routine -- before testing at the integrated software package.125 No quality assurance organization exists within Draeger.126 The Alcotest 7110 cannot be used for medical purposes in that it fails to meet Food and Drug Administration standards.127
Draeger’s Ryser testified about a rigid distinction in the source code between (a) “core software”128 which pertains to the breath test calculations and is never touched, and (b) “custom software”129 tailored for each jurisdiction to report and format the readings. Based on good practices, as attested to by Wisniewski and Workman, core and custom software should be delineated in a very distinctive way in the software to prevent inadvertent modification.
Unfortunately Mr. Shaffer, testified that he was “told” what he was not supposed to touch, so he “kind of walls it off in his mind.”130 When is that ever acceptable, in an evidential instrument? Shaffer testified as to how he accidentally inserted the buffer overflow error. What protects the core software from such inadvertent error insertion in the core software?
Highly Complex Coding Leads to Error Insertion and Degradation on “Upgrades” and, with Excessive Use of Global Variables, Further
Compromises Reliability
Alcotest source code is much too complex.131 Complexity invites error both in the original coding and in updates to the present code. Both SysTest and BaseOne found complexity to be a real problem undermining any finding of reliability.132
Based on McCabe complexity metrics, complexity levels should exceed no more than 10, with a level of less than 7 recommended, according to SysTest.133 After all, software engineers, being human beings, can only track so many things at one time.134 With most of Draeger’s source code modules well exceeding this level, the code is prone to corruption and unpredictable execution.135 Indeed, one snippet of the code produced by the version 3.11 proponents shows how Draeger’s programmer Shaffer unintentionally inserted error when he “upgraded” the source code from version 3.8 to 3.11 by failing to correct buffer capacity and thereby creating the famous buffer overflow.136
The prospect of error insertion is very real, given that source code revisions must be made to the present program to account for several factors, including:
Changes in the law,137 including the change in Daylight Savings Time.138
The need to list the temperature probe serial number and probe value of that temperature probe on any report where such information is relevant, including the AIR, New Standard Solution Change Report, and Calibration, Control Test, and Linearity Reports.139
The need to “deploy a software program to create and maintain a centralized data base of digital information stored by all Alcotest 7110s throughout the State.”140
Further changes to source code will be inevitable as the law and other circumstances change.141
Adding to this complexity is the presence of an excessive number of global variables.142 A programmer should properly encapsulate data to avoid inadvertent destruction of data.143 “The real sad thing here is that if global variables had been used correctly, this problem [of having the EC and IR working correctly and independently] probably would not have occurred.”144
The Alcotest code also presents a rat’s nest of excess, irrelevant, and purportedly unused code.145 This isn’t just bad housekeeping. These excessive bits and pieces of superfluous code are invitations for error and unnecessarily expose anyone tested on the Alcotest to undetectable error. As Workman said of the Middlesex County data, while the 1900+ AIRs in that universe may appear to be reliable, in actuality, none can be considered reliable. The notion that, compared to the Breathalyzer, “the Alcotest 7110 uses newer technology and is more transparent because it produces a printout”146 is simply incorrect.
III.
Institutional Deficiencies Evidenced by Draeger’s Culture of Concealment and the State Police Forensic Laboratory’s Culture of Ignorance Undermines Confidence in the Present Alcotest Program and Any Determination of Alcotest Reliability
Complexity, excessive use of global variables, and the specific defects compromise the scientific reliability of Alcotest source code. So, too, is Draeger’s failure to document its coding processes and its failure to use standards. This betrays the biggest problem of all -- the institutional problem. Draeger’s corporate culture elevates false appearances above scientific reliability, so-called trade secrecy above objective verification, and profits above justice. As Judge King noted:
All through this matter, Draeger wanted to keep this thing secret and they said we'll give you eight hours in a tin can or someplace in Durango where you can look at it and not make notes. And now I see 200 hours, 300 hours by these experts who examined this code. So, that sounds a little fishy to me. Why are they this restrictive and secretive? Is it some kind of cabal of opposition to information being disseminated or perhaps a cultural norm? In Europe they do things differently than here? I don't know. But it makes me suspicious.147
Adding to these suspicions is utter disregard of the generally accepted practice of logging errors and operational data. Systems traditionally log information so that a programmer can analyze the data, reconstruct what the software is doing, find faults, and debug the program.148 Most embedded systems used by consumers today have some type of data logging to facilitate efficient repairs, preserving profitability for manufacturers, and maintaining standards.149 For example, this is common practice with cars,150 copiers,151 and laptop computers.152 Draeger showed no evidence of any meaningful error logging.153
A culture oriented to scientific reliability encourages consumers to report problems to the manufacturer so the manufacturer can make a better product.154 If the culture wants to find errors (even errors like those in the Gonzalez example above), it establishes a mechanism to do so.155
Unfortunately, there is no quality assurance organization within Draeger responsible for measuring overall quality, implementing proper techniques, and adhering to standards -- no standards, no testing, no quality assurance.156 Draeger’s culture appears to be not one of improving overall reliability, but rather one of responding to bugs and scrambling to fix them.157
While “sticking its head in the sand” to avoid finding errors, no one within the organization listens to and tries to assimilate problems.158 Misrepresentations about software and hardware capabilities are endemic in the computer industry.159 If Draeger finds software errors in one jurisdiction, it does not recall units in others160 or give advice about the errors. While some manufacturers provide algorithms and source code to attorneys and defense experts,161 Draeger baselessly claims that all of its software is proprietary and resists disclosure.
While source code documentation is necessary, Draeger does not document its software.162 While Draeger’s vice-president Hansueli Ryser claims to maintain ISO 9000 certification and supervise Shaffer about compliance,163 Shaffer does not know what ISO 9000 or any other standard is.164
Meanwhile, our chief forensic scientist embarked into a novel scientific field, but failed to consult anyone with the requisite expertise in computer science.165 The State never asked Draeger or anyone else about software errors.166 They not only failed to see any problems. They did not even look.
As a general rule, New Jersey does not log problems.167 New Jersey has no protocol to determine whether its software functions properly.168 Thus, reliability issues will be hidden, except in individual cases when errors are manifest on an alcohol influence report.169 Such observable errors undermine confidence in the unobservable.170 Examples of observed errors in the present matter include alcohol influence reports from East Brunswick, Milltown, South River, New Brunswick, Longport, and many other police departments.171 Without error logging like that done in Alabama and Massachusetts,172 and with no one within the organization to report problems to,173 no reliability assessment either at the outset or on an on-going basis is possible.
Draeger can implement standards and possibly correct the Alcotest software problems,174 but such implementation may fail if their culture of concealment persists. The State may find an appropriate breath testing instrument, but only if they seek an accurate and scientific program.
Despite these complementary cultures of concealment and ignorance, perhaps Draeger and the State can save the Alcotest -- but not with its present source code version. It is impossible to make the Alcotest using version 3.11 reliable. All readings must be excluded. To save the Alcotest -- to make it scientifically reliable -- to avoid the necessity of serial courtroom proceedings to determine whether the device is scientifically reliable -- Draeger, with direction from the State, must adopt recognized standards. They must make sure to take a scientific approach to source code development, error detection, and error correction -- just as they do with their medical devices. Standards will force Draeger to:
Assure that, in initial coding, most common errors are avoided.
Assume that all released code is still imperfect.
Institutionalize a systematic search for imperfections.
Require documentation at both implementation and for each correction.
In short, Alcotest source code must be rewritten from scratch and deployed correctly, scientifically, according to a recognized standard, and in a traceable provable documented way. Only then it may be considered scientifically reliable.
COMMENTS ON WITNESSES
I.
Source Code Witnesses Geller, Shaffer, and Wisniewski
Generally, a source code review is a methodical way to examine code for problems; it is usually done by a third party in a more formal way than an informal desk check.175 The code reviews in this case did not involve any exercising of the software with the hardware.176 Geller, Shaffer, and Wisniewski had the advantage of having actually reviewed the source code itself, albeit from three distinctly different perspectives.
SysTest was able to compile the Alcotest code early with the help of Draeger’s Shaffer.177 Geller, who wrote less than half of the report178 on which he collaborated with SysTest’s Dan McNamee and Geoffrey Pollich,179 used certain automated tools for his examination, including something called “Module Finder EX,” a “proprietary” program created by SysTest which apparently has problems of its own given the way it has been developed in secret and not according to any recognizable standard.180 When asked, “Were any development standards adhered to when Module Finder was built?” Geller lamented, “Sadly, not.”181 It is ironic that Geller examined secret Alcotest code with another secret program for which SysTest could only claim reliability by asserting its trade secrecy gave SysTest a competitive edge. Geller regrets Module Finder’s lack of standardization because of how hard it has become to maintain with each revision.
Like Wisniewski, Geller used “Understand,” an appropriate tool for determining a program’s complexity and the number of global variables.182 But Geller’s use of “Fortify SCA” was inappropriate, since that tool is intended to detect and fix security vulnerabilities, not coding errors.183 By using “Fortify SCA,” SysTest postulates a hacker, a red herring, a straw dog. Would anyone hack into the Alcotest the way one might hack into a voting machine? Overall, either SysTest was either not looking very hard for defects or did not know how to find them.184
Geller, a senior software engineer at SysTest185 educated at Metropolitan State College with a Bachelor of Science degree in computer science in 1992186 and three additional courses thereafter,187 had no experience with either electronic metrological equipment or software doing analog to digital conversion.188 He managed voting machine source code review.189
John Wisniewski, however, has more than 30 years experience with software, hardware, and embedded systems,190 along with well-rounded comprehensive experience in all phases of the software development life cycle, including writing, testing, analyzing, reviewing, and documenting source code.191 Specifically, he has:
a Bachelor of Arts degree in computer science from State University of New York at Potsdam in 1976.192
taught undergraduate classes in Assembly language and systems analysis.193
written many programs in Assembly and C languages,194 among others.195
written196 and tested code197 for various applications.
written spacecraft tracking software for the National Aeronautic and Space Administration198 and Jet Propulsion Laboratories.199
written, analyzed, and troubleshot code for embedded systems like the B-1 Bomber200 Voyager spacecraft,201 satellite and spacecraft telemetry (including analog to digital conversion),202 among other software and hardware projects.203
integrated software and hardware, including projects involving the B-1 Bomber,204 voice recognition systems,205 and washing machines.206
worked with various software tools, including Lint.207
developed software in conformance to standards.208
Wisniewski conducted his review using different automated tools than SysTest -- notably, a program called lint, a generally available open-source tool which prolifically finds defects.209 Indeed, Lint’s function is to find defects and problems in the source code.210 Coupled with his demonstrably superior practical experience in embedded system programming for applications from aerospace to washing machines, Wisniewski homed in on very significant specific problems in Alcotest source code.211
Shaffer, Draeger’s programmer of the application now before us,212 has no familiarity with ISO 9000, Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineers [“IEEE”], or other standards for software.213 He uses no standard methodology himself, other than walling off key routines in his head.214 He neglects headers within the code that would ordinarily provide signposts for others to follow.215 He has introduced unintentional error like the buffer overflow. His experience with embedded systems programming prior to his employment with Draeger was in the model railroading field working with train whistles.216 With Shaffer, “all I have to do is wonder how much interest he has. Job at stake? This enterprise at stake?”217
Neither Geller,218 Wisniewski,219 nor Shaffer had testified in court before. Geller was somewhat evasive when answering questions, often pausing for long periods before responding, often disclaiming a challenge citing the limited scope of his assigned task.220 Geller lacked command of the powers of two.221 Shaffer, even though constrained by his status as a Draeger employee, disclosed the fraud within Draeger’s code that neither SysTest nor BaseOne detected -- the algorithm that forced EC and IR results to agree when the EC value drifts too far from the IR value.222 His confession of engaging in questionable practices like disregarding header information within the code seems borne more of ignorance than intent to deceive.223 Like Geller, he had difficulty with powers of two224 and no engineering experience.225
Wisniewski was a most objective and credible witness. As Judge King found, Wisniewski was, indeed, “very negative and deconstructive,”226 given the nature of his task and what he actually found. He began his task under the mistaken impression that he worked for the State,227 and is the epitome of the independent software reviewer this Court probably had in mind on remand. For the most part, he was able to document every error he discovered and reported. His discomfort with the use of the term “standards” seemed more semantic than substantive, preferring the term “developmental methodologies” -- a term more consistent with the way he himself reviewed and developed reliable code throughout his career.228
II.
Expert Witnesses Seidman, Dee, and Workman
The remaining experts -- Stephen Seidman last year and Norman Dee and Thomas Workman this year -- did not have the benefit of actually seeing source code, except for the few snippets offered in evidence. But patent attorney Workman -- with more than 30 years experience working in high technology for various corporations in many capacities, including management, engineering, research, quality assurance, and software development -- is probably most representative of the relevant scientific community for this case. Specifically, he has
written, developed, and reviewed source code standards as HP’s representative on the IEEE Computer Standards Board.229
used and applied standards in the course of source code review, vendor selection, and systems verification for such massive technology-based companies as Hewlett-Packard, Digital Equipment, Xerox, and Texas Instruments, among others.230
peer reviewed the work of Thomas McCabe, recognized by both BaseOne and SysTest for developing ways to measure cyclomatic complexity.231
performed ISO 9000 certification for Digital, a major corporation with operations here and in Scotland.232
worked with embedded systems dependent on sensors, much as the Alcotest is dependent on sensors.233
formulated a major scientific principle in the field, “Workman’s Law,” which is named after him!234
testified not only in courts but also before Congress as an expert on computer software issues.235
been unrebutted by anyone else who has testified in this hearing.
Stephen Seidman, Ph.D., an academic, former Dean of the College of Computer Science at N.J. Institute of Technology, and current Dean of the College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics at the University of Central Arkansas,236 was qualified as an expert in software engineering.237 He testified last year about source code with errors and the need for coding standards.238 Judge King stated:
“If there were errors in the software, Seidman would want to know about them as they would raise questions in his mind about the instrument's accuracy....”239
“When shown several AIRs with apparent errors, Seidman said that he would want to understand the reasons for them before he gave an opinion on the accuracy of New Jersey's breath-testing program....”240
Norman Dee, on the other hand, still holds the opinion that source code review is unnecessary and minimizes the importance of reviews done for the present hearings -- a view clearly at odds with the instructions handed down from this Court. He has no experience in legal metrology or analog systems.241 His coding experience is extremely limited, sporadic, and unrelated to analyzing measurements to produce results.242 He has almost no experience with embedded systems like the Alcotest’s,243 and has never written code for such systems.244
III.
Special Master’s Credibility Determinations
Judge King, a self-professed Luddite245 proud of not owning a cell phone or using e-mail,246 did a remarkable job during the first hearing last year seeking to understand the Alcotest technology. At one point near the end of this remand, he appeared to understand. “It's like I got off the subway in Times Square and I got a little three card monte going on.”247 Unfortunately, he either failed to grasp or chose to ignore the significance of examining source code and bought the State’s argument that black box testing was sufficient to prove reliability. He either never appreciated or declined to acknowledge the significance of source code hidden by Draeger.
With all due respect to this distinguished and accomplished jurist, Judge King clearly was confused,248 bored,249 and disinterested in the complexity and intricacies of source code examination and the highly technical expert testimony, calling it “electrical mysticism.”250 In considering Wisniewski’s qualifications, he confessed, “I don’t know what it means to be qualified.”251 He sought to severely limit defense cross-examination, but did relent to defense repeated demands for fairness and justice and the urging of your amicus New Jersey State Bar Association for fairness and justice.252 The defense experts’ credentials and the lack of the proponents was amply demonstrated in the record before this Court. His findings of credibility and reliability are inconsistent with the record and suggest an unwarranted commitment to his previous, but now discredited, acceptance of black box testing. For example:
His swipe at John Wisniewski, expressing “doubt that he was as experienced as portrayed,”253 was offensive and gratuitous, especially given the fact that no challenge whatsoever to his credentials was ever raised at any time in this matter. Wisniewski is a “rocket scientist” with familiarity with all aspects of embedded computer hardware and software systems. To cast Bruce Geller as “technically impressive”254 especially in light of the comparison of his meager credentials against Wisniewski’s extraordinary experience begs credulity.
The same can be said of Judge King giving “considerable weight” to the “impressive witness” Norman Dee, yet dismissing Thomas Workman’s testimony as unpersuasive255 and relegating him to the limbo of “excluded evidence” under R. 1:7-3 -- a position he stated before Workman even began his testimony.256 Of course, rather than outright exclusion, Judge King assigned it his own weight within the confines of his limited understanding of the subject matter to which Workman testified.257
Overall, Judge King’s credibility findings and his finding of software reliability is unfortunately grounded in lack of a grasp of this technology and not a fair assessment of the testimony.
APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES
I.
Draeger’s Failure to Adhere to Any Recognizable Standard Precludes a Finding that Its Source Code for the Alcotest Has Gained General Acceptance in the Scientific Community
Overall Alcotest reliability is a function of three sub-parts: its hardware, its software, and its testing processes.258 In the present remand, this Court focuses on software and its testing.259 The legal standard we must apply to version 3.11 has been stated in our cases thus:
“[T]he thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.”260
“Thus, the test in criminal cases remains whether the scientific community generally accepts the evidence.”261
In applying these legal requirements, we (a) define the particular field in which source code analysis resides, (b) consider who is the scientific community encompassing this particular field, and (c) consider whether the source code in question here would be generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.
The Particular Scientific Field
The particular fields with which we are concerned in this case are those of computer science, electrical engineering, and software programming -- fields separate and distinct from that of forensic science with which we were so concerned last year. We know this because:
NHTSA [National Highway Traffic Safety Administration] has no programming standards. NHTSA’s Edward Conde relied on incomplete computer generated data -- the alcohol influence reports -- and flawed data, accepting one test that the Alcotest itself rejected.262
All of the State’s witnesses from last year that purported to be members of the forensic science field -- Edward Conde,263 Samuel Chappell,264 Barry Logan,265 Rod Gullberg,266 J. Robert Zettl,267 Patrick Harding,268 Thomas Brettell269 -- not only professed no knowledge of computer science but affirmatively disavowed such knowledge.
No one from that community of forensic scientists put it more poetically than Robert Zettl, who declared that, for all he knew, “two magic rocks from Ireland banging together will give you a .10....”270 Rod Gullberg, recognizing his limitations as a statistician and forensic scientist, specifically recommended that source code be independently verified.271
The Relevant Scientific Community
Thus, we leave the field of endeavor in which we examined the Alcotest last year -- that of the forensic science community -- and consider it in these new and closely aligned fields of computer science, electrical engineering, and software programming that encompass source code review. This community includes software engineers and software management worldwide.272 The relevant witnesses presented by the State last year were Stephen Seidman, Norman Dee, and Hansuli Ryser. This year, the State called SysTest’s Bruce Geller and Dee. Judge King called Draeger’s Brian Shaffer. The defense called expert examiner John Wisniewski of BaseOne and standards expert Thomas Workman.
General Acceptance Defined
Having defined the scientific community and discussed how they are represented in this case, we can ask: How does a court determine what scientific reliability is, and what are the hallmarks of general acceptance in this community? To answer these questions, let us examine what science and the scientific method is. Scientific method rests on a foundation of testing, standards, and peer review and publication. The U.S. Supreme Court described scientific method this way:
Testing: “Scientific methodology today is based on generating hypotheses and testing them to see if they can be falsified; indeed, this methodology is what distinguishes science from other fields of human inquiry.”273
Standards: “[T]he court ordinarily should consider the known or potential rate of error...and the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation....”274
Peer Review and Publication. “Another pertinent consideration is whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication.”275 This is because “submission to the scrutiny of the scientific community is a component of ‘good science,’ in part because it increases the likelihood that substantive flaws in methodology will be detected.276 **** The fact of publication (or lack thereof) in a peer reviewed journal thus will be a relevant, though not dispositive, consideration in assessing the scientific validity of a particular technique or methodology on which an opinion is premised.”277
General acceptance is demonstrated by a super-majority of scientists in the software community -- on the order of 80 to 90 percent.278 It is codified in industry standards.279 It is vetted until it is no longer controversial.280 Its methods must be objective, repeatable, quantifiable, and standardized.281 Determinations of reliability and general acceptance are based on measurements and observations.282
The Quality and Burden of Proof
Our cases hold that “a belief that the device is broadly accurate is not sufficient.”283 “Proving general acceptance ‘entails the strict application of the scientific method, which requires an extraordinarily high level of proof based on prolonged, controlled, consistent, and validated experience.’"284
All four pillars -- prolonged, controlled, consistent, and validated experience -- must stand to support a finding of scientific reliability by that highest of the civil burdens of proof, clear and convincing evidence -- a standard of proof defined as evidence that
“produce[s] in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established,” evidence “so clear, direct and weighty and convincing as to enable [the fact finder] to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the precise facts in issue."285
“[T]he responsibility for establishing all conditions as to the admissibility of [Alcotest] results is properly allocated to the State”286 and, by extension, Draeger as an intervenor with a blatant mercenary interest. As we have seen, they failed to meet that burden. While Defendants have no burden whatsoever, they have not only called the code and Alcotest into question but also affirmatively demonstrated that it is unreliable:287
Q. If you were to characterize this software on that scale of 1 to 10, where you keep on working and try to get a 10, where would you put this, having reviewed all the code?
A. I hadn't thought about that. There's so much missing in other documentation, I would have to say it's about a two or a three.288
Indeed, Defendants submit that the appropriate burden for admissibility should be beyond a reasonable doubt, given the nearly presumptive nature of per se breath evidence.289 After all, when Romano v. Kimmelman was decided, this Court considered breath test evidence for municipal court cases decided under a statutory scheme that made breath test results merely presumptive and not conclusive evidence of guilt.290
In the present case, Defendants have raised many factual issues that we have characterized as “Show Stoppers,” since any one of them alone should sufficiently call into question Alcotest reliability so as to make its results inadmissible. Indeed, given these facts, among others -- (a) the limited time perimeters within which source code review occurred, (b) two different examiners using different review tools and methods found discreet problems which the other did not, (c) the lie, discovered only on cross examination, that two allegedly independent technologies verify each other, (d) the morass of unexamined code still hidden by a culture of concealment and the absence of any systematic standardized method for discovering and correcting errors. What Judge King calls “speculation” is, in fact, unreliability. It was never Defendants’ burden to prove that the Alcotest was unreliable. Rather, it was the State’s and Draeger’s to prove it reliable. They failed.
Methods of Proof
A proponent of newly-devised scientific technology can prove its general acceptance in three ways: (1) by expert testimony as to general acceptance, among those in the profession, of the premises on which the proffered expert witness based his or her analysis; (2) by authoritative scientific and legal writings indicating that the scientific community accepts the premises underlying the proffered testimony; and (3) by judicial opinions that indicate the expert's premises have gained general acceptance.291 Reviewing these three methods of proof in the present case in reverse order:
This case is the first of its kind. While adversaries in other jurisdictions fight over source code discovery, and in others, production was ordered, nowhere else has a review of code taken place as it has here. Thus, no judicial opinions about Draeger source code reliability exist. Nor are there any authoritative scientific or legal writings about Draeger source code. There is ample authority in the scientific community about what makes source code and computer programs reliable.292
The great weight of credible expert testimony in this case clearly demonstrates what it takes for source code to be considered scientifically reliable. Judge King’s credibility findings notwithstanding, the witnesses most qualified to assess Alcotest version 3.11 found it unreliable.293 The objective record clearly demonstrates that John Wisniewski is more qualified and more credible than Bruce Geller, that Thomas Workman is more qualified and more credible than Norman Dee.
The Application of Standards
For the computer science community, the hallmarks of scientific reliability are embodied in standards -- or more descriptively -- standardized developmental methodologies.294 Tom Workman, from his education and career experience,295 testified to how standards were developed,296 how they are codified,297 and what makes them scientific.298 John Wisniewski, in the context of his experience and the present code review, discussed such standardized developmental methodologies as yielding more reliable code,299 saying: “You can’t just write code and then review it yourself and test it yourself. There has to be an independent review of it by someone else so that you’re not tainted in your judgment.”300
Standards take into account the first requirement of science by requiring the statement of hypotheses through documentation -- with a requirements document at the outset of coding301 and further documentation for error detection and error correction.302 Standards were developed in a collaborative fashion, subjected to rigorous peer review, and requiring a high degree of consensus on the order of 80 percent.303
Standards were developed by industry and IEEE. Governments adopt them as part of product specifications when a high degree of reliability is required. Standards are used to keep rockets from blowing up and satellites from crashing, to keep hearts beating304 and maintain geosynchronous satellite positioning305 for TV programs. Standards are important because code, like human beings, can never be perfect.306 But, through the application of standards, code can be scientifically reliable.307
Standards have been in use for a long time. While there may have been some debate whether coding standards were necessary decades ago, there is no true debate today. If an application is sufficiently important, it must be developed and maintained according to some standard.308 There is nothing new or novel about this concept. The use of standards is a prerequisite to a determination that source code is scientifically reliable.
The application with which we are concerned here is clearly important. Evidence developed with this technology will send people to jail. The importance of the application here is more on par with airplane landing gear, pace maker functioning, and satellite navigation than with model train whistles or even voting machines.
II.
Presently Unknowable Source Code Deprives Any Challenger of a Reported Breath Test Result Any Meaningful Right of Confrontation
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him."309 This right to confrontation is fundamental and essential to a fair trial in a criminal prosecution.310 "[A] major reason underlying the constitutional confrontation rule is to give a defendant charged with crime an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him."311 As a result, "it cannot seriously be doubted at this late date that the right of cross-examination is included in the right of an accused in a criminal case to confront the witnesses against him."312 In fact:
There are few subjects, perhaps, upon which this Court and other courts have been more nearly unanimous than in their expressions of belief that the right of confrontation and cross-examination is an essential and fundamental requirement for the kind of fair trial which is this country's constitutional goal. Indeed, we have expressly declared that to deprive an accused of the right to cross-examine the witnesses against him is a denial of the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due process of law.313
Because of Crawford v. Washington,314 New Jersey courts have been establishing a body of case law on Confrontation Clause issues.315
This Court recently recognized the enormity of Crawford in State v. Branch,316 when it reversed a conviction because a detective testified that he developed Branch as a suspect "based on the information received" and included Branch's picture in a photographic array shown to witnesses. This “information” constituted inadmissible hearsay, and the admission of testimony about this information violated defendant's confrontation rights in a burglary and robbery trial. The Court ultimately decided the case on state evidentiary grounds, but warned:
Although we decide this case based on our interpretation of an evidentiary rule, our analysis is informed by the principles undergirding the Confrontation Clause jurisprudence of our federal and state constitutions. In that regard, we must take notice of the potential impact that the recent watershed decision in Crawford, supra, will have on the introduction of "testimonial" hearsay through the excited utterance exception and other hearsay exceptions.317
In Branch, the Court did not further assess what testimonial hearsay was, stating, "[W]e do not have to decide whether Detective Calvin's questioning of Juliana was ‘police interrogation’ or whether her statement was ‘testimonial’ in the manner understood in Crawford...because we can resolve this case on state evidentiary grounds."318 However, the court noted, “Crawford...is a reminder that even firmly established exceptions to the hearsay rule must bow to the right of confrontation.”319 “Courts must be mindful, as well, of the requirements placed by Crawford...on the admission of testimonial evidence, whether in the context of the excited utterance exception or any other exception to the hearsay rule.”320
In the present matter, this Court is confronted with an entirely new application of Crawford: confrontation of a machine. This Court recognized, inter alia, the significance of the issue in its remand of this case, ordering Draeger to produce the source code for testing and analysis.
From the examination of that code, Defendants determined that the code was so complex and badly organized as to make meaningful examination impossible. Neither BaseOne nor SysTest could fully analyze the code and its exponential number of analytical paths.
EC results are set, at least in part, as a function of IR results calculated via operation of an algorithm which no one can directly observe. This deprives Defendants of any opportunity to challenge, through confrontation, results generated or fabricated by the Alcotest.
With the Breathalyzer, despite its human manipulation and technological limitations, a defendant could still cross examine the machine’s operator about the testing process. With the Alcotest, such questions are essentially limited to, "Did you press the orange button; did you enter the information requested by the machine; did the machine print a result?" If it produces a result above the per se limit, even with the safeguards suggested by Judge King in his initial report, there is no assurance that the machine reports accurate information. The true process of how various measurements are received by the hardware and interpreted by the software will remain always concealed. Nonetheless, even if Judge King’s recommendations are followed, municipal courts will accept the Alcotest’s final result printed on the alcohol influence report as if conclusive, depriving a defendant of any ability to confront and challenge the process used to achieve the result.
Although the aim of the proceedings before Judge King was to analyze the machine and its processes so that there would be no need for individual challenges in each and every case, nonetheless, there can be no credible assessment that the machine produces scientifically acceptable results based on the record before this Court. It is prettier than the Breathalyzer, apparently more modern in its appearance. But this pretty package conceals a presently unknowable process which no one can confront through cross examination.
III.
Draeger Source Code, by Its Overly Complex Nature, Conceals Material Exculpatory Information Which No Defendant Will Ever Discover and Which the State Can Never Reveal
“One of the most basic elements of fairness in a criminal trial is...that the State in its zeal to convict a defendant not suppress evidence that might exonerate him.”321 “[S]uppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.”322 After all, the prosecutor
is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor -- indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.323
In the context of private prosecutions, this Court noted that “dual responsibilities to the complaining witness and to the State breed numerous problems. Representation of the complainant in a related civil action could invest the prosecutor with a monetary interest in the outcome of the matter. That risk is particularly high if the prosecutor has agreed to receive a contingent fee in the civil action.”324 “Conflicting interests, moreover, can undermine a prosecutor's impartiality.”325 “Also implicated are the [private] prosecutor's ethical obligation ‘to see that the defendant is accorded procedural justice and that guilt is decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence.’”326
Draeger, of course, has a vested interest in protecting its multi-million dollar investment and the profits it seeks not only from this State but from other jurisdictions should the Alcotest receive this Court’s imprimatur. The State, with its multi-million dollar investment in this new technology, has a similarly compelling interest in its approval, albeit moderated (one hopes) by its obligation to do justice.
To this end, this Court, working in tandem with defendants, must consistently seek to overcome “the natural tendency of the prosecutor to overlook evidence favorable to the defense, and [the] incentive for the prosecutor to resolve close questions of disclosure in favor of concealment.”327 This Court must remain cognizant of even the appearance of impropriety engendered by Draeger’s participation in a quasi-criminal proceeding.328
Has the Attorney General's failure to fully explore the computer program running the Alcotest 7110 MK-III-C deprived all Defendants in the present case and all other defendants similarly situated of a fair trial?329 Does providing defense counsel with a limited opportunity to partially inspect the software here a realistic way to assure due process for individual defendants in the future, given the extraordinary expense which may potentially fall on the individual defendant?
The answer to the question depends on (1) a review of the facts, (2) the defense request for the material and the limited opportunity to explore missing material, and (3) the standard by which the prosecution's failure to volunteer exculpatory material should be judged.330 Here, Defendants specifically requested the source code more than one year ago, so the standard by which the proponents’ actions are judged is an objective one making any prosecutorial awareness of the evidence’s exculpatory nature irrelevant. Thus, we need only review the facts on which the due process claim is made. In that vein, “the defendant must show that: (1) the prosecution [and its alter ego Draeger] suppressed evidence; (2) the evidence is favorable to the defense; and (3) the evidence is material.”331
Once again in reverse order, we examine these requirements:
First, information about the prerequisite conditions for establishing breath test reliability is highly relevant and extremely material.332 Such evidence is material "if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different."333
Second, the evidence should be deemed favorable to the defense. A wide variety of materials in the State's possession could constitute exculpatory information to which a defendant is entitled.334 Specific discovery concerning the chemical testing machine is exculpatory, because this information is the only "alternate means" available to the defendant to debunk the reliability and accuracy of the chemical test result; and the Due Process Clause "require[s] that criminal defendants be afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense."335
Thus, we are left with the final question: Is the State and Draeger suppressing this material favorable evidence? “[I]f the omitted evidence creates a reasonable doubt that did not otherwise exist, constitutional error has been committed.”336
Despite Draeger’s disgorgement of source code pursuant to this Court’s explicit direction, its processes remain hidden within the billions of paths within the Code. Despite the limited reviews conducted within the limited time allotted by this Court, the interdependence of the EC and IR technologies remained hidden until a lucky exchange on cross examination. In the context of due process as discussed in this point, the EC/IR revelation sharpens the realization that so much more is hidden that, given the complexity and disorganization of the code, material exculpatory information will always remain undisclosed.
Aside from the unreliability issues discussed elsewhere in this brief, the code itself makes the State’s use of the Alcotest a due process violation. How this Court handles this suppression of information at this juncture will affect the lives of the thousands of individuals whose cases are pending resolution of this matter. We cannot assess whether this machine’s reported result will convict innocent people or free guilty ones. It will define how this landmark case is viewed by other jurisdictions. Accepting results from a device which, by its nature suppresses material relevant information will make New Jersey and this Court look foolish. There is but one remedy to this nonsense: Suppress results from all cases with Alcotest using firmware version 3.11.
CONCLUSION
What We Have Learned
We have learned a number of things in these hearings that no one other than Draeger knew or appreciated when we started.
First, the methodology expressed in Addendum A337 assumed but omitted reference to some standard by which the software house would examine the code. A cursory review where no concerted effort is made to find “obvious concerns” will yield a report with innocuous findings and conclusions which, on the surface, sound impressive but, on closer examination, mean nothing.
Second, no source code is error free. Code can be written in a way that makes it reliable. In reliable code, programmers constantly search for errors and, when found, correct them according to a systematic, standardized, well-thought-out method that is documented at every step. Each time a correction is made over the life of such code, it just gets better and better. Unfortunately, as discussed herein, Alcotest source code is not reliable and, when modified, gets worse and worse.338
Third, version 3.11 is rife with many errors, anyone of which, by itself, makes this code and this device unreliable. The present Alcotest is just as likely to produce results that inculpate the innocent and exculpate the guilty.339 The code, and, thus, the instrument itself, is not scientifically reliable. The right thing to do is to throw out all of its results from every case now pending.
Knowing the Right Thing and Doing It
Knowing the right thing and doing it are often two different things. Factors beyond the realm of objective scientific principles should not affect these decisions. The fear is that extraneous unrelated facts having nothing to do with Alcotest unreliability will dictate an unjust outcome to this case. Those facts relate to the way both the State and this Court have handled the Alcotest and disserved the public to date.
The State selected, approved, and implemented the Alcotest program improperly by (a) formulating a bid specification that permitted only one manufacturer’s product and precluded any competition in the selection process, (b) delaying replacement of the antiquated Breathalyzer until it became so out of date that it could no longer be equipped or maintained or continued as a viable technology, (c) rolling out the Alcotest in such a reckless and overpowering way that it is now the only technology available for breath testing in most of New Jersey, and (d) ordering arbitrary changes to the source code such that range of agreement between breath test results would obscure issues third tests might otherwise flush out.
This Court disregarded well-established evidentiary principles and constitutional protections by, inter alia, (a) entering its January 2006 Order sua sponte without providing the parties with an opportunity to be heard, (b) requiring municipal courts to receive Alcotest results, (c) encompassing within the Order not only the present parties to the above captioned matter but all similarly situated defendants [i.e., those defendants with cases involving Alcotest 7110 breath test evidence], (d) requiring defendants to face conviction based on unreliable incompetent evidence, (e) creating a presumption of guilt based on presumably incompetent evidence,340 (f) precluding the right of defendants to timely confront this evidence against them,341 (g) causing undue prejudice, unfair trials, and collateral consequences like insurance premium increases, job loss, and driving privilege revocations for out-of-State drivers, and (h) unduly delaying dispositions and implicating the right to a speedy trial.342
An Untenable Situation
As a result, based on incompetent evidence, innocents have faced conviction and guilty people have been released. Those whose driving privileges should have been revoked were allowed to drive, and those whose driving privileges should not have been revoked lost jobs, went broke, failed friends and families. Some were jailed.
This Court’s January 2006 Order compelled municipal courts to receive Alcotest readings into evidence, even though these hearings remained pending. Draeger, the State, and the Public might have reasonably assumed that acceptance of the Alcotest would be a foregone conclusion. Given the way the State and this Court have created an almost untenable situation in the administration of DUI defendants, the present Defendants are concerned that this Court will whitewash the terrible truth uncovered in this case and, to save face, not only convict innocent people but also create precedent that has the potential to infect our jurisprudence in any application relying on computerized scientific evidence.
Unfortunately, there is no easy, face-saving way to rationalize these extraneous mistakes away. This Court and the Attorney General can only acknowledge that mistakes were made, learn from them, and move on.
“The principle...is not punishment of society for misdeeds of a prosecutor but avoidance of an unfair trial to the accused.”343 “Society wins not only when the guilty are convicted but when criminal trials are fair; our system of the administration of justice suffers when any accused is treated unfairly.”344
The Only Reasonable Findings
Judge King’s conclusions about source code reliability here are wrong: He should have drawn adverse inferences against Draeger for its stonewalling. Overwhelming evidence on remand undermines any confidence in supposed Alcotest reliability. The only reasonable findings this Court can make are these:
The Alcotest 7110 using firmware version 3.11 is unreliable and unscientific.
All Alcotest results in all prosecutions affected by this Court’s January 2006 Order are excluded.
Each case in which guilt is based on Alcotest results will be returned to the municipal court for trial or disposition as the requirements of the particular case require.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Samuel L. Sachs
Samuel Louis Sachs, Esquire
s/ Matthew W. Reisig
Matthew W. Reisig, Esquire
s/ John Menzel
John Menzel, J.D.
s/ Evan M. Levow
Evan M. Levow, Esquire
s/ Jonathan Kessous
Jonathan Kessous, Esquire
s/ Christopher Hewitt
Christopher, Hewitt, Esq.
_________________________________________________________________
12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345
1 13T52-13/24, 13T53-24/54-4; D-16.
2 http://encarta.msn.com (“a gross misrepresentation of the facts concerning a major issue, especially for political purposes”), http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie, http://www.sourcewatch. org.
3 Da1-4.
4 Da5-8.
5 SMR45.
6 SMR233.
7 SMR45.
8 Da10, State v. Chun, 191 N.J. 308 (2007). See Da13-14 denying, inter alia, a defense request for funding; see also Da19.
9 Da11.
10 Da15 (emphasis added).
11 Da18.
12 BaseOne’s 57-page report appears at Da20-76.
13 SysTest’s 57-page report appears at Da77-133.
14 See Da78.
15 See Da28-29.
16 See 9TR219-13/220-10.
17 See Da15.
18 2SMR80.
19 2SMR6.
20 9RT187-5/19.
21 See Da32 (BaseOne p.13), Da145 (Workman p.3).
22 Da47 (BaseOne p.28), Da145 (Workman p.145).
23 9RT200-20/201-7, see Da146 (Workman p.4).
24 See Da33 (BaseOne p.14).
25 Exh.DR-4, see 10RT59-6/8.
26 See Da43 (BaseOne p.24).
27 See 34T87-6/10
28 See State v. Downie, 117 N.J. 450 (1990); Romano v. Kimmelman, 96 N.J. 66 (1984).
29 38T86-17/88-2.
30 10RT51-21/52-8, 52-22/25, 55-23/56-1; see 9T26-11/16. See State v. Foley, 370 N.J.Super. 341, 355 (Law Div. 2003).
31 See, e.g., Da203-04; see also 10RT51-21/52-8, 52-22/25, 55-23/56-1.
32 9RT211-21/212-25.
33 8RT24-9/11.
34 9RT224-13/225-1.
35 9RT225-2/24; see, e.g., Exh.AB-2; see also 10RT65-2/7.
36 See, e.g., 10RT66-11/67-9; see also Da57.
37 See 2SMR52.
38 See 2SMR78, 107.
39 See Da201-206 (Exh.D-197).
40 10RT, 9-16/19, 11-14/25.
41 10RT14-20/22.
42 Cf., from 2006 hearing, e.g., Da275-76 (Exh.D-149, 0.02), Da277 (Exh.D-150, 0.00), Da282 (Exh.D-153, 0.03), Da291-92 (Exh.D-155, 0.04), Da296 (Exh.D-155, 0.03), Da303 (Exh.D-155, 0.01), Da311 (Exh.D-157, p.2, 0.04), Da313 (Exh.D-157, p.8, 0.02).
43 10RT12-1/24.
44 10RT42-7/43-21.
45 Da207-08 (Exh.D-8); see 10RT48-23/49-19, 50-15/24.
46 See Romano v. Kimmelman, supra, and State v. Downie, supra.
47 See, from 2006 hearings, e.g., Da211-12 (Exh.D-13, .030 apart), Da217-18 (Exh.D-61, .014), Da230-31 (Exh.130, .144), Da235-36 (Exh.D-135, p.2-3, .030), Da237 (Exh.136, p.1, .013), Da242-43 (Exh.140, .014), Da268-69 (Exh.D-145, .024), Da270-71 (Exh.D-146, .024), Da272-73 (D-147, .030), Da274 (Exh.D-148, .026), Da278-79 (Exh.D-151, p.8-9, .023), Da280 (Exh.D-151, p.13, .012), Da281 (Exh.D-152, .011), Da282-83 (Exh.D-153, .014), Da286 (Exh.D-154, p.4, .014), Da287-88 (Exh.D-154, p.6-7, .011), Da289-90 (Exh.D-154, p.9-10, .011), Da293-94 (Exh.D-155, p.3-4, .013), Da295 (Exh.D-155, p.5, .012), Da301-02 (Exh.D-155, p.12-13, .012), Da304 (Exh.D-155, p.16, .018), Da305 (Exh.D-156, p.4, .013), Da306-07 (Exh.D-156, p.5-6, .012), Da308-09 (Exh.D-156, p.7-8, .011), Da312 (Exh.D157, p.6, .021).
48 Da318 (Exh.AB-3), see 10RT102-22/104-6; see also, from 2006 hearing, e.g., Da264-65 (Exh.D-143).
49 See Da221-29 (Exh.D-63) (In Milltown, CU-34 type listed incorrectly as “4” rather than correctly as “WET”), Da244-63 (Exh.D-142) (In Princeton Borough, serial number listed incorrectly as “4” rather than correctly).
50 See, from 2006 hearing, e.g., Da209-10 (Exh.D-12, once in three attempts), Da219 (Exh.D-62, once in two), Da240-41 (Exh.D-137, once in three), Da266-67 (Exh.D-144, once in four), Da278-79 (Exh.D-151, p.8-9, twice in five), Da284-85 (Exh.D-154, p.1-2, once in four), Da286 (Exh.D-154, p.4, once in four), Da297-98 (Exh.D-155, p.8-9, once in four), Da299-300 (Exh.D-155, p.10-11, twice in five), Da306-07 (Exh.D-156, p.5-6, twice in four), Da310 (Exh.D-157, p.1, once in three), Da314-15 (Exh.D-157, 9-10, once in nine).
51 See, from 2006 hearing, e.g., Da217-18 (Exh.D-61).
52 Da242-43 (Exh.D-140).
53 Da316-17 (Exh.S-61).
54 Da216 (Exh.D-60), cf. Da219 (Exh.D-62).
55 Hitler, Adolph, Mein Kampf p.134 (James Murphy translation, 1933).
56 20T21-10/21-17 (Ryser).
57 20T48-19/49-4 (Ryser).
58 23T85-8/85-12 (Ryser).
59 50T31-18/20 (Ryser).
60 State v. Foley, supra, 370 N.J.Super. at 346.
61 1T85-6/85-10.
62 12T59-5/6.
63 37T166-10/166-13.
64 42T14-5/15-12.
65 70T33-7/12.
66 5RT220-2/231-5.
67 5RT224-11/14 (emphasis added); see also 5RT226-19/24, 227-17/21, 230-6/13.
68 8RT187-9/19, 189-20/197-7.
69 10RT137-5/6.
70 10RT138-22/24. See discussion re “soll_aak” file at 10RT138-12/139-9.
71 10RT140-18/19.
72 10RT132-10/133-2.
73 10RT133-3/18.
74 10RT132-20/133-8, 137-8/15; see Exh.DR-14.
75 12RT39-21/40-4.
76 12RT40-9/19.
77 See 5RT220-2/231-5; 6RT104-14/112-5, 125-17/126-24, 129-10/131-4; 8RT182-14/199-3; 10RT129-1/6, 132-10/146-11, 149-1/17, 232-9/234-9, 241-15/243-13, 249-6/254-5.
78 6RT129-21.
79 10RT233-13.
80 5RT227-21.
81 370 N.J. Super. 341 (Law Div. 2003).
82 See id., 370 N.J.Super. at 345-47, 351, 356, and 359.
83 See SMR33, 52, 67, 75, 177, 186, and 252.
84 See 2SMR84.
85 See SMR42.
86 See 5T69-4/69-10.
87 33T81-1/4.
88 35T110-1116.
89 37T:15-4 to 15-11.
90 37T156-13/18.
91 See 2SMR13, 15-16, 47, 57-58, 61-61, 76-78, and 81-84.
92 See 2SMR84.
93 6RT105-3/9.
94 50T27-6/9 (Ryser).
95 See SMR50.
96 See State v. Foley, supra, 370 N.J.Super. at 350-351.
97 12RT43-4/9.
98 See Da23, Da37 (BaseOne p.4, 18); Da147 (Workman p.5).
99 6RT36-7/10, 98-12/99-3.
100 See Da23, Da37 (BaseOne p.4, 18).
101 See Da23, Da37 (BaseOne p 4, 18); Da146 (Workman p.4).
102 See Da24, Da40 (BaseOne p 5, 21); Da146 (Workman p.4).
103 10RT128-5/129-6.
104 10RT130-13/18.
105 10RT130-5/11.
106 10RT78-12/15; see Da36 (BaseOne p.17), Da146 (Workman p.4).
107 10RT69-17/70-1, 77-8/14, 79-2/4, 86-25/87-11, 121-17/122-7.
108 10RT83-6/13, 87-16/23.
109 10RT71-6/18; see 10RT72-15/73-8; see also DR-19, DR-20.
110 10RT80-22/3; see DR-23.
111 10RT83-1/8.
112 See 10RT83-14/21, 84-15/85-21; see also Exh.CR-3.
113 10RT124-2/126-6.
114 10RT126-10/19.
115 10RT118-1/6.
116 See Da36, Da40 (BaseOne p.17, 21).
117 10RT126-24/127-10.
118 10RT127-18/24.
119 Exh.DR-4; see 9RT229-24/232-5.
120 9RT232-9/13, see 9RT235-24/235-8.
121 See Da78-79 (SysTest p.3-4), Da81 (SysTest p.81).
122 See Da41-42 (BaseOne p.22-23).
123 See Da24, Da37-38 (BaseOne p.5, 18-19).
124 See Da32, Da35 (BaseOne p.13, 16); Da145 (Workman p.3). See also Da79 (SysTest p.4).
125 9RT213-6/9.
126 10RT35-8/20.
127 See 21 C.F.R. 862.3050, see also www.accessdata.fda.gov.
128 D-99.
129 D-101.
130 6RT28-22/29-2.
131 See Da22-23, 40 (BaseOne pp.3-4, 21); Da146 (Workman p.4); Da81-82, Da97-98 (SysTest pp.6-7, 22-23).
132 9RT195-8/19.
133 9RT195-20/197-17, see 9RT199-12/200-5.
134 10RT97-9/98-2.
135 See 9RT200-20/201-7.
136 Exh.DR-4.
137 9RT201-15/19.
138 9RT201-20/25, 10RT88-2289-3; see 10RT90-6/24.
139 53T35-25/36-20.
140 SMR247; see 9RT207-11/20.
141 See 9RT201-13/25.
142 10RT34-5/6. See Da40 (BaseOne p.21); Da146 (Workman p.4). See also Da86 (SysTest p.10).
143 10RT34-2/4.
144 10RT133-9/14.
145 See 9RT218-14/20.
146 SMR108, citing 57T23-24.
147 12RT39-10/20.
148 10RT15-24/16-9, 19-14/18.
149 10RT18-22/19-5.
150 10RT16-12/15.
151 10RT18-17/21.
152 10RT21-2/15.
153 10RT19-20/21-7.
154 See, e.g., 10RT22-6/23-15.
155 10RT20-12/21, see 10RT24-17/24, see also 10RT23-10/12.
156 10RT34-22/35-20.
157 10RT91-12/16.
158 See 10RT24-25/25-4.
159 30T36-37.
160 25T40-41.
161 See 5T90-20/91-6.
162 See 24T57-8/59-1.
163 30T30-20/23.
164 5RT38-23/39-23.
165 See, generally, 10RT24-12/17.
166 See 48T28-2/18.
167 41T45-6/8.
168 See, e.g., 41T39-7/40-4, 41-12/42-21, 64-6/12.
169 9RT207-11/20, see 41T44-22/24.
170 9RT208-18/209-12, 10RT101-2/12.
171 See Da201-318.
172 9RT211-24/213-2; 10RT27-19/28-2, 28-16/22.
173 10RT24-24/25-4.
174 10RT32-25/33-4; see 10RT34-7/12, 37-1/16.
175 9RT209-24/210-6.
176 9RT219-13/220-10.
177 See 1RT94-4/95-13.
178 1RT37-9/12.
179 1RT36-12/18.
180 See 10RT41-8/22.
181 2RT155-8/10.
182 10RT40-14/41-5.
183 10RT40-1/6.
184 10RT65-14/21.
185 1RT18-21/24, see Da124-27 (SysTest pp. 49-52).
186 1RT29-7/8.
187 1RT43-9/19.
188 1RT44-6/45-1.
189 1RT28-2/3; see 1RT19-12/15, 2RT170-5/13.
190 6RT183-18/184-1, see Da66-74 (BaseOne pp. 47-55).
191 6RT177-7/15.
192 6RT197-21/198-8.
193 6RT199-3/10.
194 6RT213-24/214-3, 214-13/16, 217-6/11, 218-13/21, 222-16/224-3; 7RT16-23/17-1.
195 6RT178-15/21, 206-16/19,208-14/17; 7RT6-4/12, 7-22/8-7, 13-20/14-6, 17-10/21.
196 6RT208-18/209-14, 213-24/214-6, 214-13/20, 216-22/217-11, 217-25/218-21, 222-6/223-8.
197 6RT209-15/20, 214-7/9.
198 6RT203-18/24.
199 6RT204-11/15.
200 6RT200-1/201-25.
201 6RT204-16/205-1.
202 6RT207-8/209-14.
203 6RT179-15/180-25, 212-5/13.
204 6RT178-22/179-11.
205 6RT219-9/220-7.
206 6RT177-18/178-14; 7RT6-4/12, 18-23/19-2.
207 6RT185-3/194-14, see 6RT187-6/10 for Lint reference.
208 6RT194-15/195-23, 213-6/23, 217-17/21; 7RT16-3/7.
209 9RT220-13/221-7, 222-1/5, 222-16/23; 10RT38-15/39-15, 65-9/13.
210 9RT223-22/224-5.
211 10RT39-16/20.
212 5RT5-21/6-2.
213 6RT38-23/39-23.
214 , see 24T26-6/28-1.
215 5RT119-3/120-6, see Da34 (BaseOne p.15).
216 5RT169-7/170-5.
217 12RT40-5/9.
218 1RT34-25/35-5.
219 6RT186-14/17.
220 See, e.g.: 1RT183-8/183-22; 2RT148-19, 149-12, 150-8, 171-20.
221 1RT79-18/81-13; see 10RT60-10/61-2, 63-6/64-15; see DR-18.
222 5RT224-11/14 (emphasis added); see also 5RT226-19/24, 227-17/21, 230-6/13.
223 5RT119-3/120-6.
224 6RT32-2/6.
225 5RT6-15/20.
226 2SMR48.
227 7RT96-1/4.
228 See 6RT194-17/21, 9RT173-17/21.
229 9RT170-7/172-5.
230 9RT153-2/154-21, 163-5/165-12, 168-18/169-10, 173-5/16, 203-1/12.
231 9RT172-15/20.
232 9RT168-22/170-6, see 9RT153-7/23.
233 9RT154-22/158-22, 160-22/161-2, 161-14/162-25.
234 9RT174-13/175-14.
235 9RT180-22/181-8, 184-14/185-14; see 9RT204-4/19.
236 16T21-1/14.
237 16T69-12/14.
238 18T12-17/20-25; see D-47 Da154 et seq.
239 SMR108, citing 18T67.
240 SMR108, citing 18T77, D-59, D-60, D-61, D-62, D-63, D-64).
241 30T41-25/42-6.
242 30T42-7/23, 43-13/17.
243 30T47-13/18, see 30T46-9/11.
244 30T47-15/18.
245 1RT25-17.
246 68T48-18/21.
247 12RT40-20/21.
248 3RT164-13/165-13; 4RT112-20/25, 172-1/3; 6RT107-10/11; 7RT127-5/12.
249 See, e.g., 7RT14-22/24 during Wisniewski’s voir dire.
250 1RT37-17/19.
251 7RT35-22/24.
252 2RT204-17/211-23; 3RT86-8/87-2, 100-18/24, 103-19/21.
253 2SMR48.
254 2SMR28.
255 2SMR61.
256 9RT5-1/19.
257 2SMR61-62.
258 10RT5-18/21, 7-3/14.
259 10RT7-15/21, 8-12/20, 9-1/4.
260 State v. Harvey, 151 N.J. 117, 169 (1997), quoting Frye v. U.S., 293 F. 1013, 1013-14 (D.C.Cir. 1923) (emphasis added).
261 State v. Harvey, supra, 151 N.J. at 170.
262 See 2T102-6/105-18, 107-25/109-22; 3T8-7/24, 11-21/24, 12-9, 13-4/14-21; 10RT104-19/23,106-1/5, 107-18/108-10, 112-10/21, 119-3/17.
263 See 2T8-12, 54-1/5, 113-10/12.
264 See 3T160-7/11, 162-15/20, 164-5/10.
265 See 5T21-11/15, 82-13/17.
266 See 12T82-1/7, 13T52-20/24.
267 See 13T81-12/21; 14T64-24/65-1; 15T8-8/12, 18-8.
268 See 26T88-8/89-7.
269 See 37T47-5, 168-24/169-1; 39T8-18/25; 41T58-5/15, 135-12/21; 44T26-1/4.
270 15T7-21/23.
271 13T52-13/24, 13T53-24/54-4; D-16.
272 See 9RT188-9/16, 190-14/191-16.
273 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 593, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993); see 10RT19-7/13.
274 Id., 509 U.S. at 594 (citations omitted).
275 Id., 509 U.S. at 593.
276 Id.
277 Id., 509 U.S. at 594.
278 9RT188-19/23.
279 9RT191-8/16.
280 9RT191-20/192-7.
281 9RT192-14/193-1.
282 9RT194-14/23.
283 In re LTI Marksman 20-20 Laser Speed Detection System, 314 N.J.Super. 211, 230 (Law Div. 1996) [“Laser I”].
284 State v. Harvey, supra, 151 N.J. at 171, quoting Rubanic v. Witco Chemical Corp., 125 N.J. 421, 436 (1991).
285 In re Seaman, 133 N.J. 67, 74 (1993) (citations omitted).
286 Romano v. Kimmelman, supra, 96 N.J. at 91.
287 See 8RT199-7/13; 9RT208-11/209-12; 10RT146-5/11, 147-7/21.
288 8RT129-25/130-6.
289 Romano v. Kimmelman, supra, 96 N.J. at 90.
290 See N.J.S. 39:4-50 and its history.
291 State v. Harvey, supra, 151 N.J. at 170.
292 See Thomas Workman’s bibliography at Da140-41. See also, e.g., FDA standards bibliography at Da193-200.
293 9RT174-1/3, 187-5/19.
294 6RT194-17/21, see 9RT173-17/21.
295 9RT150-21/152-10, 152-24/158-22, 159-17/161-2, 161-14/165-17, 168-15/173-16, 184-14/185-14.
296 9RT171-6/172-5.
297 9RT191-8/16.
298 9RT191-20/195-19.
299 6RT196-16/23.
300 6RT195-25/196-3.
301 10RT37-21/22, see 10RT38-5/10, see also Da151.
302 10RT15-24/16-15, 18-17/19-18, 26-5/9.
303 9RT171-6/172-5, 188-19/23.
304 9RT203-16/21.
305 See 6RT209-24/212-13.
306 9RT201-10/11.
307 9RT203-16/21.
308 18T12-17/20-25; see D-47 at Da154 et seq.
309 U.S.Const., Amend.VI.
310 Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 403-04, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965).
311 Id. at 406-07.
312 Id. at 404.
313 Id. at 405.
314 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004).
315 State v. Nyhammer, 396 N.J.Super. 72 (App.Div. 2007) (officer's testimony about child victim's out-of-court statements re alleged sexual assault by defendant, with admission of victim's videotaped statement, violated defendant's right of confrontation in trial for sexual assault and endangering welfare of child); State v. Byrd, 393 N.J.Super. 218 (App.Div. 2007) (trial court's in camera interview with witness violated defendants' right of confrontation, and admission of witness' inculpatory statement to police re events surrounding robbery and murder after witness refused to testify violated defendants' right of confrontation); State v. Dorman, 393 N.J.Super. 28 (App.Div.), cert.gr. in part, 192 N.J. 475 (2007) (trial court's admission of breath-test machine operability certificates under business records exception to hearsay rule did not violate right of confrontation); State v. Burr, 392 N.J.Super. 538 (App.Div. 2007) (no confrontation violation found where defendant was able to cross-examine child victim through counsel); State v. Kent, 391 N.J.Super. 352 (App.Div. 2007) (State Police laboratory report and related worksheets were testimonial under Crawford, and as were blood test certificate prepared by hospital employee who extracted blood from defendant at police officer's request); State v. Renshaw, 390 N.J.Super. 456 (App.Div. 2007) (admission of certification for bodily specimen taken in medically acceptable manner absent defendant’s opportunity to cross-examine nurse who prepared certification violated defendant's confrontation rights); State v. Buda, 389 N.J.Super. 241 (App.Div. 2006), cert.gr. 191 N.J. 317 (2007) (statements of non-testifying child to DYFS worker were ‘testimonial,’ such that admission violated Confrontation Clause); State v. Berezansky, 386 N.J.Super. 84 (App.Div. 2006), cert.gr. 191 N.J. 317 (2007) (trial court's admission of lab certificate reporting defendant's blood alcohol concentration without testimony of its preparer violated defendant's constitutional right of confrontation); State ex rel. J.A., 385 N.J.Super. 544 (App.Div. 2006), cert.gr. 191 N.J. 317 (2007) (admission of eyewitness' statements to police as witness perceived robbery came within either present sense impression or excited utterance exceptions to hearsay rule and did not violate juvenile's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation); State v. Sweet, 191 N.J. 318 (2007) (certification granted re admission of certificates re the contents of Breathalyzer ampoules).
316 182 N.J. 338 (2005).
317 State v. Branch, id., 182 N.J. at 368.
318 Id. at 370.
319 Id. at 369-70.
320 Id. at 370-71.
321 U.S. v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 116, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 343 (1976) (Marshall dissenting).
322 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).
323 Berger v. U.S., 295 U.S. 78, 55 S.Ct. 629, 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1935); U.S. v. Agurs, supra, 427 U.S. at 110-11.
324 State v. Storm, 141 N.J. 245, 253-53 (1995).
325 Id. at 253.
326 Id., citing Model Rules of Professional Responsibility 3.8, comment (1994).
327 U.S. v. Agurs, supra, 427 U.S. at 117 (Marshall dissenting).
328 See State v. Storm, supra, 141 N.J. at 253.
329 See U.S. v. Agurs, supra, 427 U.S. at 98-99.
330 Id., 427 U.S. at 99.
331 State v. Martini, 160 N.J. 248, 268-69 (1999), citing Brady v. Maryland, supra; see also State v. Parsons, 341 N.J.Super. 448, 454 (App.Div. 2001), citing Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786, 794, 92 S.Ct. 2562, 33 L.Ed.2d 706 (1972).
332 State v. Ford, 240 N.J.Super. 44, 50-51 (App.Div. 1990).
333 Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 280-81, 119 S.Ct. 1936, 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999) (citations omitted) (affirmed denial of habeas petition).
334 State v. Ford, supra, 240 N.J.Super. at 52.
335 California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 and 490, 104 S.Ct. 2528, 81 L.Ed.2d 413 (1984).
336 U.S. v. Agurs, supra, 427 U.S. at 112.
337 Da15, D-232.
338 In any event, the final step of the Addendum A protocol -- that the Alcotest be “tested against and measured in compliance with O.I.M.L. [International Organization of Legal Metrology] specifications adopted and current at the time of such tests” -- is not yet applicable to this case. See Da16, par.3.
339 See, e.g., 9RT235-24/237-3.
340 Romano v. Kimmelman, supra, 96 N.J. at 90. See In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970).
341 See Pointer v. Texas, supra, 380 U.S. at 406; see also Crawford v. Washington, supra, 541 U.S. at 59.
342 See State v. Farrell, 320 N.J.Super. 425 (App.Div. 1999); Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972).
343 Brady v. Maryland, supra, 373 U.S. at 87.
344 Id.
Washington State DUI Blog Celebrates One Year of Publishing
DUI lawyers news - San Diego California criminal defense blog information
Washington State DUI Blog Celebrates One Year of Publishing
The Washington State DUI Blog is celebrating its first anniversary of providing valuable information about the crime of DUI. The blog and the website generates public awareness about Driving Under the Influence of intoxicants and or drugs.
Seattle, WA, December 10, 2007
The Washington State DUI Blog is celebrating its first anniversary of providing valuable information about the crime of DUI. The Washington State DUI Blog is a component of the Washington State DUI website. The blog and the website generates public awareness about Driving Under the Influence of intoxicants and or drugs.
The public can learn about various DUI topics from the prospective of a former prosecuting attorney and former DUI defense attorney. Garth O'Brien spent seven years managing DUI litigation in Washington State. He successfully prosecuted hundreds of drunk drivers for the City of Seattle before defending those accused of DUI in private practice. Want to learn why the government uses field sobriety tests? Want to learn why the field sobriety tests are poor indicators of impairment? Then you must visit the Washington State DUI Blog and website.
Individuals with prurient interests that enjoy reading about celebrity arrests will also find a litany of articles on professional athletes, rock musicians and movie stars ending up in handcuffs because of a DUI arrest.
The Washington State DUI Blog also offers tragic true stories of friends and family members that have lost a loved one to drunk drivers. Recently, Sandra Rhone told her heart wrenching tale of her son Steven Rhone who was run over by a drunk driver in Bellingham, Washington earlier this year.
Congratulations to the Washington State DUI Blog for one year of publishing.
Washington State DUI Blog Celebrates One Year of Publishing
The Washington State DUI Blog is celebrating its first anniversary of providing valuable information about the crime of DUI. The blog and the website generates public awareness about Driving Under the Influence of intoxicants and or drugs.
Seattle, WA, December 10, 2007
The Washington State DUI Blog is celebrating its first anniversary of providing valuable information about the crime of DUI. The Washington State DUI Blog is a component of the Washington State DUI website. The blog and the website generates public awareness about Driving Under the Influence of intoxicants and or drugs.
The public can learn about various DUI topics from the prospective of a former prosecuting attorney and former DUI defense attorney. Garth O'Brien spent seven years managing DUI litigation in Washington State. He successfully prosecuted hundreds of drunk drivers for the City of Seattle before defending those accused of DUI in private practice. Want to learn why the government uses field sobriety tests? Want to learn why the field sobriety tests are poor indicators of impairment? Then you must visit the Washington State DUI Blog and website.
Individuals with prurient interests that enjoy reading about celebrity arrests will also find a litany of articles on professional athletes, rock musicians and movie stars ending up in handcuffs because of a DUI arrest.
The Washington State DUI Blog also offers tragic true stories of friends and family members that have lost a loved one to drunk drivers. Recently, Sandra Rhone told her heart wrenching tale of her son Steven Rhone who was run over by a drunk driver in Bellingham, Washington earlier this year.
Congratulations to the Washington State DUI Blog for one year of publishing.
DUI guy arrested with $30,000 cash
San Diego DUI attorney
Man arrested for DUI, found with $30K
Police found a New York man with $30,000 in cash that he said was given to him by a Penn State student for delivering 27 pounds of marijuana.
The State College Police Department pulled over Jason J. Remington, 24, of Sauquoit, N.Y., for a traffic stop Friday afternoon and ended up arresting him and seizing the cash from his Toyota RAV4.
Remington told police he received the money for delivering several pounds of marijuana to a male student, whose name The Daily Collegian is withholding pending charges, the prior evening. However, State College Police Sgt. John Wilson could not confirm if the man identified by Remington is, in fact, a student.
Remington was arraigned in front of Centre County District Judge Jonathan Grine Saturday and charged with two counts of driving under the influence, after failing a field sobriety test, and two counts of possessing a controlled substance.
According to court documents, the Centre County Drug Task Force observed Remington at the student's residence and the student in Remington's vehicle Friday afternoon.
Police reported that Remington was driving east on East College Avenue at 2:30 p.m. when he was pulled over near the entrance ramp to Route 322 for crossing the white fog line.
The arresting officer wrote in the criminal complaint that he noticed a "fresh" smell of marijuana coming from the vehicle and administered standardized field sobriety tests to the man. Remington failed the tests and police searched him and found two cell phones and $1,450 in various pockets of Remington's coat. Because of the "strong odor" of marijuana, the officer requested a "K-9 unit" on scene.
While administering an exterior search of the vehicle, the unit's dog jumped into the driver's side window "unprompted" and indicated a black backpack, according to court documents. Once a search warrant was obtained, a small amount of marijuana, ledger sheets and more than $30,000 in cash was found in the vehicle.
Upon his arrest, Remington told police he sold 27 pounds of marijuana Thursday to the student for $30,000.
Remington told police the marijuana he sold had been trafficked from New York.
Remington is being held at the Centre County Correctional Facility and, as of press time yesterday, had not posted his $100,000 bail.
Man arrested for DUI, found with $30K
Police found a New York man with $30,000 in cash that he said was given to him by a Penn State student for delivering 27 pounds of marijuana.
The State College Police Department pulled over Jason J. Remington, 24, of Sauquoit, N.Y., for a traffic stop Friday afternoon and ended up arresting him and seizing the cash from his Toyota RAV4.
Remington told police he received the money for delivering several pounds of marijuana to a male student, whose name The Daily Collegian is withholding pending charges, the prior evening. However, State College Police Sgt. John Wilson could not confirm if the man identified by Remington is, in fact, a student.
Remington was arraigned in front of Centre County District Judge Jonathan Grine Saturday and charged with two counts of driving under the influence, after failing a field sobriety test, and two counts of possessing a controlled substance.
According to court documents, the Centre County Drug Task Force observed Remington at the student's residence and the student in Remington's vehicle Friday afternoon.
Police reported that Remington was driving east on East College Avenue at 2:30 p.m. when he was pulled over near the entrance ramp to Route 322 for crossing the white fog line.
The arresting officer wrote in the criminal complaint that he noticed a "fresh" smell of marijuana coming from the vehicle and administered standardized field sobriety tests to the man. Remington failed the tests and police searched him and found two cell phones and $1,450 in various pockets of Remington's coat. Because of the "strong odor" of marijuana, the officer requested a "K-9 unit" on scene.
While administering an exterior search of the vehicle, the unit's dog jumped into the driver's side window "unprompted" and indicated a black backpack, according to court documents. Once a search warrant was obtained, a small amount of marijuana, ledger sheets and more than $30,000 in cash was found in the vehicle.
Upon his arrest, Remington told police he sold 27 pounds of marijuana Thursday to the student for $30,000.
Remington told police the marijuana he sold had been trafficked from New York.
Remington is being held at the Centre County Correctional Facility and, as of press time yesterday, had not posted his $100,000 bail.
Sunday, December 09, 2007
Here comes San Diego's DUI Checkpoints
San Diego DUI lawyer - San Diego DUI attorney news:
To get San Diego DUI drunk drivers off the roads during the holiday season, San Diego police will step up San Diego Drunk Driving / DWI / DUI enforcement beginning Friday night.
"We'll be sending out three San Diego DUI saturation patrols to Pacific Beach, downtown and Mid-City areas," say the San Diego DUI police. "We want to get the word out that we'll be out and about this holiday season."
Each San Diego DUI patrol of five or six officers and a sergeant will patrol from about 8 p.m. to 3 a.m. Saturday.
"We want to let people know we are serious about San Diego DUI drunk driving and alcohol enforcement," San Diego DUI police maintain. "Our primary way of getting (the word) out is through education and enforcement."
The San Diego Police Department has two San Diego DUI grants that fund anti-DUI efforts -- "Avoid the 14" and "Arrive Alive."
Avoid the 14 is a county-wide grant for San Diego Drunk Driving drivers and Arrive Alive money comes from the California Highway Patrol's efforts against San Diego DUI drivers.
Both San Diego DUI grants are paying overtime for the San Diego DUI officers involved in Friday's San Diego DUI patrols. San Diego DUI lawyers await further news. San Diego DUI attorneys are available for help.
To get San Diego DUI drunk drivers off the roads during the holiday season, San Diego police will step up San Diego Drunk Driving / DWI / DUI enforcement beginning Friday night.
"We'll be sending out three San Diego DUI saturation patrols to Pacific Beach, downtown and Mid-City areas," say the San Diego DUI police. "We want to get the word out that we'll be out and about this holiday season."
Each San Diego DUI patrol of five or six officers and a sergeant will patrol from about 8 p.m. to 3 a.m. Saturday.
"We want to let people know we are serious about San Diego DUI drunk driving and alcohol enforcement," San Diego DUI police maintain. "Our primary way of getting (the word) out is through education and enforcement."
The San Diego Police Department has two San Diego DUI grants that fund anti-DUI efforts -- "Avoid the 14" and "Arrive Alive."
Avoid the 14 is a county-wide grant for San Diego Drunk Driving drivers and Arrive Alive money comes from the California Highway Patrol's efforts against San Diego DUI drivers.
Both San Diego DUI grants are paying overtime for the San Diego DUI officers involved in Friday's San Diego DUI patrols. San Diego DUI lawyers await further news. San Diego DUI attorneys are available for help.
Drunk Drivers have rights in DUI cases
San Diego DUI attorney news
Suspected Canadian DUI / drunk drivers still somehow have the right to refuse giving proof that could be used to convict or clear them.
That's because they can still refuse to blow into a breathalyser or give a blood sample for alcohol testing. And these scofflaws seem to believe the full penalty for that justice-obstructing crime, which actually matches that available for impaired driving, will never really be applied.
In fact, the first four drivers caught for suspected drunk driving at holiday checkstops this year refused to blow in to the device used to test their intoxication.
And it appears the public shame of being named by police for an alleged drunk driving charge didn't curb the trend.
Even drivers suspected of killing people while impaired behind the wheel lately seem prone to keep their breath to themselves.
On Nov. 7, Dennis Joseph McKay, 40, was charged with criminal negligence causing death, impaired driving causing death, failure to provide a blood sample and driving while suspended, after the pickup truck he was driving crashed into a tree and fence at Keewatin Street and Pacific Avenue, killing a 36-year-old passenger.
And on Oct. 30, a 28-year-old man allegedly broadsided a vehicle at Cavalier Drive and Hamilton Avenue, killing 63-year-old Therese Hadley. He also refused a breathalyser.
Sadly, each holiday season a baffling number of people are still dumb and reckless enough to steer their way home after drinking. It appears this season is opening as criminals start a trend of betting on a legal loophole.
Even Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) backed off from its previous lobby to force drivers involved in crashes that injure or kill someone to give a blood sample to police. The fear is this law wouldn't hold up against a constitutional challenge.
Again, it appears the culprits' rights trump those of their potential, or too often actual, victims.
Tougher penalties
Instead, MADD added its support to the federal Conservative government's lobby for tougher drunk driving penalties. Part of Bill C-2, the much-debated federal Tackling Violent Crime Act, could be enough to make drunk drivers hesitate about refusing to give breath or blood samples.
The act includes a bill that could pair the crime with a maximum penalty of life in prison if the driver was involved in a crash that resulted in a death. This would apply after a drug recognition expert identifies the person as impaired.
According to MADD Canada, drunk drivers kill four Canadians every day and injure 190 more, especially during the holidays.
MADD is pushing citizens to write their members of parliament or pick up a form letter from its agency to push for Bill C-2s success.
They also urge you to report drunk drivers through their "Campaign 911," by calling police when you spot a driver who may have drank too much.
Finally, the group wants random breath samples taken at checkstops, which they believe could reduce drunk driving deaths.
Easily ignored
When refusing a breathalyser is a crime too easily ignored, we may be left to doubt this is really enough.
Winnipeggers joined in anger after a judge upheld a plea bargain that let a former Winnipeg cop serve a two-year conditional sentence for fatally crashing his car into that of Winnipeg mom Crystal Taman's in February 2005.
Derek Harvey-Zenk, the driver, also refused to blow into a breathalyser.
The charge of impaired driving causing death was dropped in his case, which ended when his plea bargain sentence for impaired driving causing death was upheld on Oct. 29.
But public pressure in this case shows backlash can, at the very least, lead to answers.
Manitoba Justice Minister Dave Chomiak promised Wednesday that a public inquiry into the Harvey-Zenk case will be "as extensive an inquiry as we have ever had in Manitoba."
Perhaps further public outrage can help stimulate laws to break the string of drivers dodging their responsibility at crash scenes.
A mandatory minimum sentence for refusing a breathalyser could also go a long way, since the current punishment just isn't being applied enough to persuade drivers to give police the evidence they need.
As long as there are drivers ignorant and careless enough to drive drunk, some folks (like MADD) will push to close every loophole they can use to get away with it.
Suspected Canadian DUI / drunk drivers still somehow have the right to refuse giving proof that could be used to convict or clear them.
That's because they can still refuse to blow into a breathalyser or give a blood sample for alcohol testing. And these scofflaws seem to believe the full penalty for that justice-obstructing crime, which actually matches that available for impaired driving, will never really be applied.
In fact, the first four drivers caught for suspected drunk driving at holiday checkstops this year refused to blow in to the device used to test their intoxication.
And it appears the public shame of being named by police for an alleged drunk driving charge didn't curb the trend.
Even drivers suspected of killing people while impaired behind the wheel lately seem prone to keep their breath to themselves.
On Nov. 7, Dennis Joseph McKay, 40, was charged with criminal negligence causing death, impaired driving causing death, failure to provide a blood sample and driving while suspended, after the pickup truck he was driving crashed into a tree and fence at Keewatin Street and Pacific Avenue, killing a 36-year-old passenger.
And on Oct. 30, a 28-year-old man allegedly broadsided a vehicle at Cavalier Drive and Hamilton Avenue, killing 63-year-old Therese Hadley. He also refused a breathalyser.
Sadly, each holiday season a baffling number of people are still dumb and reckless enough to steer their way home after drinking. It appears this season is opening as criminals start a trend of betting on a legal loophole.
Even Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) backed off from its previous lobby to force drivers involved in crashes that injure or kill someone to give a blood sample to police. The fear is this law wouldn't hold up against a constitutional challenge.
Again, it appears the culprits' rights trump those of their potential, or too often actual, victims.
Tougher penalties
Instead, MADD added its support to the federal Conservative government's lobby for tougher drunk driving penalties. Part of Bill C-2, the much-debated federal Tackling Violent Crime Act, could be enough to make drunk drivers hesitate about refusing to give breath or blood samples.
The act includes a bill that could pair the crime with a maximum penalty of life in prison if the driver was involved in a crash that resulted in a death. This would apply after a drug recognition expert identifies the person as impaired.
According to MADD Canada, drunk drivers kill four Canadians every day and injure 190 more, especially during the holidays.
MADD is pushing citizens to write their members of parliament or pick up a form letter from its agency to push for Bill C-2s success.
They also urge you to report drunk drivers through their "Campaign 911," by calling police when you spot a driver who may have drank too much.
Finally, the group wants random breath samples taken at checkstops, which they believe could reduce drunk driving deaths.
Easily ignored
When refusing a breathalyser is a crime too easily ignored, we may be left to doubt this is really enough.
Winnipeggers joined in anger after a judge upheld a plea bargain that let a former Winnipeg cop serve a two-year conditional sentence for fatally crashing his car into that of Winnipeg mom Crystal Taman's in February 2005.
Derek Harvey-Zenk, the driver, also refused to blow into a breathalyser.
The charge of impaired driving causing death was dropped in his case, which ended when his plea bargain sentence for impaired driving causing death was upheld on Oct. 29.
But public pressure in this case shows backlash can, at the very least, lead to answers.
Manitoba Justice Minister Dave Chomiak promised Wednesday that a public inquiry into the Harvey-Zenk case will be "as extensive an inquiry as we have ever had in Manitoba."
Perhaps further public outrage can help stimulate laws to break the string of drivers dodging their responsibility at crash scenes.
A mandatory minimum sentence for refusing a breathalyser could also go a long way, since the current punishment just isn't being applied enough to persuade drivers to give police the evidence they need.
As long as there are drivers ignorant and careless enough to drive drunk, some folks (like MADD) will push to close every loophole they can use to get away with it.
"Aggravated" DWI for Double DUI limit, Bedroom Crasher
DUI Drunk Driving Lawyer news - San Diego criminal defense attorney stories
A woman was arrested on an aggravated driving while intoxicated charge early Saturday after she was stopped by Glens Falls Police and found to have a blood-alcohol content more than double the threshold for intoxication, police said.
Shannon M. Cotter, 22, of Carlton Drive was pulled over after Glens Falls Police Officer Zack Flewelling saw her roll through the stop sign at Elm and Pine streets, said Glens Falls Police Sgt. Keith Knoop.
She was found to have a BAC of 0.18 percent, more than double the 0.08 percent threshold for DWI.
She was charged with aggravated DWI / DUI / Drunk driving.
Car driven through house by Drunk Driver:
“A car was in my room. I didn't even hear it. All I could hear was my sister screaming my name.” Said Julie La Hait.
That's what Julie La Hait awoke to from her bed just after three-thirty Saturday morning. Julie says her sister Ann Marie was frantic because the front end of a 2002 Toyota was in Ann Marie's bedroom and it had to pass through Julie's to get there.
Julie says her sister thought the car was on top of her, it wasn't but only by a few inches.
In the meantime the girl's mother Mary La Hait was awakened by the crash and the screams that followed. She soon realized the front of her home was gone and a car was inside.
“I came running out of my bedroom and all I could see was smoke because I seen the car and went to get Julie. I thought she was dead to be honest with you because I seen the car in the room,” said the mother.
By the time Mary got to Julie, the driver of the car twenty year old Dylan La Perle of Latham was out of the car and helping Julie get out of her bed. She says he was the only one who really could reach her.
Mary said La Perle hugged Julie and said sorry.
Aside from the extensive damage to the structure of the house the family lost many of their possessions, furniture, an aquarium and its fish, a computer. Julie says most of the belongings in her room were destroyed including Christmas gifts she had already purchased for her family.
“I had some angels here too some of them made it some of them didn't, but I did that's all that matters,” said Julie.
“I feel luckier than hitting the lottery. My kids are ok. If you seen it you can't believe they could survive it. It's unbelievable
A woman was arrested on an aggravated driving while intoxicated charge early Saturday after she was stopped by Glens Falls Police and found to have a blood-alcohol content more than double the threshold for intoxication, police said.
Shannon M. Cotter, 22, of Carlton Drive was pulled over after Glens Falls Police Officer Zack Flewelling saw her roll through the stop sign at Elm and Pine streets, said Glens Falls Police Sgt. Keith Knoop.
She was found to have a BAC of 0.18 percent, more than double the 0.08 percent threshold for DWI.
She was charged with aggravated DWI / DUI / Drunk driving.
Car driven through house by Drunk Driver:
“A car was in my room. I didn't even hear it. All I could hear was my sister screaming my name.” Said Julie La Hait.
That's what Julie La Hait awoke to from her bed just after three-thirty Saturday morning. Julie says her sister Ann Marie was frantic because the front end of a 2002 Toyota was in Ann Marie's bedroom and it had to pass through Julie's to get there.
Julie says her sister thought the car was on top of her, it wasn't but only by a few inches.
In the meantime the girl's mother Mary La Hait was awakened by the crash and the screams that followed. She soon realized the front of her home was gone and a car was inside.
“I came running out of my bedroom and all I could see was smoke because I seen the car and went to get Julie. I thought she was dead to be honest with you because I seen the car in the room,” said the mother.
By the time Mary got to Julie, the driver of the car twenty year old Dylan La Perle of Latham was out of the car and helping Julie get out of her bed. She says he was the only one who really could reach her.
Mary said La Perle hugged Julie and said sorry.
Aside from the extensive damage to the structure of the house the family lost many of their possessions, furniture, an aquarium and its fish, a computer. Julie says most of the belongings in her room were destroyed including Christmas gifts she had already purchased for her family.
“I had some angels here too some of them made it some of them didn't, but I did that's all that matters,” said Julie.
“I feel luckier than hitting the lottery. My kids are ok. If you seen it you can't believe they could survive it. It's unbelievable
6-30 years in prison if convicted of multiple DUI
San Diego DUI attorneys
A recent change in Illinois DUI state law that allows repeat DUI / DWI / drunk drivers to be eligible for the same punishment as killers, rapists and robbers.
Richard Haley and James Clark don't know each other, but in court records they share the same stigma: each has been arrested more than six times for drunk driving.
Haley, 37, of Westmont, is pending trial for his seventh and eighth arrests in 2006 in Aurora and Sugar Grove. His record dates to 1994, with six convictions, at least three coming in the Northwest suburbs, court records show.
Clark, of Aurora, is awaiting a trial for his seventh arrest early last year in Aurora. The 59-year-old has had six convictions since 1980, records show.
And because of a year-old change in Illinois' traffic laws, the charges against both men are now Class X felonies, which carry a sentencing of six to 30 years, if they are convicted at trial.
Before state lawmakers stiffened the penalties, which took effect Jan. 1, 2006, Haley and Clark would have been charged with misdemeanors, punishable by up to a year in the county's jail and fines.
That's what each received for their prior offenses, which date back to the 1980s and early 1990s, their court records show. Now, prosecutors say they've run out of ways to keep Haley and Clark off the road.
"Everything to date hasn't worked," said Steven Sims, an assistant Kane County state's attorney. "This is the one true safeguard that's going to keep them off the road."
The change in the state vehicle code made a conviction for a sixth offense of driving while intoxicated eligible for a sentence typically handed out for murder, rape and robbery.
Although the cases against Haley and Clark, whose attorneys could not be reached for comment, are the first of their kinds in Kane County, other counties have wielded the law, but with differences.
Since the change took effect, 90 people in Illinois have been convicted of a sixth offense for intoxicated driving, according to the secretary of state's office, which was a proponent of the law.
"We've gotten to the point where we can no longer tolerate this kind of conduct," Secretary of State Jesse White said.
As of Dec. 1, 37 people have been sent to state prison for six or more DUIs, according to the Illinois Department of Corrections.
The first case, in March 2006, resulted in a six-year sentence in DuPage County.
DuPage has since sent five more people to prison under the law.
Cook County used the law to send nine repeat offenders to prison, Winnebago County sent eight and Will County five, state records show. McHenry County has not used the law yet.
The longest sentence under the change was a 15-year prison stint in April in a downstate Jefferson County case, records show.
State Rep. Bill Black was the chief sponsor of the legislation. He said he was outraged drunken drivers were still on the roads, and he wanted them to pay a heavy price.
A recent change in Illinois DUI state law that allows repeat DUI / DWI / drunk drivers to be eligible for the same punishment as killers, rapists and robbers.
Richard Haley and James Clark don't know each other, but in court records they share the same stigma: each has been arrested more than six times for drunk driving.
Haley, 37, of Westmont, is pending trial for his seventh and eighth arrests in 2006 in Aurora and Sugar Grove. His record dates to 1994, with six convictions, at least three coming in the Northwest suburbs, court records show.
Clark, of Aurora, is awaiting a trial for his seventh arrest early last year in Aurora. The 59-year-old has had six convictions since 1980, records show.
And because of a year-old change in Illinois' traffic laws, the charges against both men are now Class X felonies, which carry a sentencing of six to 30 years, if they are convicted at trial.
Before state lawmakers stiffened the penalties, which took effect Jan. 1, 2006, Haley and Clark would have been charged with misdemeanors, punishable by up to a year in the county's jail and fines.
That's what each received for their prior offenses, which date back to the 1980s and early 1990s, their court records show. Now, prosecutors say they've run out of ways to keep Haley and Clark off the road.
"Everything to date hasn't worked," said Steven Sims, an assistant Kane County state's attorney. "This is the one true safeguard that's going to keep them off the road."
The change in the state vehicle code made a conviction for a sixth offense of driving while intoxicated eligible for a sentence typically handed out for murder, rape and robbery.
Although the cases against Haley and Clark, whose attorneys could not be reached for comment, are the first of their kinds in Kane County, other counties have wielded the law, but with differences.
Since the change took effect, 90 people in Illinois have been convicted of a sixth offense for intoxicated driving, according to the secretary of state's office, which was a proponent of the law.
"We've gotten to the point where we can no longer tolerate this kind of conduct," Secretary of State Jesse White said.
As of Dec. 1, 37 people have been sent to state prison for six or more DUIs, according to the Illinois Department of Corrections.
The first case, in March 2006, resulted in a six-year sentence in DuPage County.
DuPage has since sent five more people to prison under the law.
Cook County used the law to send nine repeat offenders to prison, Winnebago County sent eight and Will County five, state records show. McHenry County has not used the law yet.
The longest sentence under the change was a 15-year prison stint in April in a downstate Jefferson County case, records show.
State Rep. Bill Black was the chief sponsor of the legislation. He said he was outraged drunken drivers were still on the roads, and he wanted them to pay a heavy price.
Friday, December 07, 2007
Designated Drivers work to prevent California DUI cases
San Diego drunk driving defense attorney news - preventive drunk driving action
The Jacksonville Jaguars are one of six NFL teams being recognized for their large number of fans pledging to be designated drivers at home games this season, the TEAM Coalition (Techniques for Effective Alcohol Management) announced today. The Jaguars join the Baltimore Ravens, Chicago Bears, Detroit Lions, San Diego Chargers and Washington Redskins in this prestigious ranking to help save lives on our nation's highways.
At the Jaguars home game against the Carolina Panthers, Sunday, Dec. 9, TEAM Coalition will recognize the Jaguars and their fans at a pregame ceremony for their continued effort to make our roadways safe. Representatives of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), Anheuser-Busch, Ovations and Levy Restaurants will join TEAM at the event.
"We want the game-day experience to continue to be safe and enjoyable for Jaguars fans at Jacksonville Municipal Stadium and as they travel home after the games," said Bill Prescott, Jaguars Senior Vice President of Stadium Operations & CFO. "We are proud of our fans' commitment to responsible behavior and are thrilled to reward them with such a great opportunity."
Through the Anheuser-Busch Good Sport program, more than 6,000 Jaguars fans promised to refrain from drinking and be the designated drivers to get their friends and family home safely from Jacksonville Municipal Stadium this season. TEAM Coalition has been aggressively promoting designated-driver programs like Good Sport at NFL stadiums since 2003 with a league-wide campaign called Responsibility Has Its Rewards. The campaign encourages fans to participate in designated-driver programs supported by beer and concessionaire companies at every NFL stadium nationwide.
"Tying the Responsibility Has Its Rewards promotion to our season-long Good Sport program makes for a winning combination," said Carol Clark, vice president of Corporate Social Responsibility for Anheuser-Busch. "We are pleased to join with TEAM and the other program partners to help promote responsible drinking and recognize those fans who make designated drivers a part of their game plan. When it comes to preventing drunk driving, we are all part of the team."
During the 2006 NFL season, more than 100,000 football fans planned ahead and made the responsible, winning play by pledging to be designated drivers. This season, the league-wide total is estimated to be 110,000.
"This promotion is an opportunity for the NFL to show support for the teams' efforts in coordination with the concessionaire, brewer and beer wholesaler to encourage responsible fan behavior," said Jill Pepper, executive director of the TEAM Coalition. "And for the fans, it's a great reminder that responsibility really does have its rewards."
One lucky Jaguars fan will be selected by TEAM Coalition as the Jaguars Designated Driver of the Season. If the Jaguars make it all the way to the Super Bowl®, that fan will join them at Super Bowl XLII® which will be played on February 3, 2008 at University of Phoenix Stadium in Arizona. In addition, one designated driver who is a fan of an NFL team that does not play in the Super Bowl® will be chosen at random to attend the 2008 NFL Pro Bowl® in Honolulu. The winner of that prize will be selected by TEAM Coalition through a random drawing after the NFC and AFC Champions are determined.
Recognition of the Jaguars fans' commitment to designated drivers coincides with FDOT's enforcement crackdown on drunk drivers, called Drunk Driving: Over the Limit. Under Arrest.
"We want to congratulate the Jaguars and their fans and remind everyone that true football Fans Don't Let Fans Drive Drunk," said Randall Smith, Traffic Safety Administrator for FDOT. "If you plan on consuming alcohol, whether you are at the game or watching from a house party or sports bar, pass your keys to a designated driver before the pre-game begins. We commend all the Responsibility Has Its Rewards campaign partners for creating such a fantastic incentive for fans who make the responsible decision to designate a driver."
Fortunately, football fans join millions of other Americans in doing the "ride thing." According to a recent survey conducted by Nielsen Media Research, 154 million American adults have been a designated driver or been driven home by one.
TEAM Coalition -- an alliance of professional and collegiate sports, entertainment facilities, concessionaires, the beer industry, broadcasters, governmental traffic safety experts and others working together to promote responsible drinking and positive fan behavior at sports facilities -- coordinated Responsibility Has Its Rewards.
For more information, please visit www.teamcoalition.org or www.rhir.org.
The Jacksonville Jaguars are one of six NFL teams being recognized for their large number of fans pledging to be designated drivers at home games this season, the TEAM Coalition (Techniques for Effective Alcohol Management) announced today. The Jaguars join the Baltimore Ravens, Chicago Bears, Detroit Lions, San Diego Chargers and Washington Redskins in this prestigious ranking to help save lives on our nation's highways.
At the Jaguars home game against the Carolina Panthers, Sunday, Dec. 9, TEAM Coalition will recognize the Jaguars and their fans at a pregame ceremony for their continued effort to make our roadways safe. Representatives of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), Anheuser-Busch, Ovations and Levy Restaurants will join TEAM at the event.
"We want the game-day experience to continue to be safe and enjoyable for Jaguars fans at Jacksonville Municipal Stadium and as they travel home after the games," said Bill Prescott, Jaguars Senior Vice President of Stadium Operations & CFO. "We are proud of our fans' commitment to responsible behavior and are thrilled to reward them with such a great opportunity."
Through the Anheuser-Busch Good Sport program, more than 6,000 Jaguars fans promised to refrain from drinking and be the designated drivers to get their friends and family home safely from Jacksonville Municipal Stadium this season. TEAM Coalition has been aggressively promoting designated-driver programs like Good Sport at NFL stadiums since 2003 with a league-wide campaign called Responsibility Has Its Rewards. The campaign encourages fans to participate in designated-driver programs supported by beer and concessionaire companies at every NFL stadium nationwide.
"Tying the Responsibility Has Its Rewards promotion to our season-long Good Sport program makes for a winning combination," said Carol Clark, vice president of Corporate Social Responsibility for Anheuser-Busch. "We are pleased to join with TEAM and the other program partners to help promote responsible drinking and recognize those fans who make designated drivers a part of their game plan. When it comes to preventing drunk driving, we are all part of the team."
During the 2006 NFL season, more than 100,000 football fans planned ahead and made the responsible, winning play by pledging to be designated drivers. This season, the league-wide total is estimated to be 110,000.
"This promotion is an opportunity for the NFL to show support for the teams' efforts in coordination with the concessionaire, brewer and beer wholesaler to encourage responsible fan behavior," said Jill Pepper, executive director of the TEAM Coalition. "And for the fans, it's a great reminder that responsibility really does have its rewards."
One lucky Jaguars fan will be selected by TEAM Coalition as the Jaguars Designated Driver of the Season. If the Jaguars make it all the way to the Super Bowl®, that fan will join them at Super Bowl XLII® which will be played on February 3, 2008 at University of Phoenix Stadium in Arizona. In addition, one designated driver who is a fan of an NFL team that does not play in the Super Bowl® will be chosen at random to attend the 2008 NFL Pro Bowl® in Honolulu. The winner of that prize will be selected by TEAM Coalition through a random drawing after the NFC and AFC Champions are determined.
Recognition of the Jaguars fans' commitment to designated drivers coincides with FDOT's enforcement crackdown on drunk drivers, called Drunk Driving: Over the Limit. Under Arrest.
"We want to congratulate the Jaguars and their fans and remind everyone that true football Fans Don't Let Fans Drive Drunk," said Randall Smith, Traffic Safety Administrator for FDOT. "If you plan on consuming alcohol, whether you are at the game or watching from a house party or sports bar, pass your keys to a designated driver before the pre-game begins. We commend all the Responsibility Has Its Rewards campaign partners for creating such a fantastic incentive for fans who make the responsible decision to designate a driver."
Fortunately, football fans join millions of other Americans in doing the "ride thing." According to a recent survey conducted by Nielsen Media Research, 154 million American adults have been a designated driver or been driven home by one.
TEAM Coalition -- an alliance of professional and collegiate sports, entertainment facilities, concessionaires, the beer industry, broadcasters, governmental traffic safety experts and others working together to promote responsible drinking and positive fan behavior at sports facilities -- coordinated Responsibility Has Its Rewards.
For more information, please visit www.teamcoalition.org or www.rhir.org.
License suspended if test within 3 hours of Canadian Drunk Driving
San Diego Drunk Driving Criminal Defense Lawyer news
A bill to "crack down on impaired drivers":
Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation's media release for an amendment to the Traffic Safety Act says Bill 49 cracks down on Drunk Driving / DWI / DUI / impaired driving by considering breathalyzer readings taken up to three hours after driving to be the same as they would at the time of driving.
The release fails to mention the people "considering" breathalyzer results aren't cops or judges, but rather Alberta's Transportation Safety Board.
The TSB is not involved in the prosecution of drunk drivers; their role is to enforce or overturn the automatic 90-day driving suspensions handed out when people are charged with impaired driving.
Johnson, a former TSB member, said his bill aims to lessen the burden on TSB officials dealing with an increasing number of appeals of driving suspensions - many of which he said are based on an irksome technicality.
"This bill has nothing to do with police and has no bearing in criminal cases against people charged with impaired driving.
"It was written because the (TSB) was getting too many appeals from people whose breathalyzers were taken after the previous two-hour limit. Extending the time limit to three hours should stop all those appeals."
Edmonton defence lawyer Paul Moreau specializes in impaired driving cases and said Bill 49 looks like political back-scratching.
"This only benefits the Transportation Safety Board," he said. "It might make it a little harder to get your suspension overturned on a time-limit technicality, but the truth is, the TSB rarely grants those appeals anyway.
"The government is trying to make it sound like they're cracking down on drunk driving, but really this is just a little bit of nothing."
Edmonton's top traffic cop Staff Sgt. Bill Horne said his first reaction upon hearing of the new bill was confusion.
"I don't think this has anything to do with the prosecution of these individuals, just the TSB's involvement when licences are suspended for 90 days. I wouldn't exactly call that a crackdown."
A bill to "crack down on impaired drivers":
Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation's media release for an amendment to the Traffic Safety Act says Bill 49 cracks down on Drunk Driving / DWI / DUI / impaired driving by considering breathalyzer readings taken up to three hours after driving to be the same as they would at the time of driving.
The release fails to mention the people "considering" breathalyzer results aren't cops or judges, but rather Alberta's Transportation Safety Board.
The TSB is not involved in the prosecution of drunk drivers; their role is to enforce or overturn the automatic 90-day driving suspensions handed out when people are charged with impaired driving.
Johnson, a former TSB member, said his bill aims to lessen the burden on TSB officials dealing with an increasing number of appeals of driving suspensions - many of which he said are based on an irksome technicality.
"This bill has nothing to do with police and has no bearing in criminal cases against people charged with impaired driving.
"It was written because the (TSB) was getting too many appeals from people whose breathalyzers were taken after the previous two-hour limit. Extending the time limit to three hours should stop all those appeals."
Edmonton defence lawyer Paul Moreau specializes in impaired driving cases and said Bill 49 looks like political back-scratching.
"This only benefits the Transportation Safety Board," he said. "It might make it a little harder to get your suspension overturned on a time-limit technicality, but the truth is, the TSB rarely grants those appeals anyway.
"The government is trying to make it sound like they're cracking down on drunk driving, but really this is just a little bit of nothing."
Edmonton's top traffic cop Staff Sgt. Bill Horne said his first reaction upon hearing of the new bill was confusion.
"I don't think this has anything to do with the prosecution of these individuals, just the TSB's involvement when licences are suspended for 90 days. I wouldn't exactly call that a crackdown."
Santa Clause to parachute against DUI / DWI / Drunk Driving
San Diego DUI criminal defense attorney news
In the company of six elite U.S. Air Force paratroopers, Santa
Claus donned a parachute and jumped from a helicopter this week in a
high-flying effort to remind Texans not to drink and drive during the
upcoming holiday season. State and local safety advocates called on
the man of the hour to launch TxDOT's annual four-week drunk driving
prevention campaign.
The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is partnering with
Lackland Air Force Base and other active military installations to
encourage Texans to plan ahead and designate a sober driver when their
celebrations include alcohol. Military officers called attention to
their "Wingman" program, which asks airmen and other base personnel to
designate a sober driver before they drink alcohol during off-time.
"Our wish list includes a safe holiday season for everyone," said
Terry Pence, TxDOT's traffic safety director. "We're reminding drivers
to celebrate responsibly and let someone else drive if they've been
drinking. Our advice is simple: designate a sober driver in advance or
call a cab to get home safely."
Law enforcement throughout Texas also is participating in the push
to deter drunk driving. From December 21 until January 1, state and
local law enforcement agencies will be working overtime to enforce the
state's drunk driving laws. Penalties for a first-time DWI offense
include driver's license suspension for up to one year, a fine of up
to $2,000 and up to six months in jail.
This marks the tenth year of TxDOT's holiday public education
campaign, which uses festive television and radio commercials,
billboards along interstate highways and ads at gas stations and
convenience stores to deliver the responsible driving message. The
public education initiative extends through New Year's Day.
Texas leads the nation when it comes to the number of traffic
fatalities where the driver or motorcycle operator was legally drunk.
Last year 1,677 people died in alcohol-related crashes in Texas.
In the company of six elite U.S. Air Force paratroopers, Santa
Claus donned a parachute and jumped from a helicopter this week in a
high-flying effort to remind Texans not to drink and drive during the
upcoming holiday season. State and local safety advocates called on
the man of the hour to launch TxDOT's annual four-week drunk driving
prevention campaign.
The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is partnering with
Lackland Air Force Base and other active military installations to
encourage Texans to plan ahead and designate a sober driver when their
celebrations include alcohol. Military officers called attention to
their "Wingman" program, which asks airmen and other base personnel to
designate a sober driver before they drink alcohol during off-time.
"Our wish list includes a safe holiday season for everyone," said
Terry Pence, TxDOT's traffic safety director. "We're reminding drivers
to celebrate responsibly and let someone else drive if they've been
drinking. Our advice is simple: designate a sober driver in advance or
call a cab to get home safely."
Law enforcement throughout Texas also is participating in the push
to deter drunk driving. From December 21 until January 1, state and
local law enforcement agencies will be working overtime to enforce the
state's drunk driving laws. Penalties for a first-time DWI offense
include driver's license suspension for up to one year, a fine of up
to $2,000 and up to six months in jail.
This marks the tenth year of TxDOT's holiday public education
campaign, which uses festive television and radio commercials,
billboards along interstate highways and ads at gas stations and
convenience stores to deliver the responsible driving message. The
public education initiative extends through New Year's Day.
Texas leads the nation when it comes to the number of traffic
fatalities where the driver or motorcycle operator was legally drunk.
Last year 1,677 people died in alcohol-related crashes in Texas.
San Diego DUI criminal defense lawyer news
Ford Motor Company of Canada is being urged by MADD Canada to replace Kiefer Sutherland as the voice behind their advertisements now that the actor is in jail for a California DUI drunk driving conviction.
Sutherland, the star of "24," is serving a 48-day sentence in a California prison after pleading no-contest in October to California DUI driving with a blood-alcohol level above the legal limit of .08.
The Canadian actor was pulled over after leaving a Hollywood party on Sept. 25.
Sutherland was already on probation following a California DUI drunken-driving arrest in 2004. In 1993, Sutherland was convicted of alcohol-related reckless driving.
Andrew Murie, CEO of Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada, said Ford should view the California DUI conviction as a wake-up call.
"Obviously as a company they're against drunk driving, so why are they continuing to have somebody speak on behalf of their products that now has been convicted... of impaired driving?" Ford purportedly eeds to use people that uphold society's standards.
"Literally, there's thousands of people out there that meet the moral standards of our society today that would love to have that kind of endorsement contract and they should be honoured for their ethical behaviour," he said.
Murie said Sutherland, as a celebrity, could have easily afforded to have a personal driver or limousine take him home.
Ford Canada spokesperson Gina Gellert said the company is monitoring the situation but that Sutherland's voice will continue to be used.
Under the terms of his plea, the Emmy winning actor will have to serve all 48 days in jail. He also must serve 60 months probation, pay a $510 fine, enroll in an 18-month California DUI alcohol-education class and attend weekly alcohol-therapy sessions for six months.
Ford Motor Company of Canada is being urged by MADD Canada to replace Kiefer Sutherland as the voice behind their advertisements now that the actor is in jail for a California DUI drunk driving conviction.
Sutherland, the star of "24," is serving a 48-day sentence in a California prison after pleading no-contest in October to California DUI driving with a blood-alcohol level above the legal limit of .08.
The Canadian actor was pulled over after leaving a Hollywood party on Sept. 25.
Sutherland was already on probation following a California DUI drunken-driving arrest in 2004. In 1993, Sutherland was convicted of alcohol-related reckless driving.
Andrew Murie, CEO of Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada, said Ford should view the California DUI conviction as a wake-up call.
"Obviously as a company they're against drunk driving, so why are they continuing to have somebody speak on behalf of their products that now has been convicted... of impaired driving?" Ford purportedly eeds to use people that uphold society's standards.
"Literally, there's thousands of people out there that meet the moral standards of our society today that would love to have that kind of endorsement contract and they should be honoured for their ethical behaviour," he said.
Murie said Sutherland, as a celebrity, could have easily afforded to have a personal driver or limousine take him home.
Ford Canada spokesperson Gina Gellert said the company is monitoring the situation but that Sutherland's voice will continue to be used.
Under the terms of his plea, the Emmy winning actor will have to serve all 48 days in jail. He also must serve 60 months probation, pay a $510 fine, enroll in an 18-month California DUI alcohol-education class and attend weekly alcohol-therapy sessions for six months.
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Doctor Shopping for prescription San Diego DUI lady
San diego dui lawyer news
December 6, 2007
Doctor shopping
EL CAJON California– A Ramona woman arrested five times since May on a California DUI - drugged-driving charges pleaded not guilty in El Cajon Superior Court Thursday to prescription fraud and burglary.
Tiffany Anne Adamo went “doctor shopping” to obtain prescriptions from at least seven doctors between May and October for over 1,400 pills that included painkillers, sleeping pills and a muscle relaxant, star Deputy District Attorney Victor Barr told a judge.
The top DUI prosecutor said Adamo went from one doctor to the next, complaining of back pain without telling any of the doctors that she was already being treated for the injury and had been prescribed medication.
Adamo, 26, pleaded not guilty Thursday to six counts of prescription fraud, six counts of burglary and a felony drugged-driving charge. The burglary charges are for entering pharmacies to obtain drugs by fraud, Barr said.
Judge Patricia K. Cookson set a Dec. 20 hearing scheduled to determine if there is sufficient evidence for a trial. Adamo is being held in jail in lieu of $1 million bail.
Defense attorney A. King Aminpour said outside the courtroom that Adamo became addicted to painkillers after she was prescribed the medication for lower back pain she suffered from a car crash two years ago.
“She's anxious to take accountability and do what's appropriate and fair given the unique circumstances of her case,” Aminpour said. “She's anxious to start some type of rehabilitation program so that she can guarantee her physical health and well-being and to make sure she doesn't present a risk to herself and her community.”
Adamo pleaded guilty Nov. 15 to three misdemeanor charges of driving under the influence of drugs. She has been charged with felony drugged driving for an Oct. 13 incident in which police said she pinned a 7-year-old boy against his mother's car, then tried to drive away.
Adamo Thursday pleaded not guilty to a second felony drugged-driving charge for an Oct. 10 incident in which Barr said Adamo was found in the driver's seat of her car on a sidewalk in La Mesa.
“She was rushed to a hospital and placed on a respirator for a drug overdose,” Barr said.
If convicted of all charges, Adamo faces a maximum penalty of eight years and eight months in prison, Barr said outside the courtroom.
Despite the multiple drugged-driving arrests, Aminpour said prison wasn't warranted because Adamo has no prior criminal record.
“This is really not your run-of-the-mill DUI (driving under the influence), drug offending, junkie user,” Aminpour said. “It's not and it shouldn't be treated as such.”
December 6, 2007
Doctor shopping
EL CAJON California– A Ramona woman arrested five times since May on a California DUI - drugged-driving charges pleaded not guilty in El Cajon Superior Court Thursday to prescription fraud and burglary.
Tiffany Anne Adamo went “doctor shopping” to obtain prescriptions from at least seven doctors between May and October for over 1,400 pills that included painkillers, sleeping pills and a muscle relaxant, star Deputy District Attorney Victor Barr told a judge.
The top DUI prosecutor said Adamo went from one doctor to the next, complaining of back pain without telling any of the doctors that she was already being treated for the injury and had been prescribed medication.
Adamo, 26, pleaded not guilty Thursday to six counts of prescription fraud, six counts of burglary and a felony drugged-driving charge. The burglary charges are for entering pharmacies to obtain drugs by fraud, Barr said.
Judge Patricia K. Cookson set a Dec. 20 hearing scheduled to determine if there is sufficient evidence for a trial. Adamo is being held in jail in lieu of $1 million bail.
Defense attorney A. King Aminpour said outside the courtroom that Adamo became addicted to painkillers after she was prescribed the medication for lower back pain she suffered from a car crash two years ago.
“She's anxious to take accountability and do what's appropriate and fair given the unique circumstances of her case,” Aminpour said. “She's anxious to start some type of rehabilitation program so that she can guarantee her physical health and well-being and to make sure she doesn't present a risk to herself and her community.”
Adamo pleaded guilty Nov. 15 to three misdemeanor charges of driving under the influence of drugs. She has been charged with felony drugged driving for an Oct. 13 incident in which police said she pinned a 7-year-old boy against his mother's car, then tried to drive away.
Adamo Thursday pleaded not guilty to a second felony drugged-driving charge for an Oct. 10 incident in which Barr said Adamo was found in the driver's seat of her car on a sidewalk in La Mesa.
“She was rushed to a hospital and placed on a respirator for a drug overdose,” Barr said.
If convicted of all charges, Adamo faces a maximum penalty of eight years and eight months in prison, Barr said outside the courtroom.
Despite the multiple drugged-driving arrests, Aminpour said prison wasn't warranted because Adamo has no prior criminal record.
“This is really not your run-of-the-mill DUI (driving under the influence), drug offending, junkie user,” Aminpour said. “It's not and it shouldn't be treated as such.”
Longer Bar Hours Could Mean Less DUI cases
San Diego Drunk Driving Criminal Defense Attorney news
Quebec bar owners are lobbying the province to extend business hours until 6 a.m. to help reduce drunk driving and avoid end-of-the-night brawls.
The Quebec Bar Owners' Association said its request doesn't involve legislating drinking until dawn. Rather, it would allow establishments to stay open well past the 3 a.m. last call to allow people to sober up.
"People could continue to dance and have fun, and then we could close at five or six o'clock," said Renaud Poulin, president of the bar association, which counts more than 2,000 members across the province.
The idea would be to keep people from driving drunk, because they would have time to dance off their indulgences and sober up in the bar before heading home.
The idea could cut brawls that spill out onto the street when final call comes and goes, Poulin said. "When we put everyone outside at the same time, that's when we have conflicts. When people can leave in a gradual fashion, that's when we eliminate problems."
The association is meeting with Quebec minister of public security Jacques Dupuis next week to discuss the plan.
Quebec has the latest last call in Canada. In Alberta and Ontario, last call is 2 a.m., with the latter province granting special permission to close at 4 a.m. for special events.
Last call times vary wildly in the U.S. In Nevada and New Orleans there are no closing times, and bars can stay open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. New York 's last call is 4 a.m.
Quebec bar owners are lobbying the province to extend business hours until 6 a.m. to help reduce drunk driving and avoid end-of-the-night brawls.
The Quebec Bar Owners' Association said its request doesn't involve legislating drinking until dawn. Rather, it would allow establishments to stay open well past the 3 a.m. last call to allow people to sober up.
"People could continue to dance and have fun, and then we could close at five or six o'clock," said Renaud Poulin, president of the bar association, which counts more than 2,000 members across the province.
The idea would be to keep people from driving drunk, because they would have time to dance off their indulgences and sober up in the bar before heading home.
The idea could cut brawls that spill out onto the street when final call comes and goes, Poulin said. "When we put everyone outside at the same time, that's when we have conflicts. When people can leave in a gradual fashion, that's when we eliminate problems."
The association is meeting with Quebec minister of public security Jacques Dupuis next week to discuss the plan.
Quebec has the latest last call in Canada. In Alberta and Ontario, last call is 2 a.m., with the latter province granting special permission to close at 4 a.m. for special events.
Last call times vary wildly in the U.S. In Nevada and New Orleans there are no closing times, and bars can stay open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. New York 's last call is 4 a.m.
Drunk Irish Tourist to take the bus after DUI camper crash
San Diego DUI criminal defense lawyer news
An Irish tourist forced to abandon plans to drive around Australia after losing his licence for drunk driving in Adelaide, says he was sick of driving anyway.
Dubliner Barry John Nicholson, 24, was over the limit while driving a campervan nearly two kilometres along Adelaide's O-Bahn busway on Tuesday, before crashing into the side of the guided concrete tracks.
A crane was needed to remove the wreckage and the busway - on which cars are banned and is separated from normal roads - was closed for two hours after the accident.
The campervan was written off and police charged Nicholson with drink driving after he returned a blood alcohol reading of 0.154 - more than three times the legal limit.
Nicholson pleaded guilty on Thursday to drink driving in the Adelaide Magistrates Court and apologised for causing the accident.
"I know what I did was wrong and I'm glad no one was hurt," Nicholson told Magistrate Grantley Harris.
"It was stupid."
The court heard Nicholson told police he had had two full strength drinks in the 12 hours before the accident and had ignored clear `bus only' signs at the busway entrance.
When asked by Mr Harris why his blood alcohol reading was so high, Nicholson replied: "I was drinking wine".
Mr Harris, who described the crash as an "extraordinary incident", suspended Nicholson's international drivers licence for a year and fined him $750 plus $216 in court costs.
Outside the court, Nicholson said he became confused when he entered the busway and was embarrassed at the attention the accident attracted.
"We were right behind the bus and we were following the bus and we didn't realise until we ended up on the road," he said.
Nicholson said he had arrived in Australia in September for a year-long holiday and had spent time in Perth and Adelaide, but now had to take the bus to Melbourne.
"It's not too bad because I'm only here for another nine months," he said.
"I'm sick of driving anyway."
An Irish tourist forced to abandon plans to drive around Australia after losing his licence for drunk driving in Adelaide, says he was sick of driving anyway.
Dubliner Barry John Nicholson, 24, was over the limit while driving a campervan nearly two kilometres along Adelaide's O-Bahn busway on Tuesday, before crashing into the side of the guided concrete tracks.
A crane was needed to remove the wreckage and the busway - on which cars are banned and is separated from normal roads - was closed for two hours after the accident.
The campervan was written off and police charged Nicholson with drink driving after he returned a blood alcohol reading of 0.154 - more than three times the legal limit.
Nicholson pleaded guilty on Thursday to drink driving in the Adelaide Magistrates Court and apologised for causing the accident.
"I know what I did was wrong and I'm glad no one was hurt," Nicholson told Magistrate Grantley Harris.
"It was stupid."
The court heard Nicholson told police he had had two full strength drinks in the 12 hours before the accident and had ignored clear `bus only' signs at the busway entrance.
When asked by Mr Harris why his blood alcohol reading was so high, Nicholson replied: "I was drinking wine".
Mr Harris, who described the crash as an "extraordinary incident", suspended Nicholson's international drivers licence for a year and fined him $750 plus $216 in court costs.
Outside the court, Nicholson said he became confused when he entered the busway and was embarrassed at the attention the accident attracted.
"We were right behind the bus and we were following the bus and we didn't realise until we ended up on the road," he said.
Nicholson said he had arrived in Australia in September for a year-long holiday and had spent time in Perth and Adelaide, but now had to take the bus to Melbourne.
"It's not too bad because I'm only here for another nine months," he said.
"I'm sick of driving anyway."
NBA Coach R.J. Adelman arrested for DUI
DUI lawyer news - trouble in Houston : Drunk Driving attorney needed
December 6, 2007
HOUSTON Rockets assistant coach R.J. Adelman, the son of head coach Rick Adelman, has been charged with DUI / drunk driving, according to a television news report.
Police stopped R.J. Adelman on Nov. 19 for speeding and found alcohol containers in his car, it was allegedly reported Wednesday night.
The team said Adelman was taking a leave of absence to get professional help.
"Our concern is for R.J.'s well being during this very challenging personal time," Rockets general manager Daryl Morey said in a statement. "We are grateful that nobody was injured. R.J. has taken a leave of absence from the team in order to seek professional assistance. Out of respect for him and his family, we will refrain from future public comments regarding his situation."
Police administered a DWI breath test and a DUI field sobriety test, leading to R.J. Adelman's arrest. He was later released on $500 bond.
A Houston police spokesman could not immediately confirm Adelman's arrest.
R.J. Adelman is in his first season with the Rockets and is focused on advance scouting operations, according to a biography on the Rockets Web site.
He also worked for the Seattle SuperSonics and Sacramento Kings. He played four years for the Willamette University and has also earned a law degree.
December 6, 2007
HOUSTON Rockets assistant coach R.J. Adelman, the son of head coach Rick Adelman, has been charged with DUI / drunk driving, according to a television news report.
Police stopped R.J. Adelman on Nov. 19 for speeding and found alcohol containers in his car, it was allegedly reported Wednesday night.
The team said Adelman was taking a leave of absence to get professional help.
"Our concern is for R.J.'s well being during this very challenging personal time," Rockets general manager Daryl Morey said in a statement. "We are grateful that nobody was injured. R.J. has taken a leave of absence from the team in order to seek professional assistance. Out of respect for him and his family, we will refrain from future public comments regarding his situation."
Police administered a DWI breath test and a DUI field sobriety test, leading to R.J. Adelman's arrest. He was later released on $500 bond.
A Houston police spokesman could not immediately confirm Adelman's arrest.
R.J. Adelman is in his first season with the Rockets and is focused on advance scouting operations, according to a biography on the Rockets Web site.
He also worked for the Seattle SuperSonics and Sacramento Kings. He played four years for the Willamette University and has also earned a law degree.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
DWI cases to be reviewed, maybe dismissed - 1 ouf 83 dropped
Drunk driving criminal defense lawyers
A first of its kind appeal was heard in New Hanover County, North Carolina court Tuesday.
A DWI / dui case from last January is being appealed by the District Attorney's office.
The case is one of 83 in the county that had been dismissed because magistrates booking DWI / drunk driving suspects didn't submit a required form.
If the District Attorney's office wins the appeal dozens of cases thrown out earlier in the year may be prosecuted in court after all.
A first of its kind appeal was heard in New Hanover County, North Carolina court Tuesday.
A DWI / dui case from last January is being appealed by the District Attorney's office.
The case is one of 83 in the county that had been dismissed because magistrates booking DWI / drunk driving suspects didn't submit a required form.
If the District Attorney's office wins the appeal dozens of cases thrown out earlier in the year may be prosecuted in court after all.
Santa Claus used to fight DUI & drunk driving
DUI defense attorney news
Santa Claus is used to being at high altitudes in his sleigh. But this Tuesday morning in San Antonio, Texas, he was in a plane -- until he jumped out.
Thankfully, he was wearing a parachute.
In the company of three members of the 342nd training squad, Santa took a dive over Lackland Air Force Base to remind people not to drink and drive this holiday season.
The event was part of TxDoT's four-week "drunk driving-prevention" campaign.
Santa landed safely on his feet, and wants you to do the same once the season's over.
And just a sobering reminder: Texas leads the nation in the number of DWI-related traffic fatalities.
From Dec. 21 until Jan. 1, state and local law enforcement agencies will be working overtime enforcing the state drunk-driving laws.
Santa Claus is used to being at high altitudes in his sleigh. But this Tuesday morning in San Antonio, Texas, he was in a plane -- until he jumped out.
Thankfully, he was wearing a parachute.
In the company of three members of the 342nd training squad, Santa took a dive over Lackland Air Force Base to remind people not to drink and drive this holiday season.
The event was part of TxDoT's four-week "drunk driving-prevention" campaign.
Santa landed safely on his feet, and wants you to do the same once the season's over.
And just a sobering reminder: Texas leads the nation in the number of DWI-related traffic fatalities.
From Dec. 21 until Jan. 1, state and local law enforcement agencies will be working overtime enforcing the state drunk-driving laws.
Teens driving drugged not just drunk (DUI)
San Diego criminal defense DUI lawyer
A recent study has revealed that teens are just as likely to drive under the influence of marijuana as alcohol. With as many as 9,000 16- and 17-year-old drivers getting behind the wheel of a car each day, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) is working with Students Against Destructive Decisions (SADD) to warn parents of the prevalence and dangers of drugged and drunk driving.
Driving-age teenagers have the highest overall crash rates of any age group, and traffic crashes are the leading cause of death for 15- to 20-year-olds. Drug and alcohol use compound teens' crash risks. Research shows that 13 percent of high school seniors reported driving while high on marijuana. That's nearly equivalent to those who reported driving drunk (14 percent), even though far more teens report using alcohol (17 percent) than marijuana (7 percent) in the last 30 days. Additionally, one-third of high school seniors said that in the last two weeks, they drove after drinking heavily or using drugs, or rode in a car whose driver had been drinking heavily or using drugs.
"Parents need to realize that drugged driving is nearly as common today among teens as drunk driving," said Scott Burns, Deputy Director, National Drug Control Policy. "Marijuana impairs many of the skills required for safe driving, such as concentration, coordination, perception, and reaction time, and these effects can last up to 24 hours after using. It is critical that parents know the dangers associated with drugged driving and are vigilant in monitoring their teen drivers."
Many teens underestimate the risks associated with driving. For example, more than one in four teens believes that speeding, talking on a cell phone while driving, and not wearing a safety belt are safe, according to a SADD/Liberty Mutual survey.
"Research from SADD and Liberty Mutual Group reveals that, while teens say that text messaging is their biggest distraction while driving, more than one in five engages in this dangerous behavior," said Stephen Wallace, chairman and chief executive officer of SADD. "For teens, knowing about the risk is only the first step. Parents need to set clear rules about driving behaviors -- and enforce them."
SADD's study confirms that parents can make a difference. Nearly 60 percent of teens who drive say their parents have the most influence on their driving, and teens whose parents enforce penalties for driving law infractions are less likely to practice risky driving behaviors than teens whose parents do not enforce penalties.
During "National Drunk and Drugged Driving Prevention Month" this December and throughout the year, the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign is providing parents with information about the risks of impaired driving. The Campaign encourages parents to discuss the harmful effects of drug use and drugged driving with their teens. Parents can visit http://www.theantidrug.com/, for resources, advice, and free materials on this topic.
Parents are the most important influence on their teen when it comes to risky behaviors, including dangerous driving. Parents can take action to keep their teens safe with these simple steps:
-- Set clear rules and enforce consequences against any drug or alcohol
use at any time;
-- Know where their teen is going and what route they are using to get
there; and,
-- Reinforce safe driving practices by driving together, and being a good
role model.
Since its inception in 1998, the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign has conducted outreach to millions of parents, teens, and communities to reduce and prevent teen drug use. Counting on an unprecedented blend of public and private partnerships, non-profit community service organizations, volunteerism, and youth-to-youth communications, the Campaign is designed to reach Americans of diverse backgrounds with effective anti-drug messages.
For more information on the ONDCP National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign,
visit http://www.mediacampaign.org/
A recent study has revealed that teens are just as likely to drive under the influence of marijuana as alcohol. With as many as 9,000 16- and 17-year-old drivers getting behind the wheel of a car each day, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) is working with Students Against Destructive Decisions (SADD) to warn parents of the prevalence and dangers of drugged and drunk driving.
Driving-age teenagers have the highest overall crash rates of any age group, and traffic crashes are the leading cause of death for 15- to 20-year-olds. Drug and alcohol use compound teens' crash risks. Research shows that 13 percent of high school seniors reported driving while high on marijuana. That's nearly equivalent to those who reported driving drunk (14 percent), even though far more teens report using alcohol (17 percent) than marijuana (7 percent) in the last 30 days. Additionally, one-third of high school seniors said that in the last two weeks, they drove after drinking heavily or using drugs, or rode in a car whose driver had been drinking heavily or using drugs.
"Parents need to realize that drugged driving is nearly as common today among teens as drunk driving," said Scott Burns, Deputy Director, National Drug Control Policy. "Marijuana impairs many of the skills required for safe driving, such as concentration, coordination, perception, and reaction time, and these effects can last up to 24 hours after using. It is critical that parents know the dangers associated with drugged driving and are vigilant in monitoring their teen drivers."
Many teens underestimate the risks associated with driving. For example, more than one in four teens believes that speeding, talking on a cell phone while driving, and not wearing a safety belt are safe, according to a SADD/Liberty Mutual survey.
"Research from SADD and Liberty Mutual Group reveals that, while teens say that text messaging is their biggest distraction while driving, more than one in five engages in this dangerous behavior," said Stephen Wallace, chairman and chief executive officer of SADD. "For teens, knowing about the risk is only the first step. Parents need to set clear rules about driving behaviors -- and enforce them."
SADD's study confirms that parents can make a difference. Nearly 60 percent of teens who drive say their parents have the most influence on their driving, and teens whose parents enforce penalties for driving law infractions are less likely to practice risky driving behaviors than teens whose parents do not enforce penalties.
During "National Drunk and Drugged Driving Prevention Month" this December and throughout the year, the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign is providing parents with information about the risks of impaired driving. The Campaign encourages parents to discuss the harmful effects of drug use and drugged driving with their teens. Parents can visit http://www.theantidrug.com/, for resources, advice, and free materials on this topic.
Parents are the most important influence on their teen when it comes to risky behaviors, including dangerous driving. Parents can take action to keep their teens safe with these simple steps:
-- Set clear rules and enforce consequences against any drug or alcohol
use at any time;
-- Know where their teen is going and what route they are using to get
there; and,
-- Reinforce safe driving practices by driving together, and being a good
role model.
Since its inception in 1998, the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign has conducted outreach to millions of parents, teens, and communities to reduce and prevent teen drug use. Counting on an unprecedented blend of public and private partnerships, non-profit community service organizations, volunteerism, and youth-to-youth communications, the Campaign is designed to reach Americans of diverse backgrounds with effective anti-drug messages.
For more information on the ONDCP National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign,
visit http://www.mediacampaign.org/
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
45 years in prison for DUI driver killing 2 folks
San Diego DUI attorney news
A man who struck and killed two people with his pick-up truck while intoxicated was sentenced to 45 years in prison by a jury today.
Eduardo Sandoval, 35, was found guilty Monday on two counts of murder in the March 14 deaths of Amanda Carrasco, 24, and James Michael "Mike" Kaiser, 26, on a North Mesa St. crosswalk near Cincinnati Ave.
He also was convicted of two counts of failure to stop and render aid.
The jury sentenced Sandoval to 40 years in prison for each count of murder and five years in prison for each count of failure to stop and render aid. The sentences are to run concurrently.
Sandoval will have to serve 20 years before he is eligible for his first parole hearing, said Louis Lopez, Sandoval's DUI defense lawyer.
"Anytime that you have two deaths in the same incident, and you have a person with multiple DWI convictions and he was on probation for a felony. The fact that he didn't get life - is a win," he said.
A man who struck and killed two people with his pick-up truck while intoxicated was sentenced to 45 years in prison by a jury today.
Eduardo Sandoval, 35, was found guilty Monday on two counts of murder in the March 14 deaths of Amanda Carrasco, 24, and James Michael "Mike" Kaiser, 26, on a North Mesa St. crosswalk near Cincinnati Ave.
He also was convicted of two counts of failure to stop and render aid.
The jury sentenced Sandoval to 40 years in prison for each count of murder and five years in prison for each count of failure to stop and render aid. The sentences are to run concurrently.
Sandoval will have to serve 20 years before he is eligible for his first parole hearing, said Louis Lopez, Sandoval's DUI defense lawyer.
"Anytime that you have two deaths in the same incident, and you have a person with multiple DWI convictions and he was on probation for a felony. The fact that he didn't get life - is a win," he said.
More DUI drivers show up than MADD victims at vigil
San Diego drunk driving attorney news
Four days after a deadly drunk driving crash on the Watterson Expressway, Mothers Against Drunk Driving held its annual candlelight vigil Monday night. Victims of drunk drivers and their families showed up, as well as some people you might consider out of place.
Some 250 drunk drivers were there. The Jefferson County Attorney told them they had to be. Not so much as punishment, although that's part of it, but mostly for encouragement to never drink and drive again.
Jefferson County Attorney Irv Maze asked us not to interview the drunk drivers during the vigil because it is MADD's night, so we talked to those who pray they've learned their lesson.
"They're going to probably keep doing it unless it happens to them personally, but if their being here can change that, anything's possible, maybe they will change," said Louise Beman who survived being hit by a drunk driver in 1992. Her six-year old daughter, Brittany didn't.
Mary Jane Oswald's son, Trey, died the same way at the hands of a man who had already been arrested in Kentucky four times for DUI.
"Every year, the holidays are very hard knowing you're not going to have him with you," Oswald said.
Those sharing the room with Oswald and dozens of other victims families Monday night are considered first-time offenders.
"I think anybody who gets locked up for DUI should have to come to this," Oswald said.
Statistics can be easy to ignore or forget, but events like MADD's vigil that shows in dramatic detail how real lives are affected by real tragedies can have a real impact on DUI offenders.
Drunk drivers heard the names of victims while family members lit candles in their memory. This is supposed to help those in the DUI Diversion program change their lives before they destroy someone else's.
"We're getting through," Maze said. "I don't know exactly when it will come in focus, but as many efforts as you can make to show what the consequences are and the effects on the families, I want these folks to see it."
Maze says there's not a lot of options for first-time DUI offenders. According to state law, they have to pay a $100 fine. As an alternative, the county attorney created the DUI diversion program, which we profiled last week.
Attending the MADD vigil is one of the requirements for first time DUI offenders.
Four days after a deadly drunk driving crash on the Watterson Expressway, Mothers Against Drunk Driving held its annual candlelight vigil Monday night. Victims of drunk drivers and their families showed up, as well as some people you might consider out of place.
Some 250 drunk drivers were there. The Jefferson County Attorney told them they had to be. Not so much as punishment, although that's part of it, but mostly for encouragement to never drink and drive again.
Jefferson County Attorney Irv Maze asked us not to interview the drunk drivers during the vigil because it is MADD's night, so we talked to those who pray they've learned their lesson.
"They're going to probably keep doing it unless it happens to them personally, but if their being here can change that, anything's possible, maybe they will change," said Louise Beman who survived being hit by a drunk driver in 1992. Her six-year old daughter, Brittany didn't.
Mary Jane Oswald's son, Trey, died the same way at the hands of a man who had already been arrested in Kentucky four times for DUI.
"Every year, the holidays are very hard knowing you're not going to have him with you," Oswald said.
Those sharing the room with Oswald and dozens of other victims families Monday night are considered first-time offenders.
"I think anybody who gets locked up for DUI should have to come to this," Oswald said.
Statistics can be easy to ignore or forget, but events like MADD's vigil that shows in dramatic detail how real lives are affected by real tragedies can have a real impact on DUI offenders.
Drunk drivers heard the names of victims while family members lit candles in their memory. This is supposed to help those in the DUI Diversion program change their lives before they destroy someone else's.
"We're getting through," Maze said. "I don't know exactly when it will come in focus, but as many efforts as you can make to show what the consequences are and the effects on the families, I want these folks to see it."
Maze says there's not a lot of options for first-time DUI offenders. According to state law, they have to pay a $100 fine. As an alternative, the county attorney created the DUI diversion program, which we profiled last week.
Attending the MADD vigil is one of the requirements for first time DUI offenders.
San Diego DUI - Breath test defenses thrown out
San Diego DUI attorney news
A panel of judges in Snohomish County has decided not to allow breath tests as evidence in nearly 40 DUI / DWI drunk driving cases.
The district court judges said yesterday the results can't be used because the manager of a state crime lab falsely certified solutions used in test machines.
At an earlier Skagit County hearing, judges in Mount Vernon also found problems with the crime lab operations but said the evidence could be used.
Another hearing is scheduled in King County in January on DUI / DWI / Drunk Driving defense lawyer challenges to DUI breath test results.
A panel of judges in Snohomish County has decided not to allow breath tests as evidence in nearly 40 DUI / DWI drunk driving cases.
The district court judges said yesterday the results can't be used because the manager of a state crime lab falsely certified solutions used in test machines.
At an earlier Skagit County hearing, judges in Mount Vernon also found problems with the crime lab operations but said the evidence could be used.
Another hearing is scheduled in King County in January on DUI / DWI / Drunk Driving defense lawyer challenges to DUI breath test results.
Monday, December 03, 2007
LaRussa's Vitamin Supplement DUI Defense
DUI defense lawyers news
LaRussa blames DUI on supplements from Ankiel
St. Louis Cardinals Manager Tony LaRussa pleaded guilty this week to a DUI charge stemming from an incident that occurred during spring training eight months ago. At the court hearing, LaRussa blamed the incident on vitamin supplements he received from Cardinals outfielder, Rick Ankiel.
“I hate to throw Ricky under the bus like this, but he gave me some vitamins that really messed me up,” La Russa told a Florida judge. “I may have appeared to be intoxicated from alcohol, but that was not the case. I don’t know what were in those things, but they did a number on me. I should’ve known better with Ankiel – he’s on damn near everything.”
Ankiel, who was the subject of controversy earlier this year after it was revealed that he took the performance enhancing drug HGH, declined to comment on the matter.
“I’m not sure what the deal with Rick Ankiel was,” arresting office, Sgt. Groen told SSNN. “It was obvious Tony was drunk. He had dried vomit on his shirt and a bottle of Jim Beam in the passenger seat. But he kept going on and on about vitamins that he received from one of his players.”
Despite his tricky defense strategy, LaRussa was sentenced to probation, including fifty hours of community service, for the misdemeanor infraction.
LaRussa blames DUI on supplements from Ankiel
St. Louis Cardinals Manager Tony LaRussa pleaded guilty this week to a DUI charge stemming from an incident that occurred during spring training eight months ago. At the court hearing, LaRussa blamed the incident on vitamin supplements he received from Cardinals outfielder, Rick Ankiel.
“I hate to throw Ricky under the bus like this, but he gave me some vitamins that really messed me up,” La Russa told a Florida judge. “I may have appeared to be intoxicated from alcohol, but that was not the case. I don’t know what were in those things, but they did a number on me. I should’ve known better with Ankiel – he’s on damn near everything.”
Ankiel, who was the subject of controversy earlier this year after it was revealed that he took the performance enhancing drug HGH, declined to comment on the matter.
“I’m not sure what the deal with Rick Ankiel was,” arresting office, Sgt. Groen told SSNN. “It was obvious Tony was drunk. He had dried vomit on his shirt and a bottle of Jim Beam in the passenger seat. But he kept going on and on about vitamins that he received from one of his players.”
Despite his tricky defense strategy, LaRussa was sentenced to probation, including fifty hours of community service, for the misdemeanor infraction.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
DUI arrestee information for Northern California - Napa County
dui ATTORNEY & drunk driving lawyer information
The Napa Valley Register publishes monthly statistics on arrests and convictions for California DUI / Drunk Driving / driving under the influence -- and convictions for so-called "wet reckless" convictions -- in Napa County, California .
Arrest information is from the Napa County Sheriff's Department. Convictions, names and blood-alcohol levels are from Napa County Superior Court.
Convictions include cases where the person pleaded guilty or no contest to one or more California DUI or drunk driving charges, or where one or more such charges resulted in a guilty verdict at California DUI trial.
Vehicle code violations considered are:
23152 -- driving under the influence
23103.5 -- reckless driving while under the influence
23153 -- causing injury to another while driving while under the influence
The blood-alcohol levels provided by the court are based on a variety of tests -- some taken at the scene of the arrest or county jail, others through a later blood test -- and have not necessarily been proven or admitted in court.
It is unlawful for any person to operate a vehicle if that person has a blood-alcohol level of .08 or more, according to the California Vehicle Code.
http://www.napavalleyregister.com/articles/2007/12/02/news/local/doc475079dc39509910684359.txt
The Napa Valley Register publishes monthly statistics on arrests and convictions for California DUI / Drunk Driving / driving under the influence -- and convictions for so-called "wet reckless" convictions -- in Napa County, California .
Arrest information is from the Napa County Sheriff's Department. Convictions, names and blood-alcohol levels are from Napa County Superior Court.
Convictions include cases where the person pleaded guilty or no contest to one or more California DUI or drunk driving charges, or where one or more such charges resulted in a guilty verdict at California DUI trial.
Vehicle code violations considered are:
23152 -- driving under the influence
23103.5 -- reckless driving while under the influence
23153 -- causing injury to another while driving while under the influence
The blood-alcohol levels provided by the court are based on a variety of tests -- some taken at the scene of the arrest or county jail, others through a later blood test -- and have not necessarily been proven or admitted in court.
It is unlawful for any person to operate a vehicle if that person has a blood-alcohol level of .08 or more, according to the California Vehicle Code.
http://www.napavalleyregister.com/articles/2007/12/02/news/local/doc475079dc39509910684359.txt
Saturday, December 01, 2007
Hawaiian DUI arrests are up, checkpoints a factor
DUI drunk driving defense attorney info for the Islands
By the end of the year, the tally of arrests on O'ahu for impaired driving likely will reach an eight-year high, and data indicate that as of October, the average blood alcohol content was almost more than double the legal limit.
Blood alcohol levels from the 3,268 arrests made through Oct. 31 averaged 0.155 percent, according to the Honolulu Police Department. And under a new law enacted July 1, drivers found to be at a blood alcohol level of 0.15 or higher are categorized as highly intoxicated and subject to stiffer penalties than would be imposed for those over the 0.08 level that is the definition of legally drunk.
The increasing number of arrests is largely due to stepped-up enforcement efforts, but coupled with a 0.155 average that is nearly twice that of legally drunk, police and others say there is reason for concern.
"That means that the average arrested person ... is intoxicated to a level of almost twice the legal limit," said Honolulu police Maj. Susan Dowsett, head of the HPD traffic detail. "There are apparently a lot of drivers driving thinking that they are not as intoxicated as they really are."
Under Act 198, a first-time arrest for drunken driving can mean license revocation for six months to one year with no option of getting a conditional permit.
If convicted, the driver would also receive a six-month absolute license suspension; mandatory attendance at a 14-hour-minimum substance abuse rehabilitation program; and any one or more of the following: 72 hours of community service, 48 hours to five days in jail, and $150 to $1,000 fine, or a $25 neurotrauma special fund surcharge.
"We lose more people to drunk driving than we do to guns and knives, and learning how many of these people are highly intoxicated is frightening for the safety of Hawai'i's roads," said city Prosecutor Peter Carlisle. "The key is to focus on repeat offenders and the people that get up so high that there is an extreme danger. These people are a harm to themselves and to others."
The spike in arrests worries law enforcement officials and drunken-driving-awareness advocates who are concerned with a high number of arrests before the Christmas and New Year's holidays.
Through October, police have made 3,268 arrests compared with 3,432 last year, 3,282 in 2005, 3,009 in 2004, 2,341 in 2003, 2,188 in 2002, 2,174 in 2001 and 2,089 in 2000.
Between 2001 and 2005, there were 674 traffic fatalities statewide. Of that, 303, or 45 percent, were alcohol-related deaths.
"We are saddened by the fact that people continue to put themselves and others on the roads at risk by driving impaired. We just ask people to plan ahead before going out, designate a driver or call a cab," said Leah Marx, executive director of the Hawai'i chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. "This simple action will ensure that your evening is filled with fun and happy memories, not tragedy.
"We are extremely grateful for the work that law enforcement is doing statewide; their efforts with stepped-up patrols, sobriety checkpoints and other high-visibility enforcement measures have led to more arrests and saved countless lives on our roads."
FEDERAL FUNDING
Police say they have been able to increase enforcement activity in large part due to a federal grant that has allowed for DUI checkpoints and patrols every week of the year in all four counties.
In addition to checkpoints, a special unit patrols major thoroughfares, enforcing traffic laws and looking for impaired drivers.
"One impaired driver has the potential to harm everyone that the driver comes in contact with when they are operating the vehicle under the influence. That could be hundreds of drivers and pedestrians in one trip alone," Dowsett said. "Multiply that by all the impaired drivers caught ... and the potential threat of harm is great. This is avoidable by avoiding impaired driving."
The state Department of Transportation distributed $309,000 in fiscal 2007 to the four county police departments for DUI enforcement.
"We're grateful police are cracking down on drunk driving, but we're concerned that these drivers are not heeding the safety message heading into the holiday season," said Scott Ishikawa, DOT spokesman. "The last thing we want is a family losing a loved one during Christmastime because of a drunk driver."
HIGH-PROFILE CASES
Some high-profile drunken-driving arrests on O'ahu this year involved individuals whose blood alcohol levels were more than twice the legal limit.
State Rep. Jon Riki Karamatsu, 32, was arrested Oct. 16 after he lost control of his car and struck a concrete pillar at the Hua Street overpass in a west-bound lane of the Moanalua Freeway. Police said Karamatsu, D-41st (Waipahu, Village Park, Waikele), failed a field sobriety test and was taken to the Kalihi police substation, where a Breathalyzer measured his blood-alcohol content at 0.171.
Two weeks later, on Oct. 30, local entertainer James H. "Kimo" Kahoano Jr. was arrested near the Waimanalo Town Center. Arrest records show he was pulled over near 41-1540 Kalaniana'ole Highway about 9:45 p.m. Police said Kahoano was involved in a minor vehicle collision on Oneawa Street in Kailua and fled the scene.
Kahoano failed a Breathalyzer test, which recorded his blood alcohol concentration at more than 0.2, police said.
He has pleaded no contest to charges of drunken driving and leaving the scene of an accident. The co-host of TV's "Hawaii Stars" faces the loss of his driver's license for six months. He also will have to attend 14 hours of substance abuse rehabilitation classes.
On Oct. 24, "Lost" co-star Daniel Dae Kim was arrested at 2:30 a.m. on South King Street. The 39-year-old's blood alcohol content was 0.168, more than twice the legal limit, police said. Kim was the third member of the "Lost" cast to be arrested for drunken driving in Hawai'i.
R. Patrick McPherson, a Honolulu attorney who focuses on drunken-driving defense and traffic offenses, said he has noticed an intense focus on drunken-driving arrests as the number of traffic fatalities has increased, including more than 80 last year alone.
"There are more cops out there making more arrests," said McPherson, who is representing Dae Kim. "The Police Department is focusing on DUIs after the traffic deaths in the state have been increasing."
By the end of the year, the tally of arrests on O'ahu for impaired driving likely will reach an eight-year high, and data indicate that as of October, the average blood alcohol content was almost more than double the legal limit.
Blood alcohol levels from the 3,268 arrests made through Oct. 31 averaged 0.155 percent, according to the Honolulu Police Department. And under a new law enacted July 1, drivers found to be at a blood alcohol level of 0.15 or higher are categorized as highly intoxicated and subject to stiffer penalties than would be imposed for those over the 0.08 level that is the definition of legally drunk.
The increasing number of arrests is largely due to stepped-up enforcement efforts, but coupled with a 0.155 average that is nearly twice that of legally drunk, police and others say there is reason for concern.
"That means that the average arrested person ... is intoxicated to a level of almost twice the legal limit," said Honolulu police Maj. Susan Dowsett, head of the HPD traffic detail. "There are apparently a lot of drivers driving thinking that they are not as intoxicated as they really are."
Under Act 198, a first-time arrest for drunken driving can mean license revocation for six months to one year with no option of getting a conditional permit.
If convicted, the driver would also receive a six-month absolute license suspension; mandatory attendance at a 14-hour-minimum substance abuse rehabilitation program; and any one or more of the following: 72 hours of community service, 48 hours to five days in jail, and $150 to $1,000 fine, or a $25 neurotrauma special fund surcharge.
"We lose more people to drunk driving than we do to guns and knives, and learning how many of these people are highly intoxicated is frightening for the safety of Hawai'i's roads," said city Prosecutor Peter Carlisle. "The key is to focus on repeat offenders and the people that get up so high that there is an extreme danger. These people are a harm to themselves and to others."
The spike in arrests worries law enforcement officials and drunken-driving-awareness advocates who are concerned with a high number of arrests before the Christmas and New Year's holidays.
Through October, police have made 3,268 arrests compared with 3,432 last year, 3,282 in 2005, 3,009 in 2004, 2,341 in 2003, 2,188 in 2002, 2,174 in 2001 and 2,089 in 2000.
Between 2001 and 2005, there were 674 traffic fatalities statewide. Of that, 303, or 45 percent, were alcohol-related deaths.
"We are saddened by the fact that people continue to put themselves and others on the roads at risk by driving impaired. We just ask people to plan ahead before going out, designate a driver or call a cab," said Leah Marx, executive director of the Hawai'i chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. "This simple action will ensure that your evening is filled with fun and happy memories, not tragedy.
"We are extremely grateful for the work that law enforcement is doing statewide; their efforts with stepped-up patrols, sobriety checkpoints and other high-visibility enforcement measures have led to more arrests and saved countless lives on our roads."
FEDERAL FUNDING
Police say they have been able to increase enforcement activity in large part due to a federal grant that has allowed for DUI checkpoints and patrols every week of the year in all four counties.
In addition to checkpoints, a special unit patrols major thoroughfares, enforcing traffic laws and looking for impaired drivers.
"One impaired driver has the potential to harm everyone that the driver comes in contact with when they are operating the vehicle under the influence. That could be hundreds of drivers and pedestrians in one trip alone," Dowsett said. "Multiply that by all the impaired drivers caught ... and the potential threat of harm is great. This is avoidable by avoiding impaired driving."
The state Department of Transportation distributed $309,000 in fiscal 2007 to the four county police departments for DUI enforcement.
"We're grateful police are cracking down on drunk driving, but we're concerned that these drivers are not heeding the safety message heading into the holiday season," said Scott Ishikawa, DOT spokesman. "The last thing we want is a family losing a loved one during Christmastime because of a drunk driver."
HIGH-PROFILE CASES
Some high-profile drunken-driving arrests on O'ahu this year involved individuals whose blood alcohol levels were more than twice the legal limit.
State Rep. Jon Riki Karamatsu, 32, was arrested Oct. 16 after he lost control of his car and struck a concrete pillar at the Hua Street overpass in a west-bound lane of the Moanalua Freeway. Police said Karamatsu, D-41st (Waipahu, Village Park, Waikele), failed a field sobriety test and was taken to the Kalihi police substation, where a Breathalyzer measured his blood-alcohol content at 0.171.
Two weeks later, on Oct. 30, local entertainer James H. "Kimo" Kahoano Jr. was arrested near the Waimanalo Town Center. Arrest records show he was pulled over near 41-1540 Kalaniana'ole Highway about 9:45 p.m. Police said Kahoano was involved in a minor vehicle collision on Oneawa Street in Kailua and fled the scene.
Kahoano failed a Breathalyzer test, which recorded his blood alcohol concentration at more than 0.2, police said.
He has pleaded no contest to charges of drunken driving and leaving the scene of an accident. The co-host of TV's "Hawaii Stars" faces the loss of his driver's license for six months. He also will have to attend 14 hours of substance abuse rehabilitation classes.
On Oct. 24, "Lost" co-star Daniel Dae Kim was arrested at 2:30 a.m. on South King Street. The 39-year-old's blood alcohol content was 0.168, more than twice the legal limit, police said. Kim was the third member of the "Lost" cast to be arrested for drunken driving in Hawai'i.
R. Patrick McPherson, a Honolulu attorney who focuses on drunken-driving defense and traffic offenses, said he has noticed an intense focus on drunken-driving arrests as the number of traffic fatalities has increased, including more than 80 last year alone.
"There are more cops out there making more arrests," said McPherson, who is representing Dae Kim. "The Police Department is focusing on DUIs after the traffic deaths in the state have been increasing."
Western Arizona DUI patrols - careful
San Diego DUI criminal lawyers
Tipplers, beware: DUI patrol on roadways through Jan. 1
DWI Law enforcement officers will be out in force on Mohave County roads until Jan 2.
“Having the officers out during these details not only keeps our roads safer by removing impaired drivers but we end up serving arrest warrants and making drug arrests too,” Mohave County Sheriff Tom Sheahan said.
The Western Arizona DUI Task Force, which includes the Mohave County Sheriff's Office, made five driving under the influence arrests out of 76 vehicle stops since Friday. The DUI task force also issued one citation for seat belt violation and 31 other violations including speeding, MCSO Sgt. Don Bischoff said.
During that time the sheriff's office reported two injury traffic crashes and five non-injury crashes throughout the county. None of the seven accidents was alcohol-related. The seven crashes did not include the fatal three-vehicle crash on Highway 95 Tuesday afternoon.
Alcohol was believed to be a factor in the Nov. 21 crash involving a 59-year-old Kingman woman who allegedly crashed into the back of a motorcycle, seriously injuring the driver. She is charged with felony endangerment and aggravated assault, according to the Kingman Police Department.
The legal blood alcohol level limit in Arizona is 0.08 percent. Drivers who have prior DUI convictions or if they have any passengers under the age of 15 in the car will be charged with aggravated DUI.
During the six-week holiday period, sheriff's deputies will patrol Fort Mojave, Mohave Valley and Golden Shores as well as in Kingman, Golden Valley and Lake Havasu City and will hold saturation patrols and sobriety checkpoints throughout the county, Bischoff said.
Throughout Arizona, 985 law enforcement officers made 779 DUI arrests with 78 arrests involving under-age or juvenile offenders. The minimum age to drink is 21.
During the entire 2006 holiday season, the Western Arizona task force, consisting of 156 officers from the sheriff's office and La Paz County Sheriff's Office as well as Bullhead City, Kingman and Parker police departments, arrested 57 people for drunken driving out of 982 traffic stops, Bischoff said.
In Mohave County, 61 people died in 2006 in traffic crashes with 24 of those deaths being alcohol- related, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
In Arizona, 585 people were killed in drunk driving or alcohol-related crashes.
Tipplers, beware: DUI patrol on roadways through Jan. 1
DWI Law enforcement officers will be out in force on Mohave County roads until Jan 2.
“Having the officers out during these details not only keeps our roads safer by removing impaired drivers but we end up serving arrest warrants and making drug arrests too,” Mohave County Sheriff Tom Sheahan said.
The Western Arizona DUI Task Force, which includes the Mohave County Sheriff's Office, made five driving under the influence arrests out of 76 vehicle stops since Friday. The DUI task force also issued one citation for seat belt violation and 31 other violations including speeding, MCSO Sgt. Don Bischoff said.
During that time the sheriff's office reported two injury traffic crashes and five non-injury crashes throughout the county. None of the seven accidents was alcohol-related. The seven crashes did not include the fatal three-vehicle crash on Highway 95 Tuesday afternoon.
Alcohol was believed to be a factor in the Nov. 21 crash involving a 59-year-old Kingman woman who allegedly crashed into the back of a motorcycle, seriously injuring the driver. She is charged with felony endangerment and aggravated assault, according to the Kingman Police Department.
The legal blood alcohol level limit in Arizona is 0.08 percent. Drivers who have prior DUI convictions or if they have any passengers under the age of 15 in the car will be charged with aggravated DUI.
During the six-week holiday period, sheriff's deputies will patrol Fort Mojave, Mohave Valley and Golden Shores as well as in Kingman, Golden Valley and Lake Havasu City and will hold saturation patrols and sobriety checkpoints throughout the county, Bischoff said.
Throughout Arizona, 985 law enforcement officers made 779 DUI arrests with 78 arrests involving under-age or juvenile offenders. The minimum age to drink is 21.
During the entire 2006 holiday season, the Western Arizona task force, consisting of 156 officers from the sheriff's office and La Paz County Sheriff's Office as well as Bullhead City, Kingman and Parker police departments, arrested 57 people for drunken driving out of 982 traffic stops, Bischoff said.
In Mohave County, 61 people died in 2006 in traffic crashes with 24 of those deaths being alcohol- related, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
In Arizona, 585 people were killed in drunk driving or alcohol-related crashes.
Ambien Sleep Driving Defense Successful
San Diego DUI attorney defense case
In what could prove to be a precedent-setting case, an Andover attorney was cleared yesterday of a charge of motor-vehicle homicide because he may have been DUI - "sleep driving" while under the influence of Ambien.
Ki Yong O struck and killed 43-year-old Anthony Raucci on June 30, 2006, as the Methuen man was changing a tire in the breakdown lane on Interstate 93 in Tewksbury .
Lowell Superior Court Judge Kenneth Fishman accepted expert testimony that O may have been "sleep driving" when he hit and killed Raucci.
As Fishman announced that O was innocent of motor-vehicle homicide and leaving the scene of an accident after property damage, Raucci's widow, Elena Raucci, sobbed uncontrollably in the back of the courtroom.
She declined to comment after the verdict.
O merely nodded his head and left the courtroom without comment -- his career, his livelihood and his freedom intact.
In announcing his verdict following the jury-waived trial, Fishman said the only disputable element of the case, which centered on the use of prescription drugs, is whether O knew of the side effects of the drug and the "voluntariness" of O's actions.
Given the "uncertainty within the scientific community" regarding the effects of Ambien, Fishman said he was unwilling to speculate that O was aware of the side effects of the powerful sleeping pill.
In commenting on the verdict, Middlesex District Attorney Gerry Leone said in a statement, "Anthony Raucci tragically lost his life when the car driven by the defendant crashed into him while he was changing his tire on the side of the road. For us, this case was always about the victim, as well as his wife and young son, both of whom witnessed that absolutely horrific scene.''
He added, "While we must accept today's decision, our thoughts will always remain with the victim's family.''
On the night of June 30, 2006, Raucci was packing up his tools after an unsuccessful attempt to change a flat tire on his car. As his wife and their young son sat on a grassy knoll, she watched as a car bore down on them.
She turned to yell to her husband and was engulfed in a cloud of dust. When the dust cleared, she saw her husband's lifeless body lying across the highway. His leg had been severed, and he had been knocked out of his shoes and socks.
Fishman said, "Words cannot describe this horrible death and tragedy" that was "unmercifully enhanced because it occurred in front of his wife and young son."
During his testimony, O, a chronic insomniac, admitted he took one Ambien sleeping pill and then drove to his former house in Charlestown to escape the chaos of a 7-day-old baby in his Andover home. Despite taking two Ambien pills the previous night and that morning, O testified he had not slept well and wanted to take a nap.
He testified that the next thing he remembered was waking up in the State Police Barracks in Andover after the fatal accident. O testified that he did not recall the accident.
When his blood was tested, O had a "toxic level" of Ambien in his system and 3 1/2 pills were missing from a new bottle of 30 pills.
In the minutes before the accident, numerous drivers on I-93 had reported O as an driving erratically, swerving from lane to lane, flashing his emergency lights and varying his speed.
At one point, he sheared off a speed-limit sign on the side of the highway, before driving in the breakdown lane and slamming into Raucci.
Prosecutor Cara Krysil attacked the credibility of O's story by noting a real-estate agent testified there was no furniture in the Charlestown home for O to sleep on. She also tried to use O's own words against him.
"They might find something in my blood that shows I shouldn't have been driving" O told officers immediately after the fatal crash. "If that happens, I feel awful."
Krysil said in her closing argument, "He knew he had taken too much (Ambien), and that he shouldn't have been driving."
But defense attorney Robert Sheketoff argued that a sleep expert testified that sleep driving is a possible side effect of Ambien.
But Dr. John Winkelman, a defense-hired sleep expert from Brigham and Women's Hospital, testified that in March, the FDA requested that the manufacturers of sleep aids, such as Ambien, update their warnings to include "sleep eating" and "sleep driving" as rare, but possible, side effects.
Winkelman admitted that the term "sleep driving" is used "extremely loosely" and that that there is no clear definition.
Winkelman testified it was possible for O to have taken one Ambien, gone to sleep and then seemingly awakened and taken more pills while still asleep.
Sheketoff argued that in the 1 1/2 hours between the time O picked up his Ambien prescription and the accident, his client took a therapeutic dose of the sleeping pill and went to sleep, only to wake up in a nightmare.
In what could prove to be a precedent-setting case, an Andover attorney was cleared yesterday of a charge of motor-vehicle homicide because he may have been DUI - "sleep driving" while under the influence of Ambien.
Ki Yong O struck and killed 43-year-old Anthony Raucci on June 30, 2006, as the Methuen man was changing a tire in the breakdown lane on Interstate 93 in Tewksbury .
Lowell Superior Court Judge Kenneth Fishman accepted expert testimony that O may have been "sleep driving" when he hit and killed Raucci.
As Fishman announced that O was innocent of motor-vehicle homicide and leaving the scene of an accident after property damage, Raucci's widow, Elena Raucci, sobbed uncontrollably in the back of the courtroom.
She declined to comment after the verdict.
O merely nodded his head and left the courtroom without comment -- his career, his livelihood and his freedom intact.
In announcing his verdict following the jury-waived trial, Fishman said the only disputable element of the case, which centered on the use of prescription drugs, is whether O knew of the side effects of the drug and the "voluntariness" of O's actions.
Given the "uncertainty within the scientific community" regarding the effects of Ambien, Fishman said he was unwilling to speculate that O was aware of the side effects of the powerful sleeping pill.
In commenting on the verdict, Middlesex District Attorney Gerry Leone said in a statement, "Anthony Raucci tragically lost his life when the car driven by the defendant crashed into him while he was changing his tire on the side of the road. For us, this case was always about the victim, as well as his wife and young son, both of whom witnessed that absolutely horrific scene.''
He added, "While we must accept today's decision, our thoughts will always remain with the victim's family.''
On the night of June 30, 2006, Raucci was packing up his tools after an unsuccessful attempt to change a flat tire on his car. As his wife and their young son sat on a grassy knoll, she watched as a car bore down on them.
She turned to yell to her husband and was engulfed in a cloud of dust. When the dust cleared, she saw her husband's lifeless body lying across the highway. His leg had been severed, and he had been knocked out of his shoes and socks.
Fishman said, "Words cannot describe this horrible death and tragedy" that was "unmercifully enhanced because it occurred in front of his wife and young son."
During his testimony, O, a chronic insomniac, admitted he took one Ambien sleeping pill and then drove to his former house in Charlestown to escape the chaos of a 7-day-old baby in his Andover home. Despite taking two Ambien pills the previous night and that morning, O testified he had not slept well and wanted to take a nap.
He testified that the next thing he remembered was waking up in the State Police Barracks in Andover after the fatal accident. O testified that he did not recall the accident.
When his blood was tested, O had a "toxic level" of Ambien in his system and 3 1/2 pills were missing from a new bottle of 30 pills.
In the minutes before the accident, numerous drivers on I-93 had reported O as an driving erratically, swerving from lane to lane, flashing his emergency lights and varying his speed.
At one point, he sheared off a speed-limit sign on the side of the highway, before driving in the breakdown lane and slamming into Raucci.
Prosecutor Cara Krysil attacked the credibility of O's story by noting a real-estate agent testified there was no furniture in the Charlestown home for O to sleep on. She also tried to use O's own words against him.
"They might find something in my blood that shows I shouldn't have been driving" O told officers immediately after the fatal crash. "If that happens, I feel awful."
Krysil said in her closing argument, "He knew he had taken too much (Ambien), and that he shouldn't have been driving."
But defense attorney Robert Sheketoff argued that a sleep expert testified that sleep driving is a possible side effect of Ambien.
But Dr. John Winkelman, a defense-hired sleep expert from Brigham and Women's Hospital, testified that in March, the FDA requested that the manufacturers of sleep aids, such as Ambien, update their warnings to include "sleep eating" and "sleep driving" as rare, but possible, side effects.
Winkelman admitted that the term "sleep driving" is used "extremely loosely" and that that there is no clear definition.
Winkelman testified it was possible for O to have taken one Ambien, gone to sleep and then seemingly awakened and taken more pills while still asleep.
Sheketoff argued that in the 1 1/2 hours between the time O picked up his Ambien prescription and the accident, his client took a therapeutic dose of the sleeping pill and went to sleep, only to wake up in a nightmare.
DUI cases raise issue of jurisdiction
San Diego DUI criminal lawyer defense news
In the DUI drunk driving case against King County Councilmember Jane Hague that failed challenges of his jurisdiction in three Woodinville cases may be appealed after a King County Superior Court judge ruled Friday.
In each of the cases before the court Friday, prosecutors had challenged King County District Court Judge Peter Nault and requested another judge. In each case, the challenge was denied, and Nault continued to handle the cases.
Prosecutors also challenged Nault in Hague's case, and Nault denied the challenge.
"There's a common thread running through them: the suppression of breath tests," said Mark Nelson, attorney for the city of Woodinville, which filed the three appeals heard Friday. Nault ruled Wednesday that the results of blood-alcohol tests administered to Hague in June should not be admitted at her trial, now set for February.
Nelson, whose firm Moberly & Roberts also has been assigned as a special prosecutor in the Hague case, said no decision has been made about whether to appeal Nault's decision to suppress Hague's breath-test results, but the appeals of the Woodinville cases raise similar issues.
The appeals seek to force Nault to explain his decisions, said Nelson.
"We want to know why, essentially," he said.
While similar, the cases are not identical, Nelson added. Hague was arrested by the State Patrol on Highway 520 after her car was seen swerving; the Woodinville cases involve arrests by Woodinville police.
The appeals heard Friday were filed Nov. 8, and underlying all three are Nault's record on breath-test decisions, Nelson said.
Rejections of challenges to Nault in the East Division of King County District Court have been occurring for months, Nelson said. The three Woodinville cases were selected for appeal from 10 disputed cases involving Nault.
While the specific reason for the appeals was the rejection of the affidavits of prejudice, Nelson added, the underlying purpose for originally filing the affidavits was Nault's continued denial of allowing breath-test results to be admitted in trials.
"We don't agree with his suppression of BAC [blood-alcohol content] evidence in implied-consent cases," Nelson said.
Implied-consent allows law-enforcement agencies to take breath or blood samples of drivers suspected in DUI cases without having to obtain a search warrant or court order.
State law provides that a driver, in effect, gives consent for such tests in return for the privilege of using public roadways.
The three Woodinville cases involve accusations of fourth-degree assault and of DUI.
In the DUI drunk driving case against King County Councilmember Jane Hague that failed challenges of his jurisdiction in three Woodinville cases may be appealed after a King County Superior Court judge ruled Friday.
In each of the cases before the court Friday, prosecutors had challenged King County District Court Judge Peter Nault and requested another judge. In each case, the challenge was denied, and Nault continued to handle the cases.
Prosecutors also challenged Nault in Hague's case, and Nault denied the challenge.
"There's a common thread running through them: the suppression of breath tests," said Mark Nelson, attorney for the city of Woodinville, which filed the three appeals heard Friday. Nault ruled Wednesday that the results of blood-alcohol tests administered to Hague in June should not be admitted at her trial, now set for February.
Nelson, whose firm Moberly & Roberts also has been assigned as a special prosecutor in the Hague case, said no decision has been made about whether to appeal Nault's decision to suppress Hague's breath-test results, but the appeals of the Woodinville cases raise similar issues.
The appeals seek to force Nault to explain his decisions, said Nelson.
"We want to know why, essentially," he said.
While similar, the cases are not identical, Nelson added. Hague was arrested by the State Patrol on Highway 520 after her car was seen swerving; the Woodinville cases involve arrests by Woodinville police.
The appeals heard Friday were filed Nov. 8, and underlying all three are Nault's record on breath-test decisions, Nelson said.
Rejections of challenges to Nault in the East Division of King County District Court have been occurring for months, Nelson said. The three Woodinville cases were selected for appeal from 10 disputed cases involving Nault.
While the specific reason for the appeals was the rejection of the affidavits of prejudice, Nelson added, the underlying purpose for originally filing the affidavits was Nault's continued denial of allowing breath-test results to be admitted in trials.
"We don't agree with his suppression of BAC [blood-alcohol content] evidence in implied-consent cases," Nelson said.
Implied-consent allows law-enforcement agencies to take breath or blood samples of drivers suspected in DUI cases without having to obtain a search warrant or court order.
State law provides that a driver, in effect, gives consent for such tests in return for the privilege of using public roadways.
The three Woodinville cases involve accusations of fourth-degree assault and of DUI.
| This website & linked blog is made available by this law firm for general information purposes only and to provide a general understanding of the law, not to provide legal advice. Readers of this website/blog are cautioned that reading the website/blog does not create a lawyer-client relationship between the reader and this law firm. |
