Frisco DWI Lawyer & Attorney : Hunter Biederman : Texas DWI Defense : Serving Collin County, Denton County, Dallas County

A recent article in the Dallas Morning News is talking about a new law passed by Texas to help nab more uninsured motorists.

The topic of this post is not whether or not it is a good law, waste of time, etc., but rather who helped champion the law.... Yup, MADD.

In the article, it tells us that:

One group that lobbied for the law was MADD [Mothers Against Drunk Driving] of Texas, which argued that the average drunken driver is less likely to have insurance than other drivers.

"The need for this law has not changed in the past three years. In fact, it has probably gotten worse," said Bill Lewis of MADD-Texas. "There are probably more uninsured people today than when the law was passed."

WHAT??

At least they aren't making up false statistics, or skewing stats, as been pointed out by other bloggers here, here, and here.

So intoxicated drivers were intoxicated at the time they were supposed to renew their insurance?

In thinking back.. with the exception of one case, every DWI case I have handled, the client had insurance at the time.  OK, so my sample group may not mean much, but there is no rhyme or reason to this thinking by MADD.

This just further shows that MADD is a political lobbying group...

So this got me to thinking.  Why would a group like MADD want a law to help nab uninsured motorists?

Maybe it is because they know that many state find DWI checkpoints to be illegal, and this is just their way of finding a way to allow police "reasonable suspicion" to stop just about anyone.

This program:

aims to create a database for police officers, state troopers and vehicle inspection stations to instantly verify whether a motorist has the minimum coverage required under state law.

Basically, this could just be another tool or rouse to allow an officer to pull you over, just to check up on you.  Obviously, this system is going to have problems... but these officers will still argue "good faith" when explaining why you were pulled over.

So, yes, I guess it makes sense that MADD would support this initiative...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Texas Transportation Code

§ 724.013. PROHIBITION ON TAKING SPECIMEN IF PERSON REFUSES; EXCEPTION.
Except as provided by Section 724.012(b), a
specimen may not be taken if a person refuses to submit to the
taking of a specimen designated by a peace officer.

What part of this does the State not understand?

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Austin, TX DWI Lawyer Jamie Spencer recently posted about whether or not someone should "call out" of those arrested for DWI or other crimes on blogs.

He explains:

I don’t blog about so-and-so got arrested for such-and-such. It’s
-Not my style
-Seems like making fun of people in the same situation as my clients
-Not usually relevant to my ‘niche’
-Overdone by the cut-and-paste bloggers
-Not a case I think I know anything about, since all my info about it comes from the media
-There’s about a hundred more reasons I don’t ‘do’ that type of blogging.

I'd agree with him for the most part.  This was in response to my previous post, and others who constantly tell him "hey, you should blog about ________ being arrested!"

I don't normally report on people getting arrested.  I haven't once mentioned Lindsay, Brittany, Nicole, etc.  I felt this one was different for a few reasons.

1. It happened in Austin & my Collin County Readers wouldn't necessarily pick up on it.

2. I was actually kind of proud to be what I felt was the first to report on it.  At least on the blogs I normally read.  I hadn't read about it in any of the other usual suspects blogs. Posted 5/1 at 10:48pm.

3. I felt the importance of this one mainly because my understanding is that he championed the surcharge.  Also, one of the ridiculous things about the surcharge is that it doubles with a .16 reading.  That reason alone is a good one to refuse the test.

4. He decided to refuse a breath test.  I like to point out to my readers (as does several others bloggers), that Legislators, Judges, and Policeman.. when asked, all seem to refuse the breath test!

Anyway, there's my 2c on the issue.

Oh yeah, and as far as the PC affadavit you Jamie points out, I'd start with the question of

1) An officer reading a license plate exp. date at 10PM
2) I thought the expirations were on the front windshield?
(possible explanation - l/p has only 5 digits, starting with SO.  So I'm guessing this may be a special plate?)
3) Interesting how this ofc. can tell the difference between metabolized and non-metabolized alcohol.

And all the other usual garbage...

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Thanks to Georgia DUI attorney Rob Leonard for showing us this video.  Interesting stuff...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

One night a police officer was staking out a particularly rowdy bar for possible DWI violations. At closing time, he saw a fellow stumble out of the bar, trip on the curb and try his keys on five different cars before he found his. The man sat in the front seat fumbling around with his keys for several minutes.

Meanwhile, all the other patrons left the bar and drove off. Finally he started his engine and began to pull away. The police officer was waiting for him. As soon as he pulled onto the street, the officer stopped him, read him his rights and administered the breathalyzer test to determine his blood-alcohol content.

The results showed a reading of 0.0.

The puzzled officer demanded to know how that could be. The driver replied, "Tonight I`m the designated decoy."

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Dallas Morning News has reported that the legislator that helped pass the surcharge for DWI drivers was arrested and charged with DWI himself. 

Naturally, "He refused a Breathalyzer and blood test, according to the affidavit." according to the Austin-American Statesman.

Anyone out there surprised he refused to give a sample of his breath?  I reported about judges and cops knowing about how to refuse tests in the past here and here.

Maybe because HE KNOWS that if you blow over a .16, the surcharge he came up with is DOUBLED!  This was discussed partially here.  Or perhaps he knows about the vast problems with Texas' Intoxilyzer 5000.

I would ask Jamie or Ken their opinions, but they may be getting a call very soon....

Here is the text from the DMN.

Rep. Mike Krusee Charged with DWI

State Rep. Mike Krusee, a Republican from Williamson County north of Austin, was arrested for drunk driving late Wednesday. He was released this morning. The Austin American-Statesman has the story, with mugshot.
Of note: Krusee carried and passed legislation in 2003 that created something called the "driver responsibility program" to help fund the Texas Mobility Fund. That program included a number of surcharges for driving offenses, including $1,000 for a first conviction of driving while intoxicated.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (2)

Frisco is now voting on whether or not to allow longer alcohol serving hours for bars and restaurants.  The proposed (bill?) will allow restaurants and bars to serve until 2 AM, instead of the current Midnight.

I have been approached by many friends and colleagues about the possibility of Frisco having longer drinking hours.  The conversation usually starts, "wow, Hunter, this is something that will probably be great for your business, huh?"

So, here are my thoughts on the matter.

I don't think changing the law from midnight to 2AM is going to have any major horrible ramifications on the great City of Frisco.  Nor do I think that DWI arrests are going to skyrocket either.  (Remember, I'm commenting on my business going up... for that to happen, it is presumed there will be more arrests).  Nor do I think that alcohol related tragedies will go up.  Hey, I live here too.  If I thought it was a major danger that was going to occur, I'd be handing out fliers along side this group.

I got a ridiculous flier in the mail regarding the vote.  It is a group opposing the legislation.  It has a picture of 1) a beer+ 2) a clock = 3) Strippers and has the words "why risk it?"  The flier proclaims that if we allow alcohol sales to go two more hours, magically, a bunch of strip clubs will appear.  We will also have to have more police working longer hours......Hogwash.

Other cities have these hours and no strip clubs started opening up.  I'm pretty sure other cities are dry (or bring your own beer), and they have strip clubs.  Anyway, the entire flier was preposterous.  Ed Housewright of the Dallas Morning News recently wrote his opinions here. 

Honestly, in summary, I don't really care either way.  I don't think there is a vast negative effect that will occur.  I don't think there is a massive positive upside either.  Local businesses will probably profit, as will some of the hotels & service industries.  But either way, in answer to the questions I've been getting, I don't think my business is going to change much.

• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

In an interesting move, the city of Freeport is requiring public event organizers to offer safe rides home from events offering alcohol. 

I think this is a neat move.. they could have simply said, "lets put more police on the street," but instead decided to actually try prevention.  I've always believed that more police was never the answer to thwarting more crime.  Most Criminology courses would teach the same.  General deterrence just does not work.

I like this idea, and think Freeport is quite progressive in their thinking.  I'm not 100% sure it should be a requirement, but I like the idea of this being offered at events.

But wait, how can a DWI lawyer be for something like this?  Well, as I have always said, I do not defend Driving While Intoxicated, but rather those accused of DWI.  Big difference.  I also defend the often overzealous law enforcement agencies, and ensure those who are guilty get a fair punishment.

Here is the article.
 

Drinkers in Freeport offered safe rides home

03:23 PM CDT on Sunday, April 27, 2008

By Rosa Flores / 11 News

FREEPORT, Texas—The city of Freeport is going the extra mile to make sure partiers stay safe on the streets.

From now on, any public event in the city that sells alcohol will be required to offer drinkers a ride home.

The police chief says the decision is simple for event sponsors: Offer rides or don’t serve booze at all.

“We want them to have a successful event, but we want people to be responsible and drink responsibly and not get on the road after they are impaired,” Police Chief Jeff Pynes said.

The decision to implement the rule was natural. One out of every five DWI crashes in the state happens in Brazoria and the seven surrounding counties, making the Houston area the leader in drunk driving accidents in Texas.

At the Freeport Riverfest Festival, signs advertising the Safe Ride program were on every beer booth over the weekend.

But organizers were required to do more than that.

“We’ve got folks lined up to work from the time the alcohol sales begin to the time the sales end this evening,” festival organizer Larry Fansher said.

Some of those volunteers were charged with walking around looking for people who might need a ride and offering to call a family member or cab.

The community is so excited about the program’s potential that a local group plans to talk to state leaders about it.

“The goal is to take this to every city. We would love for every event in every city to implement this program,” Carrie Fletcher of the Brazoria County Community Coalition said.

“I think it’s a great idea,” Freeport resident Matt McDonald said.

When that happens, the usually quiet town of Freeport can say they’ve sent a loud message to drivers in Texas: Don’t drink and drive.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In one of the most insane propositions I have ever seen, Lawrence Taylor reports on a bill going through the Senate in Tennessee.

The proponent of the bill wants to stop DUI (and DWI) lawyers from advertising their expertise because it is getting to hard to convict people accused of DUI.  Hmm.. so her solution is that they should not be able to get lawyers that specialize in the area?

Hey Senator, why not cut it off at the pass, and propose legislation not to allow people to have lawyers?  Or better yet, who needs jury trials anyway?

Lawrence pointed out another article where Senator XXXX explained her reasoning:  She "said she pushed for the amendment because she was tired of suspected DUI offenders not being convicted.”

Yes, people found not guilty of a crime?  How can that be?  Surely they must be guilty, right?  Those 6 idiot jurors were fooled!

Oh wait.. maybe there was another motive?  The article also explains that her move "brought criticism from her opponent who practices in DUI law"

Ahh.. politics at their best.

(P.S.  I didnt really want to put her name in here, because that might have been "advertising" that she didnt want.  But because her opponent Timothy Barnes, a Clarksville attorney, seems to support the First Amendment, I dont see the harm in mentioning him here.)

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks