Collin County 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...

• Email This
• 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...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• 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.

• Email This
• 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.

• Email This
• 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.

• Email This
• 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.)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

I read an article today on the online version of the Tyler Morning Telegraph.  It is entitled "MADD President: More To Be Done To Prevent Deaths." 

Some interesting thoughts of MADD... Here are some of the quotes of MADD's political agenda and hopes to remove all free will from our citizens...

Ms. Knox said MADD's goal is to eliminate drunken driving by separating alcohol from cars.

She talked about new, developing technology that will one day allow cars to read alcohol intake by a person's touch or breath when they get behind the wheel.

Birch said the devices will be unobtrusive, similar to air bags, because about 40 percent of Americans don't drink. The public demanded air bags for every passenger in a car and MADD wants the public to demand alcohol-detecting devices in every car, he said.

And,

Five years from now, he hopes there will be fleet vehicles with interlock devises, placed there by employers, Birch said. Ten years from now, they hope to have them on all vehicles.

And,

Now, MADD is also trying to get sobriety checkpoints in every state.

And one of my favorites,

Bingham has said trying driving while intoxicated cases can be difficult because jurors think everyone has drank and driven and no one got hurt. But, Bingham said, at any moment accidents can occur. He said the offense is committed by many people in the public but it doesn't lessen the seriousness of the offense.

He said it is his responsibility to be aggressive with the cases, but there are other district attorney's offices that reduce first-time DWI offenses because they are afraid to try the cases. He said Smith County juries are not so tolerant.

Bingham said the penalties need to fit the crime.

Here's my question about that.... If jurors think that a first time offender is someone that deserves a second chance.. how is that not the penalty fitting the crime?  Why is it that MADD believes THEIR version of punishment is the only acceptable version?

Juries are made up of a cross section of society.  Shouldn't society, and not a political Action Committee such as MADD be the decision makers?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

It would seem that State Rep. Scott Inman of Oklahoma came up with the perfect way to curb DWI's.  His bill would require anyone who is convicted to have it printed on their drivers license for four years.

I found the story  Inman Wants DUI, DWI Information On Licenses on the The McCarville Report Online, which follows OK political news.

Apparently Representative Inman believes that this will "alert" bartenders to the license holder's propensity to drink and drive and cause them to be cut off.

He explains:

This is a measure that I believe will help reduce the number of alcohol-related deaths by providing information to the drinking establishments that this person has a history of drinking and driving while intoxicated," said Inman, D-Del City. "Hopefully, the establishment will stop serving the customer after a few drinks. It's a way to help the industry police itself and to protect not only its customers, but also the thousands of innocent victims out there who die every year because of drunk drivers.

What about every time this person goes to use their license for non-alcohol related activities?  Does the guy you are cashing a check with really need to know this information?

I also think this is pretty dumb, considering I am 30 (and look it), and I only get carded about one out of every 10 times at the most.

Maybe if this is implemented in Texas, they can use the $3,000-$6,000 surcharge to pay for it....

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

Although not directly related to DWI, a new ordinance enacted by the Frisco, TX City Council could have DWI and DUI ramifications.

The City of Frisco enacted a new "curfew" for those under 17, spanning from Midnight to 6am.

In my opinion, this is just another "solution" to a problem that just does not exist.  Although I like Mayor Simpson, he explained in an article on WFAA.com, that:

"We figured we were taking a proactive step so that our kids wouldn't be put in the position of getting into trouble," he said. "And if Frisco was the only one who didn't have it, you might have teens saying, 'Hey, let's go to Frisco, they don't have a curfew.' "

Based on his quote, it would seem that this is not yet a problem, but he is reading into the future and the minds of our youth that they will exploit our city by causing mayhem after dark in Frisco, opposed to Plano, because they will realize there is no curfew in Frisco.  Of course, there is no problem now, as this is a "proactive step," as stated by the Mayor.

Like I said, I like Mayor Simpson, and he has done incredible things for the city, although I'm not too keen on this one.

I'd hate to see "he/she looked young" as an excuse to stop our citizens of Frisco.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

      In a new law enacted at midnight tonight, Arizona will require all first time offenders convicted of DUI to install an ignition interlock device on their vehicles.  The Arizona Republic Online reports that not only will 1st time offenders be required to install this device, but also, anyone whose BAC is over .20 will have a mandatory jail sentence of at least 45 days.

The article reports:

Hardest hit are first-time violators and a new class of "super extreme" DUI offenders whose blood-alcohol concentration registers 0.20 percent or above, which is more than double the legal limit of 0.08 percent.

Beginning Wednesday, new penalties include mandatory ignition-interlock devices for first-time offenders, increased fines and a minimum of 45 days in jail for super extreme DUI convictions.

Opponents to the bill point out that this will increase caseload on the AZ courts, requiring those that are accused to fight their cases. 

Additionally, the article reports that like myself, some feel this is a short term or knee-jerk solution to a much larger problem.

Critics say interlock devices are expensive to maintain and provide a short-term answer to a long-term problem.

 The offender pays for the device, which typically costs $100 for installation and about $80 a month to maintain. Most first-time offenders will have the device for 12 months. That cost is in addition to the more than $1,000 in fines imposed for a DUI conviction.

And studies have shown that while interlock devices are effective while in use, drivers tend to slip into old habits once the units are removed.

Texas, although not quite as extreme, has enacted many laws and statutes over time that increase the severity of DWI:

1. Deferred Adjudication -- The legislature took out the "deferred adjudication" option to DWI cases.  This leaves a person with only two options -- plea guilty, and be convicted for the rest of your life, or plea not guilty, and contest your guilty through a trial.
2. Ignition Interlock -- On DWI 2nds, and also DWI 1st where there is a BAC of over .15, an ignition interlock device must be installed on your vehicle.
3. Surcharges -- DPS requires $1,000/year for three years with any conviction to keep your license.  $1,500/year for a DWI second, and $2,000/year for a BAC over .16.

I find it interesting that although on the surface some of these laws seem to crack down on "hard core" impaired drivers, you can also see that it punishes you for taking a breath test.  For Arizona, no breath test means no way you go to jail for 45 days, and no way you are required to have an ignition interlock device on your car.

In Texas, refusing a breath test means no possibility of a $6,000 FINE from DPS. and no possibility of having an ignition interlock device as a requirement on your vehicle.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Apparently some other groups are getting into the court watching program too.

Christian court watches keep tabs on judges, is the title of CNN's article on the subject.

This Kentucky group has been getting in on the action as well.  It appears that their motives are more for drug offenders when they watch the courts.

From my last article, MADD pays 40K per year for "Court Monitors," I spoke about MADD getting money from the government to "watch/influence" the courts in DUI and DWI cases.  This issue has been taken up by Mark Bennett and Robert Guest in the past as well.

Hey, at least this group isn't State funded....

The original Story can be found on CNN.com, HERE. 

Some interesting clips from the article...

Becknell -- a devout Christian known to many as "Brother John" -- pulls out a pen and an inch-thick docket, mostly of drug and alcohol cases. For the next three hours, he takes diligent notes on the judge's actions, the attendance of police officers, repeat offenders making another appearance, and so on.

The purpose? To make sure drug offenders in eastern Kentucky are getting what they deserve.

The Community Church of Manchester is leading the way through "Court Watch," a program in which volunteers attend court hearings to monitor judges overseeing drug-related cases.

"They know they're welcome in my court anytime I'm there," said District Judge Renee Muncy.

Yet, she added that she doesn't feel pressured by the presence of Court Watch participants.

Neither does Circuit Judge R. Cletus Maricle, who said, "Some judges probably feel they are there to intimidate him. If the judge is intimidated, that's his fault."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In another attempt to influence the Courts, the New Mexico chapter of MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving), has decided to pay $30,000 - $40,000 per year (per person)  in order to "monitor" DWI and DUI in the local courtroom, and the activities of judges and prosecutors.  Oh yeah.. they are hiring 5 full time people to perform this service.

Problem 1:
Political/lobbyist organizations using taxpayer money

I wouldn't be quite as much against this proposition if the funds for the "monitors" was raised independently.  In my opinion, any organization can do whatever they want with their money, and pursue the goals of their organization.  But here, they received $400,000 grant from the state Traffic Safety Bureau.  Taxpayer money going to a political organization.. I see major problems with that.

Problem 2:
The court's "biased" approach to law enforcement

"Metro Court spokeswoman Janet Blair issued a statement on July 25 saying the court has had an excellent relationship with MADD in the past. 'We look forward to their continuing observations in our courtrooms. We will welcome any constructive recommendations that come from their study that will help reduce drunk driving in our community,' Blair wrote.

The court should be an unbiased entity in an adversarial system.  Why would the court spokeswoman be looking forward to recommendations of a lobbying group?  I can't imagine the court spokeswoman taking meetings with the local criminal bar association.

-------------------
The article comes from the posting on the free republic.  See below:

New Mexico MADD chapter moves offices Downtown to better monitor DWI cases
Albuquerque Tribune ^ | 7/26/07 | Christopher Sanchez

Posted on 07/28/2007 6:00:54 PM PDT by elkfersupper

The New Mexico chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving has plenty to celebrate.

The organization on July 25 held a grand opening for its new headquarters Downtown and received a $400,000 grant from the state Traffic Safety Bureau to monitor DWI cases in six counties, including Bernalillo, said Terry Huertaz, executive director of MADD New Mexico.

The organization will hire five full-time court monitors to track DWI cases at random and to gather data for an annual report, Huertaz said.

"We're hoping our presence in the court will be a positive thing. We're not there to find something corrupt, but if that does happen, we will expose it to the public," she said. "We don't want to be an organization throwing rocks at the system - we want to be part of the solution."

The report doesn't have to be negative, she said.

"We might see something really awesome going on in a particular county that a district attorney, a police officer or a judge has figured out," Huertaz said, "and we should share that information with everyone."

The court monitors will track 200 to 400 cases annually in each county - Bernalillo, Santa Fe, San Juan, Rio Arriba, McKinley and Doña Ana. They were chosen because they have the highest numbers of alcohol-related arrests, crashes, deaths and injuries, Huertaz said.

The organization received the grant a week before moving into its new headquarters at 1100 Fourth St. N.W., she said.

MADD moved Downtown because it is closer to the courts, the District Attorney's Office and the Albuquerque Police Department, she said.

"We strategically moved here so we can be near all our partners," Huertaz said.

The court monitors will be paid between $30,000 and $40,000 per year, she said.

Metro Court spokeswoman Janet Blair issued a statement on July 25 saying the court has had an excellent relationship with MADD in the past.

"We look forward to their continuing observations in our courtrooms. We will welcome any constructive recommendations that come from their study that will help reduce drunk driving in our community," Blair wrote.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

Drunk Driving - Over the Limit. Under Arrest.  Cops are cracking down. 

This is one of just many new slogans that are being used.  (I blogged previously about the Drink, Drive, Go to Jail campaign).

Although I definitely prefer this campaign to the Drink, Drive, Go to Jail campaign, but I note one big problem with this campaign.  As far as I know (and definitely in Texas), you are always arrested BEFORE there is any test to see if you are over the limit.

Let me explain....

A normal scenario for a DWI arrest goes like this:  You are pulled over for speeding, or some other minor traffic infraction.  The officer smells alcohol on your breath, and asks you to get out.  He says something along the line of, "I just need to do some tests to make sure you are O.K. to drive."  At this point, he will perform some Standardized Field Sobriety Tests.  If the officer thinks you failed, Boom -- You are under arrest.

So where does this over the limit, under arrest come in?  You are already in handcuffs.  You are then transported to jail, booked in, and taken to the "intoxilyzer room."  It is only at this point when you are even given the chance to give a sample of your breath or blood.... So how does Over the Limit, Under Arrest even come in to play?? I'd say,  It doesn't.  

Even if you blow under the legal limit, you are still already arrested, and at least in the three counties in which I practice (Collin County, Dallas County, and Denton County), you will still be charged with DWI under the other two definitions of intoxication.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Drink, Drive, Go To Jail... Right?  WRONG.

One of the most popular quotes/slogans/etc. is the "Drink,Drive, Go To Jail" slogan.  The unfortunate thing is, it's flat out incorrect.

It is not against the law to have a drink and drive a car, as long as you are not impaired.  Depending on the state, each state will have a different law as to the amount of impairment before it is illegal to drive.  However, no state has a zero tolerance police regarding drinking and driving (except for minors).  In Texas, one can only be convicted of driving while intoxicated if they have lost the normal use of their mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol into the body, or by having an alcohol concentration of above .08 in their body.

This slogan is one of the most talked about fallacies in the blogsphere...

Recently, Austin DWI attorney Ken Gibson blogged about this issue in his post Drink, Drive, Go To Jail . . . That is not the law!  In it, Ken talked about how the Gregg County Sheriff's office has been preaching the slogan:

Gregg County Sheriff’s Department says; “We’d just like to remind people to drive responsibly. Don’t drink and drive. Enforcement will be out there and it’s not worth that chance and certainly not taking a chance of hurting yourself or others.”

Ken has not been alone in his postings.  Apparently, the police in New York have bought into the slogan as well.  Austin DWI attorney Jamie Spencer recently wrote about police in New York arresting people who have been drinking, but not going further to check and see if they are impaired.  He has posed that the police said:

"Once the driver rolls down the window, (the officer) said, it's easy to tell if he or she has been drinking.

"The first thing that hits you is the odor of alcohol -it's so obvious," he said. "I've had a few drivers who know they've been drinking and try to play it down, but the odor on their breath gives them away."

All in all, it would seem that many are buying into this slogan. . . a slogan with no basis in the law.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

§ 49.09. ENHANCED OFFENSES AND PENALTIES.

(a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), an offense under Section 49.04, 49.05,
49.06, or 49.065 is a Class A misdemeanor, with a minimum term of
confinement of 30 days, if it is shown on the trial of the offense
that the person has previously been convicted one time of an offense
relating to the operating of a motor vehicle while intoxicated[0], an
offense of operating an aircraft while intoxicated[0], an offense of
operating a watercraft while intoxicated[0], or an offense of
operating or assembling an amusement ride while intoxicated[0].
(b) An offense under Section 49.04, 49.05, 49.06, or 49.065
is a felony of the third degree if it is shown on the trial of the
offense that the person has previously been convicted:
(1) one time of an offense under Section 49.08 or an
offense under the laws of another state if the offense contains
elements that are substantially similar to the elements of an
offense under Section 49.08; or
(2) two times of any other offense relating to the
operating of a motor vehicle while intoxicated[0], operating an
aircraft while intoxicated[0], operating a watercraft while
intoxicated[0], or operating or assembling an amusement ride while
intoxicated[0].
(c) For the purposes of this section:
(1) "Offense relating to the operating of a motor
vehicle while intoxicated[0]" means:
(A) an offense under Section 49.04 or 49.045;
(B) an offense under Section 49.07 or 49.08, if
the vehicle operated was a motor vehicle;
(C) an offense under Article 6701l-1, Revised
Statutes, as that law existed before September 1, 1994;
(D) an offense under Article 6701l-2, Revised
Statutes, as that law existed before January 1, 1984;
(E) an offense under Section 19.05(a)(2), as that
law existed before September 1, 1994, if the vehicle operated was a
motor vehicle; or
(F) an offense under the laws of another state
that prohibit the operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated[0].
(2) "Offense of operating an aircraft while
intoxicated[0]" means:
(A) an offense under Section 49.05;
(B) an offense under Section 49.07 or 49.08, if
the vehicle operated was an aircraft;
(C) an offense under Section 1, Chapter 46, Acts
of the 58th Legislature, Regular Session, 1963 (Article 46f-3,
Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes), as that law existed before
September 1, 1994;
(D) an offense under Section 19.05(a)(2), as that
law existed before September 1, 1994, if the vehicle operated was an
aircraft; or
(E) an offense under the laws of another state
that prohibit the operation of an aircraft while intoxicated[0].
(3) "Offense of operating a watercraft while
intoxicated[0]" means:
(A) an offense under Section 49.06;
(B) an offense under Section 49.07 or 49.08, if
the vehicle operated was a watercraft;
(C) an offense under Section 31.097, Parks and
Wildlife Code, as that law existed before September 1, 1994;
(D) an offense under Section 19.05(a)(2), as that
law existed before September 1, 1994, if the vehicle operated was a
watercraft; or
(E) an offense under the laws of another state
that prohibit the operation of a watercraft while intoxicated[0].
(4) "Offense of operating or assembling an amusement
ride while intoxicated[0]" means:
(A) an offense under Section 49.065;
(B) an offense under Section 49.07 or 49.08, if
the offense involved the operation or assembly of an amusement
ride; or
(C) an offense under the law of another state
that prohibits the operation of an amusement ride while intoxicated[0]
or the assembly of a mobile amusement ride while intoxicated[0].
(d) For the purposes of this section, a conviction for an
offense under Section 49.04, 49.045, 49.05, 49.06, 49.065, 49.07,
or 49.08 that occurs on or after September 1, 1994, is a final
conviction, whether the sentence for the conviction is imposed or
probated.
(e) Repealed by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 996, § 3.
(f) Repealed by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 996, § 3.
(g) A conviction may be used for purposes of enhancement
under this section or enhancement under Subchapter D, Chapter 12,
but not under both this section and Subchapter D.
(h) This subsection applies only to a person convicted of a
second or subsequent offense relating to the operating of a motor
vehicle while intoxicated[0] committed within five years of the date
on which the most recent preceding offense was committed. The court
shall enter an order that requires the defendant to have a device
installed, on each motor vehicle owned or operated by the
defendant, that uses a deep-lung breath analysis mechanism to make
impractical the operation of the motor vehicle if ethyl alcohol is
detected in the breath of the operator, and that requires that
before the first anniversary of the ending date of the period of
license suspension under Section 521.344, Transportation Code, the
defendant not operate any motor vehicle that is not equipped with
that device. The court shall require the defendant to obtain the
device at the defendant's own cost on or before that ending date,
require the defendant to provide evidence to the court on or before
that ending date that the device has been installed on each
appropriate vehicle, and order the device to remain installed on
each vehicle until the first anniversary of that ending date. If
the court determines the offender is unable to pay for the device,
the court may impose a reasonable payment schedule not to extend
beyond the first anniversary of the date of installation. The
Department of Public Safety shall approve devices for use under
this subsection. Section 521.247, Transportation Code, applies to
the approval of a device under this subsection and the consequences
of that approval. Failure to comply with an order entered under
this subsection is punishable by contempt. For the purpose of
enforcing this subsection, the court that enters an order under
this subsection retains jurisdiction over the defendant until the
date on which the device is no longer required to remain installed.
To the extent of a conflict between this subsection and Section
13(i), Article 42.12, Code of Criminal Procedure, this subsection
controls.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

§ 49.045. DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED[0] WITH CHILD
PASSENGER.

(a) A person commits an offense if:

(1) the person is intoxicated[0] while operating a motor
vehicle in a public place; and

(2) the vehicle being operated by the person is
occupied by a passenger who is younger than 15 years of age.

(b) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

§ 49.04. DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED. (a) A person commits
an offense if the person is intoxicated while operating a motor
vehicle in a public place.

(b) Except as provided by Subsection (c) and Section 49.09,
an offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor, with a
minimum term of confinement of 72 hours.

(c) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this
section that at the time of the offense the person operating the
motor vehicle had an open container of alcohol in the person's
immediate possession, the offense is a Class B misdemeanor, with a
minimum term of confinement of six days.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Penal Code - Chapter 49

(2) "Intoxicated" means:

(A) not having the normal use of mental or
physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a
controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of
two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the
body; or

(B) having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or
more.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

In yet another instance of the "guilty until proven innocent mentality," an Indianapolis radio station has decided to do their part and read off a list of people arrested for drunken driving (DUI in Indiana). 

I wonder if anyone at the station even though, just for a second about what they were doing?  How about TAINTING a potential jury pool of people who would be instructed to presume the person on trial innocent until proven guilty?

Although I wouldnt be for it, I would think that reading a list of those CONVICTED of DWI / DUI that week would be more appropriate.  At least it wouldnt taint future jurors, or compound the problem of further humiliating innocent people that were arrested.  Below is the article.

Radio station to read names of DUI arrestees

WNOU-FM (93.1) is taking a unique stand against drunken driving in Indianapolis -- by reading the names of the previous week's offenders every Monday during its morning radio show.

"You don't want to hear your name on this list, do you?" co-host Marco Anselmo asked listeners during the premier segment Monday.
To the tune of Inner Circle's "Bad Boys" song, hosts of "The Morning Mess" highlighted a handful of drivers charged with DUI last week and quoted details from incident reports.
The segment promises to feature "prominent guest commentators."
On Monday, Sgt. Ray Poole of the Indiana State Police offered anecdotes about DUI arrests he has made.
Upcoming speakers include members of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and Gov. Mitch Daniels.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a recent case in New Mexico, a citizen was arrested, tired, and acquitted of DWI.  Despite his being found not guilty by a jury of his peers, and after a clerk "checked the wrong box" saying guilty, his picture and name was published in the newspaper. Oh yes, a retraction was printed, but I'm quite sure it was too little too late for him.  The interesting thing is, I found this article online, on an NBC news site, which not only published his name, but also published his PICTURE as well!   Apparently they don't care about his privacy either.... Here is the story, but in order to not perpetuate the wrong that was done to this man, I have removed his name and his picture. Man mistakenly published on DWI offender list

A man who was never found guilty for DWI had his picture published in the local paper saying he was guilty of drunk driving. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, was arrested last August and blew at or above the legal limit, according to court records. XXXXXXXXXXX fought the case and was found "not guilty," in February. A Metropolitan Court clerk made a mistake and marked guilty next to the DWI charge days after XXXXX was acquitted. XXXXXXXXX works for the Federal Government on Kirtland Air Force Base and has been trying to get higher security clearance. XXXXXXXXXXXXXX said, "I'm gonna have to do a lot of explaining I shouldn't have never had to do." For two months XXXXX was officially a convict, until the mistake was found and fixed. During the time XXXXXXXXXXXXX was mistakenly labeled "guilty" his name was put into the mix of guilty faces to be published by Albuquerque police. Metropolitan Court spokeswoman Janet Blair said, "We really regret Mr. XXXXXXXXXXXX had to go through this...and we don't understand why such outdated information was used when correct information has been available for three months." The Albuquerque Police Department plans to issue a retraction in the next few months.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks