Looking for a DWI lawyer in Austin? First, educate yourself here on the facts of Austin DWI defense and the Texas laws for drinking and driving.
First, it is easy to fall in the trap of feeling bad for yourself after getting caught for drinking and driving. The instinct is to replay all the different times when you had the ability to change your decision. No matter how you look at it though, saying, “I should have taken a cab,” or “I should have let my sober friend drive the car home,” is unproductive.  So, initially, get over the feelings of remorse and focus on the future. In short, get your defense together and learn the facts about your case.
Second, if you are under twenty-one and are a casualty of Texas’ “zero tolerance” policy, then you most likely were charged with a Driving Under the Influence unless the officer believed you were substantially intoxicated. For more facts on DUI’s in Texas click here.
In the state of Texas a driver can be arrested for Driving While Intoxicated if a police officer can prove 1) he had reason to pull over the car and 2) had reason to believe the driver was intoxicated.В В If the driver submits a blood, urine, or breathalyzer test with a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) of over .08%
18 Ekim 2009 Pazar
Austin or Dwi my 3. description
Ansiklopidia fulls My The Legislature also tried to give some assurance to the health care providers that actually draw the blood persuant to a blood warrant, or mandatory blood draw. Section 724.017 of the Transportation code was amended to provide protection to those who take blood specimens according to "recognized medical procedures." However, this change in the law DOES NOT relieve a person from lability for negligence in the taking of a blood specimen. And there lies the danger to anyone that takes blood under these intrusive warrant/warrantless blood draws
As of today, September 1, two new laws go into force that deal with DWIs in Texas. Section 724.017 of the Transportation Code is now expended to allow more situations where police can do a forced blood draw without a warrant. Mandatory warrantless blood draws are now allowed if a person is arrested for DWI, or BWI, the person refuses to submit to the taking of a specimen volutarily, and: 1) an individual other than the person arrested has suffered bodily injury and was transported to a hospital or other medical facility for medical treatment; 2) the person is arrested for DWI with a child passenger under 15; 3) the officer has reliable information that the person has been previously convicted of DWI two or more times; or 4) the officer has reliable information that the person has been previously convicted of DWI with a child passenger under 15, intoxication assault, or intoxication manslaughter. full my web
As of today, September 1, two new laws go into force that deal with DWIs in Texas. Section 724.017 of the Transportation Code is now expended to allow more situations where police can do a forced blood draw without a warrant. Mandatory warrantless blood draws are now allowed if a person is arrested for DWI, or BWI, the person refuses to submit to the taking of a specimen volutarily, and: 1) an individual other than the person arrested has suffered bodily injury and was transported to a hospital or other medical facility for medical treatment; 2) the person is arrested for DWI with a child passenger under 15; 3) the officer has reliable information that the person has been previously convicted of DWI two or more times; or 4) the officer has reliable information that the person has been previously convicted of DWI with a child passenger under 15, intoxication assault, or intoxication manslaughter. full my web
28 Eylül 2009 Pazartesi
DWI and "Technicalities"
I was arrested for the first time ever last weekend for DWI. The police officer stated I didn't come to a complete stop at a stop sign and that's why he pulled me over. I thought I did OK on the field sobriety tests but was arrested. Scared and nervous, but I did about as well as I could have on the tests.
At the police station I blew a 0.09. Just a fraction over the limit. I personally knew I was OK to drive the two miles home, but the law is the law.
I cooperated with the officer and did what he asked.
I have two questions: First, the officer did not put on my seat belt after I was placed in the cruiser; second, I was never read my rights. Could these two issues help me in my case?
By the way, I have never been in trouble in my life - ever, and I have clean driving record. I am also 44 yrs old. Any thoughts?
I have several thoughts; let me address some of the un-asked questions first.
I recently posted about the “Rising BAC” defense, and it’s possible it could apply in your case. As you acknowledge, barely over the limit is still over the limit…but the State must prove either (a) loss of the normal use of your mental and/or physical faculties, i.e. impairment or (b) having a breath or blood alcohol concentration of .08 or higher at the time of driving.
Depending on how long it was from the time of the stop until the time of the breath test, it may be arguable that you were under .08 at the time of driving (or, as the law phrases it: “while operating a motor vehicle in a public place”).
Polite and cooperative is always a good fact as well. Most police officers will acknowledge that “some people you have arrested for DWI become quite belligerent and rude”. I like to phrase it as “some people” on cross examination, because frankly, that’s probably the best you can get out of the officer, and anyway, a jury will know that not all who are “drunk” will be impolite.
As I said in the previous post, doing reasonable well on the field sobriety tests is a prerequisite to getting a dismissal, reduction of charges, or not guilty on an “over .08 breath test DWI” case. Sounds like you may have done well on them – obviously, will have to wait to see the video of the tests to know for sure.
The video will also show whether the officer asked questions about when your first and last drink were consumed, when your last meal was, and other questions potentially necessary for the State to prove “over .08 at time of driving”.
As for your actual questions, I don’t think either of those will provide you with a defense. Not seat-belting you in properly sounds like a bad idea; perhaps it’s an indication that he might be a rookie, maybe it shows that he’s sloppy, and that sloppiness might carry over into his grading of your performance on the FSTs. But that’s (1) a bit of stretch, and (2) definitely not the kind of technicality that would make a judge grant a Motion to Suppress the Evidence, or throw your case out.
I’ll post later about DWI officers not reading Miranda warnings to those arrested for DWI (it deserves a post of its own). But suffice it to say here that most officers don’t read DWI defendant’s their rights, nor do they need to.
Statements made by a defendant in response to questioning from an officer after they have been placed under arrest for any offense, without the Miranda warnings are potentially suppressible. But, in most DWI cases, all the evidence gathered against you is taken in the “investigation phase” (most of what you told the officer was before he even administered the tests to you – never mind cuffed you and stuck you in the back of his car).
Thus, the Miranda warnings do not usually apply in DWI cases.
As for never being in trouble before? The prosecutors don’t so much give you credit for lack of a prior record, as they give you grief (and enhanced penalties, fines, jail time, etc.) for it being the second time around.
At the police station I blew a 0.09. Just a fraction over the limit. I personally knew I was OK to drive the two miles home, but the law is the law.
I cooperated with the officer and did what he asked.
I have two questions: First, the officer did not put on my seat belt after I was placed in the cruiser; second, I was never read my rights. Could these two issues help me in my case?
By the way, I have never been in trouble in my life - ever, and I have clean driving record. I am also 44 yrs old. Any thoughts?
I have several thoughts; let me address some of the un-asked questions first.
I recently posted about the “Rising BAC” defense, and it’s possible it could apply in your case. As you acknowledge, barely over the limit is still over the limit…but the State must prove either (a) loss of the normal use of your mental and/or physical faculties, i.e. impairment or (b) having a breath or blood alcohol concentration of .08 or higher at the time of driving.
Depending on how long it was from the time of the stop until the time of the breath test, it may be arguable that you were under .08 at the time of driving (or, as the law phrases it: “while operating a motor vehicle in a public place”).
Polite and cooperative is always a good fact as well. Most police officers will acknowledge that “some people you have arrested for DWI become quite belligerent and rude”. I like to phrase it as “some people” on cross examination, because frankly, that’s probably the best you can get out of the officer, and anyway, a jury will know that not all who are “drunk” will be impolite.
As I said in the previous post, doing reasonable well on the field sobriety tests is a prerequisite to getting a dismissal, reduction of charges, or not guilty on an “over .08 breath test DWI” case. Sounds like you may have done well on them – obviously, will have to wait to see the video of the tests to know for sure.
The video will also show whether the officer asked questions about when your first and last drink were consumed, when your last meal was, and other questions potentially necessary for the State to prove “over .08 at time of driving”.
As for your actual questions, I don’t think either of those will provide you with a defense. Not seat-belting you in properly sounds like a bad idea; perhaps it’s an indication that he might be a rookie, maybe it shows that he’s sloppy, and that sloppiness might carry over into his grading of your performance on the FSTs. But that’s (1) a bit of stretch, and (2) definitely not the kind of technicality that would make a judge grant a Motion to Suppress the Evidence, or throw your case out.
I’ll post later about DWI officers not reading Miranda warnings to those arrested for DWI (it deserves a post of its own). But suffice it to say here that most officers don’t read DWI defendant’s their rights, nor do they need to.
Statements made by a defendant in response to questioning from an officer after they have been placed under arrest for any offense, without the Miranda warnings are potentially suppressible. But, in most DWI cases, all the evidence gathered against you is taken in the “investigation phase” (most of what you told the officer was before he even administered the tests to you – never mind cuffed you and stuck you in the back of his car).
Thus, the Miranda warnings do not usually apply in DWI cases.
As for never being in trouble before? The prosecutors don’t so much give you credit for lack of a prior record, as they give you grief (and enhanced penalties, fines, jail time, etc.) for it being the second time around.
DWI and the "While Defense"
DWI lawyers know that most times their defense will be “the State can’t prove my client was intoxicated”. This usually comes up in breath or blood test refusal cases, where the defendant does well enough (not perfectly, just well enough) on the field sobriety tests.
Sometimes, the defense is that the State can’t prove that my client drove or operated a motor vehicle. This might involve the police arriving on scene after a collision, or after the driver is pulled over on the side of the road.
But the least common DWI defense is what I call the “while defense”. Yes, the state can prove my client was legally intoxicated (at some point). And yes, they can prove he was operating a motor vehicle. But they can’t put both of them together at the same time, and therefore, he wasn’t Driving While Intoxicated.
This defense is realistically possible when the defendant provides a breath or blood specimen where the analysis shows that the alcohol concentration is over .08, but is for example, under .10.
Of course, the defendant didn’t actually provide that specimen while driving, but instead, some time after the fact. I’d estimate that in most Austin DWI cases, my client’s breath or blood sample is taken somewhere between 30 minutes to 2 hours after the arrest.
Why so long?
Well, there’s sometimes a delay while the original stopping officer waits for an Austin Police Department DWI task force officer to arrive on the scene. That officer then conducts an interview, and administers field sobriety tests. The officer might conduct an inventory of the vehicle, and will certainly read the DIC Statutory Warning to the defendant, asking for a specimen of breath.
Then there’s the trip to the police station, where there may be an additional wait. (The recent addition of the BAT-Mobile, or Breath Alcohol Testing Mobile Unit has cut down that wait – but that’s fodder for another post.) And depending on where in Austin the client was stopped, the trip to the station or the DWI mobile unit can take quite some time as well.
The point is that having a BAC of .085, for example, 30 to 45 minutes after the driving, does not in and of itself prove that the defendant was driving while intoxicated. Depending on various factors, primarily the particular drinking pattern that night and the stomach contents, it is possible for the Defendant’s BAC to be higher at the time of the test, than it is at the time of driving. It is also effected by variations in human physiology as well.
This is most likely in scenarios where the defendant’s last drink was very near the time of driving; which given what happens at closing time, is not an unlikely scenario at all.
This isn’t just some crazy DWI defense lawyer theory here either – it’s both basic common sense, and basic science. So basic, that even the CMI manual for the Intoxilyzer 500 (used for breath tests here in Austin) admits that the defendant’s actual breath alcohol content at the time of the test may be “higher than, lower than or the same as” the BAC at time of driving.
[Last Note: in explaining this over the years, I really have come to label this the “while defense”, because it seems to make sense when I explain it in this context. I should note, however, that the more formal term for it is the “rising BAC defense”, meaning that if the defendant’s BAC was still rising at the time the vehicle was pulled over, then it’s likely that it was below the test measurement at the time of driving.]
Sometimes, the defense is that the State can’t prove that my client drove or operated a motor vehicle. This might involve the police arriving on scene after a collision, or after the driver is pulled over on the side of the road.
But the least common DWI defense is what I call the “while defense”. Yes, the state can prove my client was legally intoxicated (at some point). And yes, they can prove he was operating a motor vehicle. But they can’t put both of them together at the same time, and therefore, he wasn’t Driving While Intoxicated.
This defense is realistically possible when the defendant provides a breath or blood specimen where the analysis shows that the alcohol concentration is over .08, but is for example, under .10.
Of course, the defendant didn’t actually provide that specimen while driving, but instead, some time after the fact. I’d estimate that in most Austin DWI cases, my client’s breath or blood sample is taken somewhere between 30 minutes to 2 hours after the arrest.
Why so long?
Well, there’s sometimes a delay while the original stopping officer waits for an Austin Police Department DWI task force officer to arrive on the scene. That officer then conducts an interview, and administers field sobriety tests. The officer might conduct an inventory of the vehicle, and will certainly read the DIC Statutory Warning to the defendant, asking for a specimen of breath.
Then there’s the trip to the police station, where there may be an additional wait. (The recent addition of the BAT-Mobile, or Breath Alcohol Testing Mobile Unit has cut down that wait – but that’s fodder for another post.) And depending on where in Austin the client was stopped, the trip to the station or the DWI mobile unit can take quite some time as well.
The point is that having a BAC of .085, for example, 30 to 45 minutes after the driving, does not in and of itself prove that the defendant was driving while intoxicated. Depending on various factors, primarily the particular drinking pattern that night and the stomach contents, it is possible for the Defendant’s BAC to be higher at the time of the test, than it is at the time of driving. It is also effected by variations in human physiology as well.
This is most likely in scenarios where the defendant’s last drink was very near the time of driving; which given what happens at closing time, is not an unlikely scenario at all.
This isn’t just some crazy DWI defense lawyer theory here either – it’s both basic common sense, and basic science. So basic, that even the CMI manual for the Intoxilyzer 500 (used for breath tests here in Austin) admits that the defendant’s actual breath alcohol content at the time of the test may be “higher than, lower than or the same as” the BAC at time of driving.
[Last Note: in explaining this over the years, I really have come to label this the “while defense”, because it seems to make sense when I explain it in this context. I should note, however, that the more formal term for it is the “rising BAC defense”, meaning that if the defendant’s BAC was still rising at the time the vehicle was pulled over, then it’s likely that it was below the test measurement at the time of driving.]
25 Eylül 2009 Cuma
Austin Dwi
Motorists who drink and drive are involved in approximately 50% of fatal collisions and an equal percentage of serious injury collisions. After 2 a.m., it is estimated that two of every four motorists on the road are driving under the influence of alcohol. These disturbing statistics reflect a dangerous trend on our roads that the Austin Police Department is determined to reverse.
To increase enforcement of DWI laws and send a message to motorists who drink and drive, APD launched the DWI Enforcement Team in August 1998. The unit, which is under the direction of the Highway Enforcement Command, is comprised of 14 patrol officers, two corporals and two sergeants. As a dedicated DWI enforcement unit, the Enforcement Team is able to concentrate its patrol efforts on apprehending drunk drivers. Patrol officers focus on areas where DWI offenses are most likely to occur (entertainment areas featuring bars and nightclubs) during times when most drunk drivers are on the roads (evenings, weekends and holidays). In addition, members of the Enforcement Team are able to provide support to regular patrol officers during peak offense times, relieving patrol officers by handling the lengthy processing of arrests.
The working relationship between regular patrol and the Enforcement Team increases the efficiency of the Department as a whole in removing drunk drivers from our roads. First, the Enforcement Team increases the number of patrol units on the streets, making apprehension of DWI offenders more likely. At the same time, regular patrol officers who make DWI arrests are able to turn suspects over to the Enforcement Team for processing through the system, allowing them to resume patrol duties and apprehend other DWI offenders. As a result, both the numbers of Enforcement Team and regular patrol DWI arrests have increased.
To increase enforcement of DWI laws and send a message to motorists who drink and drive, APD launched the DWI Enforcement Team in August 1998. The unit, which is under the direction of the Highway Enforcement Command, is comprised of 14 patrol officers, two corporals and two sergeants. As a dedicated DWI enforcement unit, the Enforcement Team is able to concentrate its patrol efforts on apprehending drunk drivers. Patrol officers focus on areas where DWI offenses are most likely to occur (entertainment areas featuring bars and nightclubs) during times when most drunk drivers are on the roads (evenings, weekends and holidays). In addition, members of the Enforcement Team are able to provide support to regular patrol officers during peak offense times, relieving patrol officers by handling the lengthy processing of arrests.
The working relationship between regular patrol and the Enforcement Team increases the efficiency of the Department as a whole in removing drunk drivers from our roads. First, the Enforcement Team increases the number of patrol units on the streets, making apprehension of DWI offenders more likely. At the same time, regular patrol officers who make DWI arrests are able to turn suspects over to the Enforcement Team for processing through the system, allowing them to resume patrol duties and apprehend other DWI offenders. As a result, both the numbers of Enforcement Team and regular patrol DWI arrests have increased.
Austin Dwi
The Austin American Statesman reported in today's paper that Austin's Hospitals and the Travis County Sheriff's Department have informed the Austin Police Department (APD) that they will no longer collect blood for APD.
Travis County's central booking facility had been the place where APD took their suspected DWI folks for the forced blood draw. APD would rely on the Sheriff's nurses to do the forced blood draw. (If the person refused, they would literally strap them in a chair so that the person couldn't move their arms, and then stick them with the needle) The Sheriff's Department nurses stopped taking blood samples on January 1. The Sheriff's Department has finally realized that the nurses main function should be to treat inmates, not collect evidence. Further, they are deeply concerned about having to give nurse's overtime pay to appear in court after having been the one that draws the blood.
Since the Sheriff's Office stopped doing the blood draws, APD started taking suspects to the hospital for the blood draws. (I can't verifiy this, but I heard that the hospital was charging APD $400.00 per blood draw.) The Hospital representatives have now told APD they don't want them to bring suspects to jail for blood draws. The Hospital staff are worried about lawsuits, and are concerned because these types of blood draws are not being done for medical reasons. Further, the Hospitals are worried about who will pay for the nurse's time when they are called to court to testify about the procedure they used to draw the blood.
Chief Acevedo thinks he has figured out a way around these problems. APD contracted with a private phlebotomist to draw the blood of folks on Halloween weekend and New Years Eve. APD agreed to pay the phlebotomist for three eight hour shifts during these weekends. What APD didn't contract for was pay for this phlebotomist when she is drug into court to testify about the blood draws. I predict there will be a lot of screaming from the phlebotomist when she finally figures out that the money she received per hour will now be reduced by the number hours she has to sit in court.
In the Statesman article, an "expert in blood draws" states that "the state laws are clear that nurses and hospitals are protected from such suits. What the "expert" appears to be referencing is Section 724.017 of the Texas Transportation Code. The relevant section, section (b), states:
The person who takes the blood specimen under this chapter, or the hospital where the blood specimen is taken, is not liable for damages arising from the request or order of the peace officer to take the blood specimen as provided by this chapter if the blood specimen was taken according to recognized medical procedures.
However, this "expert" left out the final sentence to section (b):
This subsection does not relieve a person from liability for negligence in the taking of a blood specimen.
Now, what the "expert" seems to be forgetting is that it will ultimately be up to a fact finder (Judge or Jury) to determine if negligence took place.
Also, I bet no one informed the phlebotomists that they could be held liable for the blood draws either.
APD is treading on thin ice on this issue, and the sad part is, they either don't even realize it, or they just don't care.
Travis County's central booking facility had been the place where APD took their suspected DWI folks for the forced blood draw. APD would rely on the Sheriff's nurses to do the forced blood draw. (If the person refused, they would literally strap them in a chair so that the person couldn't move their arms, and then stick them with the needle) The Sheriff's Department nurses stopped taking blood samples on January 1. The Sheriff's Department has finally realized that the nurses main function should be to treat inmates, not collect evidence. Further, they are deeply concerned about having to give nurse's overtime pay to appear in court after having been the one that draws the blood.
Since the Sheriff's Office stopped doing the blood draws, APD started taking suspects to the hospital for the blood draws. (I can't verifiy this, but I heard that the hospital was charging APD $400.00 per blood draw.) The Hospital representatives have now told APD they don't want them to bring suspects to jail for blood draws. The Hospital staff are worried about lawsuits, and are concerned because these types of blood draws are not being done for medical reasons. Further, the Hospitals are worried about who will pay for the nurse's time when they are called to court to testify about the procedure they used to draw the blood.
Chief Acevedo thinks he has figured out a way around these problems. APD contracted with a private phlebotomist to draw the blood of folks on Halloween weekend and New Years Eve. APD agreed to pay the phlebotomist for three eight hour shifts during these weekends. What APD didn't contract for was pay for this phlebotomist when she is drug into court to testify about the blood draws. I predict there will be a lot of screaming from the phlebotomist when she finally figures out that the money she received per hour will now be reduced by the number hours she has to sit in court.
In the Statesman article, an "expert in blood draws" states that "the state laws are clear that nurses and hospitals are protected from such suits. What the "expert" appears to be referencing is Section 724.017 of the Texas Transportation Code. The relevant section, section (b), states:
The person who takes the blood specimen under this chapter, or the hospital where the blood specimen is taken, is not liable for damages arising from the request or order of the peace officer to take the blood specimen as provided by this chapter if the blood specimen was taken according to recognized medical procedures.
However, this "expert" left out the final sentence to section (b):
This subsection does not relieve a person from liability for negligence in the taking of a blood specimen.
Now, what the "expert" seems to be forgetting is that it will ultimately be up to a fact finder (Judge or Jury) to determine if negligence took place.
Also, I bet no one informed the phlebotomists that they could be held liable for the blood draws either.
APD is treading on thin ice on this issue, and the sad part is, they either don't even realize it, or they just don't care.
Austin Dwi
As of today, September 1, two new laws go into force that deal with DWIs in Texas. Section 724.017 of the Transportation Code is now expended to allow more situations where police can do a forced blood draw without a warrant. Mandatory warrantless blood draws are now allowed if a person is arrested for DWI, or BWI, the person refuses to submit to the taking of a specimen volutarily, and: 1) an individual other than the person arrested has suffered bodily injury and was transported to a hospital or other medical facility for medical treatment; 2) the person is arrested for DWI with a child passenger under 15; 3) the officer has reliable information that the person has been previously convicted of DWI two or more times; or 4) the officer has reliable information that the person has been previously convicted of DWI with a child passenger under 15, intoxication assault, or intoxication manslaughter.
The Legislature also tried to give some assurance to the health care providers that actually draw the blood persuant to a blood warrant, or mandatory blood draw. Section 724.017 of the Transportation code was amended to provide protection to those who take blood specimens according to "recognized medical procedures." However, this change in the law DOES NOT relieve a person from lability for negligence in the taking of a blood specimen. And there lies the danger to anyone that takes blood under these intrusive warrant/warrantless blood draws.
The Legislature also tried to give some assurance to the health care providers that actually draw the blood persuant to a blood warrant, or mandatory blood draw. Section 724.017 of the Transportation code was amended to provide protection to those who take blood specimens according to "recognized medical procedures." However, this change in the law DOES NOT relieve a person from lability for negligence in the taking of a blood specimen. And there lies the danger to anyone that takes blood under these intrusive warrant/warrantless blood draws.
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)