Posted on November 23, 2007 by Glen Neeley

What happened to the Presumption of Innocense?

Stephen Hamilton, an attorney that specializes in Defending people accused of DWIs in Lubbock Texas, wrote a blog on the Scarlet S.  He linked to an article in Arizona that talked about posting people who have been accused of DUIs on a billboard. Just like Stephen, I see serious problems branding people with the "Scarlet DUI". 
  • First, if in fact the posting goes up before there is a conviction, the jury pool is tainted and you are now presumed guilty.
  • Second, If you have prior DUI's, and you have changed your life, you will be presumed guilty regardless if you are driving impaired or not.
  • Third, is this an effort to protect society, or is in effort to outcast people who have made mistakes?  Isn't this just public humiliation and harassment rather than protection?
Where does this stop?  Do we post all of our sins and misdeeds for everyone to see.  There are already websites up where a potential jury can search a persons name and get their whole criminal history.  Impartiality goes out the window and the person is convicted for past crimes for which the person has already been punished, and the person may very well be innocent for this crime.  Reminds me of an old movie called "The Star Chamber" where the judges hire hit men to kill people who were let go because of "technicalities."  The character Michael Douglas plays discovers that the people he was going to have killed were in fact innocent.  We have a system in place that begins with the presumption of innocence.  It means nothing to those who do not need it.  It is the difference between life and death, between incarceration and freedom, and between guilty and innocence.   Remember,  it is better that  10 guilty go free, than to let one innocent person be convicted. 
Continue Reading...
Tags:
Posted on November 22, 2007 by Glen Neeley

Salt Lake County Attorney refuses to plea Bargain DUIs, even if the Evidence is Lacking

I was told that that Salt Lake County Attorney's office had a policy of "No deals on DUIs."  I learned first hand that the policy is true, even if the evidence is lacking.  I defended a man accused of three DUIs.  In all cases, I  believed the man to be innocent.  The evidence supported my belief.  The man even passed a polygraph test that he had not consumed alcohol.  When I presented this evidence to the prosecutor, I was told "sorry, it is our policy to take all DUI charges to trial."  Twice the man was not convicted of DUI.  The third case was finally dismissed. 

I then found this article about the policy which states in part:


Miller said team leaders now decide plea deals, which streamlines the process.
Several critics also claimed Miller's refusal to plea-bargain any third-degree felony DUI cases has taken discretion from prosecutors. They said DUIs - which are enhanced to felonies by prior DUI convictions - are now being filed based on sometimes inaccurate rap sheets or driver license records, where the office used to require police to bring certified copies of prior convictions.
Miller said the new approach gets defendants before a judge more quickly, and prosecutors can more easily obtain certified copies of convictions than police.
"The intent is to speed up cases and get to court quicker, so they are easier to resolve," Miller said.
One former prosecutor countered that with no offer on the table, defendants are more likely to drag out cases because they have nothing to lose.

Read the whole story below.

Innocent people are being dragged through the system because of a get tough policy on Felony DUIs.  The prosecution attitude is that people never change.  If a person has been convicted of DUI before, they must be guilty now. 

People can change.  People do change.  Sometimes people make mistakes over and over again, but give them only what our constitution requires, "the presumption of innocence."
Continue Reading...
Tags: ,
Posted on November 21, 2007 by Glen Neeley

Arresting Utah DUIs is "Hunting" for UHP!

A UHP Officer in Davis County, Utah, was given an award for arresting people for DUI last week.  She refers to it as hunting for DUIs.  During this hunt, you have to wonder how many times the officer gets buck fever and makes a DUI out of an innocent person.  How many people's lives has this officer ruined.  I personally have seen many of this officer's cases dismissed or substantially reduced.  I have seen her be rude and abusive to people that she pulls over.  She gets the award for making over 200 arrests in 2007, and the year has not ended.  She gets the award for making over 750 arrests for DUIs in the past 5 years.  Her boss says "she is a great asset to the citizens of Utah."  Really.  I guess that is one way to look at it, unless she picks you as the person to help her get her next award.

Some of the highlights from the article are:

  • This year alone, Steed has stopped more than 2,000 cars, Nordfelt said. 
  • In her five-year career, she’s made more than 750 arrests for driving under the influence of a controlled substance, and more than 1,200 total arrests, according to UHP statistics.
  •  “The troopers I work with, they spend a lot of their own hunting time backing me and waiting for tow trucks while they could be looking for their own people to take to jail,” she said. “Without the people I work with and the sergeant’s and lieutenant’s support, I couldn’t have made it to these goals.” 
According to this article, citizens being pulled over are just statistics that help an officer get an award for stopping and harassing citizens.  Is there an award for the officer who stops and helps a person change a tire, who takes the time to investigate and arrest drug dealers, or who puts child molesters behind bars?  Maybe there is, but what is the officer's motivation when we give them awards for stopping 2000 people hunting for DUIs.  Seems to me that the motivation is no longer to protect and serve.  It seems now, the duty is to stop and harass to see if you too can be Trooper of the year.

Read the whole article by clicking the link below.

Continue Reading...
Tags:
Posted on November 5, 2007 by Glen Neeley

UHP draw blood for Utah DUI Arrests!

I have had several cases in Farmington, Utah, where the officer will draw blood from the arrested person rather than take him or her to get a breath test.  Is this really a good idea?  I mean, police drawing blood on the side of the road doesn't seem sanitary.   The police are there collecting evidence.  The police are not there to ensure the health and safety of the person arrested.  I'm not sticking my arm out and allowing a trooper stick me with a needle.  The Arizona police have the same type of practice.  Here's a story with some problems they are having with officers drawing the blood.


Tucson Region
Blood draws by officers in DUI stops questioned
Man files claim vs. county saying deputy infected arm
By Erica Meltzer
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 10.14.2007
"They have succeeded in getting blood evidence tossed out of court and charges against their clients dismissed based on the fact that it was a law enforcement officer, not medical personnel, who took the sample.
Now the man who believes an officer-administered blood draw caused his persistent infection has filed a claim against Pima County and the Pima County Sheriff's Department. A claim is the first step in a lawsuit.
"I think most of the public does not realize that law enforcement personnel are doing the draws," said Michael Bloom, an attorney in the case.
He said the practice raises several concerns, including that "the officer is not there in a medical capacity, he is there in a law enforcement capacity. He is not there to safeguard the health and safety of the suspect." " Continue Reading...
Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted on November 2, 2007 by Glen Neeley

MADD wants punishment for drinking drivers, not just Drunk Drivers!

Here is an interesting article about the prohibition of drinking.  Some points that I find interesting are:
  1. The person who started MADD feels that the organization has gotten way out of hand and no longer supports the organization.
  2. MADD is pushing for complete prohibition of any alcohol.
  3. Lowering the legal limit has not lowered DUIs as predicted.
  4. Ignition interlock devices are not working.
"Lightner has moved on from MADD, and since then has protested the shift from attacking drunk driving to attacking drinking in general. "I worry that the movement I helped create has lost direction," she told The Cleveland Plain Dealer in 1992. BAC legislation, she said, "ignores the real core of the problem....If we really want to save lives, let's go after the most dangerous drivers on the road." Lightner said MADD has become an organization far more "neoprohibitionist" than she had envisioned. "I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol," she said. "I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving." Continue Reading...
Tags: , , ,