Posted on June 30, 2011 by Glen Neeley

Women charged with alcohol offense when she did the right thing, Not Drive!

 A woman in Indiana was responsible enough to request a ride from a sober driver after drinking at a party recently, and was arrested for being drunk in a vehicle anyway. The woman was at a friend’s house and drank two tall beers. When one of her friends who had not been drinking asked the woman to give him a ride to another friend’s house, she refused, on the grounds that she had been drinking, but the sober friend could drive both of them over to the other friend’s house.

Although the situation appears to be completely within the confines of the law, while en route to the other friend’s house, the driver was pulled over because the lights on his license plate were out. The police officer, upon seeing the slightly inebriated woman in the passenger’s side of the vehicle, arrested her for public intoxication, a Class B Misdemeanor in the State of Indiana.

The Supreme Court of Indiana recently determined that for purposes of the State statute regarding public intoxication, a person’s vehicle when stopped by a police officer does in fact qualify as a place of public resort. The woman’s attorney argues that she was adhering to the publicly accepted policy of refusing to drink and drive, and that to arrest this or any other person for being in a vehicle while intoxicated, even if not driving, violates her right to consume alcohol at all.

The judge dissented and determined that the woman should not suffer criminal penalty for the alleged “crime” for which she was arrested. If you are arrested for a crime, even for something that makes little to no sense like the woman in this article, contact an experienced advocate to help you see the options you have available to you. Glen Neeley is a Board Certified DUI Defense Attorney who has successfully won countless cases similar to this one for his clients, and looks forward to doing the same for you.

Source: http://legalblogwatch.typepad.com/legal_blog_watch/

 

Tags:
Posted on June 24, 2011 by Glen Neeley

Supreme Court Rules That Those Who Administer Tests Must Be the Ones to Testify

The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided on a landmark ruling that has significant bearing on all criminal defense cases across the United States. The ruling states that when trying to prove a criminal fact, the individual who performed the test to determine the fact must also be the one to testify in Court, and other experts or substitutes may not be used. This ruling also applies to law enforcement officers who use radar guns to determine a driver’s speed.

For example, what this means in a DUI test is that if a person arrested for suspicion of DUI fails a breathalyzer test, the police officer who administered the breathalyzer must be the one to testify in Court. This new ruling would exclude anyone else from testifying in court on the matter, whether it is a colleague, a witness to the test administration, or any other individual.

According to the Sixth Amendment, a person has the right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” The Supreme Court interpreted this clause to mean that while testimonies of witnesses received outside the courtroom may be used during criminal proceedings, actual evidence such as lab reports and breathalyzer results, as used in the example above, must be presented by the person who administered the test in the first place. The only exception to this rule is if both the prosecution and the defense agree beforehand to allow some other person to testify in place of the test administrator.

Source: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/06/23/Supreme-Court-Test-operator-must-testify-at-trial/UPI-26861308843865/#ixzz1QEvpAa4m

Tags:
Posted on June 17, 2011 by Glen Neeley

Woman Sentenced To Three Years in Prison for Fatal DUI Accident

 Mykhaylo Meshko was a 50-year-old immigrant from Russia, who was killed in Hanover Township, Illinois, on his drive home from work at a local bakery. Meshko was yet another unfortunate victim of a drunk driving accident that landed the driver, Kirra McPeek anywhere from three to six years in prison.

According to news reports, McPeek was driving on the wrong side of the road at the time of the accident, a head-on collision with Meshko that killed him instantly and injured the one other passenger in the vehicle. McPeek was apparently just coming from a bar, where she had over ten drinks, about one third of a mile from the crime scene.

During the court proceedings, McPeek’s defense attorney noted that his client had never been in trouble before. She was an all-around good person, had gainful employment, and was the caretaker for her elderly grandmother. She accepted full responsibility for the accident, even enrolling in counseling immediately following the accident. News reports state that McPeek cried openly and expressed remorse to the widow of her innocent victim.

This story goes to show that even good people can make mistakes. Do not allow yourself fall prey to a situation similar to McPeek’s by driving drunk. However, if you are arrested for DUI, seek out an experienced attorney to serve as your advocate. Contact experienced, Board Certified DUI attorney Glen Neeley for your free DUI case evaluation today.

Source: http://citizensvoice.com/news/w-b-woman-gets-three-to-six-years-for-fatal-dui-accident-1.1163116?localLinksEnabled=false#ixzz1PXrYgeEl

Tags:
Posted on June 11, 2011 by Glen Neeley

Kansas DUI Case Moves to the Supreme Court

A man in Kansas was acquitted in his DUI case recently, despite his breath being measured at .080 grams, the legal limit in the United States. The man’s attorney argued during his driver’s license hearing that a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) of .080 was not enough evidence on its own to find his client guilty of DUI beyond a reasonable doubt.

Furthermore, the attorney was able to show that the Intoxilyzer 5000 had shown inconsistencies in recent tests. The Assistant District Attorney retorted that a BAC level of .08 was in clear violation of federal DUI law and pushed for conviction. The District Court Judge apparently agreed with the attorney and ultimately granted his Motion to Acquit.

The man was initially pulled over for weaving in and out of his lane of traffic. Upon his arrest, the man was taken to the county jail where he submitted to a breath test. Upon his acquittal, the man plead guilty to the lesser charge of failure to maintain a lane. The case is set to go to Supreme Court in the next couple of weeks.

If you have been charged with DUI or a similar crime, know that you have options for fighting your case. The key is to have an experienced attorney, like the man in this article had, review your case and serve as your advocate. If you have been charged with DUI, contact experienced, board-certified DUI attorney Glen Neeley for your free DUI case evaluation today.

Source: http://www.onlineattorneys4u.com/2009/10/kansas-dui-case-going-to-supreme-court/

Tags: