Utah DUI Attorney : Salt Lake City DUI Lawyer & Attorney : Glen Neeley : Serving Davis County, Ogden, Brigham City, Logan

 

I was asked the other day what the consequences are of a minor in possession/consumption of alcohol.  Interesting question with the new laws in effect now.  Lets say you were never in a car, you are 18 years old, and you rinsed our mouth out with Listerine.  An officer comes up to you and says I smell alcohol on you, please blow into my little breath test machine.  You do so.  Wow, you just registered a .02 with your good breath. Now what?

Pursuant to Utah Code 32a-12-209 you have just committed a crime.  The code makes it a crime for a minor (under 21) to have any measurable or detectable amount of alcohol in your body.  The harshest consequence that is now mandatory, even though you were not driving or even near a car, is that you will lose your license for one year.

Here is the exact language from the statute.

32A-12-209. Unlawful purchase, possession, consumption by minors -- Measurable amounts in body.
(1) Unless specifically authorized by this title, it is unlawful for a minor to:
(a) purchase an alcoholic beverage or product;
(b) attempt to purchase an alcoholic beverage or product;
(c) solicit another person to purchase an alcoholic beverage or product;
(d) possess an alcoholic beverage or product;
(e) consume an alcoholic beverage or product; or
(f) have measurable blood, breath, or urine alcohol concentration in the minor's body.
...(4) If a minor is found by a court to have violated this section and the violation is the minor's second or subsequent violation of this section, the court:
(a) shall order the minor to participate in an educational series as defined in Section 41-6a-501; and
(b) may order the minor to participate in a screening as defined in Section 41-6a-501.
(5) (a) When a minor who is at least 18 years old, but younger than 21 years old, is found by a court to have violated this section, except as provided in Section 32A-12-223, the court hearing the case shall suspend the minor's driving privileges under Section 53-3-219.  (the division shall: (A) impose a suspension for a period of one year;)

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

The Utah State Crime Lab analyzes all the DUI cases that involve blood draws.  Recently, in the Salt Lake Tribune, there was an article stating that budget cuts may cause cutting lab staff.  If that happens, the lab people in the article say that this could cause turnaround time on blood sample results to slow way down.  Here is the problem.  A person is entitled to a Driver's license hearing within 29 days of arrest.  If the blood result is not provided within 29 days to the driver's license hearing officer, there is very little evidence to suspend a person's driver's license.  This would benefit the driver, and has done so in the past on cases where the blood results were not ready in time for the hearing.  

The article states:

"That seems to be true throughout the state lab, where 15 to 20 scientists analyze about 15,000 items a year in thousands of cases. Now staff are poised to see how a 15 percent budget cut, which took effect July 1, could lengthen turnaround time. The lab, the main section of which is housed in Salt Lake City with extensions in Ogden and Cedar City, had to close its Price branch and cut three positions statewide.
Lab Director Jay Henry says he's hoping to get federal funds that would help patch holes at the lab, one of only two state-run labs nationwide accredited under international standards that require regular audits and a dedicated quality assurance manager."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I was called on the phone today by KSL News today about a story that was unfolding.  A man hit and killed a UPS driver.  He was charged with a Vehiclular Hommicide by the goverment.  The Utah State Toxicology Lab tested his blood and came back with a result of .19.  The man was in disbelief, said he had not drank in 20 years.  The blood was then tested by a private lab.  Guess what?  the result was .000.  The State Lab then retested the sample and came up with .000.

How could this happen?  The lab claims that a number was transposed from a 9 to an 8.  I don't know what that means.  However, a sample is supposed to be tested 4 times with preliminary tests and then confirmation tests.  If nobody questioned this test and the sample was never retested, this poor man would be facing felony charges. 

That sad comment that the Lab superviser made was that "We're reminded of the effects that our work has on real people."   You have to be kidding me.  This reminds you that people are going to jail over your mistakes!

 

 

Continue Reading...

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

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...

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

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...

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

The Utah police agencies used to do "administrative checkpoints" to pull people over for no reason and then check them for alcohol.  The problem is that that charges can be challenged because there are so many rules the police must follow to make them constitutional.  So the police answer this by doing Saturation Patrols.  The highlights of this technique are as follows:

• Citizens get pulled over for a claimed legal, but usually minor reason.  (i.e. burned out license plate light, failure to signal for 2-3 seconds before turning, not coming to a complete stop, or if nothing else works, tell the driver the officer's computer shows the car is not insured when it actually does).
• The police usually get several agencies involved like the Utah Highway Patrol, Salt Lake City Police Department, and the Salt Lake County Sheriff's office.
• The patrol occurs heavily around the time the bars are in full force and the patrol occurs around these bars.

Here is a recent story where 35 officers got together, pulled over 774 citizens, and arrested one person for DUI.

774 PEOPLE PULLED OVER!  If an officer wants to pull you over, I'm sure the officer can find a reason.  What a waste of taxpayer money in an effort to effect the witch hunt.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Utah has one of the most stringent alcohol limits in the country.  Not long ago, the alcohol breath/blood limit was .10.  Pressure from sources that advocate against drinking caused most, if not all, states to reduce the limit to a .08.  Just a couple of years ago, Utah legislators wrote in certain criteria where a person cannot have alcohol in  their system that is .05 or above.  This involves a second offense and having children in the car.  The question is when will it go lower, "not if."  Here is an article where Britain is looking at this very issue.

Drink drive limit to be reduced
By David Millward, Transport Correspondent
Last Updated: 12:56am BST 17/06/2007

Bypass surgery may cause drink problem
The drink drive limit could be cut under plans being considered by the Government.

Stephen Ladyman, the roads minister, said that the Department for Transport would produce proposals for consultation later in the year.

advertisementThe Government first hinted that it was ready to reduce the limit - probably from UK is 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood to 50 in February.

Ministers have come under mounting pressure to do so from road safety groups and also the British Medical Association to act.

Earlier this year several police forces voiced alarm that the "do not drink and drive" message was not getting through, especially to young motorists.

The Department for Transport’s own figures showed that there were 1,050 17-19 year olds involved in drink drive accidents in 2005, compared to 810 a decade ago.

Yesterday a pan-European study showed that drink driving was the cause of an increasing proportion of fatalities on the country’s roads.

Motoring groups believe the Government could act if it is convinced that its strategy of strict enforcement of existing limits was no longer working.

Last night a DfT spokesman said: “As part of our latest road safety review in February we said we would keep under review the case for a lower drink drive limit.

“The UK already has stringent penalties for drink driving, and better enforcement than many countries, but that doesn’t mean we can’t do better.

“We have said many times that we plan to explore ways of making drink driving enforcement easier for police. This will take the form of a consultation later in the year - and until that is complete it is impossible to say what measures may or may not be taken forward.”

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks