Cop Retires, Gets Fancy Reporter Job, Drives Drunk into Police Horse...

It is truly amazing how many different ways there are to get a DUI. Just ask TV Newsman Mike Sheehan. He recently got charged with DWI according to this article in the NYDailyNews.com website. To the left is an actual screen shot of the website that shows his vehicle and his official Fox photo.

Mike should know something about the dangers of drunk driving, because he's an ex-cop! As a former NYPD detective, he must have many stories of collaring nefarious perps. But unfortunately ex-detective Sheehan found himself on the wrong side of the law recently.

Apparently he ran into a police horse, injuring the officer and damaging his own vehicle. That is a real shame when innocent animals get hurt. I certainly don't approve of DUI's that hurt animals (or anyone, for that matter). I wonder what type of discussion took place after the accident. I'm pretty confident that Sheehan identified himself as ex-NYPD.

A lot of cops might have skipped the DUI investigation as a courtesy to a former copper. But hey, when you hurt a man's horse or dog, you gotta expect retribution, whether it's the wild wild west or the upper-west side. By the way, Sheehan's lawyer is blaming the horse. Seriously. The horse.

Just When you Thought it was Safe to be Drunk on a Barstool...

Driving under the Influence is a fascinating subject. No matter how hard our legislators try to define the acts that are illegal and merit punishment, there is always a guy who wants to figure out a new way to test the limits. Kile Wygle, for example has constructed a magnificent new contraption consisting of a bar stool that is motorized by a lawn mower engine.

Unfortunately, he recently fell off his bar stool, apparently while driving it around his Ohio neighborhood. Sadly, this is also an example of someone talking himself into a DUI. According to the police report, Kile made a number of statements to the police officer investigating the crash, stating that he had been driving the stool, that he had not consumed any drinks since the accident, and stating that he had consumed approximately 15 beers before wrecking the bar stool.

This story emphasizes a classic lesson for anyone who is ever questioned by the police. Don't say anything. Show them your identification and don't say another word. Without Mr. Wygle's admissions, it might be very difficult for the prosecution to prove that he was the driver, that he had been drinking, or that any subsequent BAC wasn't tainted by post-driving consumption of alcohol. I once had a client who I helped get off a DUI charge after he ran his truck into a ditch. According to the officer, he was too intoxicated to answer questions about when the accident took place or whether he drank more after the wreck.

Would this act of buzzed barstoolery count as a DUI in Virginia? Probably. The General Assembly has been tightening loopholes in the DUI statutes for decades. Until 2005, a moped was not considered a motor vehicle and could not support a DUI. But the Virginia Statute on Drunk Driving specifically includes motor vehicles, defined as "every vehicle as defined in this section that is self-propelled or designed for self-propulsion except as otherwise provided in this title", and it specifically excludes "any device herein defined as a bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, electric power-assisted bicycle, or moped shall be deemed not to be a motor vehicle." Note: yes mopeds are included, but that is specific to the definition of DUI in §18.2-266.

We then must determine whether this contraption is a "bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device," or an "electric power-assisted bicycle". Bicycle is defined as "propelled solely by human power", so that is out. I wonder if it would count if a human used a hand crank to charge a battery while sober, and then... nah - maybe in California, but not in Virginia. What about an "electric personal assistive mobility device"? Nope - this is electrically powered, and from the "self-balancing two-nontandem-wheeled device" language, I'm pretty sure they're talking about a Segway.

Would it be legal to operate a Segway while under the influence? I recommend you not try, and it is specifically re-defined as a "vehicle" (not a "motor vehicle", mind you), when operated on a public highway. I would imagine this includes crossing the street. Don't tempt the Virginia Court of Appeals. Then there is the "electric power-assisted bicycle". Sadly, the barstool fails here as well, for lack of pedals and an electric motor, not to mention the troublesome fourth wheel. It seems then that Virginia is just as adept at statutory inclusion of unusual vehicles as Ohio. Best of luck to Kile - maybe you should construct your next vehicle with the Ohio statutes in mind?

Another Cop Busted for DUI!!!

Probably no big shock here, but the government's plan to use police to stop Drunk Driving has backfired. This time it was 3 year veteran of the Chatanooga Tennessee Police, Josh Turner, who ran into a pole in his 2004 Mercedes. I wonder if he bought the Mercedes with overtime pay earned prosecuting DUI cases. Officer Turner's actions resulted in the pole falling and hitting the windshield of another vehicle. Fortunately there are no injuries that have been reported as a result. This serves as another great example of why the DUI laws constantly fail: they are meant to fail.

If the people we are counting on to stop drunk driving are getting DUI's, how can the system ever work? The secret key to this mystery is the nature of alcohol. Many people overlook the fact that alcohol is a drug. When used in the intended manner, it causes reduced judgment. People feel sober and believe they will be able to make it home safely. They also feel that even if they are close to the limit, they will drive well enough not to get caught.

This problem can easily be solved by a little machine that attaches to the ignition and ensures that the driver is sober before the car can be started. Why don't the manufacturers put them on every new car and stamp out DUI? Is it because they enjoy the profit from selling a new car every time an old car gets wrecked in a DUI?

Virginia DUI Attorney Bob Battle Discovers Accuracy Problem in VA DUI Breathalyzer

Richmond Virginia DUI attorney Bob Battle recently won a case before it even went to trial. Battle was prepared to have an expert witness hook an oscilloscope up to the DUI breath analysis machine and find out what really takes place. But according to this article, "Manufacturer CMI Inc. has refused to disclose the source code that would allow an independent analysis of the device."

Apparently, the source code or basic software program that runs the machine is too secret for even the defendants who are charged with DUI to examine. This makes little sense. If you have a Sixth Amendment right to cross examine witnesses, shouldn't you have the right to find out what instructions are running the machine that is trying to put you in jail?

We have all lived with modern machinery and computers long enought to know that they are not infallible. For example, the breathalyzer will give a falsely high reading for a driver who has a fever. The same is true for a driver with a low partition ratio that does not conform to the machine's 2100:1 "standard" ratio assumption.

How can you get a fair trial in Virginia on a DUI charge? The only way to beat a DUI charge if you have been falsely accused is to hire a top tier DUI lawyer who has the skill and experience to demand that your rights be observed. I recommend Bob Battle to drivers charged with DUI in the Richmond area. If you have been charged without strong evidence and need help to get off a DUI charge, make sure your DUI attorney is one of the best.

Your DUI Situation Can't be as Bad as This: She got 3 DUIs in 3 Days!

Meet Jo A. Trilling. She looks like a kindly grandmother type. But unfortunately she has recently been the subject of three DUI charges in three days. This article alleges that while on vacation is Wisconsin, she was the subject of three DUI charges in 72 hours. Two of those resulted in BAC readings of .21 and .16. These would constitute aggravated DUI charges in VA. Luckily, she was not in Virginia, where a 3rd DUI can be charged as a felony.

Apparently the police at one point found her in her car with a box of Black Fox wine. I have never had Black Fox wine, but usually the kind of wine that one finds in boxes is pretty cheap. And cheap wine can make for a brutal hangover. I'm sure that hangover wasn't as bad as the 30 days in jail that Ms. Trilling was apparently serving as a result of her charges. I hope she doesn't get caught again, but if she is the registered owner of a car without an ignition interlock, we can thank the alcohol industry (including the government).

Bus Driver Arrested for DUI Blows 0.24% BAC... While on Duty!

Meet Alonzo V. Martin. This unfortunate gentleman had the distinction to be selected as a full-time bus driver in the Twin Cities area of Minnesota in February of this year. Sadly, that will probably be the pinnacle of Alonzo's bus driving career. According to this article, he blew a 0.24% BAC - and the limit for DUI is 0.8% for most drivers, but only 0.4% for commercial drivers. When you blow six times the limit, things are likely to go poorly in court.

Obviously drunk driving is dangerous and must be discouraged. But when the driver is responsible for the transportation of an entire bus full of passengers, it takes on a whole new level of risk. Not to mention the added danger posed by a vehicle of that size.

Mr. Martin looks very disappointed in this picture. Hopefully he will be able to walk away from this experience with the benefit of a good lesson. On the other hand, maybe he's innocent and an aggressive DUI lawyer will prove that the breath analysis isn't accurate. After, all, it is quite possible for a sober person who has recently rinsed with mouthwash to provide a very high BAC sample without being drunk at all.

But that is unlikely, and following proper police procedures will generally rule out the mouthwash defense. I'm thankful that nobody was injured or killed in this DUI case. I'd like to know what it would cost to equip every bus with an ignition interlock device. Maybe MADD would use some of their millions in funding to actually prevent a DUI rather than advocating ever harsher punishments for the unfortunate few that are caught.

Latest Cop Busted for DUI: Yakima Washington's Tarin Miller

Well folks, it looks like it's happened again. Everybody knows that alcohol is a drug. And when it comes to the distribution of narcotics, no cartel in the world can compare to the United States Government and it's political subdivisions, the states. Billions in revenue are derived by these governments through the sale of alcohol, the most pervasive substance of abuse in the Western World.

It's ironic that the states sell this drug, and then expect that people who use their product as intended will make good decisions. Officer Tarin Miller allegedly blew a BAC over 0.16% alcohol, which is more than twice the legal limit! Why do law enforcement officers keep getting arrested for DUI? Don't they get exposure to the constant barrage of warnings against drinking and driving? Don't they hear the alcohol manufacturer's warnings to "drink responsibly"?

Wait a minute. How can you drink responsibly? When people drink, their inhibitions and judgment are reduced. Can people abuse recreational substances responsibly? Or is this just a false plea from the dealers who really don't care whether you are responsible, as long as you keep drinking and they keep profiting? The truth is that cops are just like the rest of us. Nobody wants to drive drunk. But the government keeps selling us recreational drugs and allowing the manufacturers to advertise these substances on our airwaves.

I hope the allegations are somehow false and Tarin Miller is actually innocent. Perhaps a good DUI lawyer can keep her out of jail. But on the other hand, one has to wonder why the state of Washington allows people to drive cars without ignition interlocks. If nobody could drive drunk, there would be no DUIs, no injuries, no deaths, and tremendous tax savings from the reduced need for police resources. Could it be that the state actually wants continued DUI problems in order to keep selling more alcohol to drivers, to keep employing more police, and to keep getting more DUI fines? Hmmmm.

Newsflash: Catching a Buzz with Friends now Believed to be Healthy

"Having a supportive social network enhances the health benefits of having a few drinks, new research from Japan suggests." That is the conclusion of a Reuters article posted on MSNBC today. Apparently the use of recreation substances may not actually be all bad. And enjoying a buzz with friends (what many people would call a party) is apparently even better because it encourages the healthy activity of drinking alcohol!

Light to moderate drinking has been noted as a beneficial activity that helps stroke and heart disease by the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. Of course, these findings do not extend to heavy drinking, which is generally considered unhealthy. And it is never a good idea to drive drunk, although most people are able to have a drink or two and still be able to drive home safely.

Food for thought, especially in the context of the agenda that many do-gooding buttinsky's advocate. Some people would criminalize those who drive home with even a minimal blood alcohol content. What they need to keep in mind is that most adult drinkers who are below today's 0.08% BAC limit are not causing them any undue risk, but retain the ability to drive cautiously.

Update – DUI Judge Hit State Trooper, Spewed Racial Epithets, Claimed She Hadn’t Been Drinking, and Blew a 0.17 BAC; Gets 8 Month Slap on the Wrist

According to this article, allegedly sauce-saturated Judge Curtissa Cofield spewed racist belligerence at police in Connecticut upon being arrested for DUI, but she walked away with a mere 8-month suspension issued by the Connecticut Judicial Review Committee (JRC). This is quite a break, considering her BAC was more than twice the legal limit, not to mention that she allegedly verbally harassed the officers who apprehended her and threatened their careers.

Incredibly, the JRC seemed to overlook the fact that she had claimed not to have been drinking any alcohol at the police station, then testified under oath that she had consumed only two drinks (this before blowing a 0.17% BAC), and then retreated from that claim stating that she didn’t “have an accurate recollection.” It is insulting to lie to someone’s face, and Judge Cofield seems to be all over the map as far as how much she had to drink that night. What value do we place on truthfulness among the members of the judiciary?

During her 8-month suspension, Judge Cofield will have ample time to ponder the reasons why she was cut such a break. A lot of people believe that any individual other than an African-American judge would have been convicted of DUI, served five days in jail, and would have been treated much less respectfully and courteously than Judge Cofield. A white judge never would have gotten away with the racially-disparaging comments Cofield made. The result certainly would have been removal from the bench and possibly disbarment. Most individuals other than judges, however, don’t realize the basic fact underlying this case: DUI cases can be won, especially by those with connections or the funds to mount a full and effective defense.

You can Beat the Ignition Interlock... Meet the Rental Car Booze-Bandit

According to this article, what seemed like a way around the interlock system proved to be a way into a telephone pole. A man from Long Island with a history of intoxicated driving attempted to beat the system, only to wind up in more trouble than before. Marvin Rice, Jr. had rented a brand new Volkswagen Jetta, allegedly to avoid driving his own vehicle, which is equipped with a court-mandated Interlock breathalyzer system.

It seems as if the gentleman had a few cocktails and decided to take the wheel. Some have suggested that Mr Rice, realizing his own vehicle would not offer such opportunities, decided to use an alternative mode of transportation. Upon acquiring the Jetta, the 27 year-old embarked upon a journey that landed him first in the hospital, then in jail. To be totally fair, Mr. Rice's brother went on record in a subsequent article and said that Marvin had been forced to rent the car because his own vehicle had been wrecked in a snow related crash - not just to avoid his car's ignition interlock.

At around 6 a.m. on February 15, the allegedly intoxicated driver smashed the rented vehicle into a telephone pole, breaking both of his legs as well as his pelvis, and totaling the brand-new car. Upon being cut out of the mangled car, police issued a DWI, and the gentleman was airlifted to the hospital. Giving Marvin the benefit of the doubt, he might have been innocent of the charges, and has not yet been tried. I'd like to know exactly what evidence they have on the DUI charge. Did they draw blood at the hospital? Or are they relying on a cheap handheld breathalyzer?

Will we start seeing some changes in the application/approval process for renting vehicles? Certainly the rental car companies would fight this - they want to rent as many cars as possible. Insurance will cover the damages when a drunk totals the car. How about putting ignition interlocks in all cars? Wouldn't we all be better off if nobody could drive drunk?

MADD would fight that tooth and nail. Their model of dealing with the problem is guaranteed to fail - and it is intended to fail. MADD takes a fascist approach - they want to punish people who drive drunk to teach them a lesson and to provide an example to the rest of society: see what happens when you drive drunk?!

If their approach worked, people would "learn their lesson". DUI defendants would feel the pain of their penalties and never drive drunk again. The rest of society would see them get punished and realize that they will get caught if they drive drunk and the penalties will be steep. Of course, this is circular logic: people won't drive drunk because they will know penalties are steep because they will see the punishment of the people who drive drunk. MADD's model of stopping drunk driving depends on continued drunk driving. It doesn't work because it is not meant to work. It makes the laughable assumption that people under the influence of alcohol are going to make a good decision about taking the wheel!

Whenever you see a model of government action that does not work, you can always figure out why by following the money. MADD is the only organization in America that tries to set policy on DUI laws. They have a practical monopoly. In order to keep getting contributions and paying themselves massive salaries, they have to have people continue to get caught driving drunk. They have to have people getting injured or killed so that the sympathy is generated that brings in continued donations.

But don't take my word for it. Call MADD yourself and explain that you like to take advantage of your legal right to enjoy alcohol and ask them to provide you with an ignition interlock for your car so that you can make the right decision every time. They have millions of dollars, and they supposedly want to stop drunk driving, so it should be no problem, right? Wrong. They will say no. They would rather spend their money ratcheting up the penalties for those who involuntarily keep them in business (people who have been caught driving drunk) after the damage has already been done.

Are Interlock Systems Effective... or Just a Band-Aid Applied too Late?

According to this article, two residents from the Hampton-Roads region were on a walk one morning when they made an interesting discovery. A gentleman had stopped his vehicle at a traffic light, and as the light turned green, remained stopped. The witnesses approached the vehicle to find a man passed out behind the wheel, vehicle running and foot on the break. They woke the driver up, and he stammered out of the vehicle in an agitated fashion. A third bystander had witnessed the event, and had contacted local authorities. The driver, upon realizing the situation, reentered the driver’s seat and sped off, police in pursuit.

Delegate Sal Iaquinto, a Republican from Hampton Roads, views ignition interlock systems as a measure of prevention of these events. That's true, but only for the small fraction of DUI motorists who have already been caught. The interlock is a device which measures the driver’s blood-alcohol content, and is installed in a vehicle. In order to start the vehicle they must blow into the machine, and if it registers above 0.02, the vehicle will not start.

In order to avoid false-starts, the machine requires frequent retests while driving. Virginia currently is one of 10 states that implement this tactic for both repeat DUI offenders and those convicted with high BAC levels. Eight states currently mandate the system for all DUIs. The problem with the system is that it is rather costly, about $65 to install and $65 a month for calibration. This comes to $455 for six months, and $910 if the offender owns two vehicles.

However, there are numbers to support the theory that the system does save lives. New Mexico, for example, saw a 60% decrease in repeat offense rates when offenders were required to install the interlock system. So why not install interlock systems on all vehicles and take care of the problem before it occurs? Representatives for MADD, which relies on legal fascisim to solve this public health problem, apparently feels that this idea is good in theory, but that the devices are "amazingly inconvenient". Is that because universal installation would put them out of business?

Richmond Man Runs Truck Into Ambulance Building in Alleged DUI

If you have to wreck your vehicle while driving drunk, there are worse places to do it. According to this article, a Richmond resident slammed his vehicle into the Richmond Ambulance Authority Building while driving under the influence. Police report the gentleman went through an intersection, across the building’s parking lot, and smashed into the side of the building. The event happened at around 2 a.m. on January 29.

Once stopped halfway into the building, the driver then proceeded to exit his truck and attempted to escape on foot. He was soon apprehended, and had suffered a few scrapes and bruises. He is expected to make a full recovery. The building, as well as his truck, however, suffered extensive damages. An estimate was not offered regarding the damages to either the building or the truck, and no comment was made by the driver.

This is a prime example of how to make a bad situation much worse. Someone who is too inebriated to avoid a building in a vehicle is clearly in no position to attempt to elude officers on foot. This simply gives the officers incentive to use force to apprehend the suspect, and tacks more charges onto driving under the influence. He should have just moved into the passenger seat and refused to answer any questions when the police arrived. If they can’t prove you were driving, they can’t convict you of DUI.

Virginia Sheriff's Deputy Charged with DUI... and Refusal

According to this news report, Lt. Jonathan Matthew Lowe, 36 was charged with DUI and refusal after a single car accident. He was told to provide a breath sample so the prosecution could use it against him. Like almost every judge, cop, prosecutor and politician who is charged with DUI, he refused. According to his boss, Sheriff H.S. Caudill, "He knew better."

Once again, a law enforcement officer has provided the rest of Virginia's motorist's with a very good lesson: don't ever provide a breath sample during a DUI investigation unless you know you are sober. The refusal charge may or may not result in a conviction - often it is dropped if there is a guilty plea to the DUI charge.

But a driver who submits a 0.15% BAC sample or above is virtually guaranteed to spend at least five days in jail under the Virginia mandatory minimum law for aggravated DUI. Lt. Lowe was just exercising good judgment when he refused the breathalyzer. He must know that jail is a waste of time, and he also knows that his boss would have been even more unhappy with an aggravated DUI charge against one of his deputies.

No driver ever has any idea what will register in the breathalyzer machine. Why take the chance on getting an aggravated DUI charge when there is no need? Follow Lt. Lowe's example and refuse. At least you won't be looking at a mandatory minimum jail sentence.

Hypocritical Tyrant or Drunken Bigot? You be the Judge...

Meet Curtissa Cofield. She is cited as Connecticut's first black female judge in this article from the Hartford Courant, although no other qualifications for the job are mentioned. If being a black female is in fact her only qualification for service as a judge, that might explain a lot about her behavior on October 9th of last year.

It all started with a traffic accident. Somehow her honor allegedly failed to notice a parked police cruiser in a construction zone, and sideswiped his vehicle. This caused damage to both vehicles as well as injury to the officer. If this is starting to sound like the kind of dangerous driving behavior that judges normally lecture defendants about from their lofty perches atop the bench, wait 'til you get a load of her subsequent misconduct.

According to the article, Judge Cofield then distinguished herself even further by acting like a drunken lout at the police station. For starters, she referred to African-American State Police Sgt. Dwight Washington as a "nigger", and started addressing him as "Mr. Negro Washington" and "negro trooper." All the while, Curtissa was complaining that she was being treated "like a negro from the hood." Hmm... I guess she must think that when white folks sideswipe a parked police car in a construction zone and then blow a 0.17% BAC, they just get a ride home and a pat on the back. Her comments make one wonder how she customarily treats a real "negro from the hood" in her courtroom.

Sgt. Washington should have known that he was dealing with a sharp minded lawyer/judge who would beat the rap. Judge Cofield even gave him clues as to her legal brilliance, stating "...it comes down to the bottom line, who's smarter — me or you? We'll figure it out, won't we?" Despite her claim of higher intelligence, she was stupid enough to provide a urine sample which revealed her to be way, way, way over the limit for DUI (most judges are smart enough to "just say no"). She then let him know that she had no fear of any legal repercussions, stating "...we'll see what they say in court, won't we, Mr. Washington?" Strangely enough, she was right! Judge William Bright Jr. of Manchester admitted Curtissa to an alcohol education program above the objection of the trooper whose vehicle she hit.

If she completes the program, the charges will be dismissed. According to news reports, Trooper Michael Kowal suffered neck and back injuries as a result of the accident. Judge Bright did not hear anything about her behavior at the station when he heard the case on November 24th. He only briefly referred to it in passing on December 8th when he accepted her application for the alcohol education program. Apparently, he wasn't interested in the details.

Huh, that's kinda funny. Judges usually want to hear all about the details when a defendant fails to act polite and cooperative during a traffic stop or arrest. It almost makes you wonder if this judge wasn't getting special treatment. Of course, her troubles aren't quite over yet. According to Rep. Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven, co-chairman of the Legislative Judicial Committee, Judge Cofield now faces a hearing before the Connecticut Judicial Review Council. She is currently facing five charges of violating the judicial canons of conduct.

Incredibly, these charges do not include making a false official statement to the police as part of their investigation. Judge Cofield apparently lied when she stated "I had no alcohol to drink, Mr. Washington." Gosh, that sure is strange. Because over three hours after the accident, Curtissa submitted a urine sample that was over twice the maximum legal limit for DUI. How did all that alcohol get into her bloodstream if she wasn't drinking? Was she partaking in alcohol enemas? Well, she did also state "I'm a crack addict", and who knows what these crackheads will do to get a buzz.

The bottom line: Judge Cofield blamed illness for her behavior - she stated that she was suffering from "negro-itis". This was after telling the Trooper "I'm humiliated by your fucking attitude." His attitude? Sounds her honor (or her dishonor) might need some time in prison to figure out why people are disgusted with the attitude of some judges who act as if they are above the law while constantly dumping on those who are unfortunate enough to appear before them.

From the videotape and behavior reported in the latest articles, it sounds like Curtissa Cofield might be a disgrace to the judiciary, a liar, a boorish lush, an unqualified race-baiting product of "reverse" discrimination, and a good example of why DUI laws are meant to fail. Feel free to write Rep. Lawler at MLawlor99@juno.com and share your opinion as to the appropriate sentence for Curtissa Cofield. You be the judge - because it sounds like she isn't fit for the job.

Another Prosecutor Refuses to Provide a Breath Sample

Meet Hamilton County, Ohio prosecutor James Schaefer. Or as he's known during his service in the reserves, Lieutenant Colonel Schaefer. This guy knows something about prosecuting DUI cases. He's spent 14 years prosecuting cases, and his specialty is drug courts. That's kind of ironic isn't it? A guy who makes his living pointing the finger at people because of recreational substance abuse winds up on the wrong side of the law for making a bad decision after enjoying America's favorite recreational substance of abuse... alcohol.

But make no mistake, Schaefer has learned from his many years prosecuting cases. He refused to provide a breath sample when arrested for DUI. That might have had something to do with the sweet plea deal he got. Two counts of child endangering were dropped even though both of his children were riding with him. And a charge of driving the wrong way down a one way street was also dismissed. He didn't get any jail time, and he might even be able to keep his job. If he does get fired, I hope he takes up the cause of his fellow sinners and starts doing defense work for those who find themselves buzzed and busted. He might be happier just quitting and using his talents to help people who find themselves in the same situation instead of hurting them. He might feel a lot better about what he does every day. I know I love defense work, and I no longer feel like a fascist applying the government's overwhelming power against my fellow man.

What do these cases say about our society's war on drugs or the campaign against drunk driving? Why not just end DUI forever by installing ignition interlocks on all cars? I don't know whether this prosecutor was guilty or not, but I do know that he did what most prosecutors, cops, judges, and legislators do when arrested for DUI. They refuse to blow. Do they know something the rest of America doesn't? Good luck LTC Schaefer - your service to America should count for something and earn you a break. How about giving one to others?

Massive Government Conspiracy to Drive Drunk? Or just more DUI Judges, Cops, and Lawmakers...

Wow. This weekend I have compiled a tremendous list of examples that show why DUI laws do not and cannot work. We have a list of distinguished judges, police officers, and elected or appointed officials with a few prosecutors thrown in for good measure. This is Susan Hamilton. She is the commissioner of the "troubled" DCF, Connecticut's "beleaguered child welfare department". I have no idea whether she is good at her job or whether she is stuck with a rotten bureaucracy. But one thing is for sure - she is really good at apologizing!

In an letter to the governor, she stated "It is with overwhelming remorse and embarrassment that I must inform you that I was arrested last evening in my personal vehicle at approximately 7:00 pm for driving under the influence. My behavior was inexcusable, and I deeply regret and apologize for violating your trust and faith in me. My actions reflect poorly on your office, the Department of Children and Families, my family and on me personally and professionally, and there are no words to express how truly sorry I am.... As you know, I have never had any prior arrests or engaged in any criminal behavior in the past, and I promise you and the citizens of this state that I will take all necessary steps to prevent this from ever happening again. Please know that the guilt and shame I feel will not dissipate, and I will do everything I can to rebuild your trust in me."

She has never engaged in any criminal behavior in the past? Or has she just never gotten caught? She looks like a nice lady in this photo from the official state website. I hope she keeps in mind that she is working for the largest conspiracy to distribute recreational narcotics in the state - the state government which controls and profits from all alcohol sales.

Now let's turn to former prosecutor Lydia Wardell, who escaped a "mandatory" jail sentence this week. Instead of serving the statutory 10 day jail sentence in an actual jail, Ms. Wardell will spend some time in an inpatient treatment program. Her admission to the treatment program is thanks to judge Lawrence Lefler exercising his discretion to count such treatment in lieu of jail time. She refused to provide a blood sample.

Apparently Ms. Wardell is pretty familiar with the law on DUI. How? Well for starters, this ain't her first ride on the merry-go-round. In 2005, she was convicted of DUI after being caught driving drunk with her two children in the car, aged 3 and 6. She blew a 0.23 that time - looks like she learned from that mistake that you should never give the police a breath or blood sample. Somehow she didn't get any jail time for that offense either, serving 18 months of probation instead of real jail time. But her knowledge of DUI law is not just a result of her numerous drunk driving busts. According to news reports, "she was known for her aggressive prosecution of DUI and other cases as a misdemeanor court supervisor for the Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney's Office". A tough prosecutor would have played back tapes of her arguments in sentencing hearings when she had advocated for jail time instead of treatment while she was a prosecutor.
And in the latest case of a judge refusing to provide a breath sample (and then getting off of a DUI charge), we have His Honor Judge James Heath of the Warren County, OH Court of Common Pleas. After allegedly running a red light (charge later dropped), Judge Heath refused to provide a breath sample. His attorney was later reported to have admitted that the judge had consumed "a few glasses of wine." Instead of getting hammered for DUI, Judge Heath was convicted only of the lesser charge of reckless driving. Refusing to provide a breath sample was a smart move on the part of Judge Heath. Another Judge, John F. Kelly, of Pima County Arizona, recently made the news because he provided a breath sample, and was lucky enough that it only registered .063% BAC. In many jurisdictions such as Virginia, a driver can be convicted with a reading as low as .05% BAC. Congratulations Judge Kelly! You won the DUI lottery. One must wonder how nervous the good judge was as he waited for the results of the blood test.
Another refusal case involved Pekin, Illinois Patrolman Andrew J. Thompson. He was stopped after an auto accident which was not his fault on December 19th. He refused to provide a breath sample, but Tazewell County State’s Attorney Stewart Umholtz stated that after a careful review of videotapes, his office (not him personally, mind you, but his office) determined that there was no basis for proceding against the officer, or even to impose a summary suspension of his license. That's a nice break. Mr. Umholtz did, however, have some advice for the rest of the motoring public. "If any citizen is asked by a police officer to take a breath test or a field sobriety test, they should take that test to remove all doubt."
Gee, that's great advice. If you're trying to put people in jail for DUI. If you are experienced in DUI law and practice like Judge Heath, Officer Thompson, and Prosecutor Lydia Wardell, you know that providing a sample for the government to use against you in court is foolish. You might get lucky like Judge Kelly, but if the machine used to convict you is off by even a small amount, you could wind up in jail even though you were in fact innocent. But if you don't provide a sample, you can't be convicted by machine - accurate or inaccurate.

Another Judge Convicted of DUI... meet Sheila McGinnis

OK folks, it looks like we have another stirling example of why the DUI laws fail over and over and over. Oh, and make the government a lot of money. Oh, and also keep a lot of state judges on the bench with nice comfy salaries. This is Sheila McGinnis, a/k/a "her honor" Judge McGinnis. And friends, she is a real prize. Judge McGinnis was convicted of DUI this week, but unlike most defendants, she was spared (at least some of) the harsh glare of the media spotlight. According to media reports, she was "weaving from lane to lane, flashing her bright lights and honking the horn just before the accident." What accident you ask?

This is the good part. The "honorable" Judge McGinnis slammed into a minivan with five people. That's sounds like something straight out of a MADD commercial demonizing drunk drivers. Assistant Attorney General Daniel Nikolic really turned up the heat on Judge McGinnis, arguing "Not only was she driving under the influence of alcohol, she caused an accident." Uhh, wait a minute, he didn't exactly blast her. That is actually an extremely weak indictment of this law enforcement officer turned criminal. He should have pointed out the hypocrisy in a judge who regularly sentences DUI defendants to jail having rear-ended a minivan full of children who could have been injured or killed thanks to her honor's arrogance and recreational substance abuse.

One blogger stated "I have personally observed her demeanor and conduct on the bench and find her to be arrogant, incompetent in having a poor understanding of legal principles, and unwilling to hear pro se defendants." 'Nuff said. But not all said. Another blog reported that "her DUI case was transferred to the Markham courthouse after her attorney successfully argued it would have been 'embarrassing' for McGinnis to stand trial in the courthouse where she worked." Uhhh, wait a minute... isn't embarrasing the defendant one of the main techniques the courts use to battle drunk driving? Isn't that why some jurisdictions post all DUI mugshots?

But precious Sheila McGinnis was spared as much shame as possible. After sentencing, she slithered "out an employees' entrance at the Cook County Courthouse in Markham". Oh, and her trial was held at the same time as Barack Obama's inauguration. Funny timing. It's almost like she was married to Mayor Daley's nephew or something. Oh wait, she is. Her sentence? Court supervision for 18 months (yeah, they are going to be really hard on a judge down there at the Court Supervision office - she'll have to suffer through all the Bureaucracy and everything - NOT) and a $1,000 fine (wow, they really set her straight there - less than half the maximum). One blogger stated "I didn't have any prior convictions either, when she threw me in Cook County Jail for 4 days, and denied me a public defender, saying that if I had money for bail ($2,000 borrowed from my sister), I had money to pay a lawyer. (I'm a single parent with 4 kids.)"

Sounds like somebody could use a stiff taste of her own damned medicine. Continuing a common theme, Judge McGinnis refused to participate in any field sobriety tests or to provide a breath sample. Judges know these rituals are purely theatrical and are designed to convince uninformed defendants that they must be guilty, and that they should therefore plead guilty and forget trying to hire a lawyer to defend their rights. Another lesson: sometimes even if you can win based on the facts, a good guilty plea is better than a conviction after a contested case - at least you know what you are getting. If you can live with it, you're in good shape.

What is it with Aussie Cops? Another one Busted for DUI

Well, it's happened again. We recently reported the case of unfortunate veteran cop Rebecca Harrison, who got busted down under for driving drunk. In her patrol car. While on duty. Obviously that makes for a kind of weird situation when you get back to the office on Monday.

But apparently senior constable Harrison is in pretty good company. She was recently joined in the ranks of drinking and driving cops by one of her fellow law enforcement officers. The latest DUI cop has been spared the indignity of having his name published in the newspaper, but that probably won't last for long. What do we know so far?

Well, according to published reports, the officer is a 41 year old male, and is "believed to be" a uniformed officer. Fortunately he was not on duty at the time, which is more than can be said for fellow DUI cop Ms. Harrison. What lesson should we take away from this latest case of DDC (Drunk Driving Cop)?

The same lesson that becomes apparent every time a cop is arrested for DUI; alcohol is a drug, and if the government is going to sell it to people for recreational use, society must expect that they will make bad decisions once the drug has taken effect and their judgment has been reduced.

It's not because they are criminals, it's because they really believe that they are perfectly OK to drive. To act as if the drinking driver is to blame is intellectually dishonest and ignores the government's obligation to stop DUI's the easy way: by installing an ignition interlock on every new car.

Latest Judge Arrested for DUI Provides a Good Example

Meet Johnny Seiffert. Or as he is also known, "Your Honor." Justice of the Peace Seiffert was convicted of DUI on Friday after entering a no contest plea according to this article in the Great Falls Tribune. Judge Seiffert had originally entered a plea of Not Guilty, but he changed his plea before visiting judge Michele Snowberger. I wonder if Snowberger lectured him the way I frequently hear judges lecturing people who appear before them for drunk driving. I also wonder whether there was a plea agreement in the case.

Judge Seiffert got a ten day suspended jail sentence, which means that he won't serve any active jail time. That's not a bad deal on a DUI charge - some defendants get a jail sentence on their first DUI, even if their BAC level was right at the minimum required to convict. Was that part of a deal with the prosecutor or did he plunge headlong into the abyss without knowing what he was about to receive?

Part of the sentence included a BS alcohol class that most DUI defendants have to suffer through as part of the usual routine. If Judge Seiffert figures out in the first five minutes that it is a total crock and a waste of time, will he keep sentencing defendants to attend the same course?

The bottom line is that Judge Seiffert made a very wise decision when approached by a trooper from the Montana Highway Patrol. He refused to perform any field sobriety tests or provide a breath sample. His fatal flaw: talking to the cop who arrived at the scene after the one-vehicle rollover. He should have refused to speak to the trooper and left the door open as to who was driving, when the driver was last operating the vehicle, and whether the driver had consumed any alcohol after driving.

Refusal is a common theme when judges and police officers are arrested for DUI. They almost never provide a breath sample or do field sobriety tests. Why not? Well, for starters, they know that both of these "scientific" tests are about as accurate as a Ouija board. As a former Yellowstone County deputy and Red Lodge police officer, Judge Seiffert must have known that the only point of such "tests" is to give the police evidence against you, and that the police can and will determine that you have "failed" no matter how well you do on the tests. Rather than stick his own neck in the noose, Judge Seiffert did the smart thing and followed Nancy Reagan's advice: "just say no".

Judge Seiffert looks like a really nice guy. I'd probably enjoy hearing some of his stories about life out west and his career in law enforcement. We could probably talk at length about DUI cases while enjoying a couple of cold beers and a nice Montana steak. I just hope we would both be able to make it home afterwards without any harassment from his friends on the Highway Patrol. Hopefully Judge Seiffert will take his experience at the hands of the justice system into account when he is hearing cases alledging drunk driving in the future. He still has an appeal pending, and it sounds to me like he might have a decent chance of acquittal on appeal. Best of luck, Your Honor.

Finally, somebody gets it.

I don't know Martin B. Hamilton, but I sure do like the way he thinks. Mr. Hamilton advocated for universal ignition interlocks in a recent editorial in the Johnstown Breeze. Even better, he has picked just the right time to make this argument. Why not, he asks, tie the bailout of the automakers to a requirement that every new car come with an ignition interlock? This is brilliant, but of course our elected representatives will probably fail to implement this obvious solution to the problem of drunk driving.

Hamilton's argument is simple. "At the inconvenience of including people who don’t drink at all, these devices would ensure no one drives drunk. It would make society suffer for the sins of a few, but the added cost would surely offset the amount of lives saved." And how much would it cost? Well, not a whole lot. These devices could easily be manufactured for less than $50 if they were produced on a tremendous scale that the US auto industry offers. And yes, it would require that we breathe into the machine before turning the key. But we have to breathe anyway! So why not save lives and money while doing what we have to do to keep our hearts beating?

Clue: some people would lose money. Auto manufacturers would sell less cars because people wouldn't wreck their vehicles while driving drunk. Insurance companies would derive less revenue because there would be less risk to insure. The goverment would sell less alcohol and get less tax and sales revenue, not to mention the fines from drunk driving convictions. The police would have less work to do and their employment numbers would decrease. MADD would go out of business and their fat salaries would be history. So think about it and decide for yourself - should we save lives or help Jack Daniels and his friends make more money?

Three Beers, Five Years.

A recent article about Clyde D. Covington, Jr. tells a sad tale in which there are no winners. Mr. Covington was convicted of aggravated involuntary manslaughter, driving under the influence, and failing to comply with a traffic signal in Virginia Beach this past week. Unfortunately, he blew a 0.09% BAC after an accident in which another driver died. According to his attorney, he had consumed three beers at dinner with friends before the accident. If you are thinking "Wow, three beers isn't much, I'm lucky I've never been in that situation", you're not alone.

Deaths caused by driving under the influence are a tragedy. There is absolutely no reason for drunk driving to continue to rob us of our loved ones and to cause otherwise good people to be branded as criminals. Our society is technologically advanced enough to stop drunk driving by placing ignition interlocks on all new cars so that they will not start unless the driver is sober. But the insurance companies, auto makers, police, alcoholic beverage sellers, restaurants, and government agencies aren't about to let go of the money they make from drunk driving.

Am I crazy for suggesting that we should all have to blow into the machine before starting our cars? Well, I might be crazy, but not because of that. What's crazy is Clyde D. Covington, Jr. serving five years in prison because of a tragedy that could easily have been prevented. What's crazy is the death of a woman who would still be with us if the government and MADD were courageous enough to actually stop drunk driving instead of engaging in profitable finger pointing. My thoughts and prayers are with the families of both of these people, because both are victims of the ongoing parade of DUI tragedy.

What not to do when the cops are investigating you for DUI...

According to a story in South New Jersey's Courier Post Online, Matthew Tubertini, 29, of Mount Laurel New Jersey, was arrested at 3:10 AM after getting himself into an accident. Of course, it really makes for a rotten day when you wreck your car. And when it is a single vehicle accident as reported in this case, it's pretty hard to blame the other guy.

But one very important thing you should always remember after having such an accident is that the police who respond are not your friends. They may be concerned for your welfare, they may be polite and professional, but you have to keep in mind that every cop is looking to charge you or any other stranger they encounter with a crime. That's their job. It's what they get paid to do. In fact, officers frequently receive overtime pay for the hours they spend in court - so the more charges they rack up, the more they get paid.

So what should you do when the police start asking questions? You should shut up. Very rarely do suspects take advantage of the very powerful right to remain silent. But the ironic truth is that practically every DUI suspect talks himself or herself into a DUI. I once had a client that blew a .25% BAC after wrecking his car. I was able to walk him out of court without a DUI conviction, without an ignition interlock, without license suspension, without a 15 day "mandatory" jail sentence, and with only a minor fine on a reduced charge. How? Easy. He was too drunk to talk.

Because he couldn't answer the officer's questions about what time he had wrecked the truck or whether he had consumed any alcohol after the accident, there was no way they could convict him. I was able to get the prosecutor to agree to a guilty plea on a much lower charge because they knew I would be able to suppress the results of the Breath Alcohol Test. Unfortunately Mr. Tubertini took another course. After being arrested for DUI and released, he returned to the police station with a baseball bat, allegedly to "to damage police vehicles and confront officers at the station." Not good. Don't.

Oops! Another cop busted for... DUI.

Meet James Allen Post. This unfortunate driver was arrested for DUI in Myrtle Beach SC on Friday. Getting busted for DUI can really ruin your weekend. But when it gets you immediately fired as well, it's a real double whammy. Officer Post had the misfortune to be stopped by a South Carolina State Trooper. One can only wonder whether he would have been arrested if a fellow Myrtle Beach Police Department officer had stopped him.

Officer Post was a rookie with less than two years on the job. How many people did officer Post arrest for drunk driving? And did he needle them at the traffic stop like we always see on "Cops". You know the episodes I'm talking about. Where they act in a very patronizing manner and lecture the defendant about drinking and driving. Spare me.

Police officers are agents of the state. They like to act as if they are brave warriors, helping to fight the war on drugs and keep us all safe from drunk drivers. That is absured. As agents of the state, they help support a (legal) conspiracy to distribute narcotics (booze). Can you imagine what would happen if a bunch of teetotallers decided to try and revive prohibition by blocking access to state owned liquor stores? The cops would immediately drag them away and jail them despite the fact that they were trying to keep people from using drugs (beer, wine and liquor).

I feel sorry for Officer Post. That mug shot says "I'm sorry". Maybe he's innocent. I hope he gets a very good attorney, and if he somehow gets acquitted and returns to duty, I hope he has compassion for the people he stops under suspicion of drunk driving.

Latest "Drug Warrior" to get arrested for DUI...

The War on (some) Drugs makes the prohibition of the 1920s look like a raving success. No health problem has ever been solved by treating it like a criminal problem. But the fallacy of the distinction between legal and illegal substances of abuse continues to elude many of our government servants.

Take Elvin Martinez of Florida for example. According to an article in the St. Petersburg Times, Mr. Martinez was arrested on January 2nd and charged with DUI. Unfortunately, Mr. Martinez was suspended from his job representing the Hillsborough State Attorney's Office on numerous local boards.

That's a drag, which is compounded by the fact that he was turned in by... his wife. No wonder they call dogs man's best friend. At least your dog will never rat you out. The kicker is Mr. Martinez has served as chairman of the Hillsborough County Anti-Drug Alliance. Huh? Doesn't he know that alcohol is a deadly and addictive drug?

As a government employee, he could be considered a co-conspirator in the distribution of (legal) narcotics in the form of alcoholic beverages which are controlled by the state of Florida. Of course the Board is involved in all sorts of ridiculous anti-DUI propaganda, which is about as effective as those stupid TV commercials sponsored by the so called Partnership for a Drug Free America. What a waste of taxpayer money.

It never ceases to amaze me when I see one of our nation's brave drug warriors caught driving drunk. As always, when a member of the government is caught driving drunk, this case highlights the fact that we cannot sell people a recreational drug that reduces judgment and inhibition and then expect people to make good decisions after consuming the drug we just sold them in the manner in which it was intended to be consumed.

When a bad day gets worse...

Don't you hate hangovers? The headache, nausea and general malaise have convinced many a tippler to slow things down or walk away from the bottle permanently. But sometimes a hangover is just the beginning of a bad day. Take Billy Joe Huffman of Strasburg, VA for example.

According to news reports, Mr. Huffman was arrested in Warren County on January 1st and charged with a DUI. ($) Making his day even worse, he allegedly had two prior DUI's making this a felony third DUI. ($$) Even worse, his truck was damaged after crashing into a house there. ($$$) Ouch. But it gets worse.

Two people in the house were injured and as a result Mr. Huffman was charged with attempted malicious wounding and attempted malicious wounding of a family member. ($$$$) Family member? Was it his own house that he crashed into? ($$$$$) He'll probably also face a civil suit for the injuries to the folks in the house. ($$$$$$)

Mr. Huffman might have a chance, though. The article indicates that the DUI took place on December 16th, but it wasn't until "the truck was later seen" that he was arrested January 1st. Without any blood or breath evidence, it should be tough to convict him of DUI, although there could conceivably be witnesses who can testify as to his level of intoxication at the time he plowed into the home.

Unfortunately for Mr. Huffman, as of 1/08 there is nobody listed as his defense attorney on the Courts website. Maybe he'll make a good decision and hire a competent DUI attorney - good luck frequently comes as a result of good decisions, and this poor guy could use some good luck.