Yet, further illustration of the government and law enforcement officials violating privacy and constitutional rights (althought the U.S. Supreme Court and Texas Court of Criminal Appeals have basically ruled in favor of these blantant violation of our constitution). Let me say, that I am in no way supporting or condoning driving a motor vehicle while being intoxicated (notice how I didn’t say “drinking and driving”, since it’s not illegal to drink and drive, but to be “intoxicated” while driving), but I also don’t support the government being able to violate my rights and invade my privacy. I don’t trust the government when they stick their hands in my life or wallet, so why in the hell would I trust them when they are sticking a needle in my arm to draw blood as evidence to be used against me to prove the government’s case!!! Allow the government to keep taking away your rights and soon you want have any!

Posted using ShareThis

Above is a link to an article regarding a decision by a Florida judge ruling that red-light cameras are unconstitutional. Hopefully, the same result regarding red-light cameras will take place here in Houston, TX. Houston criminal defense and traffic ticket defense, Paul Kubosh, has started a petition drive in Houston to get the issue of red light cameras placed on the ballot for the upcoming general election. The public and not government officials would be able to decide either for or against red-light cameras. Letting the people decide what a noble concept! Red-light cameras are not about safety, it’s about cities looking for ways to increase revenues. They increase revenue by making these offenses civil, instead of criminal. As any good criminal defense or traffic ticket lawyer knews when you make an offense civil, an individual no longer has a right to a jury trial or another of the constitutional rights that are afforded a person accused of a criminal offense. It costs local governments money to conduct jury trials for individuals accused of traffic offenses such as “running a red light”. In addition, the accused individual now has the burden of proof in the civil/administrative hearing. What this means is that most people are going to held liable for paying the ticket even if the State offers no “real” evidence that it was in fact that person who was the violater or that the red-light camera was even working correctly. Furthermore, cities know that by placing cameras at these intersections, that they can reduce the number of traffic enforcement officers monitoring these intersections. Once again, saving the city money by reducing costs for traffic enforcement officers pay. It’s not about safety, it’s about money. Several studies illustate that it’s not really about safety, so don’t let the local governments fool you into thinking otherwise.

The other danger regarding government use of red-light cameras and other similar tactics is the issue of decriminalization. Red-light cameras are the government’s first steps in a fight to potentially decriminalize other violations as well and make them civil in nature. Once again, an individual does not get the same constitutional rights and protections in civil/administrative proceeding that a person would have in a criminal proceeding.

So I ask that you please join the fight here in Houston and sign the petition initiated by Paul Kubosh against red-light cameras and decriminalization.

I applaud the Napa DA for not pursuing a case that it felt ultimately could not be proven by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. However, I wonder if Tom Cable was not the head coach of the Oakland Raiders, if he would not have been charged and facing prosecution for assault in this matter? In Harris County, I’ve seen situations where the State had far less evidence to prove its case than what the Napa DA’s Office possessed and yet still pursued prosecution. Makes you wonder if prosecutors at least in some instances are really “seeking that justice be done” or seeking something else. Just a thought!

DISCLAIMER: The hypothetical below assumes that an individual, such as Mr. Turner, is stopped for DWI here in Texas under current Texas state law.

Although drunk driving is no laughing matter and neither is being pulled over and being charged with DWI, I have to admit that this video of Mr. Turner is very entertaining and funny. A person stopped for DWI here in Texas under current Texas law actually can learn some valuable lessons from watching this video. First of all, Mr. Turner (if stopped for DWI under Texas law) was wise to refuse to perform any more field sobriety tests and refuse to submit to a breath test. He actually makes a valid point, that if the officer can’t perform the test, how can he, lol. Also, I like his defense of that he “might be drunk, but he was not driving”, although I would generally advise against making statements that you are drunk to law enforcement. However, he is correct because if he was in fact not driving the State can not convict him of DWI, because he was not operating a motor vehicle.

In addition, the video points out several things of what not to do. Importantly, don’t look or act like a belligerent individual. Remember that you are being videotaped, and that the prosecutor well use any evidence that the State can introduce to attempt to prove that even if they don’t have any evidence of chemical tests or field sobriety tests, that the State will use the video to illustrate that you do not have your normal physical and/or mental faculties to operate a motor vehicle by introduction of alcohol and/or drugs.

Just thought I would share some general tips, on an otherwise entertaining video of a DWI stop.

One-Leg Stand: According to the NHTSA, if instructed properly, the one leg stand test has a 65% reliability of predicting that an individual’s BAC is 0.10% or greater. An individual that is administered the one leg stand test must be properly instructed by the officer the following:

1. Stand with your feet together and your arms at your side
2. Keep that position until you are told to begin
3. The officer must ask if you understand the instructions and receive an acknowledgment from you that you do.
4. When told to start, raise either leg approximately 6 inches off the ground with your foot pointed out
5. Keep both legs straight, arms at side
6. Count 1,001, 1, 002, etc until officer instructs you to stop
7. Keep your arms at side and keep watching your raised foot
8. The officer must again ask if you understand the instructions and receive an acknowledgment from you that you do
9. The officer must then start the test
10. The test can last no longer than 30 seconds of actual time.

There are four scoring factors (clues) that officers look for when administering the one-leg stand test:

1. Sways while balancing
2. Arms for balance
3. Hopping
4. Puts foot down

Inability to complete the test occurs when an individual:

1. puts foot down three or more times, during the 30-second period; or
2. cannot perform the test.

Walk and Turn Test: According to the NHTSA, if instructed properly, the walk and turn has a 68% reliability of predicting that an individual’s BAC is 0.10% or greater when there or two or more “clues” indicated, or the test cannot be completed. An officer must properly instruct an individual, and the officer must demonstrate the following:

1. Place your left foot on the line
2. Place your right foot on the line ahead of your left foot, with the heel of your right foot against toe of your left foot
3. Keep your arms to your side
4. Keep this position until you are told to begin
5. The officer must ask if you understand the instructions and receive an acknowledgment from you that you do.
6. When told to start, take 9 heel-to-to steps, turn, and take 9 heel-to-steps back
7. When you turn, keep the front foot on the line, and turn by taking a series of small steps with the other foot
8. While walking, keep arms at side, watch feet at all times, and count steps out loud
9. Once you start, don’t stop until test is completed
10. The officer must ask if you understand the instructions and receive an acknowledgment from you that you do.
11. Begin the test and count first step from the heel-to-toe as “one”.

There are eight scoring factors (clues) that an officer is observing for the Walk and Turn test:

1. Cannot keep balance while listening to instructions
2. Starting before instructions are finished
3. Stopping while walking
4. Did not touch heel-to-toe
5. Stepped off line
6. Used arms for balance
7. Improper turn
8. Incorrect number of steps

Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test: According to the NHTSA, if properly instructed, the HGN test is the most reliable SFST of predicting that an individual’s BAC is 0.10% or greater. The HGN test is said to be reliable 77%, if four or more “clues” are present. An officer must instruct an individual the following:

1. I am going to check your eyes
2. Keep your head still and follow the stimulus (usually a pen or officer’s finger) with your eyes only
3. Keep following the stimulus with your eyes until the officer tells you to stop.

There are six scoring factors for the HGN test (one for each eye):

1. The Lack of Smooth Pursuit; do the eyes bounce as they follow a smoothly moving stimulus.
2. Distinct Nystagmus at Maximum Deviation; distinct nystagmus will be evident when the eye is held at maximum deviation for a minimum of four seconds
3. Onset of Nystagmus at Prior to 45 Degrees; officer is observing for the point at which the eye is first observed jerking.

Important tips regarding SFSTs:

1. An individual as a Right to Refuse to submit to these tests.
2. Any field sobriety testing must be fair and must be strictly administrated according to the NHTSA standards.
3. A sober person can fail the SFSTs, thus a failing grade on any of the SFSTs is not always an indication of intoxication. In fact, there may be several factors that contributed to failing the SFSTs that the officer failed to account for when administrating the tests, such as underlying medical, mental, and physical disorders.
4. An DWI attorney may be able to challenge the validity and reliability of any field sobriety testing.

Sec. 522.081. DISQUALIFICATION.

(a) This subsection applies to a violation committed while operating any motor vehicle, including a commercial motor vehicle. A person who holds a commercial driver’s license is disqualified from driving a commercial motor vehicle for:

(1) 60 days if convicted of:

(A) two serious traffic violations that occur within a three-year period; or

(B) one violation of a law that regulates the operation of a motor vehicle at a railroad grade crossing; or

(2) 120 days if convicted of:

(A) three serious traffic violations arising from separate incidents occurring within a three-year period; or

(B) two violations of a law that regulates the operation of a motor vehicle at a railroad grade crossing that occur within a three-year period.

(b) This subsection applies to a violation committed while operating any motor vehicle, including a commercial motor vehicle, except as provided by this subsection. A person who holds a commercial driver’s license is disqualified from driving a commercial motor vehicle for one year:

(1) if convicted of three violations of a law that regulates the operation of a motor vehicle at a railroad grade crossing that occur within a three-year period;

(2) on first conviction of:

(A) driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance, including a violation of Section 49.04 or 49.07, Penal Code;

(B) leaving the scene of an accident involving a motor vehicle driven by the person;

(C) using a motor vehicle in the commission of a felony, other than a felony described by Subsection (d)(2);

(D) causing the death of another person through the negligent or criminal operation of a motor vehicle; or

(E) driving a commercial motor vehicle while the person’s commercial driver’s license is revoked, suspended, or canceled, or while the person is disqualified from driving a commercial motor vehicle, for an action or conduct that occurred while operating a commercial motor vehicle;

(3) for refusing to submit to a test under Chapter 724 to determine the person’s alcohol concentration or the presence in the person’s body of a controlled substance or drug while operating a motor vehicle in a public place; or

(4) if an analysis of the person’s blood, breath, or urine under Chapter 522, 524, or 724 determines that the person:

(B) had an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more while operating a motor vehicle, other than a commercial motor vehicle, in a public place.

(c) A person who holds a commercial driver’s license is disqualified from operating a commercial motor vehicle for three years if:

(1) the person:

(A) is convicted of an offense listed in Subsection (b)(2) and the vehicle being operated by the person was transporting a hazardous material required to be placarded; or

(B) refuses to submit to a test under Chapter 724 to determine the person’s alcohol concentration or the presence in the person’s body of a controlled substance or drug while operating a motor vehicle in a public place and the vehicle being operated by the person was transporting a hazardous material required to be placarded; or

(2) an analysis of the person’s blood, breath, or urine under Chapter 522, 524, or 724 determines that while transporting a hazardous material required to be placarded the person:

(A) while operating a commercial motor vehicle in a public place had an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or more, or a controlled substance or drug present in the person’s body; or

(B) while operating a motor vehicle, other than a commercial motor vehicle, in a public place had an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.

(d) A person is disqualified from driving a commercial motor vehicle for life:

(1) if the person is convicted two or more times of an offense specified by Subsection (b)(2), or a combination of those offenses, arising from two or more separate incidents;

(2) if the person uses a motor vehicle in the commission of a felony involving:

(A) the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of a controlled substance; or

(B) possession with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense a controlled substance; or

(3) for any combination of two or more of the following, arising from two or more separate incidents:

(A) a conviction of the person for an offense described by Subsection (b)(2);

(B) a refusal by the person described by Subsection (b)(3); and

(C) an analysis of the person’s blood, breath, or urine described by Subsection (b)(4).

(e) A person may not be issued a commercial driver’s license and is disqualified from operating a commercial motor vehicle if, in connection with the person’s operation of a commercial motor vehicle, the person commits an offense or engages in conduct that would disqualify the holder of a commercial driver’s license from operating a commercial motor vehicle, or is determined to have had an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or more or to have had a controlled substance or drug present in the person’s body. The period of prohibition under this subsection is equal to the appropriate period of disqualification required by Subsections (a)-(d).

(f) In this section, “felony” means an offense under state or federal law that is punishable by death or imprisonment for a term of more than one year.

(g) A person who holds a commercial driver’s license is disqualified from operating a commercial motor vehicle if the person’s driving is determined to constitute an imminent hazard under 49 C.F.R. Section 383.52. The disqualification is for the disqualification period imposed under that section and shall be noted on the person’s driving record.

(h) A disqualification imposed under Subsection (g) must run concurrently with any imminent hazard disqualification that is then currently in effect.

Senate Bill 328 adds the Nicole “Lilly” Lalime Act to amend provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, and Transportation Code relating to operating a motor vehicle or watercraft while intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol. The bill redesignates the offense of driving under the influence of alcohol by a minor as driving or operating a watercraft under the influence of alcohol by a minor, expands the conditions that constitute that offense, and includes an offense prohibiting the operation of a watercraft within the definition of “alcohol-related or drug-related enforcement contact.” The bill authorizes any magistrate who is a licensed Texas attorney to issue a search warrant to collect a blood specimen from a person who is arrested for a certain intoxication or alcohol offense and refuses to submit to a breath or blood alcohol test and increases from $50 to $100 the fee to reinstate a driver’s license suspended due to the commission of a certain intoxication offense. The bill includes the offense of driving while intoxicated with a child passenger in provisions relating to the requirements for the automatic suspension of a license, the suspension of a license of a person younger than 21 years of age, and the suspension of a license because of intoxication offenses. The bill includes an offense of driving while intoxicated with a child passenger and boating while intoxicated in provisions relating to an administrative suspension of a driver’s license for failure to pass a test for intoxication, modifies the circumstances under which a peace officer must require the taking of the specimen of a person’s blood or breath, and amends certain provisions regarding liability for purposes of the taking of a blood specimen.

This bill went into effect on September 1, 2009.