Austin Texas DWI Attorney - Dunham & Rogers, located in Austin, Texas, handles Texas criminal offenses involving Driving While Intoxicated - DWI. Dunham & Rogers focused on bringing a strong call to action to there DWI Lawyer website, focusing on Travis County DWI and Austin Texas DWI. Please visit their Austin Drunk Driving website at www.Austin-TX-DWI.com. You will see how Dunham & Rogers is able to take advantage of their TV commerical by having it play automatically when someone visits there website.
Source: http://4webresults.com/site_news/austin-dwi-drunk-driving-attorney/
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
DWI Enforcement Team
Motorists who drink and drive are involved in approximately 50% of fatal collisions and an equal percentage of serious injury collisions. After 2 a.m., it is estimated that two of every four motorists on the road are driving under the influence of alcohol. These disturbing statistics reflect a dangerous trend on our roads that the Austin Police Department is determined to reverse.
You can find DWI Austin Lawyers in the internet.
Source: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/police/dwi.htm
To increase enforcement of Austin DWI laws and send a message to motorists who drink and drive, APD launched the DWI Enforcement Team in August 1998. The unit, which is under direction of the Traffic Administration Section, is comprised of eight patrol officers and one sergeant. As a dedicated DWI enforcement unit, the Enforcement Team is able to concentrate its patrol efforts on apprehending drunk drivers. Patrols focus on areas where DWI offenses are most likely to occur (entertainment areas featuring bars and nightclubs, for example) during times when most drunk drivers are on the roads (evenings, weekends and holidays). In addition, members of the Enforcement Team are able to provide support to regular patrol officers during peak offense times, relieving patrol officers by handling the lengthy processing of arrests.
The working relationship between regular patrol and the Enforcement Team increases the efficiency of the Department as a whole in removing drunk drivers from our roads. First, the Enforcement Team increases the number of patrol units on the streets, making apprehension of DWI offenders more likely. At the same time, regular patrol officers who make DWI arrests are able to turn suspects over to the Enforcement Team for processing through the system, allowing them to resume patrol duties and apprehend other DWI offenders. As a result, both the numbers of Enforcement Team and regular patrol DWI arrests have increased.
You can find DWI Austin Lawyers in the internet.
Source: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/police/dwi.htm
Austin Texas DWI Lawyer
DWI Attorney Ken Gibson
Austin Texas DWI Lawyer
Austin, Texas Attorney Ken Gibson:The Chase Building • 700 Lavaca, Suite 1010 - Austin, Texas 78701 Phone (512) 469 - 6056 • Toll Free 1(888) DWI-TEXAS.
Map & Directions
You thought it could never happen to you, but suddenly you find yourself in a situation that you did not expect. What do you do? Contact Texas drunk driving defense lawyer Ken Gibson to protect your rights! The Texas Department of Motor Vehicles can Suspend your License if you refuse to take a breath test, blood test, or urine test. WARNING! You have a limited amount of time (15 days) in which to appeal this administrative license suspension. Call toll free for a free consultation.
Don't let an Austin DWI ruin your life.
CALL IMMEDIETLY! 1(888) DWI-TEXAS.!
When you have been investigated or arrested for any criminal offense such as Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), or any Felony Charge, you have an absolute right to be concerned. Facing criminal charges may be one of the most frightening things you have encountered. Some of the possible consequences that can result from a Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) conviction include the restriction or loss of a driver’s license, an increase in insurance costs, fines, court costs, and even the possibility of jail. As you can see, Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) can be a very serious charge.
The law says that the County Attorney needs only to prove that after drinking you were not able to drive your car in a “normal” capacity. That sounds pretty cut and dried, but it is not quite as simple as that.
You see, if challenged, the County Attorney must also show all of the following:
• That the arresting officer made the arrest properly,
• That you were properly advised of your rights,
• That the equipment the officer used to test you was working accurately, and
• Even that the person operating the equipment was certified to operate the equipment.
Further, the officer that administers the “standard field sobriety tests” should have successfully completed the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Standardized Field Sobriety Testing student class before administering these tests. I have successfully completed training for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Standardized Field Sobriety Testing. What does that mean to you? It means that in addition to grading you on your performance of the tests, I will also grade the officer to ensure that he or she conducted the tests properly. If the tests were not conducted properly, this can be disclosed to the County Attorney or the jury to show that the tests results were unreliable and should not be believed.
When you retain me I’ll insist that the County Attorney provide us with the names and address of anyone he plans to call as a witness as well as copies of every written or recorded statements of their testimony. This will allow us to prepare our questions of them.
I’ll insist that the County Attorney provide us with any information or material he has which would show that you are not guilty of the charges against you, or which may help you get a lighter sentence.
I’ll insist on receiving copies of any videos that show your sobriety tests, whether in the field or at the station.
I’ll insist on receiving copies of records showing that the equipment used for tests was functioning properly and that the person giving the tests was properly certified.
As you can see, what looks simple gets pretty complex. As your criminal defense attorney I will insist that all this information be provided and that you and I walk through all this information as we discuss and proceed on your case.
DRIVER LICENSE SUSPENSION - Your arrest may have included a cancellation of your Texas driving privileges for a specific period of time. YOU HAVE ONLY 15 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF YOUR ARREST TO REQUEST A HEARING ON THIS MATTER. I believe that this hearing is extremely important, not only to challenge your suspension but also as an opportunity for your attorney to question the arresting officer to find out exactly what he is going to say in court. If you retain our office to represent you, part of that representation includes representing you at the driver license suspension. However, remember you must request this hearing no later than 15 days from your arrest so it is important that you contact me as soon as possible to schedule an appointment. If your Texas driving privileges are ultimately suspended, in most cases we can get you a Texas license that will allow you to drive to and from work.
WARNING BEWARE: TEXAS DRIVER LICENSE SURCHARGE!! Beginning with any Texas DWI Conviction for an offense committed on or after 09/01/03, the Texas Department Of Public Safety is authorized to charge a surcharge on your Driver’s License. This charge will range from $1,000.00 to $2,000.00 a year for three years. Depending on whether you provided a breath sample, and the results, you could be facing a $6,000.00 fee to keep your license.
BREATH TEST CASES: I own an Intoxilyzer 5000. If you took a breath test at the jail, this is the same model of machine that you used. I have also completed training under the Department of Transportation regulations as an Intoxilyzer Operator and Maintenance Technician. I also have access to various Breath Test Experts that may be helpful in your case. Just because your results were over a certain limit, does not automatically prove you guilty.
The government with all of its resources can frequently make your life miserable; regardless of whether you have actually committed the crime. Real life criminal law is NOT like television. Cases are not resolved in one hour, and the solutions are normally not simple. Hiring a criminal defense trial lawyer can be the most important decision you make.
When you find yourself, a family member, or friend in this situation, you need an experienced and well-skilled attorney who practices only in the area of criminal defense law. For better or worse, criminal law has its own unique practice and methodology. Frequently you will find attorneys who practice criminal law, but also handle personal injury, divorce, and other matters. They may be good attorneys, but I believe that criminal law is too specialized to risk my clients to any distractions facing an attorney who handles multiple types of law and who is not in the trenches everyday.
Please call and schedule an appointment at your earliest convenience, because I can help you through the unfamiliar territory of the criminal justice system. Because each case is different and special, I offer a free initial consultation where you and I can sit down and discuss the charges against you and what options are available to you. To assist you financially in paying any attorney fees, I offer flat rate fees and flexible payment plans that will allow you to hire me as your criminal defense attorney so that I can start immediately to protect your rights.
Source: http://www.austintexasdwi.com/index.html
Choosing the Right Texas Criminal Defense Attorney
Texas DWI laws are both political and complex. Moreover, since the laws change so often and the consequences of even a first conviction are so severe, finding a lawyer who is experienced at handling DWI, Drunk Driving, Driving While Intoxicated cases should be your top priority.
If you’ve never been through this before you probably don’t know where to begin in your search for an attorney. Further, not knowing what to look for in a Texas DWI defense attorney makes the challenge of finding the right lawyer even more difficult. You’ll need to find an experienced, competent defense lawyer who can explore factual and legal defenses, review your case for defects, move to suppress evidence, compel discovery of such things as calibration and maintenance records of the breath machine, negotiate for a reduction in charges, obtain expert witnesses for trial, protect your driving privileges and safeguard your constitutional rights.
Above all else you should attempt to retain an attorney who devotes the vast majority of his or her practice to the defense of DWI cases. No attorney can give you a guarantee on the outcome of your case, however, retaining a firm that emphasizes DWI defense will maximize the chances of a successful conclusion. If you do not have a sense of comfort and confidence after meeting with an attorney about your case you should look further.
• Does the attorney or law firm have extensive experience in DWI pretrial investigation and litigation?
• Does the attorney or law firm have a reputation for going to trial or for pleading cases guilty?
• Do you feel a strong sense of confidence in the lawyer’s or law firm’s ability to professionally handle your case, and do you feel comfortable with the manner in which the lawyer communicates with you? Does the lawyer seem genuinely interested in you and your case?
• Is the financial arrangement clearly defined?
• Questions you should ask to find the best DWI Defense Lawyer for your case:
• What part of your practice is dedicated to defending DWI cases?
• How many DWI cases have you handled?
• How many of your cases plead guilty as charged?
• Are you affiliated with the National College for DUI Defense?
• What other organizations do you belong to that advocate aggressive DWI defense?
• Are you familiar with the CMI Intoxilizer 5000 breath machine used in Texas?
• Have you completed training on the proper use of the CMI Intoxilizer 5000 breath machine?
• Do you own a CMI Intoxilizer 5000 breath machine?
• Have you completed training on the proper administration of Standardized Field Sobriety
Tests?
Will you handle my license suspension case in addition to the DWI charge?
• Do you regularly appear in the court in which I’m charged?
• Will the lawyer I hire be the lawyer who actually handles my case? In other words, does
the lawyer go to court, or will one of his employees handle my case.
• What will it cost to get a good lawyer?
Contact Ken Gibson Today!Phone (512) 469 - 6056
Toll Free 1(888) DWI-TEXAS.
The Chase Building - 700 Lavaca, Suite 1010
Austin, Texas 78701 - Map & Directions
Texas Drivers License Suspension Laws - DWI ALR
by Radley Balko, July 27, 2004
Radley Balko is a policy analyst for the Cato Institute.
When Pennsylvanian Keith Emerich went to the hospital recently for an irregular heartbeat, he told his doctor he was a heavy drinker: a six-pack per day. Later, Pennsylvania's Department of Transportation sent Emerich a letter. His driver's license had been revoked. If Emerich wanted it back, he'd need to prove to Pennsylvania authorities that he was competent to drive. His doctor had turned him in, as required by state law.
The Pennsylvania law is old (it dates back to the 1960s), but it's hardly unusual. Courts and lawmakers have stripped DWI defendants of the presumption of innocence - along with several other common criminal justice protections we afford to the likes of accused rapists, murderers and pedophiles.
In the 1990 case Michigan v. Sitz, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the magnitude of the drunken driving problem outweighed the "slight" intrusion into motorists' protections against unreasonable search effected by roadblock sobriety checkpoints. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Rehnquist ruled that the 25,000 roadway deaths due to alcohol were reason enough to set aside the Fourth Amendment.
The problem is that the 25,000 number was awfully misleading. It included any highway fatality in which alcohol was in any way involved: a sober motorist striking an intoxicated pedestrian, for example.
It's a number that's still used today. In 2002, the Los Angeles Times examined accident data and estimated that in the previous year, of the 18,000 "alcohol-related" traffic fatalities drunk driving activists cited the year before, only about 5,000 involved a drunk driver taking the life of a sober driver, pedestrian, or passenger.
Unfortunately, courts and legislatures still regularly cite the inflated "alcohol-related" number when justifying new laws that chip away at our civil liberties.
For example, the Supreme Court has ruled that states may legislate away a motorist's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. In 2002, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin ruled that police officers could forcibly extract blood from anyone suspected of drunk driving. Other courts have ruled that prosecutors aren't obligated to provide defendants with blood or breath test samples for independent testing (even though both are feasible and relatively cheap to do). In almost every other facet of criminal law, defendants are given access to the evidence against them.
These decisions haven't gone unnoticed in state legislatures. Forty-one states now reserve the right to revoke drunken driving defendants' licenses before they're ever brought to trial. Thirty-seven states now impose harsher penalties on motorists who refuse to take roadside sobriety tests than on those who take them and fail. Seventeen states have laws denying drunk driving defendants the same opportunities to plea bargain given to those accused of violent crimes.
Until recently, New York City cops could seize the cars of first-offender drunk driving suspects upon arrest. Those acquitted or otherwise cleared of charges were still required to file civil suits to get their cars back, which typically cost thousands of dollars. The city of Los Angeles still seizes the cars of suspected first-time drunk drivers, as well as the cars of those suspected of drug activity and soliciting prostitutes.
Newer laws are even worse. As of last month, Washington State now requires anyone arrested (not convicted -- arrested) for drunken driving to install an "ignition interlock" device, which forces the driver to blow into a breath test tube before starting the car, and at regular intervals while driving. A second law mandates that juries hear all drunken driving cases. It then instructs juries to consider the evidence "in a light most favorable to the prosecution," absurd evidentiary standard at odds with everything the American criminal justice system is supposed to stand for.
Even scarier are the laws that didn't pass, but will inevitably be introduced again. New Mexico's state legislature nearly passed a law that would mandate ignition interlock devices on every car sold in the state beginning in 2008, regardless of the buyer's driving record. Drivers would have been required to pass a breath test to start the car, then again every 10 minutes while driving. Car computer systems would have kept records of the tests, which would have been downloaded at service centers and sent to law enforcement officials for evaluation. New York considered a similar law.
That isn't to say we ought to ease up on drunken drivers. But our laws should be grounded in sound science and the presumption of innocence, not in hysteria. They should target repeat offenders and severely impaired drunks, not social drinkers who straddle the legal threshold. Though the threat of drunken driving has significantly diminished over the last 20 years, it's still routinely overstated by anti-alcohol activists and lawmakers. Even if the threat were as severe as it's often portrayed, casting aside basic criminal protections and civil liberties is the wrong way to address it.
Sorurce: http://www.austintexasdwi.com/texas-drunk-driving.html
Texas DWI Blood Test Information
The most common test used for DUI / DWI arrests is a breath test, by more than a 10 to 1 margin. Some states (e.g., South Carolina) REQUIRE that a DUI alcohol suspect be offered a breath test, and not a blood test, if he/she is conscious. Other states (e.g., Georgia) permit the officer in the field to choose which kind of test or tests are to be administered, whether the person is conscious or not. Other states don’t use urine at all. So, if you are suspected of DUI / DWI of alcohol in South Carolina, you will be offered only ONE test, and that will be breath. In Georgia, the officer can choose ANY or ALL types of tests – blood, breath and urine.Like most matters relating to DUI / DWI arrests, issues relating to BLOOD TESTS are controlled by state laws. Each state typically has guidelines stating by whom and how these tests are to be taken, transported, preserved, secured, analyzed, etc. REGULATIONS and statutes (laws) governing collecting and testing “biological specimens” (substances taken from a person’s body) will determine the proper methods in your state. Some states (Florida) have excellent guidelines. Others (Mississippi and Georgia) have dismal laws controlling these matters, making legal challenges by accused persons very difficult to mount.
DWI NEWS
Texas Drunk Driving Laws Are Out of Control
by Radley Balko, July 27, 2004
Radley Balko is a policy analyst for the Cato Institute.
When Pennsylvanian Keith Emerich went to the hospital recently for an irregular heartbeat, he told his doctor he was a heavy drinker: a six-pack per day. Later, Pennsylvania's Department of Transportation sent Emerich a letter. His driver's license had been revoked. If Emerich wanted it back, he'd need to prove to Pennsylvania authorities that he was competent to drive. His doctor had turned him in, as required by state law.
The Pennsylvania law is old (it dates back to the 1960s), but it's hardly unusual. Courts and lawmakers have stripped DWI defendants of the presumption of innocence - along with several other common criminal justice protections we afford to the likes of accused rapists, murderers and pedophiles.
In the 1990 case Michigan v. Sitz, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the magnitude of the drunken driving problem outweighed the "slight" intrusion into motorists' protections against unreasonable search effected by roadblock sobriety checkpoints. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Rehnquist ruled that the 25,000 roadway deaths due to alcohol were reason enough to set aside the Fourth Amendment.
The problem is that the 25,000 number was awfully misleading. It included any highway fatality in which alcohol was in any way involved: a sober motorist striking an intoxicated pedestrian, for example.
It's a number that's still used today. In 2002, the Los Angeles Times examined accident data and estimated that in the previous year, of the 18,000 "alcohol-related" traffic fatalities drunk driving activists cited the year before, only about 5,000 involved a drunk driver taking the life of a sober driver, pedestrian, or passenger.
Unfortunately, courts and legislatures still regularly cite the inflated "alcohol-related" number when justifying new laws that chip away at our civil liberties.
For example, the Supreme Court has ruled that states may legislate away a motorist's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. In 2002, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin ruled that police officers could forcibly extract blood from anyone suspected of drunk driving. Other courts have ruled that prosecutors aren't obligated to provide defendants with blood or breath test samples for independent testing (even though both are feasible and relatively cheap to do). In almost every other facet of criminal law, defendants are given access to the evidence against them.
These decisions haven't gone unnoticed in state legislatures. Forty-one states now reserve the right to revoke drunken driving defendants' licenses before they're ever brought to trial. Thirty-seven states now impose harsher penalties on motorists who refuse to take roadside sobriety tests than on those who take them and fail. Seventeen states have laws denying drunk driving defendants the same opportunities to plea bargain given to those accused of violent crimes.
Until recently, New York City cops could seize the cars of first-offender drunk driving suspects upon arrest. Those acquitted or otherwise cleared of charges were still required to file civil suits to get their cars back, which typically cost thousands of dollars. The city of Los Angeles still seizes the cars of suspected first-time drunk drivers, as well as the cars of those suspected of drug activity and soliciting prostitutes.
Newer laws are even worse. As of last month, Washington State now requires anyone arrested (not convicted -- arrested) for drunken driving to install an "ignition interlock" device, which forces the driver to blow into a breath test tube before starting the car, and at regular intervals while driving. A second law mandates that juries hear all drunken driving cases. It then instructs juries to consider the evidence "in a light most favorable to the prosecution," absurd evidentiary standard at odds with everything the American criminal justice system is supposed to stand for.
Even scarier are the laws that didn't pass, but will inevitably be introduced again. New Mexico's state legislature nearly passed a law that would mandate ignition interlock devices on every car sold in the state beginning in 2008, regardless of the buyer's driving record. Drivers would have been required to pass a breath test to start the car, then again every 10 minutes while driving. Car computer systems would have kept records of the tests, which would have been downloaded at service centers and sent to law enforcement officials for evaluation. New York considered a similar law.
That isn't to say we ought to ease up on drunken drivers. But our laws should be grounded in sound science and the presumption of innocence, not in hysteria. They should target repeat offenders and severely impaired drunks, not social drinkers who straddle the legal threshold. Though the threat of drunken driving has significantly diminished over the last 20 years, it's still routinely overstated by anti-alcohol activists and lawmakers. Even if the threat were as severe as it's often portrayed, casting aside basic criminal protections and civil liberties is the wrong way to address it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)