Traffic Law DUI/DWI
| Implied Consent Laws in Driving Under the Influence of Drugs Cases |
|
| Many states have an implied consent law that essentially provides that a person that drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or urine for the purpose of determining the drug content of the motorist's blood if the motorist is lawfully arrested. The implied consent laws generally penalize a motorist with license suspension or other sanctions if the motorist refuses to provide a sample of blood or urine for testing. However, some states, such as New Jersey, do not have an implied consent law for testing for drugs. Some states provide for testing, but do not provide for the taking of multiple samples. More... |
|
|
| Admissibility of Field Sobriety Tests in Drunk Driving Cases¤ |
|
| There are three standardized field sobriety tests (FSTs) that make up the Standardized Field Sobriety Test battery. They include the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test, the "walk and turn" test, and the "one-leg stand" test. The HGN test refers to an involuntary jerking as the eyes gaze toward the side. When intoxicated, a person's smooth and accurate control of his or her eye movements will break down. The walk and turn test and the one-leg stand test are referred to as the "divided attention" tests, which simulate the mental and physical capabilities a driver needs to drive safely. Of the three FSTs, the HGN is considered the most reliable field sobriety test, especially when used in combination with the divided attention tests. More... |
|
|
| Rising Alcohol Defense in DUI/DWI Cases |
|
| Drunk driving statutes across the country are not always uniform in how they describe the degree of inebriation that is required for conviction for driving under the influence (DUI) and driving while intoxicated (DWI). However, they do generally provide that it is unlawful to have an excessive blood-alcohol concentration at the driving of driving – not at the time of being tested. The statutes in most states provide provisions for a per se illegal offense when a motorist's blood-alcohol level is at or above 0.08%. More... |
|
|
| Overview of Private Motor Vehicle Traffic Regulation |
|
| The ability to drive a motor vehicle on a public highway is not a fundamental right under the United States Constitution; it is a revocable privilege that is granted upon compliance with statutory licensing procedures. Whether the right to operate a motor vehicle it is termed a right or a privilege, one's ability to travel on public highways is always subject to reasonable regulation by the state in the valid exercise of its police power. Accordingly, state vehicle codes were promulgated to increase the safety and efficiency of public roadways, and it is viewed as an enhancement rather than an infringement upon a citizen's right to travel. The privilege properly may be revoked for noncompliance, and revocation is not an unconstitutional infringement of the revokee's right to travel. More... |
|
|
| Defendant's Right to Counsel Before Consenting to Chemical Test in Drunk Driving Case |
|
| Most people are aware that Miranda warnings must be given an accused before he or she is subjected to custodial interrogation. The warnings are intended to protect the privilege against self-incrimination, and the Fifth Amendment right to counsel was created to protect that privilege. However, if the privilege against self-incrimination is not implicated, the warnings are not required, and there is no right to counsel. The United States Supreme Court has held that "physical" evidence may be obtained from an accused without running afoul of the privilege. Therefore, the right to counsel privilege has been held inapplicable to physical or performance tests and chemical tests of bodily substances. More... |
|
|