Cheerleaders left stranded by allegedly drunk bus driver – KVIA

Cheerleaders left stranded by allegedly drunk bus driver KVIA, TX A group of about 30 people was left stranded in the tiny Arizona town of Wickenburg for seven hours while their bus driver, 61-year-old Alexandro Lopez, headed to jail on drunk driving charges. Lopez was arrested by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office ...

Hausner gets 2 life sentences in non-murder cases – Arizona Republic

Hausner gets 2 life sentences in non-murder cases Arizona Republic, AZ On Monday, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge dropped the other shoe on Hausner and sentenced him to two life sentences and more than 900 years in prison. "I'm willing to accept the maximum punishment," Hausner told Judge Roland Steinle. ...

On top of death penalty, Hausner gets life sentences – Arizona Republic

On top of death penalty, Hausner gets life sentences Arizona Republic, AZ On Monday, a Maricopa County Superior court judge dropped the other shoe on him, and sentenced him to two life sentences and more than 900 years in prison. "I'm willing to accept the maximum punishment," Hausner told Judge Roland Steinle. ...

Doug Grant guilty of manslaughter – Eastern Arizona Courier

Doug Grant guilty of manslaughter Eastern Arizona Courier, AZ He was then booked into the Maricopa County Jail. Faylene’s mother, Glenna Eaves, spoke with reporters outside the Maricopa County Superior Court in Downtown Phoenix and said it had been a long time, but justice was finally served. ...

Surprise police arrest suspected human smuggler – YourWestValley.com

Surprise police arrest suspected human smuggler YourWestValley.com, AZ Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials were called and took the nine undocumented people into custody. The driver, Antonio Perez-Rodriguez, 32, of Burlington, Wash., was taken to the Maricopa County Fourth Avenue Jail and booked on nine counts ... Surprise police make second human smuggling stop AZ Central.com all 3 news articles

Arpaio's critics launch five-day hunger strike – AZFamily

Arpaio's critics launch five-day hunger strike AZFamily, AZ In addition to the crime sweeps that have drawn so much attention recently, Arpaio is known for setting up Tent City, an extension of the Maricopa County Jail, reinstituting chain gangs and setting up volunteer chains gangs of female inmates, ... Taxpayers' tab unclear for Arpaio reality show Arizona Republic Records: Arpaio Used Taxes To Pay For Reality Show KPHO Phoenix Arizona sheriff recalls WMass The Republican - MassLive.com all 15 news articles

Fairfax County Virginia DUI Machines Are Inaccurate

Earlier in March, Richmond, Virginia DUI defense attorney Bob Battle cast doubt regarding the accuracy of Fairfax County’s breath testing machines.  According to Mr. Battle, one of the machines used by the county, the 10-year-old Intoxilyzer 5000, has significant weaknesses.  Police officers and courts often use the results of this machine to convict a driver of driving under the influence (DUI) in Virginia.

Bob Battle was representing a driver accused of DUI, when he discovered the weakness in the Intoxilyzer 5000.  According to Mr. Battle, when he received the records of the machine, he found out that one of the motors had been replaced.  After further investigation, he discovered that Virginia had purchased a number of replacement motors from various companies and that they couldn’t even tell you what motor was in the machine.  Without knowing the details of the replaced motors, the entire Intoxilyzer 5000 can be inaccurate.

The Fairfax County, Virginia General District Court judge presiding over the case agreed to allow experts to test the accuracy of the breath machine.  However, the prosecution wanted to avoid the testing and offered to reduce the DUI charge to reckless driving, which allowed the motorist to keep his license.  The deal offered by the prosecution was too good to turn down, but Mr. Battle believes that the breath machine will be tested one day.

"I sincerely believe it's going to be like that scene from the Wizard of Oz.  Once they roll back that curtain, they're going to find that this machine is not the perfect machine they try make it out to be -- that this is an outdated contraption. That's why Virginia, when they contracted for the new replacement machines, one of the conditions was that it couldn't have this type of motor in it," said Mr. Battle.

You Don’t Have to Be Driving to Be Convicted of Connecticut DUI

A ruling by the Connecticut Supreme Court means that you don’t have to actually be driving to be convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) in Connecticut.  The Supreme Court’s ruling, which was 5-0 in the case of Michael Cyr, showed that drunk drivers do not have to be driving their cars to be charged with operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Michael Cyr had been arrested in Manchester in February 2005 after he was found in a parking lot near a bar.  Cyr had started his vehicle remotely and then sat in the driver’s seat intoxicated.  However, he never put the key in the ignition and did not drive anywhere.

The Appellate Court had thrown out Cyr’s conviction, but Supreme Court Justices have ordered to court to reinstate it and send the case back to Manchester Superior Court for sentencing.

Cyr, a 50-year-old Andover resident, faces a jail sentence of up to one year followed by a three year probation period.  This DUI offense would make it Cyr’s third DUI conviction, as he had prior convictions in 1997 and 1998.

According to Chief Justice Chase Rogers, “In starting the engine of his vehicle remotely then getting behind the steering wheel, the defendant clearly undertook the first act in a sequence of steps necessary to set in motion the motive power of a vehicle.”

The phrase, “motive power,” comes from a 1939 Connecticut court decision, which defined what constitutes “operating” a motor vehicle.

Cyr’s case is one in many that have raised questions concerning the definition of operating a motor vehicle under Connecticut’s drunk driving laws.

Fairfax County Virginia DUI Machines Are Inaccurate

Earlier in March, Richmond, Virginia DUI defense attorney Bob Battle cast doubt regarding the accuracy of Fairfax County’s breath testing machines.  According to Mr. Battle, one of the machines used by the county, the 10-year-old Intoxilyzer 5000, has significant weaknesses.  Police officers and courts often use the results of this machine to convict a driver of driving under the influence (DUI) in Virginia.

Bob Battle was representing a driver accused of DUI, when he discovered the weakness in the Intoxilyzer 5000.  According to Mr. Battle, when he received the records of the machine, he found out that one of the motors had been replaced.  After further investigation, he discovered that Virginia had purchased a number of replacement motors from various companies and that they couldn’t even tell you what motor was in the machine.  Without knowing the details of the replaced motors, the entire Intoxilyzer 5000 can be inaccurate.

The Fairfax County, Virginia General District Court judge presiding over the case agreed to allow experts to test the accuracy of the breath machine.  However, the prosecution wanted to avoid the testing and offered to reduce the DUI charge to reckless driving, which allowed the motorist to keep his license.  The deal offered by the prosecution was too good to turn down, but Mr. Battle believes that the breath machine will be tested one day.

"I sincerely believe it's going to be like that scene from the Wizard of Oz.  Once they roll back that curtain, they're going to find that this machine is not the perfect machine they try make it out to be -- that this is an outdated contraption. That's why Virginia, when they contracted for the new replacement machines, one of the conditions was that it couldn't have this type of motor in it," said Mr. Battle.

You Don’t Have to Be Driving to Be Convicted of Connecticut DUI

A ruling by the Connecticut Supreme Court means that you don’t have to actually be driving to be convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) in Connecticut.  The Supreme Court’s ruling, which was 5-0 in the case of Michael Cyr, showed that drunk drivers do not have to be driving their cars to be charged with operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Michael Cyr had been arrested in Manchester in February 2005 after he was found in a parking lot near a bar.  Cyr had started his vehicle remotely and then sat in the driver’s seat intoxicated.  However, he never put the key in the ignition and did not drive anywhere.

The Appellate Court had thrown out Cyr’s conviction, but Supreme Court Justices have ordered to court to reinstate it and send the case back to Manchester Superior Court for sentencing.

Cyr, a 50-year-old Andover resident, faces a jail sentence of up to one year followed by a three year probation period.  This DUI offense would make it Cyr’s third DUI conviction, as he had prior convictions in 1997 and 1998.

According to Chief Justice Chase Rogers, “In starting the engine of his vehicle remotely then getting behind the steering wheel, the defendant clearly undertook the first act in a sequence of steps necessary to set in motion the motive power of a vehicle.”

The phrase, “motive power,” comes from a 1939 Connecticut court decision, which defined what constitutes “operating” a motor vehicle.

Cyr’s case is one in many that have raised questions concerning the definition of operating a motor vehicle under Connecticut’s drunk driving laws.

Next Page »