What Happens To First Time Offenders in Alabama?

Alabama First Offender

You Are DUI:

If you have 08% BAC (blood alcohol content) or any amount that would render the driver incapable of safely driving. DUI applies to both alcohol and drugs – even prescription drugs.

First Offense:

• Fine: $600-$2100.
• Additional $100 fine to Impaired Drivers Trust Fund.
• Imprisonment: Not more than 1 year (no mandatory minimum).
• Driver’s License Suspended – 90 days.

Alcohol Education or Treatment:

Following conviction, all offenders receive a mandatory alcohol assessment/evaluation to determine the nature and extent of their alcohol problems. The assessment costs $50 and the offender usually pays.

• All offenders are required to attend education or treatment as recommended by the assessment.
• In most cases, repeat offenders are required to attend an intensive out-patient treatment program with monitoring by the court referral officer.
• Offenders failing to comply with the terms of their program are not eligible for license reinstatement and may be returned to the court for further action.

Under 21 (first offense):

Under 21 with .02% BAC, but less than .08%:

• 30 days license Suspension
• If Juvenile (under 18), may impose delinquency dispositions, including $250 fine Completion of DUI/Substance Abuse Court Referral Program

Under 21 with .08% BAC and over:

• DUI Fines only, may not assess additional Juvenile fine of $250; but if under 18, may utilize other juvenile dispositional alternatives.

Day Care and School Bus Drivers – .02% BAC or more (first offense):

• 1 year license suspension
• Fine – $600 – $2100 and/or
• Imprisonment for not more than 1 year
• Completion of DUI/Substance Abuse Court Referral Program

Commercial Vehicle Drivers (First Violation):

• 1 Year Suspension: for a BAC of .04 or more.
• 2 Year Suspension: for failure to submit to test.

Insurance:

Upon conviction or guilty plea, your insurance rates will probably rise to an unmanageable level. Your current company may drop your account and you may pay much more for less coverage at another carrier.

Source

Palm Springs California DUI

If you or a loved one has been arrested for DUI (driving under the influence), it is essential to have an experienced and skilled DUI defense attorney to protect your rights.

DUI cases are not “open and shut” cases and are very defensible.  DUI defense attorney Manuel J. Barba will fight hard for you to get the best possible result.

If you have been arrested for DUI in the Palm Springs – Coachella Valley area, you need to consult with attorney Manuel J. Barba immediately.  Call today (760) 770-3377 to discuss your DUI case.

Visit Palm Springs DUI Lawyers

MORE KIDS DRIVING HIGH

According to a new study by Liberty Mutual Insurance and Students Against Destructive Decisions, which I learned about by reading an article in the San Jose Mercury News, a startling number of youths are driving after smoking marijuana.  One in five teenagers admitted to driving after smoking marijuana, or 20%.  This figure is higher than teens who admit to driving after drinking alcohol, which was 13%. 
The article does not discuss the possible reasons for the high number of kids who think it is ok to smoke marijuana and drive.  One possible explanation is the increase of marijuana use for “medicinal” purposes.  It seems like everyone nowadays has a doctor’s excuse for lighting up a dooby.  Kids too young to buy alcohol can often get such a recommendation.  Their parents may also smoke marijuana for medical reasons, sometimes before driving.  This gives kids the impression that driving while under the influence of marijuana is safer than driving under the influence of alcohol. 
It is important to understand that driving while under the influence of any substance is potentially dangerous.  This goes for alcohol, some prescription medications, and marijuana.  It can also lead to you being pulled over and arrested for DUI, even if you were simply following doctor’s orders.

SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH SAN FRANCISCO PAS DEVICES

According to a memo forwarded to me from the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, the SFPD has not properly checked their preliminary alcohol screening devices for accuracy.  Assistant District Attorney Jerry P. Coleman asserts that, “[I]t appears that the San Francisco Police Department has been calibrating its P.A.S. devices, but has not been performing accuracy checks.” This revelation seriously calls into question to validity of all P.A.S. test results in San Francisco.  It is unclear if the devices used to perform evidential breath alcohol tests were checked for accuracy either. 
The methods used to calibrate the P.A.S. devices are also being questioned, because SFPD has been using expired sample gas canisters to perform calibrations. 
According to California Code of Regulations, Title 17, section 1221.4, the accuracy of breath instruments shall be conducted at least every 10 days, or 150 tests, whichever comes sooner. 
This serious failure by SFPD to abide by California law should cause us to question all methods employed by that department.  If they can have such a cavalier attitude towards this requirement why should we assume that they are following other standards? 

DUI DISCOVERY

California and U.S. discovery rules play an important part in defending your driving under the influence case.  Under authority such as the Supreme Court Case of Brady v. Maryland and California Penal Code section 1054.1, the prosecution is required to provide information to you or your attorney before the case proceeds to trial.  Under the Maryland decision, the US Constitution requires the prosecution to provide anything in their possession that is “exculpatory”.  Being exculpatory means that the information tends to cast doubt on your guilt, or may mitigate in your punishment.  “Their possession” includes anything in the possession of law enforcement, such as the police department, not just what the DA has actual physical possession of. 
Penal Code section 1054.1 is the statutory requirement that the prosecution provide your attorney with the evidence they will use against you well in advance of the trial.  This prevents the DA from surprising you with a “gotcha” moment at trial.
If the prosecution fails to provide discovery at the appropriate time the judge has several sanctions he can impose.  In the most egregious violations of discovery rules the judge can dismiss the DA’s case.  In cases where the failure was inadvertent, or simply late, the judge can exclude certain evidence from being used at trial.  He can also give the jury a special instruction to view the late discovered evidence with skepticism. 
Typical discovery demands in a DUI case include all police reports, audio and video recordings, the officer’s personal notes of the event, and maintenance and calibration records for the breath, blood, or urine test you submitted to.  Often your attorney will request more discovery, such as policy and procedure manuals or the officer’s personnel record.  Getting all necessary discovery well in advance of trial is critical to obtaining a successful outcome in your driving under the influence case.

More DUI DISCOVERY

California and U.S. discovery rules play an important part in defending your driving under the influence case.  Under authority such as the Supreme Court Case of Brady v. Maryland and California Penal Code section 1054.1, the prosecution is required to provide information to you or your attorney before the case proceeds to trial.  Under the Maryland decision, the US Constitution requires the prosecution to provide anything in their possession that is “exculpatory”.  Being exculpatory means that the information tends to cast doubt on your guilt, or may mitigate in your punishment.  “Their possession” includes anything in the possession of law enforcement, such as the police department, not just what the DA has actual physical possession of. 
Penal Code section 1054.1 is the statutory requirement that the prosecution provide your attorney with the evidence they will use against you well in advance of the trial.  This prevents the DA from surprising you with a “gotcha” moment at trial.
If the prosecution fails to provide discovery at the appropriate time the judge has several sanctions he can impose.  In the most egregious violations of discovery rules the judge can dismiss the DA’s case.  In cases where the failure was inadvertent, or simply late, the judge can exclude certain evidence from being used at trial.  He can also give the jury a special instruction to view the late discovered evidence with skepticism. 
Typical discovery demands in a DUI case include all police reports, audio and video recordings, the officer’s personal notes of the event, and maintenance and calibration records for the breath, blood, or urine test you submitted to.  Often your attorney will request more discovery, such as policy and procedure manuals or the officer’s personnel record.  Getting all necessary discovery well in advance of trial is critical to obtaining a successful outcome in your driving under the influence case.

The Guilt Myth

DUI's are one of the most common criminal infractions that are reported, although one of the most misunderstood. Many people that get pulled over and stopped for alleged DUI's are not clear of what there rights are, which leads them not to get the legal representation they deserve. One of the most common myths around DUI's is that, most people that are accused are in fact guilty. This misconception we call, "The DUI Guilt Myth."
It is important to remember that even if you are accused of a DUI it does not mean you have been convicted of a DUI. It is a common and widespread belief that DUI cases can't be won. This is not true, and often when people plead guilty, they are not seeing that they should of fought the contraversal evidence of their alleged DUI.

MORE CHARGES COMING FOR ALLEGED DIRTY COP

A couple of months ago I blogged on the story coming out of Contra Costa County involving a private investigator using his cop buddies to set up the husbands of his clients in divorce cases.  The investigator would tempt the men with attractive young women then send in the cops to bust the guys for driving under the influence. 
It appears as though one of the officers accused in this scandal may have to face additional federal charges.  He has already pled not guilty to two counts of extortion, one count of aiding and abetting extortion, and one count of conspiracy to commit extortion.  According to the US attorney handling the case additional unspecified criminal charges will be charged on March 20.  Of course, it is important for us all to recognize that the officer is innocent until proven guilty.
What this case does is cast additional doubt on the “Guilty Myth” of DUI law, the myth that cops never lie and everyone charged with driving under the influence must be guilty.  If you have been arrested for DUI in the San Francisco Bay area it is so important that you hire an experienced DUI attorney to make sure that you are not being railroaded. 

SHIFTING BLAME IN DEADLY DUI CASE

What should have been a fun night with friends on February 5, 2010 turned into a senseless tragedy.  To celebrate her son’s 21^st birthday, a parent rented a party bus for him and his friends to celebrate.  Apparently there were underage kids drinking on the bus.  The bus drove the partiers for four hours between Burlingame and San Francisco.  When the bus ride ended 19 year old Brett Studebaker got behind the wheel of his car, and his friend Gregory Hinman joined him in the passenger seat.  The two never made it home.  Studebaker lost control of his car and crashed in San Mateo, killing himself and seriously injuring Hinman. 
What has followed is a pathetic attempt to shift responsibility to others.  Hinman is suing the party bus operator and his former friend Studebaker’s estate.  Never mind that he willingly participated in the festivities on the bus, and chose to get into a car with another person who had been drinking. 
Mr. Studebaker’s family is also suing the bus operator for damages.  I guess the theory is they forced their son to get drunk on the bus, and then made him try to drive home.  The tragedy that they suffered must surely be immeasurable, but don’t they bear any responsibility for checking up on what kind of party their son was going to and who would be supervising?
The bus company is joining the lawsuit party as well, suing the parents of the birthday boy for organizing the party and supplying the kids with booze before they got on the bus. 
It is unfortunate that instead of trying to learn something from this tragedy everyone involved is trying to shift blame on everyone else.  At the end of the day, the only winners will be the tort lawyers who feed on this misery. 

GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT IN COLLEGE FOOTBALL

According to an article published today in the San Francisco Chronicle, Stanford linebacker Shayne Skov was arrested January 29^th for driving under the influence in his dormitory parking lot.  The report is scant on details surrounding why police contacted Mr. Skov or what evidence they arrested him on.  However, the article does state that the case has been referred to the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office for review. 
The disturbing thing about the article was the statement made by Stanford Head Football Coach David Shaw.  He was quoted to say, “We have an expected standard of excellence and conduct for our football players, and Shayne failed to adhere to those standards.”  Not only has Mr. Skov not admitted guilt or been found guilty by a jury of his peers, but he has not even been charged yet with a crime by the local prosecutor.  It is unfortunate that Coach Shaw has such little regard for the due process protections enshrined in our Constitution that he would jump to conclusions so quickly.  We can only hope that the rest of us will keep an open mind and afford Mr. Skov the benefit of the doubt until he is either convicted or exonerated. 
This case goes to show how entrenched the “Guilt Myth” is in our society.  When people pass a person on the side of the road performing field sobriety tests they often assume that he must be guilty of DUI.  When some see an article reporting on someone being arrested for DUI they assume that the police would not arrest an innocent man.  These assumptions are deeply flawed.  They are contradicted every day when people accused of driving under the influence fight for their rights and beat the criminal justice system. 

« Previous Page — Next Page »