Did you know your drivers license can be suspended even before you go to court for DUI?

What is an Administrative Drivers License Suspension? Did You Know Your Driver’s License Can be Suspended Before You Even Go To Court For DUI? An administrative driver’s license suspension is an entirely different suspension than the suspension you will receive if you are convicted of DUI in Florida. You must act quickly because an administrative suspension can occur before you even go to court!

THE IMPLIED CONSENT NOTICE AND TESTING METHODS

If you are arrested for Driving Under the Influence of alcohol (DUI), the arresting officer should read the Florida Implied Consent Notice at the time of the arrest and request that you take one or more State administered chemical test.

Breath tests are performed on the Intoxilyzer 5000 � (some people mistakenly call this a Breathalyzer �).

In a blood test, a sample of your blood is drawn by a qualified person and sent to the state crime lab to test the alcohol level in your blood.

If a urine sample is taken, it is also sent to the crime lab. Usually urine samples are used only for drug testing, not alcohol testing.

THE 10 DAY RULE FOR REFUSING OR HAVING AN UNLAWFUL BLOOD ALCOHOL LEVEL

If you refuse to take the requested State administered chemical test, or if you take the test and your blood alcohol level amounts to a “per se” violation,* the officer is required by law to submit a sworn report to the Department of Public Safety to initiate an administrative license suspension hearing. This hearing is separate and apart from any criminal hearing (plea or trial) and is conducted by the Office of State Administrative Hearings (OSAH).

* 0.08 grams for cases made on or after July 1, 2001 if you are age 21 or over, 0.02 if you are under 21, and 0.04 if you were operating a commercial vehicle

If you either refuse to take the test or test for a “per se” alcohol level, you have ten business days to request an administrative hearing. Do not count weekends, state holidays, or the day you were arrested. If you do not request the hearing within the ten business days, then the following penalties apply:

PENALTIES FOR REFUSING

If the arresting officer initiates a refusal suspension, and if you do not request a hearing in a timely manner, then on the 31st day after your arrest, your driver’s license will be suspended for one to five years, depending upon your record.

No limited permit is allowed, even if this is your first ever DUI charge. The same penalty applies if you request a hearing in a timely manner but lose at the administrative hearing. The only way the suspension can be undone is if you have a trial and win or if you plead to a charge that is not a DUI.

PENALTIES FOR HAVING AN UNLAWFUL BLOOD ALCOHOL LEVEL

First Offense

For a first offense within five years, if the officer initiates a “per se” suspension, and if you do not request a hearing in a timely manner, then on the 31st day after your arrest, your driver’s license will be suspended for one year. However, you may obtain a 30-day work permit. (You cannot obtain this particular permit from a Walk-In location. You must obtain it from the main DMVS office at 815 Orienta Ave. Suite #1060, Altamonte Springs, Fl. 32701)

After this permit expires, you can receive early reinstatement of your driver’s license if you complete DUI school and pay the appropriate reinstatement fee ($200.00 via mail and $210.00 if you apply in person).

The same penalty applies if you request a hearing in a timely manner but lose at the administrative hearing.

Second Offense

For a second offense within five years, if you do not request a hearing in a timely manner, or if you request the hearing and lose, your license is suspended for three years. No work permit is allowed.

Third Offense

For a third offense within five years, if you do not request a hearing in a timely manner, or if you request a hearing and lose, your drivers license is suspended for five years. No work permit is allowed.

CREDIT FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE SUSPENSION

Keep in mind that if you receive an administrative suspension because of a “per se” alcohol level, all of that suspension time will be credited against any license suspension you receive if you are convicted or plead guilty.

However, if you receive an administrative suspension because you refused to take the state test you will receive no credit for that suspension time.

If you request a hearing in a timely manner (always consult a DUI defense lawyer regarding this matter), you will at least have a fighting chance. If you do not request this hearing in a timely manner, your license will be automatically suspended and you still have to go to court on the DUI.

Richard G. Salzman, Esq. is an experienced Broward County attorney; licensed to practice in New York and New Jersey since 1986, and Florida since 1988.

Law Offices of Richard G. Salzman, P.A. 4340 Sheridan Street, Suite 102 Hollywood, Florida 33021 954-981-0336 Richard@salzmanattorney.com http://www.salzmanattorney.com

Richard G. Salzman, Esq. is an experienced Broward County attorney; licensed to practice in New York and New Jersey since 1986, and Florida since 1988.

Hate Crimes

Should we outlaw “hate crimes?” It might seem like a good idea at first. Who’s in favor of bigotry and of people committing crimes because of that hatred? On the other hand, is legislation really the solution to people believing and saying things we don’t happen to like or agree with?

In their defense, some point out that hate crime legislation just adds additional penalties to existing crimes – true so far in the United States. Perhaps this won’t always be true, but more on that in a moment. For now, the question is if it is right to legislate additional punishment because of a person’s belief. Theft has a penalty under the law, for example, but should the thief get extra punishment because he felt some animosity towards whatever group the person was a part of?

We already have a law that makes his crime punishable. Isn’t adding extra punishment because of his beliefs just trying to make thought a crime too? Even if you like the idea, do you trust any government to properly police people’s thoughts and beliefs? It’s obviously contrary to our tradition of free speech.

If our justice system is going to base sentences on the likelihood of the criminal re-offending, the judge can take racist remarks and beliefs into account. I don’t see a problem with that approach. After all, if a criminal says, “I hate (insert group here), so I want to kill them all,” why wouldn’t we consider this at the time of sentencing?

However, suppose a violent criminal repeatedly assaults woman. Why should he get less punishment under the law than a criminal who happens to hate the race or religion of the women he assaults? Both may be very likely to re-offend – or the former may be even more likely too – but let a judge consider that at sentencing. Laws against hate crimes are too indiscriminate, and too intolerant.

Hate crime laws intolerant? Certainly the idea is that we – society or the majority – don’t like your beliefs, so when you commit a crime, we’ll use it as an excuse to punish you for what you’re thinking and saying. Prior to the crime we can’t know whether it is worse than any other similar crime, or the criminal is any more dangerous, so the point is to punish beliefs. Here come the thought police.

Hate Literature Laws

Think hate crime laws are only affecting real criminals, and so they won’t affect you? Isn’t it possible that the idea of controlling “bad” thought and belief will spread once the precedent is there? Is this paranoid? Already the law in Canada says “every one who, by communicating statements, other than in a private conversation, willfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty” of a felony and liable to imprisonment for two years. An “identifiable group” is defined as “any section of the public distinguished by color, race, religion or ethnic origin.”

These definitions expand of course, and more groups have been recently added to the protected list. A judge also found that passages in the Bible are hate literature under this law. His decision was overturned before the Bible was banned, but I agree with him – parts are very hateful against certain groups. I just think that we’re better letting the marketplace of ideas take care of these issues, rather than having “thought czars” determine them for us.

This is a classic “slippery slope.” A company I once worked for brought in a “harassment specialist” to train us all to be “sensitive.” Soon we were hearing that it was offensive for one of the old ladies who worked there to call people “honey” – and that she could be fired for it (true story). How did it come to that? Offensive is in the eye of the offended, so those who are most easily offended make the standards for the rest.

This could happen with laws addressing offensive beliefs, couldn’t it? Perhaps it will someday be against the law to say I think most Republican politicians are hypocrites. I wouldn’t have thought so until I heard that you can’t say what you want or publish a book in Canada if it is “hateful.” Why not avoid this mess, and punish people for their crimes – not for what they think or believe? I hate hate crime laws because they may lead to the loss of one of our primary freedoms.

Copyright Steve Gillman. For inventions, new product ideas, business ideas, story ideas, political and economic theories, deep thoughts, and a free course on How To Have New Ideas, visit : http://www.999ideas.com

Theft, Non-fatal Offences, Criminal Law Elements of Proof

Theft says s.1 Theft Act 1968 is the dishonest appropriation of another’s property with the intention to deprive the other of it permanently. The actus-reus of it is in s. 3 ‘appropriation’ (‘any assumption of an owner’s right’) as can be changing price-labels to pay less: R -v- Morris 1983, or such ‘borrowing’ of a season-ticket in a way as makes it of no or little value: R -v- Llyod 1985 (‘property’ being, s.4, all property including money and things in action, but physical things as paper and not abstract things as knowledge copied from it: Oxford -v- Moss 1979, limitedly on wild-growing plants [unless uprooted] and on flowers-fruits-leaves [unless for sale]; ‘belonging to another’ is by another owned or in lawful possession or control of another, e.g. taking without payment from repairer: R -v- Turner 1971). The mens-rea of it is ‘dishonestly’ in s. 2 (defined in terms of: s. 2(1)(a) unless s/he believes it right in law to do so or s. 2(1)(b) that the owner in the circumstances would consent if knew or s. 2(1)(c) that the owner could not by reasonable steps be discovered), regarded as a two-stage test of ordinary standard of reasonable man and knowledge of it: R -v- Feely 1968 & R -v- Gosh 198; also ‘intention to permanently deprive’ as in Lloyd.

The Theft Acts provide also for other offences.

Obtaining property by deception is in s. 15 of the ’68 Act , as theft but ‘by any deception’ -by false words or tricky behaviour: R -v- Bernard 1837 (pretending as business inducing investment & supply of goods) R -v- Gomez 1993 (unentitledly in Salvation Army uniform collecting money).

Obtaining services by deception is s. 1 of the ’78 Act -it is as for property in the earlier Act.

Evading liability in s. 2 of the ’78 Act is the offence of similarly avoiding e.g. debts.

Making off without payment (‘bilking’) is s. 3 of the ’78 Act ~e.g. restaurant -without paying.

Robbery is s. 8 enabling theft by force or such threats, at the time or before, as would put in fear another of there and then being subjected to it ~theft with assault or battery -max.: life.

Burglary in s. 9 is mostly by trespass -by unauthorised entry to or to any part of any building (including caravans & house-boats lived in), s. 9(1)(a) ‘intending to steal or inflict grievous bodily harm or raping any person within it, or doing unlawful damage to it or anything within it as a trespasser,’ s. 9(1)(b) or upon entry as trespasser without such intention doing or attempting so ~it is can be tried by Magistrates -by a Crown Court if involves the intention to rape or cause grievous bodily harm

Taking a conveyance without consent is s. 12, taking, driving or being in, any thing constructed for carrying people by land, water, or air (except pedal cycles) ~it is a summary offence, normally, with max. 6 month imprisonment -unless aggravated by dangerous driving, or damage to it, or accident causing injury or damage (in the Criminal Damage Act 1971 ‘reasonable careful person test’ applies).

> Non-fatal Offences Against the Person

Non-fatal offences against the person are in part common law offences, and in part by statute; and, in order of seriousness, they are as follows:-

In Smith -v-Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station 1983 entering a garden at night, by looking through a bedroom window terrifying a woman was an offence under s. 4 Vagrancy Act 1824 ~if intending to assault -words alone are not normally enough.

Assault is causing apprehension of immediate unlawful physical violence intentionally or recklessly -its charged under s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1998. Threats not capable of being carried out do not constitute it.

Battery is the intentional or reckless subjecting of another to unlawful force; and, as in the case of hitting one wit a missile, it need not be coupled by assault. This also is in common-law, charged under s.39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1998.

In both of these offences the mens-rea is intention: R -v- Spratt 1990, or by subjective recklessness: R -v- Savage 1991 was deliberate unreasonable risk taking, and R-v- Parmenter 1991: not if the risk is obvious but if malice was involved. While both the actus-reus and the mens-rea must exit at the same time, the mens-rea can be formed in the course of the actus-reus: Fagan -v- Metropolitan Police Commission 1969 -having accidentally driven car on policeman’s foot, refusing to move car when told had formed it

Satisfactory evidence of consent is a defence: R -v- Donovan 1934 (prostitute beaten by a stick for sexual gratification), if the offence is not a more serious one.

Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm is a s. 47 offence and it is when battery, alone or coupled with common law assault, the statutory ‘assault’ of the Act is so serious that it is likely to interfere with the victim’s health and comfort -without cutting the whole skin, physically such as grazing and concussion: R -v- Roberts 1971, or: R -v- Chan & Fook 1994 as nervous shock in psychiatric terms: R -v- Ireland & R -v- Burstow 1997 (a direct physical attack is not a requirement, also e.g. silent telephone calls may constitute the offence of causing actual bodily harm. Its actus-reus is itself as the consequence by the ‘but for’ test, the objective test; it requires this to be coupled with the mens-rea in the form of intention or subjective recklessness: Roberts (where intentionally or subjectively recklessly there was unlawful force, which objectively occasioned the bodily harm). In Donovan consent was not a defence because actual bodily harm was caused ~the nature and the degree of the injury itself being the decisive factor in whether common assault was the offence involved -to which only it is a defence, or actual bodily harm or greater..

Unlawful Wounding is a s. 20 offence, and it is by any means unlawfully and maliciously wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm. In the actus-reus the ‘wound’ is other than a broken collarbone: R -v- Wood 1830 or internal bleeding: JJC -v- Eisonhower 1983; it need not be serious. But ‘grievous bodily harm’ must be serious -although not necessarily permanent or life threatening, nor by a direct attack: R -v- Martin 1881. The mens-rea of it is ‘maliciously’ (intention or subjective recklessness) which applied as transferred malice in intended hitting in R -v- Latimer 1886; but in R -v- Parmenter where ‘neither could have intended nor realised injury’, and consent here too was no defence in R -v- Brown & Others 1993.

Wounding with Intent is s. 18, the most serious of the Act’s offences. It is ‘unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever to wound or cause grievous bodily harm… with intent to do some grievous bodily harm.. or to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detaining… of any person’; its actus-reus is as for unlawful wounding, but its mens-rea is the intention to commit the crime, and proof of that is required, but it can be reduced to and dealt with as ‘unlawful wounding’ based on subjective recklessness: R -v- Constanza 1996 : it can be stalking and if silent telephone calls cause mental anguish as in R -v- Gelder 1944.

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm and unlawful wounding carry a maximum sentence of five years imprisonment, but wounding with intent carries, as maximum, life imprisonment.

> The General Elements That Must be Proved Before Establishing Criminal Liability

These have to be looked at first, in considering whether any offences may have been committed. Some of these are statute-based and some under common-law, their development having been much affected by such pressures as economic, social, and political. Usually specific are the features of each crime, but there are some common elements.

One is innocent until ad unless found in law not to be -except in strict-liability cases; this requires showing both that a guilty act was done, as well as that it was intentionally done.

Actus-reus is the criminal act: e.g., s. 1 of the Theft Act 1968 ‘dishonest appropriation’; or the criminal omission: e.g., s. 6 Road Traffic Act 1988 ‘fails to provide a specimen’; or a criminal a state of affairs or event: e.g., in Winzar -v- Chief Constable of Kent 1983 the charge of ‘found drunk in the highway’; or the criminal consequence: e.g., s. 47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 ‘occasioning actual bodily harm’-which is a ‘result crime’ necessitating showing a casual link in fact or in law.

Causation in fact is determined by the ‘but for test’. In R -v- White 1910 the mother’s death having been from natural causes, poisoning her was not the cause, and it not killing.

Causation of law depend on the contribution of the intervening act. R -v- Roberts 1972 injury of jumping out the car was caused by sexual advances made to the woman in the car; in R -v- Pitts 1842 drowning was caused while escaping from an attack; R -v- Lewis 1970 broken leg resulted from escaping threats and attempt of violence; the reasonable act of the victim in seeking to escape being subjected to a crime was the link. Contributory negligence of the victim in R -v- Holland 1841 (self neglect) did not break the link, in R -v- Deer 1996 was still the significant operative in the death -it was killing, a thyroid condition unknown to the accused at the time did not change the ‘egg-shell skull rule’ and one took one’s victim as one found the victim -and R-v- Blaue 1975 (refusal of blood-transfusion on religious grounds) this applies also in respect to the spiritual condition of the victim. The sole cause of death need not be the act or the omission and in R -v- Pagett 1983 the ‘instinctive’ fatal shooting by a policeman of a human-shield was unlawful killing of the accused who had ‘substantially’ caused it; while some reluctance was shown by the courts in treating intervening medical treatment as breaking the link and in R -v- Smith 1959 as much as by 75% reduction of it by that did not break the link, in R -v- Jordan 1956 palpably wrong medical treatment was the direct and the immediate cause of death, from R -v- Cheshire 1991 it is clear that the link can be broken.

Mens-rea is the fault-level of the accused in the act or mission; it is often included in the definition of serious crimes e.g., ‘with malice aforethought’; it is ‘the guilty mind’ by intention, recklessness, or gross-negligence.

Intention, for most serious crimes, has to be specifically shown, by a subjective test deemed by the jury to have been present, R -v- Moloney 1985: in the form of foresight of, R -v- Hancock & Shankland 1986: the probable consequences, wilfully and deliberately carried out ~or in R -v- Nadrick 1988 with virtual certainty of the probable consequences -which may be intention: Scalley 1955.

Recklessness in ss. 47, 20, 23 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm, rape) show basic intention; it can be subjective: leaking ripped off gas-meter killed in R -v- Cunningham 1957; or objective: R -v- Caldwell 1981 (arson by drunk) -s1(2) Criminal Damage Act 1971: as to whether life would be endangered.

Negligence can be mens-rea in non-strict-liability offences of e.g. Factories Act 1961 -but only as a last resort; but gross negligence, often, is sufficient mens-rea in homicide cases: Adomako 1994

Strict liability does not require mens-rea e.g. Food & Drugs Act 1995 -in Meah -v- Roberts 1977 of the unfitness of drink for human consumption the accused was innocent yet still guilty ~but in Warner -v- Metropolitan Police Commissioner 1969 (dangerous drugs case) ‘one cannot be in possession the contents of a package when he/she does not know what it is’.

These are an outline as guidelines; laws change, always ascertain current law.

The author has a website at: http://www.geocities.com/eoa_uk

How to Choose a Ny Traffic Attorney

This article will help motorists with a New York traffic ticket select the right NY traffic lawyer to defend them. Traffic tickets, such as speeding, red light and failure to signal, can result in points on your New York driver license, automobile insurance increases and fines, surcharges and fees. Therefore, picking the right New York traffic ticket attorney is critical.

More and more motorists are retaining a New York traffic ticket lawyer when they are issued a NY traffic ticket. In addition to receiving professional advice from a knowledgeable traffic ticket attorney, drivers are anxious to transfer this stressful and time-consuming responsibility to someone else.

The first thing that you should do is make sure you are calling or emailing an actual New York traffic ticket attorney or New York traffic law firm. While this sounds obvious, the internet is replete with non-lawyers trying to make a quick buck. The most obvious tell-tale sign is when the site or the site’s ad states something like “If We Don’t Win, You Don’t Pay 100%” or “Guaranteed or your money back”. It is entirely unethical for an attorney to guarantee results and, therefore, you should stay clear from such quick buck artists. No honest, self-respecting attorney would ever make such a representation. In fact, common sense dictates that no one can guarantee what some third party (a judge or prosecutor) will do. If you are lucky, the fine print will explain what is actually being “guaranteed”. Either way, however, is caveat emptor – buyer beware – for those fooled by such promises.

Similarly, I recommend avoiding any web site that lists itself as a directory of traffic lawyers or offers to find you the “right” lawyer. Those sites are simply middlemen often looking to add something to your fee for generating a lead to a real traffic lawyer. From the outset until the end of the case, you want to be dealing directly with a law firm (not some middleman) especially if a question or problem arises.

If you have any doubt, check the physical location of the “firm”. If they do not have a New York State address (or do not even list an address), there is a good chance that you are not dealing with an actual lawyer or law firm. A New York traffic lawyer is required to list his office address on all advertising which includes his or her web site.

On this point, make sure the lawyer’s office is “real”. This means there is a staff member of the lawyer available during regular business to answer questions and arrange for an attorney to get back to you, if needed. Do not mistake an answering service operator for an actual law firm employee. If the “representative” cannot answer basic questions and tells you that someone will get back to you, then you are likely dealing with an outside answering service. An attorney who does not maintain a “real” office cannot be as responsive to your needs and, therefore, is not recommended.

Yet another consideration is how promptly does the lawyer or his firm got back to you once you have made your initial inquiry. The faster the response, the more likely you are speaking to an attorney or firm who is organized, and will be diligent and thorough in handling your case.

Once you have eliminated the middlemen, directory sites, non-lawyers and the lawyers without real offices, the next step is to find an attorney who is experienced in vehicle and traffic law matters. Start by asking the attorney or the firm’s paralegal about the firm’s traffic law experience and, in particular, their previous experience at the court where you case is scheduled. Have they appeared in this court before? What was the result? Is this the primary type of law which they handle? Of course, you may not get honest or direct answers but that is a good start.

You then can ask about any articles the lawyer has written on that subject and ask to see one of them. Chances are an attorney who has taken the time to write one or more vehicle and traffic law articles is someone who you can rely on to be experienced and knowledgeable.

Yet another important item to check is the attorney’s background. Did he or she graduate from a quality law school, were they on Law Review, have they won any awards, did they previously work at a court and/or large law firm. Were they formerly a traffic judge or traffic prosecutor? The more impressive the attorney’s background the better.

Be wary of an attorney who does not set forth his or her education and prior experience. It is safe to assume that in such cases the attorney’s background is less than impressive.

Another important consideration is the comfort level you get when speaking with the law firm. Were they responsive to questions? Were you given understandable and sensible answers? Were they knowledgeable? Were they honest with you about the prospects for success? Were they patient? If you do not feel comfortable, then its time to make another telephone call.

A good and honest traffic ticket lawyer will inquire whether it even makes sense for you to fight this ticket and/or hire a traffic lawyer. For example, if the ticket carries no points or you have an out-of-state license and points do not transfer, it usually does not make sense to hire a New York traffic ticket attorney.

The final consideration is price. I have ended with this important item because many prospective clients put way too much emphasis on this consideration and ignore all the others mentioned in this article. Nevertheless, you should look for an attorney that will take your case for a flat fee. This way there is no surprises for you when the case is over. Many New York traffic ticket lawyer will offer a flat fee so you do not have to settle for someone who charges by the hour or cannot give you a fee upfront.

Also, just because one attorney is a $100 (or so) cheaper does not mean you should select that one. Your driver license is an important privilege and you do not want to hand this responsibility to just anyway, especially when you likely will not be in court when the case is resolved.

I would say you generally do not want the cheapest lawyer to handle your case nor the most expensive. Look for someone whose fee is reasonable. Otherwise, the old adage “You get what you pay for” may rear its ugly head.

Choosing the right New York traffic ticket lawyer is an important decision. I hope this article is helpful in making it.

Matthew J. Weiss, Esq. graduated Hofstra Law School in 1984. He was Law Review and won the law school’s prestigious Procedure Award. Upon graduation, he became one of the first Hofstra Law School graduates to work at the New York State Court of Appeals (New York State’s highest court) working on various appellate matters.

Mr. Weiss then worked for two years at Rivkin, Radler, Bayh, Hart & Kremer, a 200-plus attorney law firm, representing various clients, such as municipalities, insurance companies and large corporations, in various litigation matters. He also continued to do substantial appellate work.

In 1991, Mr. Weiss co-founded his private law practice eventually buying out his former partner in 2000. Through the years, 888 Red Light has successfully resolved 1,000s of traffic tickets and trucking tickets for its clients by way of dismissal or plea bargain. Mr. Weiss can be reached at 212-683-7373 or via web submission to http://www.nytrafficticket.com

———————————————————————————————————————

NEED A Lawyer? Check out our Lawyer Directory!

Back to homepage for Law Information

12 DUI SECRETS POLICE DON’T WANT YOU TO KNOW… FINALLY

Secrets of Avoiding a DUI Conviction: How to Protect Your Legal Rights
Against Aggressive/Oppressive DUI Enforcement Tactics

Secret Number 1

Remember that anything you say to, or when in the presence of, the Officer who stopped you will be used against you in court. Instead, politely tell the officer that you would be happy to answer his questions, but only in the presence of your attorney. You should not have to make another single comment.

Secret Number 2

Never admit to drinking, even if you have been. You will get no “credit” for disclosing information and will likely not be believed in any event, inasmuch as everyone seems to admit to a “couple of beers.” Even if the officer comments on smelling the odor of alcohol on your breath, do not take the bait and confirm his observations by an admission. That will certainly be used as evidence against you.

Secret Number 3

Resist the temptation to explain to the officer where you have been or
What you have been doing. At this stage of the stop it is none of his business! The officer is hoping you will say something real dumb, like “Oh, I’ve just been down at the bar with my buddies, hanging out.” Saying something like, “I have been tending to my business and personal affairs, Officer,” is much less incriminating! But, again that would be unnecessary if you had just handed the officer the pre-printed statement referred to in Secret

Number 1.

Secret Number 4

When responding to the officer, use head nods, hand motions, hand signals or signs instead of speaking aloud. You will be accused of having thick-tongued, slurred speech regardless of how well you speak anyway, so why should you talk at all. It may cause you to feel awkward, but you will not hurt your case nearly as much as you might otherwise. Besides, this will eliminate any slurred speech that might actually be there!

Secret Number 5

Never, ever agree to submit to so-called “field sobriety tests or exercises!!” As any Certified Instructor of these tests can tell you, you would not likely be able to pass these tests cold sober, in your own home.

Want to try? The tests are designed to make you look silly and the officer look good! Politely decline these tests, by nodding no when asked. These tests are completely voluntary, not mandatory. The officer will likely threaten to arrest you if you do not cooperate. Understand this: there is a much greater risk that he will make that arrest and have the evidence he needs after you perform these tests, so do not do them.

Secret Number 6

Unless you have had no alcohol at all and have not used an asthma inhaler in the past 30 minutes, do not submit to the roadside breath test requested by the officer. This pre-screening test performed on an “alcosensor” can detect the presence of alcohol and give the officer an estimate of the amount of alcohol concentration in your blood, even though that number is inadmissible in court. The officer will likely say something like, “let me just check and see if you are OK to drive home.” Don’t bet on it! Again this test is strictly voluntary, so again, politely decline or nod “no” to his request.

Secret Number 7

Ask the officer to return your license and allow you to leave. After handing over the license and registration, if the officer says you violated traffic laws, ask that he give you the citation and allow you to leave. If he says you are impaired, indicate you will get a ride or take a taxi. If the officer will not let you depart, or return your license, consider yourself under arrest and ask for an attorney! You won’t get one, but the evidence will begin to mount in your favor if you have started doing the things suggested so far. Issues of probable cause will be of interest to your lawyer, so get a lawyer that very night.

Secret Number 8

Unless you can answer “yes” to each and every one of the following questions, do not submit to the official Florida Implied Consent Tests of breath, blood or urine:
1. Are you over 21 years of age?
2. Are you a non-commercial driver?
3. Do you have a Florida driver’s license?
4. It is true that you have NOT been involved in an accident where a

Serious injury has occurred to any person or where a death may occur as a result of such injuries sustained in this accident?
If any of these questions must be answered with a “No” then consider
refusing testing. This state test is voluntary even though the officer may say that Florida law “requires” you be tested. Your consent is “presumed” but you may withdraw that consent by stating that you refuse such testing.

Secret Number 9

Ask for an independent test of your blood. The police may attempt to talk you out of it, indicating that you “must do this” or that “it won’t do much good”, but get it done anyway. Remember this is your test. All that needs to happen is that the blood be drawn for legal purposes and preserved and stored at the hospital or other facility. DO NOT get a medical blood test! That is a totally different test. Ask that the officer allow you to make calls to arrange for funds, if not readily available. This independent test may be evidence of your innocence, and if not helpful, the police will never see it.

Secret Number 10

When making your call from the jail, call your lawyer first. If you forget, then at least tell your family to call the lawyer BEFORE they leave to go to the jail. Lawyers doing DUI defense work are a lot like gynecologists. When it’s time to go, it’s time to go. So, if your lawyer or doctors says “call me in the morning,” you might just want to get another doctor or lawyer. When you need one, you need one.

Just like the doctor, your lawyer can make the additional calls to set things in action and make important and helpful things happen in your case. What is important in the DUI case is that the attorney can immediately begin gathering evidence, names of witnesses, and making arrangements that may assist you in the defense of your case. Even the next morning might not be too late for a blood test. Even other people in jail can testify regarding you sobriety or the manner in which you were treated by the officer. If your lawyer is not available, make contact as soon as possible.

Secret Number 11

Learn and understand your 10 day right to request a hearing on the DMV
Administrative Drivers License Suspension Notice you are issued as a
“temporary driving permit.” It is much more than that and that difference will hurt you if you ignore, don’t read and understand and make that written request in the proper manner. My office can provide you with a free form for this purpose just call and ask for a DMV Administrative Drivers License Suspension Hearing Request Form, or come by and pick one up, but in either event don’t delay!

Secret Number 12

This secret is a little difficult for some folks, but here it is, very few of the lawyers who advertise they practice DUI defense are equal to the task of competently defending a driver charged with DUI. Big yellow pages ads and popularity often spell a volume practice that spells high percentages of guilty pleas.

In the Broward area from 2003 through 2006, fewer than two percent of lawyers advertising a practice in DUI defense actually attended ANY advanced level DUI defense continuing legal education courses or seminars in this highly complicated and specialized field of criminal law. It is safe to say that it would take a conscientious and thoroughly competent DUI lawyer at least an hour to evaluate your case and medical history.

In the vast majority of these cases the lawyer will suggest “talking” to the judge or prosecutor for you for a substantial fee. These cases invariably end up as guilty pleas! Many such cases would have been very defendable. If the lawyer you are talking to has concluded ANYTHING about your case in a 15 minute interview, I would highly recommend you get a second opinion, regardless of the suggestion or recommendation.

Richard G. Salzman, Esq. is an experienced Broward County Criminal Defense and DUI Defense attorney; licensed to practice law in New York and New Jersey since 1986, and Florida since 1988. The Law Offices of Richard G. Salzman, P.A. focuses on Criminal Defense, DUI Defense and related vehicular offenses and BUI Defense (Boating Under the Influence).

Call now 954-981-0336 for free consult. Can you really afford to wait?

The Law Offices of Richard G. Salzman, P.A.
4340 Sheridan Street, Suite 102
Hollywood, Florida 33021

954-981-0336

Richard@salzmanattorney.com
http://www.salzmanattorney.com
www.myspace.com/richardthelawyer

Back to homepage for Law Information

The 10 Fatal Mistakes Inexperienced Lawyers Can Make in Drunk Driving Cases and How you Can Avoid Them

Even though attorneys learn “the law” in a wide variety of legal areas, most of their litigation expertise comes from practical experience, either by prosecuting or defending individuals or businesses.

For Florida DUI cases, which involve a great deal of science in addition to a general knowledge of the basic Florida DUI laws, this experience is crucial to handling matters competently and successfully.

And due to the complexity of DUI cases, knowledgeable attorneys consider DUI cases to be among the most difficult to defend. Because of this same complexity, many attorneys who are not experienced in DUI Defense often make 10 fatal mistakes when it comes to defending their clients charged with DUI . . . mistakes which can seriously hurt their clients as far as losing their drivers license, paying considerable fines, being jailed, having huge increases in their insurance rates, and the effect it could have on their current or future job and career.

To protect yourself and to help you decide who to hire and how to plead, you need to know what these mistakes are:

Mistake 1—Assuming the Case Can’t be Won

The single most fatal mistake an inexperienced attorney can make in representing you after you have been arrested for DUI is assuming your case cannot be won and pleading you guilty.

After getting the police report and the breath test results, many inexperienced lawyers simply give it up and advise the client to plead guilty.

In fact, the breath test, the blood-alcohol (BAC or Blood Alcohol Count) test, and the roadside sobriety tests the arrested person is asked to perform all have potential built-in flaws: flaws which can make the difference between a conviction and a dismissal.

For example, the results of a breath test or evidence of your sobriety can be challenged through a Motion to Suppress, or with cross examination of the arresting police officer or the state’s expert.

Is it more costly to defend than to plead guilty?

Of course it is. But with your future and possibly your freedom at stake (including significant penalty fees), the possibility of winning may be worth the risk. And it may cost less than you think.

Mistake 2—Assuming That The Breath Test Rules Were Followed Correctly

Just about every state has rules and regulations regarding the breath test given to drivers suspected of DUI. The crucial point for the prosecution is that these rules must be followed correctly.

This provides the experienced DUI Defense attorney the opportunity to attack the results on the ground that the technical rules weren’t followed correctly.

In my practice I have found that many lawyers simply do not understand or know the Florida regulations covering breath testing.

Those attorneys who are unfamiliar with these regulations fail to realize that violations of the rules introduced into evidence, and other things that aren’t introduced into evidence, can show that the results are unreliable. Further, showing that the rules were not followed correctly can be used to exclude the breath test results altogether.

For example: The testing officer is supposed to watch you for 20 minutes before administering the test to you to make sure you don’t hiccup, burp, or vomit, because these things can totally skew the test results. Many courts throughout the State of Florida have excluded test results for this specific violation, even though the accused may not have actually hiccupped, burped or vomited.

In fact, several criteria must be met or the test results will likely be thrown out by the Judge. These include:
• The test operator must have a current certification.
• The machine must have a current certification.
• The machine must be calibrated regularly.
• The mouthpiece must be changed before the test is given.
• A record of the temperature of the calibrating solutions in the machine must be kept.
• A log must be kept of the tests run.
• The number of times the calibration solution has been changed must be counted.
• The sample must be taken within a reasonable time of your arrest.
• There must be more than one test taken.
• The results of the two tests cannot be more than 0.01 apart.
• You must not be wearing dentures.
• You must not have been working with solvents.

Consequently, in order to defend you properly, an experienced DUI Defense lawyer would get copies of the various logs, maintenance records, and the operator’s license or certification.
Mistake 3—Not Filing A Motion to Suppress

Failure to file this pre-trial motion before a trial is a huge mistake, and maybe the most common mistake made by inexperienced lawyers.

Even though this motion doesn’t succeed very often, a case can be won by filing it. In order for the arresting police officer to make a lawful stop, he or she must have Probable Cause. In other words, there must be a definite reason for the police officer to pull you over. While a stop is generally justified if you were weaving from lane to lane, weaving within a lane may not make the stop justified. And whether a Judge will admit it or not, this motion may strike a chord with the Judge and he may be inclined to grant it in favor of the defendant..

Equally as important, even if the motion is not granted, it provides another opportunity to question the arresting officer. The officer can be asked a broad range of questions. And his testimony can be used at trial.

If the arresting officer’s testimony at the pre-trial hearing is different from that given at the trial, the stronger your case is. And this is a very common occurrence.

Mistake 4—Not Personally Checking Out The Arrest Location

Most lawyers do not visit the arrest location. And this can be a critical mistake. An experienced DUI defense lawyer may choose to visit to the arrest scene even before a prospective client comes in for his/her first appointment. And he may take photographs of the spot where the roadside field sobriety tests were given.

Why? First of all, a photograph may indicate that the particular location made the roadside tests difficult to perform. For example, if there is heavy traffic speeding by on a highway. Or if the shoulder of the road used for the roadside tests is on a slight incline. A graded road automatically makes the tests more difficult to perform. Or a winding road could explain erratic driving.

Seeing and knowing these factors make it much easier for an experienced DUI Defense lawyer to ask you probing questions about the roadside tests, and, in some cases, point out a physical impossibility to the court.

Mistake 5—Not Exploiting The Advantage of The “Training Manual” For Roadside Sobriety Tests

The “Training Manual” is another example of specific criteria that the police must follow when they perform a roadside field sobriety test. Few lawyers know anything the rules contained in this manual. Even fewer lawyers actually take training courses themselves to become certified and qualified to give these tests.

At the very least, this manual should be studied by your DUI Defense lawyer. He or she will then know exactly what questions to ask the arresting police officer to see if he completely followed the manual’s directions. This powerful evidence is frequently overlooked by inexperienced defense lawyers.

The secret is, if the manual’s directions were not completely followed, the validity of the test results can be successfully attacked. A successful challenge results in the test evidence being excluded at trial. Which significantly weakens the DUI Prosecutor’s case.

Even more important, officers do not use objective scoring. The manual explains how to score the tests and how to arrive at a final score. It is commonplace for the officer to simply subjectively decide whether or not you failed the tests.

Very often the arresting officer will ask you to do more than the manual requires. When this occurs, an experienced DUI Defense attorney will successfully have this evidence excluded altogether and have the case dismissed.

Wouldn’t you want your DUI Defense lawyer to know the manual from cover to cover?

Mistake 6—Not Explaining The Extra Penalties Following a Conviction or a Guilty Plea

If your lawyer doesn’t advise you about the administrative sanctions resulting from a conviction, he has committed malpractice.

What is important about these administrative sanctions?

They can include a 6-month or year long license suspension or revocation, significant jail time, a hefty fine, inability to rent a car, substantially higher insurance rates, and loss of your job (particularly if your job involves driving).

And this mistake is all too common among lawyers who do not specialize in DUI Defense law.

You must take these extra penalties into account when deciding to plead guilty. If you’re not aware of these penalties, you may have a very unpleasant surprise in store.

Mistake 7—Putting the Client on The Stand

Despite what you may have heard, it is rarely a good idea for you to take the stand in a DUI matter. This is primarily because you are most likely not an experienced witness, and may appear to be nervous or hiding something.

Moreover, a defendant who is put on the stand shifts the Judge’s focus away from the possible mistakes of the Prosecutor. The objective of the DUI defense is to show that the Prosecutor’s case is not strong enough to convict beyond all reasonable doubt. When the DUI defendant is put on the stand, however, the focus shifts to the credibility and honesty of the DUI defendant.

The Judge is thus forced to choose between the arresting police officer and the DUI defendant. Additionally, it gives the Prosecutor the chance to make the DUI defendant look like he’s hiding something or not being completely honest.

Is there ever a good time to put the DUI defendant on the stand? Yes, to contradict something the officer said.

Beyond that, your DUI Defense lawyer should focus on placing reasonable doubt in the Judge’s mind.

Mistake 8—Attempting to Show The Arresting Police Officer Lied

An experienced DUI Defense lawyer doesn’t need to make the arresting police officer sound like he lied to put reasonable doubt in the Judge’s mind. All he really needs to do is show how the officer might simply be mistaken this time.

Why? Because no one wants to believe that the arresting police officer is lying. But the Court may accept the officer being mistaken.

An experienced DUI Defense lawyer will have a greater chance of success by simply showing the Judge that the arresting police officer zealously jumped to conclusions and made a few mistakes.

Mistake 9—Not Consulting A Specialist

Just as you wouldn’t hire a criminal defense attorney to give you advice on matters concerning your Will or your divorce, you wouldn’t consult with a divorce lawyer on your DUI charges. You would be wise, however, to hire an experienced Florida DUI Defense lawyer who’s practice focuses primarily on matters concerning DUI Defense and other related vehicular offenses and who is fully familiar with the legal procedures that go with it.

The reason for this is simple: Florida DUI law is complex, it involves a lot of scientific and technical expertise, and a lawyer who is a general practitioner cannot be everything to everybody. Knowing how to defend a DUI case involves considerable preparation, familiarity with the Florida DUI laws, and knowing what motions to make and when. An attorney who’s practice concentrates on Florida DUI law has that knowledge.

Your DUI Defense lawyer will quickly be able to spot potential defenses and take advantage of those defenses. He’ll know exactly how to conduct a proper investigation of the facts and how to conduct discovery.

You see, a DUI charge is no longer a minor offense. The legal reforms of Florida’s DUI laws in the last ten years, the tightening of the standards defining what DUI is in the state of Florida, and the penalties imposed on drivers pleading guilty or convicted of DUI have made these cases not just complex, but also serious. You may be forced to pay stiff fines and you may end up in prison.

Right now, is there anything more important than your freedom? It is vital for you to hire the best DUI Defense attorney you can afford so your case is as strong as possible.
Mistake 10—Not Consulting with an Expert on the Testing Procedures

Whether it is a breath test or a blood sample, it is a fatal mistake for a DUI Defense attorney to neglect to consult with the credible experts who can assist in the defense of the case.

If the police reports and roadside testing reports are defective, expert testimony is essential to prove your case.

Consulting with the proper experts, and getting written opinions from those experts when necessary can help convince the Prosecutor that he or she cannot prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Richard G. Salzman, Esq. is an experienced Broward County DUI Defense attorney; licensed to practice law in New York and New Jersey since 1986, and Florida since 1988. The Law Offices of Richard G. Salzman, P.A. focuses on Criminal Defense, DUI Defense and related vehicular offenses and BUI Defense (Boating Under the Influence).

Law Offices of Richard G. Salzman, P.A.
4340 Sheridan Street, Suite 102
Hollywood, Florida 33021
954-981-0336
Richard@salzmanattorney.com
www.salzmanattorney.com
www.myspace.com/richardthelawyer

———————————————————————————————————————

NEED A Lawyer? Check out our Lawyer Directory!

Dui: Just Say No!

It can be fun to spend the evening hanging out with your friends having a few drinks. Maybe your fun filled evening includes visiting a variety of night clubs or even going to a concert. However, before you head out for your evening of fun there is one issue that has to be addressed by everyone. That is the issue of who will be responsible for driving you back home after a night of fun. Driving drunk isn’t safe, and it is definitely something that comes with some very long term effects.

If everyone in your group plans to drive for the evening, then you need to have a designated driver who can pick you up at the end of the night. Otherwise you need to plan on staying at a nearby hotel. If public transportation is an option you want to be careful because you can be charged with public intoxication if things get out of hand. You might be able to use a taxi service to get to and from the events.

Under no circumstances should you drive after having a couple of drinks. You need to do your friends a favor and not allow them to do so either. The risk of getting a DUI is just too great. This will mean a huge fine, community service, and losing your driver’s license for a period of time that varies by state. This is under a best case scenario.

When you drive under the influence of alcohol your perception is altered. You have a very high risk of being involved in a traffic accident. You could seriously injure or kill yourself, others in your vehicle, and innocent people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

You should never get into a vehicle with anyone who has been drinking. Do all you can to stop them from getting into the vehicle but don’t let them persuade you to join them if they can’t be stopped. If you think someone who is driving out there is under the influence of alcohol get a vehicle description and a license plate number. Call the state patrol and they can come investigate for you.
This article brought to you by minnesota dwi / minnesota lawyer: http://www.bolinskelaw.com

———————————————————————————————————————

NEED A Lawyer? Check out our Lawyer Directory!

What You Should Know About Dui/Dwi Laws

Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) laws vary according to the state of the offense. The most important factor surrounding any of these laws is that the repercussions are generally steep and severe. Due to the rash of drunken driving fatalities in the past half century or so, most states have enacted harsh penalties for anyone caught drinking and driving.

The DUI laws of each state define a level at which an individual is considered intoxicated. Although these levels may vary slightly, for the most part, this level does not exceed .08 blood alcohol content (BAC). Any individual caught driving with a BAC higher than the state has defined as the point of intoxication may be subject to fines, license suspension or revocation, and even jail time. The severity of the offense and the number of DUI convictions are a primary determinant in the severity of the penalty. Initial offenses may carry a penalty of a fine and mandatory attendance at a DUI traffic school or seminar. Repeat offenders may be subject to more severe penalties up to and including permanent removal of his or her driver’s license.

Generally license suspension and revocation occurs for repeat offenders. Most states have implemented a comprehensive system of monitoring the driving privileges for an individual who has had his or her license suspended but who has been granted limited driving rights. These individuals must generally employ the use of a breathalyzer system that has been installed in their vehicle and that locks the ignition if the individual fails the breathalyzer requirements.

Some DUI/DWI convictions can be expunged. Depending on the severity of the conviction and the age of the offender at the time of the conviction, it may be possible to seal the information from public access. In general, this process, and any other issues surrounding a DUI/DWI offense will require the services of an experienced DUI attorney.

Minnesota DWI lawyer: http://www.bolinskelaw.com/?page=dwi

DWI Arrest information and your rights

DWI is known by many different names and abbreviations. DWI is Driving While Intoxicated, DUI – Driving Under Influence, OUI – Operating under Influence, Drunk Driving and so on. DWI is governed by State Laws. Therefore, terminology differs from State to State. In this article we will specifically discuss laws and punishments related to DWI arrest, your rights if you are charged with DWI and how to get yourself a competent DWI Defense Attorney.

To start with – DWI is a very very serious offense. An alarming number of Americans lose lives every year because of drunk drivers. The DWI Laws are very strict and if you are arrested with DWI charges, it can damage the rest of your life in a big way. DWI arrest can have very serious consequences. A bad police record is something you will have to live with if convicted. If not convicted you end up spending thousands of dollars over various things including DWI attorney fee. Either way there is bound to be criminal waste of countless number of hours visiting police station, meeting up with your Probationary Officer from time to time, volunteering community service, attending alcohol education classes, filling up forms at various stages and what not.. the ordeal is tiring, sometimes meaningless and humiliating. When you are caught under DWI suspicion, you are taken to the jail by the officer who has made the arrest and until you are allowed to make a call and your DWI attorney releases you on bail, you are actually in the jail cell (sharing the cell with one more criminal) in clothes provided by the jail, eating jail food, sleeping on hard jail matress. It traumatizes the person arrested under DWI. Immediately after DWI arrest you lose your right to drive, unless court grants you Occupational License, which comes with conditions such as observing speed limits and driving in limited areas etc. All this, if you get Occupational License. If you don’t there is no issue. No driving your kids to school, or your parents to the nearby hospital. Immobility breaks your back. How will you drive to your job? There are instances when people have lost their jobs as a result of their DWI arrest. There are countries that don’t allow people with DWI  records against them.

Coming to your rights, as you are arrested under DWI charges, the first thing is to make sure the officer has not followed you to your destination/home without you being informed of it. You have a right to know your rights under the circumstances by the police officer arresting you. It is not your right to refuse BAC Test. If you do, your license may be suspended. Later on if it is found that your faculties were not impaired, your case will be dismissed but the status of your license will not change as you refused to co-operate with the  arresting officer. You have a right to hire an attorney to fight your DWI case. Which brings us to our third point. How to find a competent DWI attorney.First thing, if you are arrested under DWI – don’t try to be your own attorney. Let a qualified professional handle it. Try to look for an attorney who practices only DWI cases and belongs to the same state where the DWI arrest has happened. Check out the website of your attorney if he has any. Check out his past DWI records. Talk to people whose cases this DWI attorney has handled. If DWI is one of the areas of your DWI attorney’s practice, it is less likely that he will be aware of every aspect related to DWI. Where as if you choose your DWI attorney who practices say Austin DWI cases exclusively, he will approach and handle the DWI arrest much better.  Start the process of looking for a DWI attorney fast as you have only 15 days to get one after your arrest. The whole DWI arrest process can take anywhere form 6 months to 3 years. Once the case is over you will have to pay an yearly fee of $1000 for next three years to up keep your driving license.

One can save oneself from all this torture torture by always driving sober.Once you are arrested under DWI charges, there is nothing you can do. No excuses work. No short cuts, no second chance. Let’s better be sober than sorry!

Purva Mewar manages Austin DWI Attorney website trying to build a platform that can be used to share news, information and  DWI Austin cases .

FAQs Related to DWI Minor Offender

Are there separate DWI Laws for minors?
Yes. There are special and separate laws for minors who drink and drive.Many other offences are treated softly or on milder grounds but DWI is not one of them. DWI Laws for minors are also very strict. Law deals with minors who have consumed and are found in physical control of the vehicle.Minors are individuals below 21 years of age. Under some specific situations a person between 18-20 years – though a minor, can be considered as an adult for the purpose of DWI. The law states that a minor commits an offense if she/he operates a motor vehicle in a public place while having consumed alcohol beyond the limit.

Can a minor be asked by the Police Officer making the arrest to take Breath Test?
Absolutely. The law deems that you will allow these Sobriety Tests on you if the situation arises. Provided a minor is properly requested/suggested to take Sobriety Test, he should take the test or face consequences. A proper request is when requires that the officer  not only reads a required statutory script, but also, furnishes the written script to the person arrested before the test request is made.

Can a minor refuse Breath Test?
Yes he can, but consequences are his/her own. His driving license can be suspended if he refuses to take Breath Test. Number of days his license will be suspended for depends upon whether it is his first such offense or a repeat offense. Minimum number of days is 120 to a maximum of 240 days.

What, if after the breath test, alcohol level in a minor is found below 0.08%?
His/her Driving License will be immediately suspended for minimum of 60 days. Even if the alcohol level is found below .08%, driving privileges are suspended. Its also noteworthy that if a minor is suspected of consuming a substance other than alcohol, say drug in any form that has impaired his mental faculties, it will be used as an evidence during the DWI criminal proceedings.

Can a minor be given a jail time if he is found guilty of DWI?
A minor below 17 years of age can be given 180 days’ imprisonment if it is his third DUI offense or first DWI offense. Police Officer making the arrest does not take the person arrested to the Police Station but directly issues a citation and court summons. Sometimes the DWI offenders are taken into confinement and rehabilitation both.

What are the penalties for minors for DWI offense?
If you are below 18 and First Time DWI Minor Offender, it is mandatory that your parents or guardians are present in the hearings. As a minor DWI offender you can be fined, required to attend community service anywhere between 20 and 40 hours spreading education about prevention of alcohol misuse. Within a stipulated period of time he/she will be expected to attend alcohol awareness programs. If he/she fails to do it, another 6 months’ license suspension can be imposed. If a minor has only one conviction on records then on his 21st birthday it will be erased from the police record.

The Second Time DWI Minor Offenders will go through all the procedures as the first time DWI minor offenders except that their community service hours will go up to anywhere between 40 and 60 hours spreading education about prevention of alcohol misuse. The second time offenders will not get the privilege of getting their names removed from police or legal records as minor DWI offenders. Though he may still receive deferred adjudication for a second offense.

The Third Time DWI Minor Offenders The DWI Laws for minors become very strict if its his/her third offense. If at the time of arrest the minor is above 18, fines may go up to $2000. Jail time up to 180 days. Sometimes the minor offender may get both, i.e. fine and jail time apart from community service and bad police record for the rest of his life. There is no possibility of receiving deferred adjudication for a third offense.

Purva Mewar owns and operates website about finding yourself a competent DWI Attorney in your area If you or some one you know is caught under DWI charges.