|
Welcome to the DuPage-DUI-Attorney Blog
Monday, July 16, 2012
Jason Kidd Arrested For DUI in New York
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Drug Invovement in a DUI Crash doesn't Equal Causation
Drugs Found In One Of Three Drivers Killed In Crashes
One in Three Fatally Injured Drivers Tested Positive for Drugs
-New Traffic Fatality Analysis Reveals High Percentage of Drivers Killed Had Drugs In Their System; Percentage of Victims Testing Positive Increasing Even As Overall Number of Fatal Crashes is Declining – Washington, DC Today, Gil Kerlikowske, Director of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), called attention to the alarmingly high percentage of
fatalities on our Nation¹s roadways involving drivers that had drugs in their system and called on communities to act immediately to prevent drug use before it starts in light of a new traffic fatality analysis released by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA).
While national data focusing on the danger of driving under the influence of alcohol is readily available and often cited, less is known or discussed about drivers under the influence of other drugs. However, according to the first-ever analysis of drug involvement from NHTSA¹s Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) census, one in three motor vehicle fatalities (33
percent) with known drug test results tested positive for drugs in 2009. Additionally, according to the new analysis, the involvement of drugs in fatal crashes has increased by five percent over the past five years, even as the overall number of drivers killed in motor vehicle crashes in the United States has declined.
³Drugged driving is a much bigger public health threat than most Americans realize and unfortunately, it may be getting worse,² said Director Kerlikowske. ³It is critical that communities across the Nation address the threat of drugged driving as we redouble our efforts to make America¹s
roadways safer by increasing public awareness, employing more targeted enforcement, and developing better tools to detect the presence of drugs among drivers.²
These new data from NHTSA¹s FARS census reports the presence of narcotics, depressants, stimulants, cannabinoids (marijuana), hallucinogens PCP, anabolic steroids, and inhalants among drivers fatally injured in car crashes over the past five years. Drugs recorded in FARS include illegal
substances as well as over-the-counter and prescription medications, which may or may not have been misused. Alcohol, nicotine, aspirin, and drugs administered after the crash are excluded from these results. Additionally,
drug involvement means that drugs were found in the driver¹s system and does not imply impairment or indicate that drug use was the cause of the crash. However, research shows that drugs have adverse effects on judgment, reaction time, motor skills, and memory critical skills for safe and responsible driving.
These data build upon other recent reports confirming that there are far too many Americans driving on our roadways with drugs in their system. According to a 2007 NHTSA Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers, 1 in 8 nighttime weekend drivers tested positive for an illicit drug. This number rises to 1 in 6 when you include illicit drugs and Parmaceuticals. Additionally, according to the most recent Monitoring the Future report – the Nation¹s largest survey of drug use among young people -one in ten high school seniors reported that in the two weeks prior to the survey they had driven after smoking marijuana.
President Obama has made combating drugged driving a drug control strategy priority and has set a goal of reducing drugged driving prevalence by 10 percent by 2015. To achieve this goal, the Obama Administration is encouraging states to explore legal responses, such as per se laws that make it illegal for individuals to drive with illicit drugs in their system.
Already, 17 states in the United States have per se or zero tolerance statutes. In these states, it is a criminal offense to have an illegal drug in one¹s body while driving. Additionally, ONDCP is providing increased training to law enforcement to identify drugged drivers and is working with the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration to develop standard screening methodologies for drug-testing labs to use in detecting the presence of drugs among drivers.
The Obama Administration is committed to restoring balance to U.S. drug control efforts by coordinating an unprecedented government-wide public health approach to reduce drug use and its consequences. This effort includes increasing funding for drug prevention by $203 million and treatment programs by $137 million, placing a heavier emphasis on early intervention programs in healthcare settings, aligning criminal justice
policies and public health systems to divert non-violent drug offenders into treatment instead of jail, funding scientific research on drug use and expanding access to substance abuse treatment. ONDCP has also revamped the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign to include a broader focus on substances most often abused by American teens, including prescription
drugs, marijuana, and alcohol, and partnering with communities to reach at-risk youth populations in rural, suburban, and urban communities.
To download more information on drugged driving, including resources parents and communities can use to prevent drugged driving among young people visit www.TheAntiDrug.com
The Office of National Drug Control Policy seeks to foster healthy individuals and safe communities by effectively leading the Nation’s effort to reduce drug use and its consequences.
Law Offices of Brent M. Christensen
-New Traffic Fatality Analysis Reveals High Percentage of Drivers Killed Had Drugs In Their System; Percentage of Victims Testing Positive Increasing Even As Overall Number of Fatal Crashes is Declining – Washington, DC Today, Gil Kerlikowske, Director of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), called attention to the alarmingly high percentage of
fatalities on our Nation¹s roadways involving drivers that had drugs in their system and called on communities to act immediately to prevent drug use before it starts in light of a new traffic fatality analysis released by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA).
While national data focusing on the danger of driving under the influence of alcohol is readily available and often cited, less is known or discussed about drivers under the influence of other drugs. However, according to the first-ever analysis of drug involvement from NHTSA¹s Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) census, one in three motor vehicle fatalities (33
percent) with known drug test results tested positive for drugs in 2009. Additionally, according to the new analysis, the involvement of drugs in fatal crashes has increased by five percent over the past five years, even as the overall number of drivers killed in motor vehicle crashes in the United States has declined.
³Drugged driving is a much bigger public health threat than most Americans realize and unfortunately, it may be getting worse,² said Director Kerlikowske. ³It is critical that communities across the Nation address the threat of drugged driving as we redouble our efforts to make America¹s
roadways safer by increasing public awareness, employing more targeted enforcement, and developing better tools to detect the presence of drugs among drivers.²
These new data from NHTSA¹s FARS census reports the presence of narcotics, depressants, stimulants, cannabinoids (marijuana), hallucinogens PCP, anabolic steroids, and inhalants among drivers fatally injured in car crashes over the past five years. Drugs recorded in FARS include illegal
substances as well as over-the-counter and prescription medications, which may or may not have been misused. Alcohol, nicotine, aspirin, and drugs administered after the crash are excluded from these results. Additionally,
drug involvement means that drugs were found in the driver¹s system and does not imply impairment or indicate that drug use was the cause of the crash. However, research shows that drugs have adverse effects on judgment, reaction time, motor skills, and memory critical skills for safe and responsible driving.
These data build upon other recent reports confirming that there are far too many Americans driving on our roadways with drugs in their system. According to a 2007 NHTSA Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers, 1 in 8 nighttime weekend drivers tested positive for an illicit drug. This number rises to 1 in 6 when you include illicit drugs and Parmaceuticals. Additionally, according to the most recent Monitoring the Future report – the Nation¹s largest survey of drug use among young people -one in ten high school seniors reported that in the two weeks prior to the survey they had driven after smoking marijuana.
President Obama has made combating drugged driving a drug control strategy priority and has set a goal of reducing drugged driving prevalence by 10 percent by 2015. To achieve this goal, the Obama Administration is encouraging states to explore legal responses, such as per se laws that make it illegal for individuals to drive with illicit drugs in their system.
Already, 17 states in the United States have per se or zero tolerance statutes. In these states, it is a criminal offense to have an illegal drug in one¹s body while driving. Additionally, ONDCP is providing increased training to law enforcement to identify drugged drivers and is working with the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration to develop standard screening methodologies for drug-testing labs to use in detecting the presence of drugs among drivers.
The Obama Administration is committed to restoring balance to U.S. drug control efforts by coordinating an unprecedented government-wide public health approach to reduce drug use and its consequences. This effort includes increasing funding for drug prevention by $203 million and treatment programs by $137 million, placing a heavier emphasis on early intervention programs in healthcare settings, aligning criminal justice
policies and public health systems to divert non-violent drug offenders into treatment instead of jail, funding scientific research on drug use and expanding access to substance abuse treatment. ONDCP has also revamped the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign to include a broader focus on substances most often abused by American teens, including prescription
drugs, marijuana, and alcohol, and partnering with communities to reach at-risk youth populations in rural, suburban, and urban communities.
To download more information on drugged driving, including resources parents and communities can use to prevent drugged driving among young people visit www.TheAntiDrug.com
The Office of National Drug Control Policy seeks to foster healthy individuals and safe communities by effectively leading the Nation’s effort to reduce drug use and its consequences.
Law Offices of Brent M. Christensen
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Putting the Science Back in Forensic Science
It would not be unreasonable to think that the rules for chemical testing in Illinois DUI cases are a function of rigorous science governed by an agency with some scientific auspices. Indeed, it used to be that the Illinois Department of Public Health was charged with the responsibility for making and enforcing these administrative rules governing breath tests, blood test and urine tests. It used to be that way.
But for the last decade or so, the rules for how these so-called scientific test have been written and administered by . . . wait for it . . .the Illinois State Police. It is not hard to see why DUI lawyers like myself have equated this regime to putting the proverbial Fox in charge of guarding the proverbial Chicken Coop. Over this period the ISP has consistently amended these rules in a way that has less to do with scientifc method and more to do with making life very easy for prosecutors and law enforcement.
In recent weeks the Justice Department has rolled out a sweeping review of some giant scientific problems in FBI crime labs. So if those fancy g-men at the vaunted FBI can't get scientifc testing to be...well...scientific, what are the odds that the Illinois State Police get the science right beyond a reasonable doubt in the roughly 40,000 Illinois DUI cases every year?
Check out more on the Justice Department's review at the Washington Post's site.
But for the last decade or so, the rules for how these so-called scientific test have been written and administered by . . . wait for it . . .the Illinois State Police. It is not hard to see why DUI lawyers like myself have equated this regime to putting the proverbial Fox in charge of guarding the proverbial Chicken Coop. Over this period the ISP has consistently amended these rules in a way that has less to do with scientifc method and more to do with making life very easy for prosecutors and law enforcement.
In recent weeks the Justice Department has rolled out a sweeping review of some giant scientific problems in FBI crime labs. So if those fancy g-men at the vaunted FBI can't get scientifc testing to be...well...scientific, what are the odds that the Illinois State Police get the science right beyond a reasonable doubt in the roughly 40,000 Illinois DUI cases every year?
Check out more on the Justice Department's review at the Washington Post's site.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
DUI Case Law Update
Case Law Update by DuPage DUI Attorney, Brent Christensen --
Illinois Supreme Court Reverses Appellate Court on a Quashed DUI Arrest based on Minor Improper Lane Usage Infraction
On July 6th, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed an Appellate Court decision and remanded an aggravated DUI case to the trial court for further proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in granting defendant's motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence where police officer's observations of defendant driving his vehicle by crossing over lane lines "less than halfway" two times, as such was sufficient "reasonable suspicion" to justify officer's belief that Section 11-709 of the Vehicle Code had been violated and stop vehicle.
Illinois Supreme Court Reverses Appellate Court on a Quashed DUI Arrest based on Minor Improper Lane Usage Infraction
On July 6th, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed an Appellate Court decision and remanded an aggravated DUI case to the trial court for further proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in granting defendant's motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence where police officer's observations of defendant driving his vehicle by crossing over lane lines "less than halfway" two times, as such was sufficient "reasonable suspicion" to justify officer's belief that Section 11-709 of the Vehicle Code had been violated and stop vehicle.
Defendant, Dennis Hackett, was charged in the circuit court of Will County with aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol and aggravated driving while license revoked. Defendant filed a motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence, arguing that the arresting officer lacked “probable cause” to stop defendant’s vehicle and, as a result, evidence gathered after the “improper stop” constituted fruit of an unlawful search. The avowed basis for the traffic stop was a violation of section 11-709(a) of the Illinois Vehicle Code (improper lane usage). After a hearing, the circuit court granted defendant’s motion, finding that defendant’s “momentary crossings” of a highway lane line did not give the officer “reasonable grounds” to make the stop. The State appealed, and a divided appellate court affirmed, the majority acknowledging this court’s decision in People v. Smith, 172 Ill. 2d 289 (1996), while seeking to distinguish that case on the ground that this defendant had not driven in more than one lane for a “reasonably appreciable distance.”
This ruling by the Illinois Supreme Court continues to chip away at the already limited array of pre-trial DUI Defense strategies available to DUI defendants. The bottom line is that if the police want a reason to pull you over in the hope of making a DUI arrest, be advised that the deck is stacked against you. Even the most minor lane infraction is good enough to justify a stop. Of course a police officer's ability to observe the most innocuous lane violation is proportional to traffic volume. Since traffic volume is generally much less late at night - prime time for DUI enforcement - the chances of being pulled over are huge even if you haven't been drinking.
For more information on DUI defense Brent Christensen's website.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
BELLEFONTE, Pa. – For 16 minutes the tape rolled, apparently unknown to two state police officers investigating Jerry Sandusky and the defense attorney of Victim No. 4 during an April 2011 meeting.
It's turned into the strongest evidence yet that could create reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors about the guilt of Sandusky, who is facing 51 counts of child molestation. And it all played out Tuesday morning at Centre County Courthouse.
"The issue is whether or not seeds were planted by the officer," Judge Cleland said during a procedural argument with the jury present, inadvertently giving the defense the ultimate line to build its case around.
From the start, the Sandusky defense has alleged the former Penn State defensive coordinator was subjected to an overaggressive investigation that targeted him for years.
On the recording, state police corporal Joseph Leiter and Victim No. 4's attorney, Ben Andreozzi, discuss the case. At that point, Victim No. 4 had not detailed the full extent of Sandusky's alleged crimes, which would later include multiple accounts of forced oral sex in Penn State locker room showers.
[Dan Wetzel: Sandusky's defense doesn't refute charges, relies on character witnesses]
Leiter tells Andreozzi about incidents with other alleged victims that police had uncovered.
"Oh, you're kidding, the time frame matches up?" Andreozzi said. "Can we at some point say to [Victim No. 4], 'Listen, we have interviewed other kids, other kids have admitted that there was intercourse. And they've admitted. Is there anything else you want to tell us?' "
Leiter acknowledged they could and that doing so isn't unusual.
"Yep, we do that with all the other kids, 'Listen, this is what we've found … This is what we found, this is how he operates. … This has happened and this has happened and that has happened," Leiter said.
The conversation continued for 16 minutes until Victim No. 4 returned to the room and was given a Sierra Mist to drink.
Leiter then addressed Victim No. 4.
"You're not the first," he said. "I've interviewed probably nine kids, nine other adults. And you're doing very well. It is amazing. If this was a book, you'd be repeating word for word what other people told us. And we know from these other young adults who talked to us that there is a pretty well-defined progression that he operated and he still operates to some degree.
"Often this progression goes on into a long period of time leading into more than just touching, there's been actual oral sex that's taken place by both parties and it is classified that an actual rape has occurred. I don't want you to feel that again.
"I don't want you to feel ashamed. You are a victim in this thing. What happened, happened. These types of things happen. We need you to tell us what happened. Again, we're not going to treat you any differently … You are a victim of this crime.
"We need you to tell us as graphically as you can what took place. I just want you to know that you are not alone in this … I just want you to understand your not alone in this. By no means are you alone in this."
Victim No. 4: "I understand."
Leiter: "OK, we're going to restart the recording. It is now 12:37. Again, we are going to continue the recording."
Sandusky's attorneys hammered Leiter and fellow state trooper Scott Rossman on Tuesday for potentially leading the witness and describing specific acts when they thought the tape wasn't running.
They noted both officers previously testified they hadn't done such a thing and that they never discussed specific acts with any of the 40 to 50 children they interviewed during the course of the investigation.
When recalled as witnesses, both had to acknowledge that in this case there had been discussion, although both officers declared it proper police tactics.
"Were there any other victims, witnesses, people that you interviewed that you would go off tape [with]," defense attorney Karl Rominger asked Leiter.
"Not that I remember," Leiter said.
"Not that you remember, but you can't say for sure," Rominger said.
[Related: Neighbors of jurors in Sandusky trial don't support him, want justice]
If anything, the defense was bolstered by a comment from Judge Cleland. In open court, with the jury seated and listening, the two sides argued to the judge how much of the tape should be allowed to play.
That's when Cleland first said, "The issue is whether or not seeds were planted by the officer."
He later said the issue was actually whether the officers' testimony may not have been accurate when they said they never discussed specifics with witnesses. He used that reasoning to rule the prosecution couldn't play more of the tape.
What effect the tape could have on the verdict is unknown. It was the first strong bit of evidence presented by a defense that otherwise has mostly relied on character witnesses for Sandusky. It goes to the heart of one of the key defense arguments.
And it may have been the judge that offered the best summation of what the defense was trying to accomplish.
Monday, June 18, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)