Connecticut DUI News

Girl Scout Mom Busted for Connecticut DUI/OUI

Woman had four young scouts in her vehicle at time of arrest

Tags: Connecticut DUI |  driving under the influence |  injury to a minor

83-Year Old Driver Chases Down DUI Suspect

Man chased drunk driver across two states.

Frank Canale, 83, and his daughter, Lori Canale-Smith, were headed to a wedding when they were rear-ended by a suspected drunk driver in a pick-up truck. The two then initiated a pursuit that started on Interstate 684 in New York and ended in the suspect's driveway in Danbury, Connecticut.

As the elder Canale drove, his daughter called police to alert them to a motorist driving under the influence. When the suspect stopped at his home, the two blocked him in until police arrived. By the time they finished police reports for two states, the pair had missed the wedding ceremony. Law enforcement officers arrested the truck driver and charged him with DUI and driving without a license.

Have you been arrested for DWI in NY or DUI in CT?

Court Upholds Connecticut DUI Without Driving a Vehicle

CT State Supreme Court says being behind wheel is enough for drunk driving arrest.

The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a person can be found guilty of driving under the influence without actually driving their vehicle. The decision stems from the case of an Andover man arrested for CT DUI in 2005. Michael Cyr was intoxicated when he started his car remotely and then sat in the driver’s seat. He did not move the car.

Cyr had pleaded no contest to driving under the influence in Connecticut after failing to get the case dismissed. An Appellate Court did find in Cyr’s favor and threw out the case. The recent Supreme Court ruling overrules the Appellate Court decision, and the DUI charges must be reinstated.

Have you been charged with DUI in CT?

No "Jelly Shots" and Discount Drinks in CT?

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) - People who enjoy slurping down "jello shots" and chasing them with cheap beers soon may find themselves crying in their drinks.

A measure winding its way through the state Legislature would prohibit bars from offering discounted drinks and jello shots - typically a half-ounce of vodka mixed with gelatin - on the theory they promote alcohol abuse, especially among underage drinkers.

"There is no need to offer special incentives to increase alcohol consumption. There's a difference between allowing adults to make the decision to drink and encouraging the decision to drink more," said Consumer Protection Commissioner Mark Shiffrin, whose agency oversees liquor regulations.

The bill already has cleared the General Law Committee and last week was sent from the House to the Judiciary Committee, which was set to consider it Tuesday.

At Fatty McGee's in Southington, summertime brings a rainbow of lemon, lime and cherry jello shots. But getting to the bar means getting past doormen who ask for proper identification.

"Why not go after what's blatantly illegal instead of killing my business?" said bar co-owner Ed Raffile.

People under 21 "are prohibited to be in the bar in the first place," he said. But legal drinkers are attracted by promotions - which can drop the price of a $2.25 domestic draft to $1.50, Raffile said. "People come in and say 'Got any drink specials tonight?' especially the college kids who don't have a lot of money," he said.

Consumer Protection Commissioner Mark Shiffrin, whose agency is charged with enforcing state liquor laws, said the discounts promote abuse.

"There is no need to offer special incentives to increase alcohol consumption. There's a difference between allowing adults to make the decision to drink and encouraging the decision to drink more," he said.

Sen. Thomas Gaffey, the chief proponent of the measure, last week said it will strike at the heart of underage drinking. He said discounted drinks and the jello shots target minors who are enticed by cheap prices and sweet drinks.

"These are the events that attract underage children into bars," said Gaffey, D-Meriden.

When asked about the measure's impact on legal drinkers looking for bargains, and on fans of jello shots, Gaffey said, "I'm a killjoy, what can I tell you?"

James Varano, president of the state's Cafe and Bar Association and owner of Hartford's popular Black Eyed Sally's, said the measure penalizes bars that rigorously check IDs.

And, he said, people who drink set their own limits, which typically deal with tolerance and not money.

"The thinking behind it is three or four beers is your limit, whether those were two bucks or four bucks. (The proposal) doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me," he said.

Varano also co-owns the Pig's Eye Pub, a bar upstairs from his restaurant that caters to a 20-something crowd. He said IDs constantly are checked and that drink promotions are offered to encourage people to try different microbrews, not to attract underage drinkers or encourage people to get drunk.

AP-ES-04-07-98 1715EDT<
Copyright © Associated Press. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Tags: Connecticut DUI |  DUI News |  Jello Shots

No Medical Insurance Payments in DUI Case

Insurer Can Refuse Medical Payments in DUI Case

Appeals Court Ruling Involves 1998 Crash

POSTED: 1:44 p.m. EDT September 24, 2003

NEW HAVEN, Conn. -- A federal appeals court has ruled in a Connecticut case that being drunk while driving can mean the insurance company does not have to pay medical bills.

National Health Insurance Co. does not have to pay $242,235 in medical bills incurred by a 19-year-old Guilford man who was driving drunk when he crashed his car in 1998, the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals has ruled.

The court found the policy from National Health that excluded coverage for expenses incurred as the result of intoxication is enforceable.

"It's an important decision because the ruling reinforces Connecticut public policy against drunken driving," William H. Clendenen Jr., the attorney for the Texas-based insurance company in the case said Tuesday.

Clendenen said the intoxication exclusion is a standard clause in National Health's policies, but some other companies do not have it.

John F. Wynne Jr., lawyer for plaintiffs Oliver Bishop III and his son, Oliver Bishop IV, said the intoxication exclusion clause "is hardly ever found in a group health insurance policy."

Wynne said the case against the insurance company is over, but other cases brought by the Bishops are pending, including one against the insurance agent who sold Bishop the policy and one against the New Haven liquor store where the underage Bishop made his purchases.

On March 14, 1998, Oliver Bishop IV, then 19, purchased a case of beer and a half pint of liquor at a store in New Haven and went to a party in Guilford, where he drank the alcohol, police said. Bishop got into an accident early the next morning after he got into his pickup truck and hit a stone wall and two trees, police said.

Tags: Connecticut DUI |  DUI News

High Court Affirms Conviction

August 15, 2006 By LYNNE TUOHY, Courant Staff Writer

Responsible drunks don't put, or leave, the key in the ignition.

The state Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that a key in the ignition, even if the engine is not running, is grounds for charging an intoxicated person with operating a motor vehicle under the influence.

The court upheld the conviction of Andrew Haight, who was found asleep behind the wheel of his legally parked Lexus by a New Canaan police officer just after midnight Oct. 20, 2001. His car key was in the ignition, in either the "off" or "accessory" position - a deduction based on the chimes that sounded when Officer Kevin J. Dowling opened the car door.

"[State law] prohibits operating a motor vehicle while under the influence rather than merely driving a motor vehicle under the influence," Justice Peter T. Zarella wrote. "It is well settled that 'operating' encompasses a broader range of conduct than does 'driving.'

State laws, however, don't articulate just what that difference is.

So the Supreme Court looked back to a 1939 ruling, in a case in which a car was driven into a New London bank. When police arrived, they found an intoxicated Lyman Swift sitting behind the wheel attempting to start the car while his companion was trying to push it. Swift insisted he hadn't been driving the car and had moved to the driver's seat only when his companion got out to attempt to push the car.

The Supreme Court in that case ultimately upheld the instruction given to the jury by the trial judge, who said Swift could be found guilty of operating the vehicle if he "Intentionally does any act or makes use of any mechanical or electrical agency which, alone or in sequence, will set in motion the motive power of the vehicle."

The justices in Monday's ruling noted that "the present case is analogous to Swift's."

"In both cases, the defendant failed to set the vehicle in motion or even run the vehicle's motor," Zarella wrote. "Nothing in our definition of 'operation' requires the vehicle to be in motion or its motor to be running. ... We conclude that [Haight's] act of inserting the key into the ignition constituted operation of a motor vehicle within the meaning of state law.

The court said it didn't matter whether the key was in the off or the accessory position.

Haight's attorney, Brenden Leydon, said he relied on a 1960 Supreme Court decision in which the court found there was insufficient evidence that a driver slumped over the steering wheel of his car, with the key in the ignition, was operating under the influence. But the court said in Monday's ruling that the presence of the key in the ignition was irrelevant in the 1960 decision. In that case, the two sides had agreed that the driver was operating the vehicle; the dispute was over whether there was sufficient evidence of intoxication.

Leydon said the ruling in Haight's case reflects "the general policy of getting tough on drunk driving, which is understandable."

"Our position all along was it was better for people to sleep it off, rather than get out of town quickly," Leydon said. "That was our policy reliance."

Leydon said Haight had entered his car after having dinner and drinks at a local restaurant. "There was no evidence he ever moved the car at all."

Source: http://www.courant.com

Tags: Connecticut DUI |  DUI News

Connecticut Town Uses Signs to Warn Drunk Drivers

Special signs remind drivers of the dangers of DWI

Greenwich, Connecticut has employed a unique way to remind people not to drink and drive. Local police have installed signs on the off-ramps of major highways that feature a martini glass inside a red circle with a red slash.

Developed by Officer Robert Brown after spending time at the Institute of Police Technology and Management in Florida, the signs are a ready reminder of the consequences of DUI. Brown said, “We wanted…to emphasize that we take drunk driving enforcement very seriously.”

Funds for the sign fabrication came from the police department and the state highway division. Plans are under way to install more signs. In addition, Eagle Scouts are being used to erect two scoreboards that display the number of Connecticut DUI arrests in Greenwich to date.

Brown said, “I think education, together with enforcement, has more of an impact."

Tags: Connecticut DUI |  DUI |  DUI arrests |  drink and drive |  drunk driving

Police Club Creates Competition for Connecticut DWI Arrests

Officers in `100 Club' often broke rules to earn credit for a DWI arrest

Connecticut State Police troopers on the midnight shift at the Bethany barracks played a perverse game. In an ‘open competition’ they attempted to become members of the “100 Club”, marked by making 100 Connecticut DWI arrests during a year. Rules, police procedures, and whether a motorist was actually legally drunk didn’t matter.

Police involved in the game either mishandled or failed to collect evidence. They went against police procedure and only videotaped 14 of the 500 drunk driving arrests made during 2003. They even recommended that motorists not take breath tests, warning suspected DWI offenders that they would spend more time in police lockup if they elected to exercise their constitutional rights.

In addition, paperwork was filed late, probable cause for many DWI arrests was not established and inconsistencies in the administration and handling of tests used to determine a DWI suspect’s blood alcohol content.

In 2003 troopers from Bethany barracks were awarded a citation for the most DWI arrests in a four state district. At the same time, those arrested for suspicion of DWI in the Bethany area were telling prosecutors that state troopers were advising them not to submit to a breathalyzer test, even if the motorist felt it could prove they were not legally intoxicated.

Though the improprieties were unveiled through routine checks, a recent report slams police internal affairs for not having conducted a more thorough investigation of Connecticut DWI arrest procedures. The report states that the 100 Club “had the most direct result on members of the general public.” It expressed concerns for the rights of the DWI suspects and the impact that the misconduct may have had on DWI convictions.

The Connecticut Chief State's Attorney and Attorney General said they would review drunk driving cases in the 14 towns policed by the Bethany barracks. Connecticut DWI defense attorneys are planning legal challenges for their DWI clients.

Tags: Connecticut DWI |  Connecticut DWI defense attorney |  DWI |  DWI arrest |  DWI conviction |  DWI defense attorneys |  blood alcohol content |  breath test |  breathalyzer |  drunk driving |  drunk driving arrest |  suspicion of DWI

Connecticut Woman Makes Extra Effort to Get Arrested for DUI

Smart decision takes turn for the worse after a night at a casino

Carolyn Walker, of Bridgeport, Connecticut, knew she had had too much of a good time at the Mohegan Sun Casino, so she wisely called AAA and arranged for a tow truck to take her and her car home.

Unfortunately she didn’t know when to leave well enough alone. During the drive to her house, the 49-year old became agitated, launched into a verbal tirade, banged on the dash of the truck and asked the driver to stop the truck so she ‘could get a joint out of her car.’

The tow truck operator, Andrew Mineo, felt unsafe and stopped to remove Walker’s car from the truck. Police were summoned to the scene. Because of Walker’s disruptive behavior and obscenity laced ‘colorful phrases’, the owner of the tow truck refused to take her the rest of the way home. Walker admitted to having called for the tow truck because she was drunk, but since she was not operating a vehicle under the influence, police left the scene as Walker walked off for some coffee.

Then about three hours later police received a report of a vehicle being driven erratically. Walker was found behind the wheel and
arrested for DUI. A search of Walker’s car turned up empty beer bottles, a partially consumed bottle of brandy, marijuana and
painkillers.

In addition to the being charged with a Connecticut DUI, Walker was charged with several drug violations. She posted a $500 bail bond, but her night was not over yet. She was taken to a nearby hospital for observation and evaluation.

Tags: Mohegan Sun Casino |  arrest for DUI

Guilty of DUI While In a Parked Car

Guilty of DUI While In a Parked Car

In 2001, police in New Canaan, Connecticut arrested Andrew C. Haight for driving under the influence (DUI). Haight had been found asleep behind the steering wheel of his legally parked car. The engine was not running though the car’s lights were on and the key was in the ignition. Police noted that the open door alert chimed when they opened the car door, indicating that the key was in the ignition in either the off or accessories position.

Haight entered a nolo contendre plea, but later decided to appeal his DUI conviction. Defense attorneys argued that because the key was not in the ‘on’ or ‘start’ position that the vehicle was not in operation. That defense led to the reversal of the original charge in appellate court.

When the case was presented to the Connecticut Supreme Court though, prosecutors argued that placing a key in an ignition and even partially turning it constituted operation of the vehicle. The Court agreed, stating that the Connecticut DUI statute specifies that ‘operating’ a vehicle, not just driving, is enough for a drunk driving arrest.

The basis for that decision was found in the outcome of a case from 1939 where a car crashed into a bank building. When police arrived they found two drunken men, one man in the driver’s seat and another pushing the vehicle. The man behind the steering wheel was charged with drunk driving even though he said he had only moved into the driver’s seat after the accident. In the ensuing trial, a jury concluded that a vehicle was being ‘operated’ and the occupant of the driver’s seat was subject to a DUI charge. They wrote that when the person behind the

steering wheel "intentionally does any act or makes use of any mechanical or electrical agency which alone or in sequence will set in motion the motive power of the vehicle."

The Supreme Court thus ruled against Haight in his 2001 case, saying that by placing the key in the ignition he had set in motion actions that were meant to start and move the car.

Tags: DUI |  driving under the influence |  drunk driving