DUI
Legal Information and DUI & Drunk Driving Laws
DUI Libray: Legal
Supreme Court Rules DUI Not Violent Felony
Ruling says drunk driving conviction not subject to enhanced jail term.
The United States Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that driving under the influence is not equivalent to violent felonies. That means that convictions for DUI do not warrant enhanced prison sentences during the penalty phase of criminal cases.
Whereas the justices agreed that drunk driving can result in bodily harm and death, they found the offense to be different from crimes with purposeful action, such as murder or rape.
The ruling stems from a case involving a New Mexico man with an arrest record for drunk driving. He was found guilty of possession of a gun, which was illegal because of his felony DUI conviction. The prosecutor attempted to invoke the Armed Career Criminal Act to increase the defendant’s prison term. The Act is typically applied to violent felonies or aggravated drug cases.
The justices voted 6-3 in their ruling DUI is not a violent felony, with Justices Alito, Souter and Thomas dissenting.
If you have been arrested for drunk driving, then you will need to hire a qualified DUI attorney.
Filed in DUI Laws | DUI News | Permalink | Comments (2)
What is Considered Driving?
Driving a Vehicle: You don't have to be operating, moving or driving a car to be arrested and convicted of a DUI!
For many persons arrested for driving under the influence the question of driving becomes an issue. Is someone sleeping in their car "driving" according to the law?
What about someone who is outside of their car sitting on the fender, or someone with the keys in the ignition, are they "driving" their car?
These and many other similar and not so similar circumstances have forced the court to come up with a definition of what constitutes "driving".
Driving has two accepted components:
The operation of a vehicle and the controling a vehicle.
Operating a vehicle is what is common referred to is DRIVING or having the car MOVING. Seems simple enough, but it isn't.
Moving is not the only element in driving. Controling is the other element and this has to do with the keys (controling).
If you have the keys you have CONTROL.
I presently have a gentleman in my class convicted of driving when he was sleeping in his car, legally parked at a Bart Station. He says he was dropped off by his friends and decided NOT to drive home since he realized, after being dropped off, that he was unable to safely drive home. He was convicted because "if it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, it must be a duck" (1+1=2). Like it or not YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE OPERATING OR MOVING OR DRIVING A CAR TO BE ARRESTED AND CONVICTED OF A DUI!
Circumstantial Presence Evidence
People v Bellomo (1984) . . . there was no need to decide whether or not the defendant was driving in the presence of the arresting officer when the defendant was found asleep behind the wheel, with the engine running, in a traffic lane, awaiting a red light . . . guilty (40300.5)......that was 84' and it just evolved into.......if you've got the keys...and you are in the vehicle or about the vehicle and "if it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, it must be a duck".
Have you been arrested for drunk driving and you were not behind the wheel of your car?
Also See:
Tags:
Filed in Court Rulings | Permalink | Comments (8)
DUI Legal Information and Drunk Driving Laws
U.S. vs Ursery
Docket 95-345 -- Decided June 24, 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In No. 95-345, the Government instituted civil forfeiture proceedings under 21 U.S.C. 881(a)(7) against respondent Ursery's house, alleging that it had been used to facilitate illegal drug transactions. Shortly before Ursery settled that claim, he was indicted, and was later convicted, of manufacturing marijuana in violation of 841(a)(1). In No. 95- 346, the Government filed a civil in rem complaint against various property seized from, or titled to, respondents Arlt and Wren or Arlt's corporation, alleging that each item was subject to forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. 981(a)(1)(A) because it was involved in money laundering violative of 1956, and to forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. 881(a)(6) as the proceeds of a felonious drug transaction. Litigation of the forfeiture action was deferred while Arlt and Wren were prosecuted on drug and money-laundering charges under 846 and 18 U.S.C. 371 and 1956. After their convictions, the District Court granted the Government's motion for summary judgment in the forfeiture proceeding. The Courts of Appeals reversed Ursery's conviction and the forfeiture judgment against Arlt and Wren, holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits the Government from both punishing a defendant for a criminal offense and forfeiting his property for that same offense in a separate civil proceeding. The courts reasoned in part that Halper v. United States, 490 U.S. 435, and Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, meant that, as a categorical matter, civil forfeitures always constitute - punishmentfor double jeopardy purposes. This Court consolidated the cases.
Held:
In rem civil forfeitures are neither "punishment" nor criminal for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause. Pp. 3-23.
(a) Congress long has authorized the Government to bring parallel criminal actions and in rem civil forfeiture proceedings based upon the same underlying events, see, e.g., The Palmyra, 12 Wheat. 1, 14-15, and this Court consistently has concluded that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not apply to such forfeitures because they do not impose punishment, see, e.g., Various Items of Personal Property v. United States, 282 U.S. 577, 581; One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. United States, 409 U.S. 232, 235-236 (per curiam). In its most recent case, United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354, the Court held that a forfeiture was not barred by a prior criminal proceeding after applying a two-part test asking, first, whether Congress intended the particular forfeiture to be a remedial civil sanction or a criminal penalty, and, second, whether the forfeiture proceedings are so punitive in fact as to establish that they may not legitimately be viewed as civil in nature, despite any congressional intent to establish a civil remedial mechanism. Pp. 5-9.
(b) Though the 89 Firearms test was more refined, perhaps, than the Court's Various Items analysis, the conclusion was the same in each case: in rem civil forfeiture is a remedial civil sanction, distinct from potentially punitive in personam civil penalties such as fines, and does not constitute a punishment for double jeopardy purposes. See Gore v. United States, 357 U.S. 386, 392. The Courts of Appeals misread Halper, Austin, and Montana Dept. of Revenue v. Kurth Ranch, 511 U.S. ___, as having abandoned this oft-affirmed rule. None of those decisions purported to overrule Various Items, Emerald Cut Stones, and 89 Firearms or to replace the Court's traditional understanding. It would have been remarkable for the Court both to have held unconstitutional a well-established practice, and to have overruled a long line of precedent, without having even suggested that it was doing so. Moreover, the cases in question did not deal with the subject of this case: in rem civil forfeitures for double jeopardy purposes. Halper involved in personam civil penalties under the Double Jeopardy Clause. Kurth Ranch considered a punitive state tax imposed on marijuana under that Clause. And Austin dealt with civil forfeitures under the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause. Pp. 10-19.
(c) The forfeitures at issue are civil proceedings under the two part 89 Firearms test. First, there is little doubt that Congress intended proceedings under 881 and 981 to be civil, since those statutes' procedural enforcement mechanisms are themselves distinctly civil in nature. See, e.g., 89 Firearms, 465 U.S., at 363. Second, there is little evidence, much less the "clearest proof" that the Court requires, see e.g., id., at 365, suggesting that forfeiture proceedings under those sections are so punitive in form and effect as to render them criminal despite Congress' intent to the contrary. These statutes are, in most significant respects, indistinguishable from those reviewed, and held not to be punitive, in Various Items, Emerald Cut Stones, and 89 Firearms. That these are civil proceedings is also supported by other factors that the Court has found persuasive, including the considerations that (1) in rem civil forfeiture has not historically been regarded as punishment; (2) there is no requirement in the statutes at issue that the Government demonstrate scienter in order to establish that the property is subject to forfeiture; (3) though both statutes may serve a deterrent purpose, this purpose may serve civil as well as criminal goals; and (4) the fact that both are tied to criminal activity is insufficient in itself to render them punitive. See, e.g., United States v. Ward, 448 U.S. 242, 247- 248, n. 7, 249. Pp. 19-23.
No. 95-345, 59 F.3d 568, and No. 95-346, 33 F.3d 1210 and 56 F.3d 41, reversed.
Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Kennedy, J., filed a concurring opinion. Scalia, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Thomas, J., joined. Stevens, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.
Tags:
Filed in Court Rulings | Permalink | Comments (0)
Double Jeopardy - The Court & The DMV
DMV vs CourtsU.S. v Halper (1989), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Constitution's Firth Amendment double Jeopardy Clause prohibits not only multiple prosecution in criminal proceedings, but also prohibits double punishment, regardless of the civil or criminal nature of the proceedings.. Thus the Halper case precludes double punishment, by both the court and the D.M.V., for driving with a BAC of 0.08% or more.
Note that in Ellis v Pierce (1991), the Court of Appeals held that a DMV administrative suspension for chemical test refusal imposed after a court-imposed jail sentence for the same conduct is not violation of Federal Double Jeopardy suspension for chemical test refusal and was not punishment, since it only inhibited drunk driving, and did not deter it.....This Ellis case held only that a chemical test refusal suspension is not punishment . .it said nothing about a suspension for excessive BAC.
Tags:
Filed in Court Rulings | Permalink | Comments (1)
U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Forefiture Ruling
U.S. SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS ASSET FORFEITURE LAWSWASHINGTON, June 25 /PRNewswire/ -- The U.S. Supreme Court's 8-1 decision yesterday to uphold current asset forfeiture laws leave many people asking the question: "So, what happens to all those seized and forfeited assets, anyway?" The answer is simple: government auctions. Two upcoming government auctions provide insight of the law in action:
1) This Friday, June 28, at "high noon, " the U.S. Customs Service will auction the magnificent 407-acre "Top Gun Ranch" in Whitefish, Montana, which the agency seized in October 1990. The ranch was seized from Jimmie Norjay Ellard, a notorious drug smuggler for the late Pablo Escobar of the Medellin cartel, who oversaw one of the largest smuggling operations ever investigated by the Customs Service. Between 1985 and 1990, his organization flew 27.5 tons of cocaine from Colombia into southern Florida. Code named Operation Caballero (Operation Cowboy), the Customs Service's five-year investigation of the Ellard organization began in 1989. It resulted in the arrest and conviction of Ellard and several others, and the seizure of the Montana ranch, which Ellard used as a respite in between smuggling runs. The Ellard case led Customs and other federal agencies to arrest and convict other key members of the Medellin cartel in the early 1990s, including Pablo Escobar's number one hit man, Dandy Munoz-Mosquera.
Top Gun Ranch was part of $5.8 million worth of assets seized in Operation Caballero. Other assets include aircraft, vehicles, and other real estate properties in Colorado, Florida, and Texas. These items have been, or will be, disposed of separately.
2) On July 18 beginning at 9 a.m. in Edison, New Jersey, several U.S. Treasury agencies will auction several hundred lots of merchandise representing the booty of many criminal and civil asset forfeiture cases. The agencies involved will include the U.S. Customs Service, the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Division, the Secret Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and the Office of Foreign Asset Control. A wide range of property will be offered for sale, including automobiles, furniture, electronics, jewelry, carpets, household goods, hardware, and much more.
This auction is expected to generate between $500,000 and $1 million, all of which will be deposited directly into the U.S. Treasury Asset Forfeiture Fund. Since 1990, auctions such as these have generated more than $115 million in net proceeds to the Department of the Treasury's asset forfeiture program.
The end result of asset forfeiture is simple: property purchased with illegally obtained monies is turned back into dollars via public auctions; these dollars are then used by federal law enforcement agencies to support crime fighting efforts, thereby offsetting taxpayers' costs. No doubt, these auctions are a better source of revenue than more taxes.
Common types of illegal activities which seizures and forfeitures result from include drug smuggling, money laundering, and fraud schemes. EG&G Dynatrend of Wellesley, Massachusetts, and Larry Latham Auctioneers of Indianapolis, Indiana, conduct auctions throughout the U.S and Puerto Rico for Department of the Treasury agencies and offices.
The public can obtain more information about the U.S. Treasury Auction Program by calling the Public Auction Line at 703-273-3441, or via the Internet at www.ustreas.gov.
DIRECTIONS TO JUNE 28, 12:00 NOON AUCTION: From Central Street in Whitefish, go 11.4 miles on Highway 93 west to Farm to Market Road just past mile marker 139. Turn left, go 1.6 miles to Star Meadows Road, turn right, travel 11 miles to Top Gun Ranch (enter at Caretakers Complex on your left). It will be just past mile marker 539.
-0- 6/25/96 /CONTACT: Kristi Messner of the U.S. Customs
Service Support Division, 703-273-3441/
CO: U.S. Customs Service Support Division ST: District of Columbia,
Montana
Tags:
Filed in Court Rulings | Permalink | Comments (0)
Asset Forfeiture
Asset Forfeiture: Federal Appeal Upholds Seizure of Cash Despite Lack of DrugsArticle from Drug War Chronicle, Issue #441, June 23, 2006
A federal appeals court has held that police acted within the law when they seized nearly $125,000 in cash from a man's car during a traffic stop, even though no drugs were found in the car. A three-judge panel from the 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals found in US v. $124,700 in US Currency that the cash may have been linked to the drug trade, overturning an earlier decision by a US Magistrate Court judge in Nebraska.
Emilio Gonzolez was pulled over for speeding on Interstate 80 in 2003. Gonzolez told the officer the car he was driving had been rented by someone named Luis, that he had never been arrested, and that he was not carrying drugs, guns, or large sums of money. Gonzolez then consented to a search of the vehicle, which turned up $124,700 in cash in a cooler on the back seat. Police also learned that Gonzolez had been arrested for drunk driving and that the person who rented the car was not named Luis. Police then sicced a drug dog on the vehicle, and the dog alerted on the cash and on the seat where it was sitting.
In court, Gonzolez testified that he had flown from California to Chicago and planned to use the cash to buy a refrigerated truck there, but when he arrived there, the truck had already been sold. He decided to drive back to California, but needed someone to rent a car because he had no credit card, he testified. Gonzolez said he lied about having the money because he feared carrying large amounts of cash could be illegal and he hid it in the cooler because he was afraid it might be stolen. He testified that he didn’t reveal the drunk driving arrest because he didn’t think drunk driving was a crime.
Gonzolez' tale may have been barely credible, but any positive evidence linking his stash of cash to drug trafficking was hard to come by. Still, the appeals court overturned the original decision. "We believe that the evidence as a whole demonstrates... that there was a substantial connection between the currency and a drug trafficking offense," the court wrote. "We have adopted the commonsense view that bundling and concealment of large amounts of currency, combined with other suspicious circumstances, supports a connection between money and drug trafficking."
That wasn’t good enough for dissenting Judge Donald Lay, who argued that there was no evidence linking the cash to drug trafficking. "At most, the evidence presented suggests the money seized may have been involved in some illegal activity -- activity that is incapable of being ascertained on the record before us," Lay wrote.
But what about the drug dog alerting on the cash and the car seat? "Finally, the mere fact that the canine alerted officers to the presence of drug residue in a rental car, no doubt driven by dozens, perhaps scores, of patrons during the course of a given year, coupled with the fact that the alert came from the same location where the currency was discovered, does little to connect the money to a controlled substance offense," Lay reasoned.
San Diego attorney Donald Yates, who represents Gonzolez, told the Associated Press they would appeal the decision. People who do not have credit or bank accounts and who must do business in cash are being treated unfairly, he said. "They do not allow for anybody to have a lifestyle different from the average person in Nebraska."
Source: http://stopthedrugwar.org
Federal Appeals Court: Driving With Money is a Crime Eighth Circuit Appeals Court ruling says police may seize cash from motorists even in the absence of any evidence that a crime has been committed.
A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that if a motorist is carrying large sums of money, it is automatically subject to confiscation. In the case entitled, "United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit took that amount of cash away from Emiliano Gomez Gonzolez, a man with a "lack of significant criminal history" neither accused nor convicted of any crime.
On May 28, 2003, a Nebraska state trooper signaled Gonzolez to pull over his rented Ford Taurus on Interstate 80. The trooper intended to issue a speeding ticket, but noticed the Gonzolez's name was not on the rental contract. The trooper then proceeded to question Gonzolez -- who did not speak English well -- and search the car. The trooper found a cooler containing $124,700 in cash, which he confiscated. A trained drug sniffing dog barked at the rental car and the cash. For the police, this was all the evidence needed to establish a drug crime that allows the force to keep the seized money.
Associates of Gonzolez testified in court that they had pooled their life savings to purchase a refrigerated truck to start a produce business. Gonzolez flew on a one-way ticket to Chicago to buy a truck, but it had sold by the time he had arrived. Without a credit card of his own, he had a third-party rent one for him. Gonzolez hid the money in a cooler to keep it from being noticed and stolen. He was scared when the troopers began questioning him about it. There was no evidence disputing Gonzolez's story.
Yesterday the Eighth Circuit summarily dismissed Gonzolez's story. It overturned a lower court ruling that had found no evidence of drug activity, stating, "We respectfully disagree and reach a different conclusion... Possession of a large sum of cash is 'strong evidence' of a connection to drug activity."
Judge Donald Lay found the majority's reasoning faulty and issued a strong dissent.
"Notwithstanding the fact that claimants seemingly suspicious activities were reasoned away with plausible, and thus presumptively trustworthy, explanations which the government failed to contradict or rebut, I note that no drugs, drug paraphernalia, or drug records were recovered in connection with the seized money," Judge Lay wrote. "There is no evidence claimants were ever convicted of any drug-related crime, nor is there any indication the manner in which the currency was bundled was indicative of drug use or distribution."
"Finally, the mere fact that the canine alerted officers to the presence of drug residue in a rental car, no doubt driven by dozens, perhaps scores, of patrons during the course of a given year, coupled with the fact that the alert came from the same location where the currency was discovered, does little to connect the money to a controlled substance offense," Judge Lay Concluded.
Source: US v. $124,700 (US Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, 8/19/2006) http://www.thenewspaper.com/
Tags:
Filed in Court Rulings | Permalink | Comments (0)
DUI and DWI Laws
New DUI DWI (DRUNK DRIVING) Laws for 2006State by State Listing
Alaska Bill Number: HB 136 Enacted This bill would limit the authority of a court to suspend execution of a sentence, or grant probation, in prosecutions for driving while under the influence as well as prosecutions for refusal to submit to a chemical test.
Arizona Bill Number: SB 1240 Enacted Would establish a special ignition interlock drivers license. Arkansas Bill Number: HB 2041 Enacted Would require the completion of an alcohol education program for certain DWI violations.
California Bill Number: SB 547 Enacted This bill would establish a pilot program in Sacramento County that would authorize, until January 1, 2009, the impoundment of a person's vehicle by a peace officer for a DUI offense that is undertaken in combination with an intervention and a referral of the person to a driving-under-the-influence program, as specified, if the person has one or more prior DUI convictions within the past 10 years. The bill would implement the program only to the extent that funds from private or federal sources are available to fund the program and only if the Board of Supervisors of Sacramento County enacts an ordinance or resolution authorizing the implementation of the pilot program in the county. The bill would require the county to report to the Legislature regarding the effectiveness of the pilot program, as specified.
Florida Bill Number: SB 530 Enacted Would require placement of ignition interlock devices on vehicles operated by any person convicted of committing certain DUI offenses; specifies duration of each installation period based upon number of DUI convictions; requires installation of ignition interlock if court fails to order mandatory placement of device or fails to order placement for applicable period.
Florida Bill Number: HB 19 Enacted Provides for 6-month vehicle registration for persons reinstating driver's license that has been suspended for DUI; requires HSMV to issue 6-month vehicle registration certificates & validation stickers; requires persons whose license or registration has been suspended or revoked due to violation of DUI to maintain, for 3 years, certain noncancelable liability coverage. Florida Bill Number: HB 233 Enacted Includes the death of an unborn child under DUI manslaughter defines offense as "vehicular homicide"; provides that killing an unborn child by injury to the mother that would be murder in any degree if it resulted in death of the mother is murder in same degree; provides that death of mother does not bar prosecution under specified circumstances.
Hawaii Bill Number: HB 437 Enacted Clarifies that the term of imprisonment for violation of section 291E-61(b)4) HRS, shall not exceed the maximum term provided in subsections (b)1) (b)2) and (b)3) respectively.
Illinois Bill Number: SB 1495 Enacted Provides that, if a defendant is convicted of aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or intoxicating compounds because his or her DUI violation was the cause of the death of one or more persons, the defendant shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, unless the court determines that extraordinary circumstances exist and require probation.
Illinois Bill Number: HB 1562 Enacted Amends the Renter's Financial Responsibility and Protection Act. Provides that a vehicle rental company may void a damage waiver with regard to damage or loss occurring while the rental vehicle was operated by a driver under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or intoxicating compounds, in violation of the DUI provisions of the Illinois Vehicle Code.
Illinois Bill Number: HB 3648 Enacted A person involved as a driver in an a fatal accident or an accident involving severely bleeding wounds, distorted extremities, or injuries that required the injured party to be carried from the scene (rather than any person arrested after being involved as a driver in a fatal accident or an accident involving personal injury) is deemed to have consented to undergo chemical testing for alcohol, drugs, or intoxicating compounds.
Illinois Bill Number: HB 887 Enacted Proposes that a local government unit may not enact or enforce any rule or ordinance, the violation of which would constitute a felony under the Vehicle Code provision prohibiting driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or intoxicating compounds. Also proposes that a municipal attorney may not prosecute, and a State's Attorney may not allow a municipal attorney to prosecute, any ordinance violation that would constitute a felony under the DUI provision of the Vehicle Code. Provides that a municipal attorney must notify the State's Attorney if a driver's alleged conduct would constitute a felony under the DUI provision.
Illinois Bill Number: HB 1081 Enacted This bill proposes that if a defendant is convicted of aggravated DUI of alcohol, drugs, or intoxicating compounds because the defendant's DUI violation was the cause of the death of one or more persons, the defendant shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, provided that the court does not determine that extraordinary circumstances exist and require probation.
Illinois Bill Number: HB 396 Enacted Amends the Illinois Vehicle Code. Sets the maximum duration of the first judicial driving permit issued to a person whose driver's license has been summarily suspended under the DUI provisions of the Code at 45 days. Allows for an extension the original permit by the court after 30 days, and provides that the extension of the permit may be for any length of time, up to the remaining duration of the statutory summary suspension.
Illinois Bill Number: HB 657 Enacted Amends the Illinois Vehicle Code by increasing the penalties for driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or intoxicating compounds while transporting a child under the age of 16 years.
Iowa Bill Number: HB 726 Enacted This bill allows a physician assistant or an advanced registered nurse practitioner to certify a person's unconscious state or other incapacitated condition, for purposes of chemical testing of a person suspected of driving while intoxicated.
Kansas Bill Number: SB 148 Enacted This bill proposes striking the 5-year limitation on the increase in repeat DUI penalties. Kansas Bill Number: HB 2385 Enacted This bill addresses tests for alcohol and drugs when a person is suspected of DUI.Corrections and Juvenile Justice.
Louisiana Bill Number: HB 281 Enacted Provides for admissibility of state police crime lab BAC test results in civil cases.
Maryland Bill Number: SB 650 Enacted This bill proposes specified enhanced criminal penalties which may be imposed when a person is convicted of a specified alcohol, or drug, related driving offense and the trier of fact finds that such person knowingly refused to take a specified sobriety test.
Maryland Bill Number: HB 103 Enacted This bill proposes specified enhanced criminal penalties which may be imposed if a person is convicted of specified alcohol or drug-related driving offenses, and the trier of fact determines that the person knowingly refused to take a specified test. Also requires that a police officer advise a person of the enhanced criminal penalties under specified circumstances.
Missouri Bill Number: HB 2A Enacted The bill changes the laws regarding driving while intoxicated to expand the definitions of "aggravated offender," "chronic offender," and "intoxication-related traffic offense" to include murder in the second degree where the underlying felony is an intoxication-related offense.
Montana Bill Number: HB 374 Enacted This bill proposes increasing the penalty for drunk driving when a person under 16 years of age was in the vehicle at the time of the offense.
Montana Bill Number: HB 99 Enacted This bill would increase the penalties for driving with a suspended or revoked license when the reason for suspension or revocation was that the person was convicted of DUI or refusal to test for alcohol or drugs when requested by a law enforcement officer to do so.
Montana Bill Number: SB 423 Enacted This bill revises ignition interlock laws by requiring certain driver's licenses to convey the terms of probation imposed on the licensee.
Montana Bill Number: HB 374 Enacted Proposes increasing the penalty that may be imposed upon a person for driving while under the influence or with an excessive alcohol concentration if one or more of the passengers in the vehicle is under 16 years of age at the time of the offense.
Nebraska Bill Number: LB 594 Enacted This bill proposes changes to the provisions and penalties for driving under the influence.
Nevada Bill Number: AB 256 Enacted This bill proposes establishing the crimes of vehicular homicide for driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or certain substances which causes death under certain circumstances.
New Hampshire Bill Number: HB 125 Enacted This bill proposes the requirement of an ignition interlock device on any vehicle registered to a person who drives after his or her driver's license has been suspended or revoked for a DWI offense, or registered to a member of that person's household.
New Mexico Bill Number: SB 109 Enacted Requires juvenile offenders to obtain an interlock ignition device for one year after a conviction for DWI or an offense relating to drugs or alcohol.
New Mexico Bill Number: HB 282 Enacted Requires all DWI offenders to have ignition interlock systems in their vehicles.
North Carolina Bill Number: HB 35 Enacted This bill would increase the fees paid by DWI offenders to attend alcohol and drug education traffic schools.
North Dakota Bill Number: HB 1396 Enacted This bill proposes changes to the fines for driving under the influence.
North Dakota Bill Number: SB 2372 Enacted Proposes the creation of a Responsible Choice Commission as well as a comprehensive program aimed at addressing impaired driving, alcohol and drug abuse, and other destructive behavior.
Oregon Bill Number: SB 114 Enacted Proposes increasing the fees for screening interviews of persons convicted of driving while under influence of intoxicants and diagnostic assessments of persons entering diversion agreements.
Tennessee Bill Number: SB 2249 Enacted Revises provisions governing ineligibility for pretrial diversion and judicial diversion for persons convicted of DUI offenses.
Tennessee Bill Number: HB 1566 Enacted Deletes separate offenses of child endangerment, aggravated child endangerment, and especially aggravated child endangerment and makes them sentence enhancements for DUI violation; requires law enforcement and judges to report information of person committing DUI accompanied by child under 18 to children's services as other cases of suspected child abuse or neglect.
Tennessee Bill Number: HB 642 Enacted This bill permits a law enforcement officer to arrest, without warrant, the driver of a motor vehicle who leaves the scene of an accident, and who is apprehended within four hours of the accident, when the officer has probable cause to believe the driver drove under the influence.
Tennessee Bill Number: HB 581Enacted Present law requires that any person convicted of DUI be confined in jail for at least 48 hours. This bill would authorize substitution of 48 hours roadside cleanup in lieu of the 48-hour confinement.
Tennessee Bill Number: SB 60 Enacted Present law provides that any person who drives a motor vehicle in this state is deemed to have given consent to a test for the purpose of determining the alcoholic or drug content of that person's blood. This bill would revise the above provision to specify that drivers will be deemed to have consented to a test to determine the alcohol content of that person's blood, a test to determine the drug content of that person's blood, or both such tests.
Texas Bill Number: SB 217 Enacted This bill proposes reporting positive alcohol and drug tests of holders of commercial driver's licenses.
Utah Bill Number: HB 65 Enacted This bill proposes that the Driver License Division shall immediately take action on a driver license when a person has operated, or been in actual physical control of, a motor vehicle while the person's driving privilege is suspended due to an alcohol related offense.
Utah Bill Number: SB 42 Enacted This bill modifies the Motor Vehicles Code and the Public Safety Code to amend provisions relating to certain persons operating a vehicle with any measurable or detectable amount of alcohol in the person's body.
Virginia Bill Number: HB 2786 Enacted This bill provides that the defined term "motor vehicle," including mopeds operated on the public highways of this Commonwealth, applies to all of the provisions of the article of the Code establishing the DUI laws.
Virginia Bill Number: SB 1093 Enacted The bill spells out the procedure for charging a person with refusal and states that a first violation of the refusal statute is a civil offense and that subsequent violations are criminal offenses. A law-enforcement officer will have to read the refusal form only to persons who refuse to take a blood or breath test.
Virginia Bill Number: HB 2655 Enacted This bill clarifies provisions in the driving under the influence laws, particularly in the refusal statute. The bill spells out the procedure for charging a person with refusal. A law-enforcement officer will have to read the refusal form only to persons who refuse to take a blood or breath test.
Virginia Bill Number: HB 2668 Enacted This bill proposes that if a person arrested for DUI is taken to a medical facility for treatment or evaluation of his medical condition, the arresting officer at a medical facility may issue, on the premises of the medical facility, a summons for the DUI violation and for refusal of blood alcohol tests in lieu of securing a warrant. Currently, the summons is authorized only for a refusal.
Virginia Bill Number: HB 1674 Enacted This bill would include juvenile defendants in existing provisions that allow localities to seek reimbursement of expenses related to providing an emergency response to certain traffic and DUI incidents. Virginia Bill Number: HB 1896 Enacted Makes driving under the influence of any illegally possessed drug a violation of DUI statute.
Washington Bill Number: HB 1266 Enacted This bill relates to positive drug or alcohol test results of commercial motor vehicle operators. Wisconsin Bill Number: AB 92 Enacted Under this bill, the fact that a person had an alcohol concentration that is over the legal limit may be admitted as prima facie evidence that the person was under the influence of an intoxicant, regardless of the number of prior OWI related convictions.
Source: Legislative Tracking Database
Tags:
Filed in DUI Laws | Permalink | Comments (0)
