Defenders of the game claim the scene identifies the character as drunk and it shows the dangers of drinking and driving. The video has a vehicle crash and an arrest for DWI as possible outcomes. Officials for Rockstar Game, the company that manufactures Grand Theft Auto IV, said the game should not be taken seriously, and indicated that drug and alcohol use are clearly stated in the game description.

MADD is asking Rockstar Game and a game rating board to show social responsibility as well as respect for the millions of victims of drunk drivers.

DUI Attorney or a DWI Lawyer?

A man from Corvallis, Oregon is one such case. Brian Noakes was charged with suspicion of Oregon DUII after a traffic stop for having bloodshot eyes. He explained that he had a cold though the police officer was convinced that he was driving under the influence. While being arrested, Noakes wife asked what was happening and police threatened to Taser her. A breath test showed that Noakes had no alcohol in his system and a urine test came back negative for drugs. The district attorney declined to prosecute the case though Noakes will continue to have a permanent arrest record for drunk driving.

Washington, like several other states, does not allow arrests for traffic offenses, including driving under the influence, to be removed or expunged from a person’s record. That means that even if a defendant is found innocent or never formally charged, he or she could suffer the consequences of a false arrest for the rest of their life. Noakes’ arrest, in fact, cost him his job.

Noakes is suing the city of Corvallis and David Cox, the arresting police officer, for violation of his civil rights and false arrest. He also wants an unspecified amount of money for reimbursement of legal fees and damages. An internal police investigation found that the arrest was unlawful and the threats were improper. It was also determined that Cox had a known pattern of unjustified DUI arrests of motorists who were not legally intoxicated. Those arrests helped earn Cox praise for being one of the top DUI enforcers. He has since resigned from the force and left the state.

The pattern of false arrests for suspicion of driving while intoxicated is not limited to one state or one jurisdiction. More than 150 arrests for drunk driving in Cook County - Chicago were dismissed after a single officer was indicted for felony perjury for falsifying arrest reports. A motorist was accused of Arizona DWI because of what the officer described as slurred speech, when the defendant had actually just had denture work performed. A blood test showed a BAC of .22. Even without evidence of intoxication, the prosecutor filed three felony charges and the defendant eventually spent $12,000 in legal fees to defend herself.

Last year the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, with input from the American Beverage Institute, updated its anti-drunk driving slogan to ‘Over the limit. Under arrest’ in effort to acknowledge that one can engage in responsible social drinking and legally drive after. Texas however clings to the old slogan ‘Drink. Drive. Go to Jail.’, leading an Austin DWI attorney to note that a percentage of his clients were not legally drunk at the time of their arrest.

With the notice of a drunk driving crackdown, law enforcement is hoping motorists plan in advance for safe driving alternatives, like assigning a designated driver and using a taxi service or public transportation. They also encourage party hosts to have plans to get friends and co-workers home safely. In Denver, the Colorado Department of Transportation, local businesses and law enforcement agencies are offering vouchers to party goers to reduce the cost of taking a cab this weekend.

Last year’s three day ‘Office Party Weekend’ DUI patrol resulted in 475 arrests for drunk driving. Law enforcement agencies are also planning a ‘Heat Is On!’ Campaign during New Year celebrations.

An ex-girlfriend said Adams has “an unfortunate drinking problem” and a 'Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde' personality when intoxicated. Adams entered a ‘no contest’ plea to 2003 DUI arrest and he was found guilty in 2006 for driving with a blood-alcohol content above the legal limit.

Dr. Adams performed a breast reduction and tummy tuck on Kanye West’s mom, Donda, last weekend. Even though the surgery reportedly lasted twice as long as normal, Donda was sent home without post-op supervision and she died. An autopsy was performed though the results will not be finalized for 6-8 weeks. Adams insists that he did nothing wrong. Another plastic surgeon refused to perform surgery on Donda, citing a preexisting condition that could cause a heart attack. In 2001 Adams settled two malpractice suits and he has several other cases pending.

Adams hosted Discovery Channel’s “Plastic Surgery: Before and After” and was co-host of ABC’s “The Other Half.”

The sensitive alcohol odor sensors have been installed in the gear shift knob as well as the seats. They are able to detect alcohol in the driver’s perspiration and immobilize the vehicle and lock the transmission if the level of alcohol is above a set limit.

The facial monitoring system is comprised of a camera focused on the driver’s eyes. After the system is calibrated, it can detect changes that may indicate drowsiness. When such conditions are detected, voice alerts are issued through the vehicle navigation system. Seat belts are automatically tightened to further alert or awaken the driver.

The vehicle can also determine operational changes, such as drifting out of a lane. When the system suspects drowsiness or distraction, the navigation system again alerts the driver with voice and message alerts and the seat belt is tightened.

The concept car reflects emerging technologies that may be incorporated in future production cars. In fact the drunk driving message alert is already on Nissan navigation systems. The automaker is currently testing an on-board breathalyzer system that could disable the ignition system when alcohol is detected. There are also plans to develop an Intelligent Transport System Project that would analyze data from moving vehicles and road sensors to help reduce accidents.

This is all part of Nissan’s Vision 2015 goal to half the number of traffic deaths or serious injuries involving its cars by 2015.

Even those who refuse to take breathalyzer tests on federal property avoid any state consequences. In a state court, refusal to take a breathalyzer test means a 180-day license suspension.

In the past year, 32 people have been charged with drunken driving on federal property in Massachusetts, with most arrests occurring at the Charlestown Navy Yard, the Cape Cod National Seashore and Hanscom Air Force Base, federal officials said.

The state Registry of Motor Vehicles was not notified of any of those cases, which means they were not listed on the drivers' records, according to federal authorities.

Robert Krekorian, chief of staff for U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan, said Thursday that neither he nor Sullivan was aware of the drunk driving issue until the Globe brought it to their attention this week.

"It's totally unacceptable from our perspective, and immediately it's going to change," Krekorian said. "There's no reason why this critical information shouldn't have been given over to the Registry so they could take appropriate action."

Krekorian said federal authorities would immediately start notifying the Registry and provide reports about federal drunken driving cases in Massachusetts.

Anne Collins, the state's registrar of motor vehicles, said Massachusetts would suspend the licenses of drivers who refused a breathalyzer test after being stopped on federal property and would consider action against those convicted of drunken driving in federal court. All federal convictions will be noted on drivers' records, she said.

Drunken driving on federal property is considered a misdemeanor, and first-time offenders face a maximum of six months in prison and a $5,000 fine. Federal authorities said most do not receive any jail time or even probation.

The cases are heard by federal magistrate judges, who hold monthly traffic sessions at the state's federal courthouses and sometimes at the Cape Cod National Seashore. Fines are paid to the Central Violations Bureau, an arm of the federal court based in San Antonio. No records of the cases are kept at the courthouses.

Source: http://www.boston.com/

More...

A TANGLED WEB - DRUNK DRIVING ON FEDERAL PROPERTY IN MARYLAND
by Leonard R. Stamm

The State of Maryland is chock full of federal enclaves such as Fort Meade, the Baltimore-Washington Parkway, the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, and Andrews Air Force Base, to name a few. Last October, United States Magistrate Paul Rosenberg published his opinion in United States v. Sauls, 981 F.Supp. 909 (D.Md. 1997), a case argued by MCDAA member Christine Saverda Nielsen, concerning a drunk driving prosecution at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds. Although the opinion was not a victory for Sauls,1 in the tradition of cases such as Casper v. State, 70 Md.App. 576, 521 A.2d 1281 (1987) State v. Werkheiser, 299 Md. 529, 474 A.2d 898(1984) it may turn out to be a case that is helpful to other defendants.

First we digress. Federal property is either subject to exclusive or concurrent federal criminal jurisdiction. Property acquired by the federal government between 1906 and 1940, such as the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center or Fort Meade is subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction. See Dreos v. United States, 156 F.Supp. 200, 205 n.3 (1957); 56 Op. Atty. Gen. 347 (1971). Other properties, such as the Baltimore-Washington Parkway, are under concurrent state and federal jurisdiction. Id.

18 U.S.C. § 13, the Assimilative Crimes Act, incorporates the substance and punishment, but not procedural aspects, of state law crimes on federal enclaves, and makes such crimes federal offenses, where the Congress or federal agencies have not legislated on the subject matter of the state law. The Assimilative Crimes Act transforms a violation of state law into an offense against the federal government. United States v. Press Publishing Co., 219 U.S. 1 (1911); United States v. Holley, 444 F.Supp. 1361, 1362 (D.Md. 1977). It is "a shorthand method of providing a set of criminal laws on federal reservations, by using local law to fill the gaps in federal criminal law." United States v. Prejean, 494 F.2d 495, 496 (5th Cir. 1974).

Since the offenses created by the Assimilative Crimes Act are federal crimes, it is for the federal courts to define the offenses, and state court opinions are merely persuasive authority which are not binding on the federal court. Federal cases have thus stated:

Title 18 § 13 was enacted to incorporate State criminal statutes into the Federal law. Interpretations of this Federal law is for the Federal Courts, and they are not bound by the constructions of the State Courts (Johnson v. Yellow Cab Transit Co., 321 U.S. 383, 64 S.Ct. 622, 88 L.Ed. 814; and Kay v. United States, 4 Cir., 255 F.2d 476). Of course State decisions naturally have great potential persuasive power with this court, but this Court is not bound to follow such decisions if in its judgment they are wrong. United States v. Barnes, 195 F.Supp 103, 105 (N.D.Cal. 1961). Additionally, the Assimilative Crimes Act only incorporates the punishments contained in the state law, not civil or administrative sanctions which are not deemed to be punishment. United States v. Best, 573 F.2d 1095 (9th Cir. 1978) (license suspension which could have been ordered by California court under California law was not "punishment" and federal court could not order DMV to suspend driver's license); see, State v. Jones, 340 Md. 235, 666 A.2d 128 (1995), cert. den., ---U.S.---, 116 S.Ct. 1265, 134 L.Ed.2d 213 (1996)(Maryland administrative license suspension is not "punishment").

Federal properties that are under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service, such as Cabin John Parkway, the Suitland Parkway, and the Baltimore-Washington Parkway, are covered by federal traffic regulations contained in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). In those locations, since there are regulations on the subject matter of drunk driving, the Assimilative Crimes Act does not apply. Instead, driving under the influence of alcohol as well as refusal to take a test is prohibited by 36 CFR § 4.23.

By way of contrast, in those areas, such as Fort Meade or Andrews Air Force Base, where neither Congress, nor any of the federal agencies have made driving while intoxicated a criminal offense, the Assimilative Crimes Act applies and adopts as federal law, the terms and punishment provided by Transportation Article, § 21-902. See United States v. Walker, 552 F.2d 566, 568 (4th Cir. 1977); United States v. Channel, 423 F.Supp. 1017 (D.Md. 1976). The implied consent provisions of § 16-205.1 and procedural requirements of Cts. & Jud. Proc. Art., § 10-301-10-309 are inapplicable. Instead, the federal implied consent provision, 18 U.S.C. § 3118, which provides for suspension of driving privileges for one year on federal territories, and the Federal Rules of Evidence apply on these enclaves. Unlike Maryland, there is no right of refusal under federal law, the toxicologist need not approve equipment used in testing, and breath test technicians need not follow the Toxicologist's Regulations. Additionally, Transp. Art., § 16-402 et. seq., addressing the assessment of points, does not provide for assessment of points for federal drunk driving convictions.

Despite these differences, in practice, the Military Police at Andrews and Fort Meade, for example, use the Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA) Form DR-15 to advise arrestees of the state penalties that shall be imposed for failing or refusing the test. The MVA acts as if the failure or refusal is sanctionable, and the MVA assesses points for convictions under the Assimilative Crimes Act that carry the state description and imposes suspensions for convictions as if the conviction was for the state law violation.

It is the attack on these objectionable practices that will be aided by the Sauls opinion. Sauls was arrested at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds and was advised, pursuant to the DR-15 Form, that his license would be suspended as provided in Transp. Art., § 16-205.1 if he failed or refused the test. He took the test and failed it, and argued that it should be excluded as having been coerced by misleading advice since Maryland implied consent law does not apply on the federal reservation. The Court agreed that the Maryland implied consent law did not apply, but held that the giving of the advice was harmless because on federal property, unlike within Maryland, there is no right of refusal.

In a footnote, the Court stated:

[T]he Court is aware that the State routinely suspends an individual's license or privilege to drive under Trans. II, § 16-205.1 for events occurring at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. The Court is of the opinion that there is substantial merit to the defendant's argument that Maryland does not have the authority to apply its suspension procedures for events occurring on property in which jurisdiction is exclusively federal, at least without legislative authority. The Court assumes that the validity of the State's action is an issue that ultimately will be decided administratively by the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration and/or by the Courts of the State of Maryland. The Court also notes that points are routinely assessed for traffic offenses occurring at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, charged under the Assimilative Crimes Act, by the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration under Maryland's point assessment statute, Trans. II, § 16-402. The validity of this action may also be questionable. On the other hand, the state legislature has authorized the Motor Vehicle Administration for the State to suspend an individual's driving privilege for either failing to appear or failing to pay a fine in connection with a traffic offense which is the subject of a proceeding before the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. See, Trans. II, § 26-206 and § 27-103.

Sauls, 981 F.Supp. at 914, n.2. These comments by the Court should prove helpful in future federal prosecutions or MVA hearings concerning a refusal obtained after advice of Maryland penalties for refusal, or in MVA hearings resulting from a conviction under the Assimilative Crimes Act.

In its other holdings, the Sauls opinion rejected the defendant's argument that the military breath test technician was required to follow the Toxicologist's Regulations as a prerequisite to test admissibility and rejected the government's argument that the statutory inferences of Cts. & Jud. Proc., § 10-307 should apply to any test result. Instead, the Court crafted its own inferences, which, after a lengthy review of reported decisions and scientific authority, it indicated could be judicial noticed by the trial court.

1. .10 or more--from this level alone it may be inferred that the defendant was both intoxicated and under the influence of alcohol. . . .

2. .08 and above but less than .10--from this level alone it may be inferred that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol, and the beyond a reasonable doubt standard is satisfied. . . .

3. .05 and above but less than .08--from this level alone it may not be inferred that the defendant was either intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol. . . .

4. More than .02 and above but less than .05--at this level it may be inferred that the defendant was unlikely intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol . . . .

5. Any measurable amount of alcohol concentration .02 or below--at this level it may be inferred that the defendant was not intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol . . . ordinarily, it would be appropriate to grant a judgment of acquittal on the intoxication charge at this level.

Sauls, 981 F.Supp. at 925.

In its final holding, the Court held that a test administered within three hours of apprehension should be admissible. Maryland's statutory limit of two hours, contained in Cts. & Jud. Proc. Art., § 10-303, being procedural, is not assimilated by 18 U.S.C. § 13.

Sauls' five holdings are by no means the last word on these issues: (1) that Maryland implied consent provisions are not assimilated under the Assimilative Crimes Act; (2) that the Maryland Post Mortem Examiner's Toxicologist's Regulations need not be followed by federal authorities; (3) that Maryland's statutory inferences are not assimilated under the Assimilative Crimes Act; (4) that federal courts can judicially create and notice their own inferences resulting from breath alcohol tests; and (5) that test results obtained within three hours of apprehension are admissible. However, Sauls fills some hitherto rather large gaps in federal drunk driving case law. Familiarity with Sauls is critical to representation of defendants charged with driving while intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol in federal court.

Notes

1. Ultimately, Sauls did receive a dismissal for unrelated reasons.

Copyright © 1999 - Leonard R. Stamm

Source: http://www.boston.com/

Retirement, declining health, loss of loved ones and isolation are some of the emotional strains that can lead to drinking among older Americans, who also face fewer of the constraints that limit drinking by younger people. Older people often have no job to lose, and a social life that often revolves around happy hour at the retirement community.

Stigma also is worse among older people, who grew up in a time where alcoholism was widely considered a sin, not a disease.

Despite the problems of late-onset drinking, there are only a handful of programs nationally that treat the elderly. The American Medical Association recently issured physician guidelines to help doctors spot the signs of alcoholism among older patients.

To begin with, how do law enforcers determine if drivers are driving over the legal limit here? How many cities and municipalities equip their traffic enforcers with breathalyzers, for instance?

In a country where the most popular Filipino athlete endorses its most popular beer, the drunk-driving offense of Mel Gibson seems less controversial than his vitriolic, anti-Semitic outburst at law-enforcement officials who accosted him.

But the United States government takes drunk driving very seriously. Gibson is, in fact, facing criminal charges for driving under the influence of alcohol and having an open container of liquor in his car.

Driving under the influence (DUI) or driving while intoxicated (DWI) is considered a crime in every state in the US. Just to clarify though, driving after consuming alcohol is not necessarily illegal unless the person’s ability to drive is impaired, as defined by law. Driving while having an open container of liquor inside the vehicle is, however, an outright violation in certain jurisdictions, obviously in Malibu, where Gibson was arrested.

Gibson was caught speeding, and so, regardless of whether there was an open container of liquor in his car or not, he had to be tested as mandated by US laws. In the US, if the police see you driving erratically or violating traffic laws, they can automatically submit you to various tests, which determine the amount of alcohol in your blood. A blood-alcohol test by means of a "breathalyzer" and/or urine sample is expressed in terms of milligrams of alcohol per milliliters of blood, or as a percentage. (10 mg/100 ml = 0.01 g/100 g = 0.01%). I think most, if not all, US states have an illegal limit of .08%. I believe Gibson was determined to have .12 percent of alcohol in his blood.

Here in the Philippines, there are also drunk-driving ordinances in most cities, with penalties that include fines, suspension of one’s driving license and jail terms. But, as we all know, enforcement is not as strict as it is in the US.

To begin with, how do law enforcers determine if drivers are driving over the legal limit here? How many cities and municipalities equip their traffic enforcers with breathalyzers, for instance? Are they capable of conducting blood tests to determine if the driver is over the statutory amount? Or do they just rely on smelling drivers, judging their conduct, language (slurred speech, e.g.) and motor movements to determine if they are indeed drunk?

Foreigners I have talked to often make comments that drunk-driving laws here are a joke. It’s also a culture thing, they say. Filipinos take pride in being able to hold their liquor. They say it seems to be a macho thing for most Filipino males to be able to drink and drive, mocking the popular admonition, "Don’t drink and drive."

Technically, there’s not even a national law against drunk driving. If I recall correctly, Senate President Manny Villar introduced a bill for the purpose when he was still chairman of the Senate finance committee. Under his bill, Villar proposed that persons found guilty for the first time of drunk driving must face a suspension of their driver’s license for one year and be made to pay a fine of P1,000. On the second offense, a fine of P5,000 and a five-year suspension of the driver’s license will be imposed. I don’t recall the bill having gone past the committee level though.

In Makati, Jejomar Binay wants to be stricter not only against drunk driving but also "drugged driving." Last year the Makati City Council passed an ordinance imposing a fine of P2,500 or imprisonment—or both—on persons who drive their vehicles while under the influence of drugs or liquor.

The city government acquired testing kits to be used in checking the blood-alcohol level of intoxicated or drugged drivers. Suspected drivers can also be taken to the Ospital ng Makati, which now conducts testing on a 24-hour basis. So Makati traffic officers don’t need to rely only on physical manifestations of being intoxicated or drugged, which might not be able to hold up in court when cases are filed against those caught red-handed. Just like in the US, the testing is mandatory if you are caught violating traffic or driving errantly.

In Makati, drivers who register a .13-percent blood alcohol level are considered unfit to drive and will be charged according to the drunk-driving ordinance. Interestingly, Gibson would not have been legally drunk in Makati. (Maybe, Filipinos really have a high tolerance for alcohol, otherwise how do you explain the more lenient standards for blood alcohol tests?)

Has the city ordinance encouraged more people in Makati to drink moderately and more responsibly? Obviously, it hasn’t put a stop to drunk driving altogether. That might be an impossible task. But even making a dent on the drunk-driving culture would take time, relentless enforcement coupled with a serious information drive.

Binay directed the Makati Police Department, the city’s Department of Public Safety and the barangays to strictly enforce the ordinance, particularly in the vicinity of Makati’s bars and entertainment establishments. Bar owners were asked to inform their clients about the ordinance against drunk driving, and its corresponding penalties.

Apparently, the advisories failed to reach former Pangasinan congressman Ranjit Shahani, who figured in a car accident in Makati last week. Ranjit was allegedly drunk when he rammed another car head-on. Worse, he could only present an expired student’s license (way back in 1992) to the responding officers.

This, along with many other similar incidents, only highlights the need for a strongly enforced drunk-driving law that would lead to fewer alcohol-related accidents and fatalities.

Source: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com