One of the main tools that the government has in proving that an accused is guilty of DUI are Field Sobriety Tests. vehicular homicide The Standardized Field Sobriety Test given by law enforcement officers in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are typically an accumulation of three main tests, which are performed by drivers during a traffic stop to determine whether or not they are impaired. These three tests typically include the walk-and-turn, the horizontal gaze nystagmus, and the one leg stand. As a result of these tests, police can and will determine whether or not they possess probable cause to arrest a driver on suspicion of driving under the influence. The HGN test is given by an officer who slowly holds a moving object, such as a pen or small flashlight. Three indicators of this test are looked at by the officer and these determine impairment. These indicators include: if the eye cannot properly follow a moving object, if jerking of the eyeball is distinct, and if the angle of jerking occurs before the 45-degree angle.
One of the main days that the police charge people for the crime of DUI in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is Labor Day. Defending DUI The reason for this is the state police and other law enforcement agencies frequently establish DUI check points established for the sole purpose of arresting people for Driving Under the Influence. There are several legal rules that exist when it comes to DUI checkpoints. Specifically, the police are required to publish the dates and locations of DUI checkpoints. If the police do not do this, then the evidence obtained by the police from a defendant may be suppressed or kept out of court. Second, the police may stop an individual who sees the DUI check point and then changes the direction of his vehicle so that he can avoid the check point. Finally, at a DUI checkpoint, the police may only ask a driver to submit to sobriety tests if the possess reasonable suspicion that the drive was driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics. Make sure to contact the DUI lawyers of Kelly & Conte if you were stopped and charged with DUI at a check point.
One question that comes up in DUI cases is what defenses do I have when I have been charged with Driving Under the Influence? The defenses that an individual has in a DUI case very much depends upon the specific circumstances of the crime. aggravated assault while DUI The first question to assess is why did the police stop the defendant's vehicle? Typically, the police stop a motor vehicle in a DUI case for a traffic violation such as running a red light, or a stop sign or even speeding. However, defendant's also may be stopped for having a tail light out or not signaling when they are changing lanes. In these circumstances, the police do not have to prove that the defendant knew that he was speeding or had a tail light out at the time he was driving. The only thing that matters is that the police officer had probable cause to believe that the defendant was committing a traffic violation.
A major issue in DUI cases occurs when criminal defendants are refusing to submit to a chemical test in a DUI case. DUI rehab When talking about a chemical test, it is a common test to give after someone is arrested for the suspicion of DUI to see if there was any alcohol or drugs in a person's system. This could either be done threw a blood or breathalyzer test. When engaging in a blood test you are read your rights, which include; implied consent law, no right to attorney, and if you refuse the blood test your license will be suspended for at least 12 months, and 18 months if you have a prior DUI or refusal. Breathalyzer tests are given after the person has been arrested and transported to the police station. A certified operator must conduct these tests, the machine has to be properly calibrated, and machine is works correctly prior to blowing into the machine for the results of the breathalyzer to be admissible. A breathalyzer test should not be confused with the preliminary breath test (PBT), which is given before you are arrested to detect evidence of intoxication.
One issue that arises for defendants who are charged with a DUI is should I go to rehab? Specifically, is it in my legal interest to enter rehab if I have been charged with a DUI? drugged driving This blog will address that very question, however it is important to note that we are only accessing the legal benefits of rehab, not the obvious personal benefits which can come from attending a rehab facility. Rehab can be a life changing event physically, mentally and spiritually. It is highly recommended that any individual that believes that they might have a problem with either alcohol or drugs should attend rehab. An issue that Pennsylvania courts have been struggling with is when should a defendant get credit for prison time when he is not in prison. The statute dealing with this question (section 9760) states that a defendant should be given credit for time spent in custody prior to sentencing for a particular offense. The issue that arises in courts is can a defendant be in custody even if he is not in prison? Courts have interpreted the word 'custody, to mean time spent in an institutional setting such as an inpatient or rehabilitation treatment facility.
One defense used in DUI cases is that the police did not have or had a lack of probable cause to arrest the defendant for DUI. DUI marijuana In order for the police to charge or arrest a defendant with the crime of DUI, they must have probable cause to believe that the Defendant committed a DUI. This typically happens under the following scenario. The police officer is on routine patrol and he sees the defendant driving a motor vehicle on a roadway. He then sees the defendant commit a driving infraction. AT this point in time the officer has probable cause to stop the defendant for a vehicle violation. The officer then meets the defendant. The defendant has blood shot eyes, alcohol on his breath and admits to drinking two beers. At this point the officer now has reasonable suspicion that the defendant is driving drunk and can ask him to submit to field sobriety tests. The officer then gives the defendant field sobriety tests and the defendant fails. At this point the officer clearly has probable cause to arrest the defendant for DUI and to ask him to submit to a blood test.
Facing a DUI in Chester County, Pennsylvania can be a very scary proposition. This is in particularly true if it is not your first DUI. The applicable punishment for DUI's in not only very serious in Chester county, but they are also very serious throughout the state of Pennsylvania. DUI homicide These punishments are determined by minimum mandatories. And these Minimum mandatories are the reason that the Intermediate Punishment Program in Chester County is so highly sought after by many criminal defendants. Minimum mandatories are required punishments that have been mandated by the Pennsylvania legislature and governor. They require that a criminal defendant serve a mandated period of time in prison as a result of being convicted of a DUI. The minimum mandatory penalties for the DUI are based on the number offense that an individual has been convicted of in 10 years and the amount of alcohol or narcotics in the defendant's blood at the time of driving.
One question that comes up with great frequency regarding the charge of DUI in Pennsylvania is do I have a right to an attorney? Generally speaking the right to an attorney frequently comes up and is brought up the police when they read an accused his or her Miranda rights. DUI refusal to submit to testing The Miranda rights advise an accused that he or she has a right to an attorney before deciding whether or not to answer questions that the police have. The police are only required to advise an accused of his Miranda rights when the criminal defendant has been taken into custody. Under Pennsylvania law, custody means that an accused has either been arrested or placed into handcuffs. Accordingly, the police are not required to advise a criminal defendant of his or her Miranda rights until the defendant has been arrested. What is the penalty to the police if the police do not read or advise someone of his Miranda rights? The penalty or remedy is that any statements that a criminal defendant made to the police (when the officer was asking questions to the accused) are not permitted to be heard by the judge or jury
One of the big questions that arises in DUI cases is assessing whether or not the accused refused to consent to the testing of his blood or breath after he was arrested for DUI. defending DUI cases The law regarding this issue of whether or not a criminal defendant refused to consent to the testing of his blood is governed by the Implied Consent Law. The Implied Consent Law requires and calls for the suspension of an accused's driver's license for a one year period if the Department of Transportation can prove that the defendant refused to submit to chemical testing. In order for a police officer to be authorized to request that a driver consent to chemical testing the officer must have reasonable grounds to believe that the motorist was operating a motor vehicle and was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. If the Officer has that believe, then he is required to read the Implied Consent Warnings to the Defendant. Those warnings essentially inform a person that they have been arrested under suspicion of DUI and can either consent to a chemical testing of their blood or breath or they may refuse and suffer a one year license suspension.
The general rule in DUI cases, is that the level of alcohol or other substances in an individual accused of DUI's blood is inadmissible in court if it is not drawn within 2 hours of the Defendant's driving his motor vehicle. Specifically under Title 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(c), DUI marijuana A criminal defendant may not drive, operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle after imbibing a sufficient amount of alcohol such that the alcohol concentration in the individual's blood or breath is 0.16% or higher within two hours after the individual has driven. Accordingly, under this statute, the government generally is required to prove that they took a defendant's blood within 2 hours of his driving or operating a motor vehicle.