DUI Process Blog

With drugs, alcohol, and drunk driving being a major component of most movies, television shows, current video games, and pop songs (even politics and the local news), it’s no surprise that we have put such effort into anti drunk driving programs. Teens and adolescents are bombarded with images of their personal idols as drug addicts, drug dealers, alcoholics, and reckless drivers each and every day. Efforts towards anti drunk driving education have been varied and diverse since its start. Some groups think that simple facts and figures are the best approach to deterring teens from reckless lifestyles with alcohol and driving, while others think that scare tactics and disturbing dramatizations are the best route. Interestingly, the scare tactic route seems to have become more popular in the past two decades or so. But, are scare tactics and further fictionalization of perils of drunk driving really the best approach to take with teens who already watch life like depictions of death and destruction wrought by driving drunk? 

The Every 15 Minute Program

First established in 1995, Every 15 Minutes is a two day program aimed to educate high school juniors and seniors about the effects and consequences of drinking and driving. The first day of the Every 15 Minutes presentation involves students being removed from classes every 15 minutes throughout the entire day. These students are then dressed as the “living dead” to represent the statistic that “a person is killed every 15 minutes in an alcohol related car accident.” Throughout the remainder of the first day, students are shown a realistic looking car crash scene and a dramatization of a student being arrested for drunk driving. This scene is used as a way to scare students into fearing the consequences of drunk driving. The second day of the program involves a school wide assembly with members of the community discussing the issue of drunk driving. 

While this program is a wholehearted and elaborate effort to deter teens from driving drunk, it seems that maybe it is somewhat outdated for the social atmosphere that our students are living in today. Teens are shown gruesome images and depictions of drunk driving very often throughout the media. By creating just one more fictional example of drunk driving, I worry that teens will further dissociate drunk driving from reality. This is not to say that the central goal behind Every 15 Minutes isn’t worthwhile or commendable. Rather, I feel that Every 15 Minutes could reconsider their presentation. 

A Different Option

While I don’t have any immediate program remedies, eliminating the dramatization of fictional devastation and death could really benefit students considering or surrounded by the possibility of driving drunk. Why not try honest and straightforward discussion with students and teens about drunk driving, its consequences, anti drunk driving programs, its depiction in the media, and more? Seek to provide a listening ear for teen’s concerns and frustrations about underage drinking and drunk driving. Educate teens about the effects of alcohol and how alcohol can impair their ability to drive. Most importantly, provide teens with safer options if the situation were to occur, so that they don’t feel they have to drive in unsafe circumstances. There is no doubt that drunk driving and underage drinking are serious problems that need to be addressed within our society and schools. Let’s find way to discuss the devastation and destruction drunk driving causes without further removing it from our teenager’s concept of reality.

Author Bio:

This guest post is contributed by Patricia Garza, who writes about gadget, technology, design, social media, e-learning related articles at online university rankings.

San Diego DUI lawyers have competing obligations to their clients and to the courts that must be carefully balanced in order to provide effective representation while remaining within the confines of their professional obligations. An attorney’s fiduciary duty to a client recognizes that the attorney must protect the client’s confidences and advocate on behalf of the client at every peril to himself.  The attorney’s duty of candor in a DUI case recognizes that the attorney has an obligation to be honest with the courts.  The same situation could be argued with a San Diego personal injury attorney.

So what happens when being honest with the court is adverse to the interests of the client charged with a San Diego DUI? This can create a real dilemma for the attorney.  The word “dilemma” is derived from the Greek prefix “di,” meaning two, and the suffix “lemma,” which can be loosely translated to mean an assumption or premise. The word dilemma was first used in the context of logic, showing that an argument must be flawed because it would lead to two false or inconsistent conclusions.  Similarly, a choice between violating the duty of candor to the court or the duty of loyalty to the DUI client presents a choice between two unfavorable options.

The best response to a dilemma is usually to reconcile what at first blush appear to be inconsistent alternatives.  The California Rules of Professional Conduct provide an example that is quite instructive in this regard.  The duty of candor to the court would appear to prohibit a San Diego DUI defense attorney from allowing a client to testify falsely.  A defendant, however, has a Fifth Amendment right to testify in his or her defense.  So what is an attorney to do when the client’s exercise of his Fifth Amendment right is inconsistent with the attorney’s duty to be honest with the court?  The rules of Professional Conduct provide that the attorney can allow the client to testify on his own behalf without specifically asking questions to the client.  Thereby, the attorney is not committing a fraud on the court because he is not facilitating a client’s perjured testimony by asking the questions, yet the attorney is not restricting the client’s ability to exercise his Fifth Amendment right because the client is able to testify. A personal injury lawyer in San Diego can face similar circumstances in injury cases.

We all know that California law prohibits driving under the influence.  What we don’t all realize is that California’s DUI laws are actually implemented differently in different parts of the state.  What’s more interesting is that these laws are even punished differently in different parts of the same county.  This is why having an experienced local California DUI defense attorney is critical to your defense.

Because different judges impose different DUI penalties, only a local California DUI defense attorney is in a position to really be able to negotiate the best deal on your behalf.  A DUI attorney from San Francisco, for example, is not going to be readily familiar with the protocols and procedures to which a Los Angeles DUI judge adheres.  While it’s true that he/she should be competent to fight your case during a trial, the fact of the matter is that most DUI cases resolve with a DUI plea bargain…and DUI plea bargains are particular to specific regions and specific judges.

Each courthouse…and for that matter, each courtroom…operates a bit differently depending on the political beliefs of the judge.  What one judge finds acceptable as a DUI plea bargain may be flatly rejected by another.  Having a savvy attorney who knows exactly what he/she can get away with in any given courtroom is a gift…a gift that is sure to yield you the most favorable outcome to your DUI case.

For the most part, California DUI penalties are pretty straight forward. A conviction generally subjects an offender to probation, fines, possible incarceration (mandatory incarceration for a second or subsequent offense), DUI school and a driver’s license suspension. However, there are certain “aggravating” factors that could result in an enhanced sentence…that is, a sentence that is more onerous than one that would be imposed in connection with a “typical” DUI.

Some of the most common aggravating factors include (but are by no means limited to):

• driving while under the influence and causing injury to another person,
• driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.15% or greater,
• refusing to submit to a chemical blood or breath test,
• driving with a child in the car,
• drinking while driving or driving with an open container of alcohol in the car,
• reckless driving, and
• driving at excessive speeds.

Should you find yourself being charged with any of these aggravating factors, it is even more critical that you immediately consult with a skilled California DUI defense attorney. Attorneys who are not well-versed in this technical and complex area of the law will surely do their clients a disservice, as they are not familiar with the most effective arguments to persuade prosecutors, judges and juries to strike or reject these types of allegations so that their clients don’t serve unnecessarily enhanced sentences.

“I was walking my bicycle across my front yard to put it up on the porch when I was stopped by the police” Jeff Brown from Columbus, Ohio recounts. During the stop, the officer told him that he smelled alcohol on his breath, and said “that’s an OVI” (operating a vehicle while intoxicated). He was shocked when he heard this. The officer proceeded to arrest Brown and tried to make him take a breathalyzer test. Jeff refused, was convicted, served four days in jail, and had his driver’s license suspended for 6 months. The worst of all these consequences is that Jeff now has a criminal record.

Drunk driving is bad. There is no doubt about that. It is potentially dangerous to innocent life. That is why there was a fair law created that protected people’s rights and safety that said “no drinking and driving”. So why do today’s laws punish individuals who are walking bicycles, operating wheel chairs, riding horses, and using golf carts?

Most states’ laws, at one time, reflected clear specifications indicating three things: under the influence, driving, and vehicle. Those laws have changed over the years to cast a larger net and to convict those not proven to be under the influence, not driving motor vehicles, and not driving at all. These drunk driving convictions include people caught merely sleeping, and, in some instances, not even in their cars but near them.

Legislators and Judges have received considerable amount of pressure from MADD(Mothers Against Drunk Driving) and much of the public that want to be “tough on crime” without justification. Data collected and analyzed by MADD and the Government do not support that these types of cases are a threat to society. In fact, Lawrence Taylor, one of the most respected DUI lawyers in the country, argues that MADD maliciously manipulates statistics to show drunk drivers are more dangerous than they really are.

When we see dui laws being made irrationally and out of fear with no real supporting facts, then it has gone too far. Democracy can be a beautiful thing, but not when the democratic change stems from those who are “true believers” and who ignore the facts and the truth.

Written by Jeffery Mattus who writes on dui law and policy. He is also a co-founder of a Baltimore dui lawyer directory and information site.