Problems With Ignition Interlock Devices

Many states require a person convicted of DUI to install an ignition interlock device on their car. The ignition interlock device functions much like a breathalyzer machine as it detects whether or not the driver of a vehicle has consumed alcohol. In most cases, the ignition interlock device will prevent the driver from starting the vehicle if it measures a BAC in excess of .02. Much like breathalyzer machines used in DUI cases, however, the ignition interlock device is problematic. According to a study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, most of these devices tests fail to produce accurate readings, particularly at “low” (.05 BAC) and “moderate” (.08 BAC) levels. See Workshop on In-Vehicle Alcohol Test Devices, NHTSA DOT HS-807-145 (Sept. 1986).

In addition, an ignition interlock device can produce false-positive results just like the conventional breathalyzer machine. The most common cause of such false-positives appears to be the existence of “mouth alcohol” — alcohol that is present in a person’s mouth and has not yet had time to dissipate completely into the blood. Aside from traditional alcoholic beverages, mouth alcohol is often present in high quanities after a person ingests mouthwash, cough syrup, breath spray, or even salad dressing, all of which contain sizeable amounts of alcohol.

There have also been numerous reports of false-positive results after a driver fills up at a gas station because the gasoline fumes register much the same way traditional alcohol does.

DUI checkpoints

In 1990, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Michigan v. Sitz that the infringement of Fourth Amendment rights caused by DUI checkpoints is overshadowed by the potential public benefit of getting dangerous, impaired drivers off the road. The court added that DUI checkpoints must follow certain guidelines to be legal:

•Decisions must be made by supervisors, not arresting officers
•Vehicles must be stopped only according to a predetermined formula
•Public and officer safety are most important
•Locations must be selected by policymakers, based on drunk driving statistics
•Duration must be limited by concerns of effectiveness and intrusiveness
•Clearly visible warning lights and signs must be displayed telling drivers
•Drivers must be detained for the minimum amount of time possible
•Advance publication of the place and time is required to increase its deterrent effect and minimize intrusiveness

Even after the United States Supreme Court ruled that DUI checkpoints do not violate the Fourth Amendment, protecting against unduly burdensome and intrusive search and seizure, 12 states continue to prohibit DUI checkpoints. The states are Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. These states prohibit DUI checkpoints for one of the following reasons: (i) DUI checkpoints are illegal under state law; (ii) law enforcment officers have not been granted authority to administer DUI checkpoints; or (iii) DUI checkpoints have been held to violate the state constitution.

Garner DUI Lawyer comments on probable cause

This Garner DUI lawyer would like to comment on a legal issue litigation that is often overlooked — did the police have the right to pull a motorist (who may or may not have been drinking) over in the first place? Now, first and foremost, the law on whether or not the police have the right to pull a motorist over is entirely separate from whether or not they have the right to make an arrest. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, law enforcement officers must have “reasonable suspicion” that a motorist may be breaking a law before a traffic stop can even be made.

Now usually the courts generally give very wide latitude to the police to make traffic stops. Generally speaking, any observation such as the driver was driving too slowly, weaving, changing lanes without signaling, or any symptom indicative of driving under the influence of alcohol will probably justify the stop in the court’s eyes.

On the other hand, however, a Garner DUI lawyer can often get a case dismissed by the courts if it can be shown that there was no probable cause to make the traffic stop or because the officer’s reason for making the stop was pretextual or untrue. For instance, if it can be shown that a police officer was merely waiting outside a bar at closing time to stop motorists as they proceeded to drive home — the courts will likely find that no probable cause existed. Likewise, the courts are likely to be very suspect of the legality of the traffic stop if a motorist is stopped merely because he is driving through a high-crime neighborhood late at night — even if the police officer reports that he made the stop for some very petty law infraction, such as a missing license plate light, etc.

And what happens if the courts find that a police officer had no probable cause to pull over a motorist in the first place? Any evidence gathered by the police after the traffic stop cannot be used at trial. Put another way – case dismissed.

Garner DUI Lawyer

If you or a friend or relative has been arrested in the Triangle area of North Carolina, consider contacting a Garner DUI lawyer.

Cary DUI lawyer comments on constitutionality of checkpoints

This Cary DUI lawyer previously commented on proposed prohibition of DUI checkpoints and technology devices to detect DUI checkpoints. Today I (Cary DUI lawyer) would like to say a few words on the constitutionality of such DUI checkpoints. If you have ever been stopped at a sobriety checkpoint in the Raleigh area, you may have wondered whether law enforcement officers can legally make such a stop — doesn’t the Constitution require the police to have some sort of reason for stopping you in the first place?

The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourth Amendment to mean that the police cannot pull over a motorist without “reasonable suspicion” that a crime may have been or is being committed (it can be as trivial as a broken headlight, of course). The constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints were first considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Michigan v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990). In that case, the Court determined sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional, reasoning that such a “…minimal intrusion on individual liberties (having to stop at a a sobriety checkpoints) was outweighed by the damage to person and property caused by drunk drivers each year on America’s roadways.” The U.S. Supreme Court noted in Michigan v. Sitz, however that (i) officers administering the sobriety checkpoint only made very brief verbal conversations with motorists to determine whether or not they might be intoxicated; and the average delay to each motorist was only about 25 seconds.

Cary DUI Lawyer

Based on these guidelines, many area sobriety checkpoints may very well violate the standards articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Michigan v. Sitz. For example, if an officer administering the sobriety checkpoint asks to see a motorist’s license, registration, and proof of insurance — such an intrusion might very well exceed the “minimal intrusion” allowed by the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition, any considerable delay experienced by motorists at a sobriety checkpoint may also be problematic.

And what happens if a sobriety checkpoint is found to be unconstitutional under any of these principles? Yep, any evidence gathered after making the traffic stop is excluded in evidence. Put another way: case dismissed.

Contact A Cary DUI Lawyer

If you or a friend or loved one has been arrested for DUI, contact a Cary DUI Lawyer right away.

Cary DUI lawyer comments on DUI arrest rates

This Cary DUI lawyer has previously posted about the high rate of DUI arrests in North Carolina and the increase of DUI arrest among women.  Now, I would like to say a few words on the discrepency of arrest rates among law enforcement officers. Presumably, every officer faced with the same facts and circumstances would make a similar decision on whether or not to place an individual suspected of DUI under arrest. A recent study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, however, found that this presumption was far from the truth.

Factors For DUI Arrests in Raleigh/Cary,Apex & Garner

First, the officer’s age and experience play a significant role in his alcohol-related arrest decisions. Younger officers and those with few years of seniority on the police force, tend to have a more positive attitude toward enforcement of DUI laws — and tend to make more arrests than older officers.

The officer’s personal use of alcohol also plays a significant role in his alcohol-related arrest decisions. Officers who drink alcohol themselves make significantly fewer arrests than those who do not, and those that drink frequently make less arrests than those who drink only occasionally.

Not surprisingly, the time of day can have a significant affect on whether or not an officer will make a DUI arrest. As you get closer to the end of a police shift, the number of DUI arrests decreases dramatically. This is particularly prevalent in departments that have time-consuming procedures for processing DUI cases, and in most departments in the Raleigh,Cary,Apex,Garner, area.

Another factor is the condition of the weather — but not how you might initially think. Arrest rates actually increase if driving conditions are hazardous (again, this statistic is once the stop has already been made — traffic stops, of course, tend to decrease during inclimate weather).

Do other factors such as the suspect’s age, race, etc. play any role in an officer’s decision to arrest a DUI suspect? Absolutely. More on that in the future.

Contact A Cary DUI lawyer

Cary DUI lawyer,

 

 

1 2 3 4 5 ... 11 12