Source: https://kevinhaganlaw.com/blog_files/tag-dwi.php
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 22:50:05+00:00

Document:
Field sobriety tests are used by law enforcement officials, including highway patrolling state troopers and local municipality police departments, to establish if a driving motorist is under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Most typically, a field sobriety check is given during a traffic stop, although most departments have the option of additional tests at the police department. If you or a loved one have been subjected to a field sobriety test and are fighting a driving under the influence charge, call an experienced Rhode Island DUI attorney who can file help you fight your Rhode Island DUI charge.
What do I do if pulled over by police?
"Mo. court rejects warrantless DWI blood test"
Law enforcement officers must get a warrant before ordering a blood test on an unwilling drunken-driving suspect except during special circumstances when the delay could threaten a life or destroy potential evidence, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.
But the simple fact that alcohol in the blood begins dissipating when a person stops drinking does not qualify as such a circumstance, the high court decided in a case out of Cape Girardeau County.
Assistant prosecutor Jack Koester said he would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court because of a split in how states have interpreted the federal court's 1966 ruling in a case on warrantless blood tests. In Iowa and Utah, for example, the state supreme courts ruled that dissipation of alcohol in the blood doesn't qualify as a special circumstance, but the high courts in Wisconsin, Oregon and Minnesota all ruled that it does.
"It's a bit of a long shot, because there are a lot of petitions filed every year and the Supreme Court only takes a small percent," Koester said. "But hopefully the court will think it's a worthwhile case and will weigh in on the issue."
Siding with the defendant in a routine 2010 stop for suspected drunken driving, Missouri's high court ruled that the man was subjected to an unconstitutional search when a hospital employee drew his blood on orders from a Missouri State Highway Patrol trooper without a warrant. The man had refused a road-side breath test.
The Missouri justices wrote that there must be "exigent circumstances under which the time needed to obtain a warrant would endanger life, allow a suspect to escape or risk the destruction of evidence."
The court pointed to the same U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1966, in Schmerber v. California, which carved out "a very limited exception to the warrant requirement for a blood draw in alcohol-related cases." In that case, the blood test was delayed because the officer first had to investigate a serious accident involving a suspected drunken driver and get the injured defendant to a hospital. Stopping to get a warrant would have delayed the blood test even more.
But in the Missouri case, there was no accident, and the trooper who stopped the driver at 2:08 a.m. took him directly to a hospital, where blood was drawn at 2:33 a.m. That scenario means there were no special circumstances, the Missouri court wrote.
"Defendant's case is unquestionably a routine DWI case," the court wrote in upholding a trial judge's suppression of the blood-test evidence.
Cape Girardeau attorney Stephen C. Wilson, who represented defendant Tyler McNeely, said the county prosecutor there has created a system that makes it simple to get a judge's warrant for a search.
"We showed six cases in which they got a warrant in under two hours in the middle of the night," Wilson said.
"RI DUI - Selecting and preparing expert witnesses"
In order to be prepared adequately to cross-examine the prosecution experts, defense counsel should prepare for trial as in the defense of any other serious offense, limited only by the practical, economic limitations placed on him by his client. The selection of defense experts can be very critical because a well qualified expert who can make a favorable impression on the jury can make the difference between acquittal and conviction.
Defense counsel generally should match expert for expert with the prosecution by locating and preparing defense experts including breath test operators and supervisors, physicians, forensic chemists, toxicologists, and, when relevant, accident reconstruction engineers. Physicians, nurses, medical technicians, chemists and accident reconstruction engineers are relatively easy to find. A qualified expert on breath tests who is not already employed by or retained by the state, on the other hand, is much more difficult to find.
In a prosecution for gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs and causing injury, driving with a blood-alcohol level of 0.10 percent or greater and causing injury, and being under the influence of a controlled substance (cocaine), the trial court did not err in permitting the People's expert, the chief forensic toxicologist at a county crime laboratory, to testify regarding the combined effects of alcohol and cocaine. Given the paucity of studies on the subject, it was quite proper to allow the expert to draw an inference based on her extensive knowledge of physiology, pharmacology, depressants and stimulants and, specifically, alcohol and cocaine. Work in a particular field is not an absolute prerequisite to qualification as an expert in that field. With the understanding that the expert had neither been trained in nor conducted studies on the combined effects, and that her opinion was based upon inference, the jury could properly weigh her testimony that cocaine would not counteract the noxious effects of alcohol against defendant's contrary testimony. People v. Coyle (1994, 6th Dist) 22 Cal App 4th 1679, 28 Cal Rptr 2d 488, 94 CDOS 1628, 94 Daily Journal DAR 2821, review gr (Cal) 31 Cal Rptr 2d 125, 874 P2d 900, 94 CDOS 4054, 94 Daily Journal DAR 7523 and reprinted for tracking pending review (6th Dist) 28 Cal App 4th 66.
Opinion on field sobriety test false positives: Erroneous statistical data elicited by defendant from expert on field sobriety tests regarding alleged percentage of sober persons who fail field sobriety tests opened door for State on cross-examination to point out error that manual from which statistical evidence was drawn did not use terms "sober" or "intoxicated" but instead provided statistics for persons with blood alcohol content of .10 or more who failed tests. Schmidt v. State, 816 N.E.2d 925 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), transfer denied, 831 N.E.2d 743 (Ind. 2005).
In prosecution for DUI, third offense, trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant's motion for appointment and payment of expert witness to challenge reliability of Breathalyzer tests where issue of reasonableness of time between arrest and administering of test was particularly important in case, and thus defendant could not have safely proceeded to trial without appointment of expert to testify about reliability of tests following delay between time of arrest and administering of tests. People v. Jacobsen (1994) 205 Mich App 302, 517 NW2d 323.
Since the defense attorney cannot expect the state's chemist to bring out or embrace the literature that is unfavorable to breath tests, locating an expert breath-test witness for the defense can make the difference between "guilty" and "not guilty" verdicts in many cases. Ideally, such an expert holds advanced degrees in chemistry, has attended schools on the operation of breath-testing devices, is familiar with the literature on the subject, and personally participated in experiments. The best places to search for such an expert are in college chemistry departments, professional societies, and independent testing laboratories. However, in many areas it is impossible to find a breath test expert to testify for the defense because there are none. About the only way to cope with such a situation is to locate a qualified chemist and persuade him to study information on the breath-test device. If qualified by intense recent study of the literature and experience with the particular testing device, any chemist would be qualified concerning the accuracy of the test, and could give an opinion regarding the defendant's intoxication based on the blood-alcohol content shown by the police-administered test.
Although experts in DUI case can be expensive and labor intensive, they are generally worth the effort if feasible. Experts are seldom utilized unless serious bodily injury or death are present; however if possible, experts should be used more frequently.
"Field Sobriety Tests in Rhode Island - Proof of Intoxication"
Traditionally, the Rhode Island police departments have requested persons suspected of intoxication to perform certain physical tests, and inability to adequately perform was considered to corroborate their conclusion of intoxication based on objective signs. Perhaps the oldest and best known test for intoxication was the request to walk a straight line. However, while an intoxicated person will encounter difficulty in walking a straight line, there are also many sober people who cannot walk a straight line and, since the police usually do not know how the individual walks when completely sober, this test does not readily establish intoxication.
Alternatively, a suspect may be asked to put his finger to his nose, to balance on one foot, perhaps with the eyes closed, to balance on a narrow stool, to stand or walk heel to toe, to work mathematical problems, or to do any other task where the results are thought likely to corroborate police opinion of intoxication. However, the successful or unsuccessful accomplishment of any of the above tasks indicates little or nothing regarding intoxication in the light of individual performance differences and the effect of various medical conditions on performance.
The police have sometimes shone a light into the eyes of a suspect and testified that the manner of the contraction of the pupil indicated intoxication. However, medical authorities do not presently consider the manner of contraction of the pupil to have substantial relationship to intoxication, at least when the suspect's normal reaction is not known.
In a Rhode Island DWI or DUI charge, conviction of driving while intoxicated ordinarily results in a revocation or suspension of the driver's license and all motor vehicle registrations held by the defendant. This provision of the typical driving-while-intoxicated statute is probably the chief factor motivating defendants to plead not guilty. However, conviction for driving while intoxicated is not essential to the institution of proceedings revoking or suspending a driver's license; the same facts presented in the criminal trial resulting in acquittal of the charge of driving while intoxicated may be sufficient to support an administrative revocation or suspension of that person's driver's license. In some jurisdictions, a driver's license may be suspended or revoked when the licensing authority (DMV) has notice of the licensee's conviction outside the state for driving while intoxicated.
Depending on state law, the attorney may or may not be able to help his client retain his driver's license and vehicle registrations. In some states the trial judge decides the matter of revocation or suspension and, in this situation, the attorney may be able to minimize the penalty. In other states, the period of suspension is automatically set by law or the state highway patrol organization is given the right, within certain limits, to determine the length of the suspension. In many jurisdictions, such as Rhode Island, the revocation of a driver's license is mandatory on conviction for driving while intoxicated.
"Operation Elements of DUI Cases"
Rhode Island DUI, Rhode Island DWI, and RI Driving Under the Influence cases require that the prosecution prove that the suspect was actually operating the vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyers are accustomed to reviewing police reports and interviewing witnesses in an effort to determine if the “operation” element of a DUI case can be proven by the prosecutor.
5. That the test was administered in accordance with the test methods directed by the state agency that supervises intoxication test results.
"In a RI DUI case, the attorney of record should have an in depth knowledge of the constitutional requisites for the admissibility of evidence."
"A first offense of driving while intoxicated can carry more than the six months' jail penalty"
With respect to a Rhode Island DWI, Rhode Island DUI or Rhode Island Drunk Driving or Driving under the Influence case, a first offense of driving while intoxicated can carry more than the six months' jail penalty measure set by the United States Supreme Court in the Miranda case as the point from which it may be determined that "substantial" rights of a suspect are involved which would require the giving of constitutional warnings prior to interrogation. Consequently, the police ordinarily do give constitutional and statutory warnings regarding the rights of a suspect when they make an arrest for driving while intoxicated.
"In Rhode Island, Drunk Driving, DUI, DWI, Sobriety Checkpoints are unconstitutional."
"A majority of DUI and DWI arrests for driving while intoxicated are made without warrants and are based on personal observation of the suspect's conduct by the arresting officer."
With respect to a Rhode Island DUI, DWI, driving under the influence, or drunk driving prosecution, a majority of arrests for driving while intoxicated are made without warrants and are based on personal observation of the suspect's conduct by the arresting officer. This raises the constitutional issue, in nearly every case, of whether probable cause existed for the arrest. If probable cause to arrest did not exist when the police initially stopped the suspect, an illegal arrest was made and all evidence gained after the arrest would be inadmissible. While probable cause to arrest is rather apparent when a suspect was driving recklessly and a strong smell of alcohol on his breath was evident to the officer or the suspect got out of the automobile with a bottle of liquor in his hand, probable cause is not so apparent where an individual is stopped for a routine driver's license check or similar reason, and the officers smell alcoholic odors but do not detect further evidence of drunkenness. State courts divide on the question of probable cause to make an arrest under the latter fact situation. A Rhode Island criminal defense lawyer will generally analyze probable cause before they review other issues in the DUI or DWI case.
Currently, traffic safety proponents are urging that a police officer be authorized by statute to make a misdemeanor arrest for driving while intoxicated where the crime was not committed in his presence but where, after personal investigation, he finds reasonable grounds to believe that the person did commit the offense. These traffic safety people believe that such increased authority in the area of arrest would be helpful in the investigation of traffic accidents in which it is apparent that one driver was intoxicated but where the officer did not observe the accident.
"In a Rhode Island Drunk Driving, DWI, DUI prosecution, a criminal defense attorney should always attempt to prove the incompetent administration of field sobriety tests."
In a Rhode Island Drunk Driving, DWI, DUI prosecution, a criminal defense attorney should always attempt to prove the incompetent administration of field sobriety tests. Some of the following cases provide examples of this pursuit.
Results of field sobriety tests did not provide probable cause to arrest motorist for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), where city police officer administered the tests incompetently and in ways that could completely undermine their reliability; for example, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) required minimum of 32 seconds for horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test and minimum of 12 seconds for vertical gaze nystagmus (VGN) test, but officer performed the tests in 19 seconds and 3.5 seconds, respectively, and officer also did not comply with NHTSA standards for administering one-leg stand test and walk-and-turn test. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Strickland v. City of Dothan, AL, 399 F. Supp. 2d 1275 (M.D. Ala. 2005); West's Key Number Digest, Automobiles 349(6).
Administering a breathalyzer test and having a defendant perform the field sobriety test on videotape after a DUI arrest are nothing more than the collection and preservation of physical evidence, and they do not constitute a crucial confrontation requiring the presence of counsel. State v. Burns (1995, Fla App D5) 661 So 2d 842, 20 FLW D 1942.
Exclusion of the results of driver's blood alcohol test and DUI videotape on relevance grounds was reversible error, where driver who had been arrested on a DUI charge sued officer for false arrest, and after a jury verdict for officer, contended that the test results and the videotape made 2 hours after her arrest were relevant and should have been admitted. Tracton v. Miami Beach (Fla App, 1992) 616 So 2d 457, 18 FLW D 86.
Admission of videotape of defendant's arrest did not violate defendant's right to privacy in prosecution for driving under the influence (DUI), where videotape captured defendant's actions on a public street. State v. Ditton, 2006 MT 235, 333 Mont. 483, 144 P.3d 783 (2006); West's Key Number Digest, Automobiles 354(6).
"How recent interpretations of Confrontation Clause and hearsay rules will impact admissibility of Breathalyzer certificates in drunk driving, DUI, DWI, and Driving under the influence prosecutions…"
Phillip Lawton GRANT v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia.
Background: Defendant was convicted in the Circuit Court, Fairfax County, Bruce D. White, J., of driving while intoxicated. Defendant appealed.
(2) admission of certificate in violation of Confrontation Clause was not harmless error, and required reversal.
Present: FELTON, C.J., and FRANK and PETTY, JJ.
*716 Appellant, Phillip Lawton Grant, challenges his conviction for driving while intoxicated, in violation of Code § 18.2-266. Grant argues that his conviction should be reversed because the certificate of the results of a chemical analysis of his breath indicating his blood alcohol level was admitted into evidence in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him.FN1 **86 For the reasons explained below, we agree with Grant and reverse his conviction.
While both parties argued that the statutes governing the admissibility of the breath test certificate are Code §§ 19.2-187 and 19.2-187.1, the express statutory authority for the admission of a breath test certificate is set out in Code § 18.2-268.9.Code § 19.2-187 is limited to certificates of analysis prepared by the Division of Consolidated Laboratory Services, the Department of Forensic Science, and certain other enumerated laboratories. Further, Code § 19.2-187.1 only provides for a right by the defendant to examine persons performing analysis pursuant to Code § 19.2-187. It does not appear that the Fairfax County Adult Detention Center is one of the laboratories enumerated in Code § 19.2-187. However, whether the parties and the trial court relied upon the correct statutory scheme addressing the admissibility of the breath test certificate is not before us in this appeal. Therefore, we assume without deciding for the purposes of this opinion that Code § 19.2-187.1 is applicable to this case.
"In Rhode Island, DUI, DWI, Driving Under the Influence, and Drunk Driving cases seem to provide motorists with minimized constitutional protections under the law."
In Rhode Island, DUI, DWI, Driving Under the Influence, and Drunk Driving cases seem to provide motorists with minimized constitutional protections under the law. Most police agencies now take the position that the court-recognized status of a driver's license as a privilege, coupled with the statutory authorization for chemical intoxication tests in driving-while-intoxicated cases, amounts to a waiver of a suspect's constitutional rights against self-incrimination and the right to counsel prior to questioning and the giving of the test, unless otherwise provided by state law. Consequently, the normal order of police routine involves (1) a demand on the suspect to take the test, (2) extensive questioning, (3) performing the test, and finally, (4) an offer of an opportunity to the suspect to consult counsel.
In cases where the police should have recognized that the cause of the apparently intoxicated behavior was not alcohol, but was instead a medical condition from which the subject was suffering, a cause of action may exist against the police for failure to assure that the defendant was immediately delivered to a hospital for medical treatment. Of course, it becomes very important to provide alternate reasons for the suspect’s failure to properly perform standardized field sobriety tests.
"Pursuant to Rhode Island Drunk Driving, DWI and DUI procedures, a driver is entitled to refuse to take a chemical test upon the request of law enforcement."
Pursuant to Rhode Island Drunk Driving, DWI and DUI procedures, a driver is entitled to refuse to take a chemical test upon the request of law enforcement. Of course, this almost always gives rise to a “refusal” charge being levied against the suspect. In Rhode Island, a criminal defense attorney will often times utilize this refusal charge as leverage to obtain a dismissal in the criminal DUI matter. In light of the fact that a refusal charge is civil in nature as opposed to criminal, it is often a more favorable result to admit to the refusal charge in consideration of the criminal charge being dismissed. This practice has reached customary status among Judges and prosecutors across Rhode Island.
This blog entry also discusses the application of chemical tests to suspects that are unconscious or in such a medical state that the test is administered for purposes of medical treatment, rather than strictly for law enforcement purposes.
"Rhode Island DWI or DUI charge usually falls into one of two categories"
A Rhode Island DUI or DWI charge is defended against differently depending on whether a suspect agreed to take the chemical test or whether they refused. Once a suspect has agreed to take the test, and performs above the requisite blood alcohol level for intoxication, a criminal defense attorney must focus on attacking the admissibility of the subject test.
"In Rhode Island, the prosecution can prove the elements of a DWI or DUI charge without the admissibility of a chemical test"

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 18
 § 18
 § 19
 § 19
 § 19
 § 19
 § 19