Source: http://atlantageorgiaduilawyer.blogspot.com/2014/12/
Timestamp: 2017-12-11 12:59:42
Document Index: 638196780

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 40', '§ 40', '§ 1', '§ 40', '§ 40', '§ 40', '§ 40', '§ 40']

Georgia DUI Lawyer: December 2014
Posted by Bryan Howard at 3:15 PM No comments:
Paulding county criminal defense lawyer | Terry stop
§ 1:5. Driving under the influence—O.C.G.A. § 40-6-391(a)(1)—Misdemeanor—Statutory wording
O.C.G.A. § 40-6-391(a)(1) [the so-called “less safe” DUI] provides:
(1) Under the influence of alcohol to the extent that it is less safe for the person to drive[.]
In seeking to prove a “less safe” DUI, the State may or may not have a chemical sobriety test result to support this count. A conviction for this type of DUI offense can be based entirely upon circumstantial evidence about a “moving vehicle.” See Jenkins v. State, 223 Ga. App. 446, 478 S.E.2d 143 (1996), where defendant was passed out in another person's private driveway, behind the steering wheel of a parked car. Also see Hutto v. State, 259 Ga. App. 238, 576 S.E.2d 616 (2003), police officer noticed defendant sitting on a motorcycle parked at midnight close to the edge of the highway and approached the defendant because the officer believed this to be a “traffic hazard.” Conviction for DUI and operating an unregistered vehicle affirmed. Also see State v. Underwood, 257 Ga. App. 893, 572 S.E.2d 394 (2002) for a good description of what the word “stopped” means. In that case, the officer approached Underwood's already stopped car. Under this “first tier” of police citizen encounter, as set forth in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968), no articulable suspicion is needed to justify police inquiry. The court similarly held that evidence obtained after the police officer spoke with the defendant through an open window of defendant's truck was not the result of an unlawful search or seizure where the police officer merely approached defendant's stationary vehicle to find out what was going on. Because he was already parked outside an ex-girlfriend's house, the police encounter did not begin as a "second tier" Terrystop. There was no evidence that the officer was threatening or coercive or that defendant was "seized" by any show of authority or physical force.
Contact a paulding county criminal defense attorney today for help with your case.
Posted by Bryan Howard at 4:32 PM No comments:
Was the client who was charged with operating a motor vehicle actually in possession of the motor vehicle? | Paulding county DUI lawyer
§ 1:4. Definitions—“Driving” or “operating” a “motor vehicle”
The defendant must be driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle in order to support a charge of DUI; however, the defendant is not required to have actually committed any unsafe acts. Furthermore, the State is not required to prove that any person actually saw the defendant operate the motor vehicle if there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to support a conviction.
In Lewis v. State, 149 Ga. App. 181, 254 S.E.2d 142 (1979), the defendant was first observed in a ditch by a person who turned off the ignition and lights. A police officer later found him with the ignition and lights on, asleep or passed out. This was sufficient to constitute actual physical control. Accord, Phillips v. State, 185 Ga. App. 54, 363 S.E.2d 283 (1987) (asleep at wheel; lights on; engine running); Felchlin v. State, 159 Ga. App. 120, 282 S.E.2d 743 (1981) (the defendant's admission that he was going too fast to make curve was at least some evidence that he was driving vehicle which was found overturned); and Stephens v. State, 127 Ga. App. 416, 193 S.E.2d 870 (1972) (wreck where visible evidence showed that car left roadway; defendant was only person at the scene). The driver need not have steered the vehicle nor have the engine running. Savage v. State, 252 Ga. App. 251, 556 S.E.2d 176 (2001).
Even evidence that would normally be legally insufficient to support probable cause to arrest will suffice at the Georgia Court of Appeals. State v. Loy, 251 Ga. App. 721, 554 S.E.2d 800 (2001); Jenkins v. State, 223 Ga. App. 446, 478 S.E.2d 143 (1996). But see, D'Anna v. State, 201 Ga. App. 731, 412 S.E.2d 857 (1991) (because evidence of the defendant's driving the truck, was wholly circumstantial and defendant offered a reasonable hypothesis explaining his presence near the location of abandoned truck, improper admission of an in-custody inculpatory statement for the jury's consideration was probably contributing factor to the jury's guilty verdict, thus reversal of conviction was warranted).
Recent case law has opened the door for defense counsel to challenge (at a pre-trial motion hearing) the arresting officer's decision to make a custodial arrest for DUI. Hence, if you have the right set of facts and make an excellent record, you now have a better chance of winning the client's case on “insufficient evidence of impairment” grounds, relating to the arrest decision, than in a post-conviction appeal. See Ojemuyiwa v. State, 285 Ga. App. 617, 647 S.E.2d 598 (2007); Slayton v. State, 281 Ga. App. 650, 637 S.E.2d 67 (2006); Shaheed v. State, 270 Ga. App. 709, 607 S.E.2d 897 (2004); Allen v. State, 257 Ga. App. 246, 570 S.E.2d 683 (2002); State v. Batty, 259 Ga. App. 431, 577 S.E.2d 98 (2003); State v. Gray, 267 Ga. App. 753, 600 S.E.2d 626 (2004); State v. Ellison, 271 Ga. App. 898, 611 S.E.2d 129 (2005); State v. Bass, 273 Ga. App. 540, 615 S.E.2d 589 (2005); State v. Sanders, 274 Ga. App. 393, 617 S.E.2d 633 (2005).
It is important that you contact a Paulding County criminal defense lawyer who actually knows what he's doing. If you failed to contact a lawyer right away to help you with your case then you're only asking for trouble down the road.there maybe problems with the stop, which means the officer did not have reason to pull you over.paulding County criminal defense lawyer can obtain a copy of the video and watch the video to see if the stop was done correctly.you need to hire a lawyer who is familiar with the criminal justice system in Paulding County.
Contact a Paulding county dui attorney to handle your dui case today.
Posted by Bryan Howard at 6:29 AM No comments:
Under O.C.G.A. § 40-1-1(33), any wheeled vehicle propelled by gas, steam or electricity that can be operated through its own power will likely fit the definition of a motor vehicle under Georgia's DUI law. To this end, a tractor has been held to be covered [Browning v. State, 207 Ga. App. 547, 428 S.E.2d 441 (1993)]; a go-cart will likely qualify [1969 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 69-194]; golf carts driven on a municipal trail system are within the purview of statute governing driving under the influence [Simmons v. State, 281 Ga. App. 252, 635 S.E.2d 849 (2006)]; and a motor scooter [1954-56 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 471]. Implicitly, this does not refer to a self-propelled vehicle. In 2003, Georgia passed some new DUI statutes applicable to electric “people movers” such as the Segway™. infra, for information on operating these devices while impaired by drugs or alcohol.
The 2003 Legislature enacted new laws regarding impaired operation of e.p.a. (electronic personal assistive) devices. This would include novel people transport devices such as the Segway™, which can be used to transport a person along a sidewalk or street. These laws provide for misdemeanor punishment by fine only and not to exceed $500.00.
Ironically, it appears that Georgia law will allow a person who is 16 years old or more, with or without a driver's license, to operate a properly-equipped e.p.a. Even more bizarre, the unlicensed "operator" can be both suspended for a current DUI offense AND can be currently impaired by a drug or by alcohol, yet not face a DUI charge.
O.C.G.A. § 40-6-326 provides:
Any person who is under the influence of any intoxicating liquor or any drug to a degree which renders him or her a hazard shall not operate any electric personal assistive mobility device on any highway or sidewalk. Violation of this Code section shall be a misdemeanor, punishable upon conviction by a fine not to exceed $500.00. (Emphasis added.)
If a person operates one of these devices at any location other than a street or sidewalk, punishment calls for a civil penalty of up to $500. See O.C.G.A. § 40-6-327.
Under O.C.G.A. § 40-6-327, any violation of "offenses" other than operating an "e.p.a." while intoxicated as proscribed by § 40-6-326 will NOT result in a criminal conviction nor any driver's license suspension or points. The maximum "civil" penalty is a $500 maximum assessment.
Contact a Paulding County Criminal defense lawyer today if charged with a DUI.
Posted by Bryan Howard at 5:22 PM No comments:
Labels: criminal defense lawyer paulding county
Location: Mary Mac's Tea Room 224 Ponce De Leon Avenue Northeast, Atlanta