Waco Criminal Law Blog : Waco Criminal Lawyer & Attorney : Walter Reaves Law Firm : DWI, DUI, Drug Crimes, Appeals : Waco, McLennan County, Texas

McLennan County has hopped onto the bandwagon, and will have "no refusal weekend" over memorial day. That means if you are arrested for DWI you won't have the refuse to provide a breath or blood sample. If you do they will get a search warrant and obtain a blood sample. There are so many things wrong with this that I don't even know where to start.

As you would expect, this is being touted as a way to keep drunk drivers off the road. I realize that politicians and law enforcement have a problem with logic, but this goes to the extreme. How does this prevent DWI? You have already arrested the person; they are already off the street. Maybe the argument is that it will deter people from driving while drunk; if so, where is the evidence of that? Other counties have implement this policy - have they seen a drop in DWI arrests? I seriously doubt it. Most people don't rational decisions, especially after they have been drinking. Do you really think someeone is going to not drink, or not drive, because they don't want to give a blood sample? Most people don't think they are going to caught in the first place.

There is another flaw in this argument. and that is that people get off DWI charges because they refuse the tests. That is true in some cases, but who's to say those people wouldn't pass a blood test. The reality is that most people arrested for DWI end up getting a conviction. Maybe this will increase the odds, but probably not by much. The bigger question is whether it is worth it.

I also wonder about what happens while officers are getting warrants, and taking defendants to have their blood drawn? They certainly aren't on the streets. Maybe your chances aren't as great of getting caught, because the officer won't be on the street? If you are going to abandon logic, you can just as easily this will increase the number of drunk drivers on the road.

The biggest problem I have with this is what it says about our criminal justice system. We give all citizens certain rights. Is that a burden to law enforcement - sure it is. It would  be a lot easier to arrest someone, and force them to give a confession - by force if necessary. Our country was founded because we wanted to get away from that. Is forcing you to provide a blood sample that much different. Rights are eroded a little at a time - is this the first step.

The legislature has said you consent to giving a sample if you drive, and if you don't you are penalized. We are now saying that you don't have the right to refuse. I have a problem with that. People always complain about judges making the law; isn't that what they are doing here? If the legislature wants to change the law, they are free to do so - after debate, and subject to getting voted out of office of course. We shouldn't be circumventing the process though, and going through the back door.

No one should drive while you are intoxicated; unfortunately, some do. However, there must be limits to solving crime; I would suggest the limit is when the government has to violate your body. Are the streets really going to be safer this weekend? I seriously doubt.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Texas legislature is in session, which generally means an attack on DWI laws. Every session a number of bills are introduced - most of them bad. Fortunately, few ever make it through the process though.

Texas is one of the few states without legislation authorizing roadblocks. That may change - the Senate yesterday passed a bill that would authorize roadblocks in very limited situations. If you are going to have roadblocks, this bill seems like it contains the appropriate limits. For one, it only applies to the 15 most populous counties, which leaves out many cities - like Waco. It also has a number of restrictions. Checkpoints are limited to 4 hours in lenght, and their existence (although not their location) must be publicized. There are also restrictions on where they can be set up. If you are going to have roadblocks, this appears to be as good as a bill as you are going to get; at least from the standpoint of protecting the ordinary citizen.

Another bill moving along is less circumspect. That bill would authorizie the collection of a breath or blood sample, even where the suspect refuses. Bassically, you can be forced to give evidence against yourself. If this bill passes, I wonder why you would even ask anymore. If you do ask, do you have to tell the person that you are going to get a sample even if they refuse?

With all the economic problems we have, you would think there would be better things to spend time on. This session appears to be no different than most though; crime is still a popular topic. Everyone likes to talk about how tough on crime they are. I'm not sure that is as important to voters as it is politicians, but the perception remains. If nothing else, you don't have to address the really important issues.

I'm sure there will be other changes discussed before the session is over. Stay tuned.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Bell County is hopping on the DWI bandwagon for New Years. According to a press release, if you are suspected of driving while intoxicated and refuse a breath test, they are going to obtain a warrant for your blood. Unfortunately, this is not something they just came up with on their own; many other jurisdictions have already implemented this policy. It may not be publicly announced, but it is becoming more common that a refusal to take the breath test is not going to be accepted.

This is being justified as tactic to get drunk drivers of the streets. If you think about that for even a few seconds, it is clear that is not the reason for doing this. It is nothing more than a tactic to obtain more convictions. The driver is already off the street; he has been arrested, and taken to jail. He/she is also off the streets, because their license is taken, and will be suspended for at least 180 days. The only reason to forcibly draw blood is to get more evidence for a conviction. They already have at least probable cause, or they wouldn't have arrested the person.

There's another problem I see with this proposal, which is how many drunk drivers get away while the police officer is taking someone to the hospital to have their blood drawn. They are off the streets for a longer period of time, during which time there are probably people driving under the influence.

I certainly don't advocate driving while intoxicated. Personally, I don't think you have any business driving after you have had anything to drink, even if you aren't legally intoxicated. I don't drink, so it's not something I'm worried about. But I am worried about forcing people to provide evidence to possibly convict them.

The legislature knew people would be hesitant to submit to breath tests, and tried to provide an incentive to take one; your license won't be suspended for as long. They also recognized that in some cases, such as accidents, blood tests should be mandated. They have never approved blood tests in all cases though - if so, the warnings need to be rewritten - do you want to give a breath test or blood or test - you are getting one of them.

I wonder if the new policy is going to include the warning that they are not going to take no for an answer. It doesn't seem fair to me to let someone refuse a test, make them take a blood test, and then suspend the license for the refusal. Even if the blood test was negative, your license could still be suspended for refusing the breath test. At least you should know what is going to happen if you refuse.

Please drink responsibly - not only during the new year celebrations, but all year. But be aware that if you are arrest, you may not really have the right to refuse to be tested.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Almost everywhere except Texas the offense of driving while intoxicated is referred to as DUI. If you don't believe me, do a search for DWI attorney and then search for DUI attorney and see how many more hits you get.

If a potential client has done some research before coming in, they often ask what's the difference between DUI and DWI. It's a good question because Texas does have an offense of DUI, or driving while under the influence. That offense applies only to minors, and prevents minors from driving whenever they have had anything to drink, even if they are not under the influence. An adult can be "under the influence" and as long as they are not intoxicated, no crime has been committed.

Some people think DUI applies to someone who is under the influence of drugs, but that is not the case. The DWI statute defines intoxication as "the loss of the normal use of a person's mental or physical faculties" by reason of the introduction of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of the two.

Although the laws in most states are fairly similar, there are important distinctions. While the offense of DUI in one state may be the same as DWI in Texas, there may be important differences, especially in terms of penalties. While its helpful to be educated, there is no substitute for a consulting with a lawyer experienced in handling DWI cases in Texas.

This post published by a Waco DUI lawyer

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

The Texas Department of Public Safety has suspended the certification of an independent contractor who improperlly certified breath test results. Not surprisingly, this has generated a number of comments. Grits contains stories from both the Dallas Morning News and Houston Chronicle. Another blog list the agencies that are effected. Unfortunately, this is one more example of an expert who was too lazy to do the work. Fortunately they were caught, but this points out again the problems with blindly accepting expert opinions. It also points the need to scrutinize experts more carefully, and ensure they are qualified, and doing the work they claim they are doing.

This big question is what is going to happen to those cases where this expert testified. For defendants who plead guilty the answer is "it depends". In a writ of habeas corpus you have to establish harm. In this case, the harm would in the failure to actually certify the machine. In a guilty plea, By pleading guilty, you did not challenge the breath test, and therefore you are probably going to have to establish the machine's reading was not accurate. That is impossible to do, since sample are not maintained, and there would be nothing to re-test.

Another way to evaluate guilty plea cases though is whether you would have plead guilty if you knew the machines had not been probably certified. The answer is probably no, since the breath test results would not be admissible. Of course, if the evidence was overwhelming, the answer is probably different. To prevail on this claim, you would have to establish a duty on the State to disclose the evidence. They are charged with knowledge of whatever law enforcement knows, so even if the prosecutor didn't know about the problem, that is not a valid excuse. Generally though you have to make a request for the evidence,  which is usually a Request of Favorable or Exculpatory Evidence. If no request was made, you may not be able to establish the claim.

For defendants who went to trial, they will probably be able to obtain relief. The machines have to be certified if the test results are going to be admissible, and therefore the expert would have committed perjury in testifying that the machine was properly certified.

For any claim, you are going to have to able to establish the machine in your case was not properly certified.  How difficult that is going to be remains to be seen. Hopefully DPS will identify those cases involving improper certifications and notify the defendants and their lawyer.

The effects of this are not going to be fully known. If you think your case may be one effected you should check it out.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Since I started blogging, I've come across many things I might never have known about - at least not until later. One of the best blogs is Grits for Breakfast, written by Scott Henson. He recently posted on an effort by the Texas Attorney General to re-instate TDPS roadblocks.  In 1994 the Courts held roadblocks were illegal, unless they were conducted pursuant to statewide standards. The court was obviously concerned over the intrusive nature of roadblocks, and wanted to make sure they were conducted only when necessary, and not merely as another tool of law enforcement (i.e. to catch DWI offenders). Since then, there have been no statewide standards, although there are plans to pass legislation in the upcoming session to authorize roadblocks.

In an effort to shortcut the legislative process, the attorney general is proposing to implement guidelines through the Texas Department of Public Safety. The plan is to establish guidelines that would authorize roadblocks by not just TDPS, but also by local police departments. The proposal is currently open for comments, and hopefully they will get a lot.

We have all set through traffic accidents, and know how frustrating that is. We know its unavoidable though, and live with it. How would you like to have to deal that on Friday and Saturday nights, when you are trying to get somewhere. Roadblocks have their place, but they should only be used in those rare occasions when its absolutely necessary. Let's hope common sense prevails, even though we are dealing with politicians.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks