Articles Tagged with DUI defense lawyer

Authorities made a South Florida arrest for DUI and child endangerment in Boynton Beach after allegedly discovering a woman drunk behind the wheel of a car in a parking lot with four children jumping in and out of the sunroof.winebottle

According to The Sun Sentinel, the engine of the vehicle was running. It was about 7:30 p.m. and the vehicle was parked in a Publix grocery store parking lot. In the front passenger seat, police say, was a half-empty jug of sangria. The 34-year-old woman in the driver’s seat allegedly had a blood-alcohol concentration of .358, which is more than four times the legal amount of 0.08. This was after she agreed to undergo a blood alcohol test.

Police reported they were called to the parking lot after several witnesses said they had tried to chase the young children out of harm’s way, as they were running around the parking lot and were almost struck by vehicles entering and leaving. One witness called dispatchers and said they had seen the driver drinking in the car from a large jug of wine.  Continue reading

The former director of the Florida State Parks was recently arrested for DUI with property damage and hit-and-run, according to the Tallahassee Democrat, which explained the arrest occurred after defendant was stopped by troopers with the Florida Highway Patrol.drink and drive

According to reports, the former official, who also previously worked for the state Department of Environmental Protection, had left the scene of a crash after briefly speaking to the other driver. Troopers were called to the scene by that other driver around 7 p.m. on a Saturday. The driver reported he was traveling south when a Mercedes Benz, later identified by police as being driven by the former official, traveling in the same direction veered into his lane and struck his driver’s side mirror in passing.

The defendant reportedly pulled over, talked to the other driver for a minute, then rolled up her window and abruptly drove away. Dispatchers then started receiving other calls about a vehicle matching that description in the same area running other motorists off the road Continue reading

Makers of a device called the “Breathometer” promised that their product could help drinkers determine when they’d had too much to drive. driver

The product concept was first pitched on the television show, “Shark Tank,” and it involved an app-supported smartphone device that would help consumers make smarter decisions about whether to refrain from driving after consuming alcohol. By breathing into the app device attached to their phone, users would be able to tell whether they were over the legal limit of 0.08 alcohol concentration.

However, the Federal Trade Commission recently slammed the company, ultimately negotiating a settlement, amid charges the device didn’t actually work as promised. Specifically where the FTC was concerned, the company lacked the scientific evidence to support the claims made in advertising.  Continue reading

A South Florida woman was facing 20 years in prison for DUI manslaughter in case that stemmed from the deaths of two pedestrians. In fact, sentencing guidelines called for her to spend at least that long. Instead, as part of a plea deal, prosecutors agreed not to challenger her defense attorney’s request to ask the judge to go below those guidelines. Still, prosecutors asked for 10 years, while defense attorney asked for four. Instead, the judge handed down a five-year prison term.sad

According to the Sun Sentinel, Alyza Russell, then just 23, was reportedly driving her mother’s brand new Porsche in downtown Fort Lauderdale when she lost control of the car and careened through a cluster of bushes and into a parking lot – killing two men who were standing in the parking lot, talking with a group of friends. At the scene, Russell reportedly began screaming, “What have I done?!” Authorities say her blood-alcohol level at the time was more than twice the legal limit of 0.08.

Russell has reportedly since her arrest gone on to graduate from Florida International University with a degree in international relations. Now 25, she made the dean’s list and landed a job as a research associate at a firm in Miami. She also completed several online courses offered by Harvard, Princeton, Yale and MIT and recently applied to graduate school. Although these facts to not automatically make her case go away, they are likely part of what the courts refer to as “mitigating circumstances.”  Continue reading

People get coughs and colds all the time, and most don’t think twice about taking some medicine and getting behind the wheel. Unfortunately, this can result in serious consequences if you are pulled over or involved in an accident and deemed to be “under the influence” of these substances. medicine

F.S. 316.193 prohibits motorists in Florida from “driving under the influence.” Most people define that by the second provision of the statute, which indicates that a person may be considered impaired if his/ her breath-alcohol level exceeds 0.08 or more grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath (or 0.08 or more grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood). However, the first part of that law says that one can be arrested on this charge if they are under the influence of any chemical substance that results in impairing a person’s normal faculties. This can, indeed, include cough and cold medicine. The penalties can be just as severe as if you chose to drink and drive.

As an example, take the recent case of Kranchick v. State, which was one such matter out of South Carolina. The facts giving rise to this case began in January 2002. It was about 3 p.m. and defendant lost control of her passenger vehicle while traveling eastbound on the interstate. According to court records, she swerved off the road, overcorrected and then slammed into the rear of a bobtail truck. That impact sent the truck spinning into the median, over the guardrail cables and into the path of a tractor trailer. The tractor trailer struck the smaller truck, causing the later to overturn onto its roof, killing the driver and severely and permanently injuring his passenger and the driver of the tractor-trailer. Continue reading

Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal recently denied Wellington polo magnate John Goodman’s motion for a rehearing in his DUI manslaughter case. However, the court did submit several questions “of great importance” to the Florida Supreme Court. drivein

In Goodman v. Florida, Goodman asked the court to rehear his evidence regarding the testing of his blood following a fatal accident in 2010 that killed 23-year-old recent college graduate Scott Patrick Wilson. Goodman allegedly was drunk at the time of the collision and reportedly left the scene of the crash without calling emergency services. Wilson’s vehicle was later found overturned in a canal, where he drowned.

Goodman had been convicted two years later of DUI manslaughter and failure to remain at the scene of the crash. However, that conviction was later tossed due to juror misconduct and the case retried. Goodman testified he wasn’t drunk, and insists his vehicle malfunctioned and that was the cause of the crash. This was despite the fact that his blood-alcohol level was reportedly more than twice the legal limit some three hours after the crash, according to the testing that was done on his blood. He was ultimately convicted again, sentenced to 16 years in prison and fined $10,000.  Continue reading

The U.S. Supreme Court handed down an important Fourth Amendment decision recently in the case of Birchfield v. North Dakota, which dealt with warrantless breathalyzer tests and blood tests, ultimately invalidating implied consent laws that pertain to warrantless blood draws. alcohol

Essentially, the court decided that while the government cannot require a person to submit to a blood draw without first obtaining a warrant, the government can require a person arrested for drunken driving to submit to a warrantless breath test.

The case was the result of consolidated appeals from three separate drunk driving arrests in which the defendants were prosecuted – or threatened with prosecution – for refusing to take a blood or breath test.  Continue reading