BECKWITH DUI LAW

By Lauren Williams, legal blogger for The Law Office of Randolph H. Wolf

Recent high profile DUI cases in Washington State have led lawmakers to propose some of the harshest and unprecedented DUI penalties in the country. Governor Jay Inslee and a group of legislators from both parties have proposed a plan that would result in charges being filed more quickly and jail sentences being lengthened.

One aspect of the plan even seeks to prevent offenders from buying alcohol. The governor touted the law as “the most aggressive, the most effective, the most ambitious” change to state DUI laws ever. The cost to tax payers was not provided, but the governor said that the cost would not be insignificant.

The governor’s plan would require that those arrested for DUI be charged within two days (instead of weeks or months, which is common practice in some jurisdictions). The plan would also require people charged with drunk driving to have an ignition interlock device installed on their vehicle before it could be returned, a restriction that seems to disregard the notion of “innocent until proven guilty.”

Proposed Penalties for people with Multiple DUI Convictions

The law would also require a six-month minimum jail sentence for a second DUI conviction and a one-year minimum sentence for a third DUI conviction. Currently, the mandatory minimum sentence for second and third time DUI convictions ranges from 30 to 90 days in jail. Additionally, alcohol detection devices that are worn on the ankle could be required for second time DUI offenders. The cost of the devices is estimated at $13-$18 per day and would be paid for by the offender.

The most restrictive law would be the 10 year prohibition on alcohol purchases for third time offenders. The alcohol prohibition would be enforced by creating a special driver’s license and requiring businesses that sell alcohol to check the identification of all purchasers, regardless of age. This would be the first law of its kind in the entire country.

By Lauren Wiliams, staff writer at Michael J. Brennan’s Law Blog.

Target Zero is Washington State’s highway safety plan that calls for reducing highway deaths to zero by the year 2030. Since 2010, more than 35 police agencies have launched Target Zero teams in King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties.

Teams include state troopers, county sheriff’s deputies, city officers, and tribal police officers. Target Zero teams focus on the violations of driving while impaired (DUI), speeding, and failure to wear a seat belt.

Officers have also been assigned enforcement zones to patrol. For example, in Pierce County, officers have focused a great deal of their attention on 6^th Street in Tacoma and Main Street in Puyallup (the location of several bars and night clubs). In King County, the focus is in the neighborhoods of Queen Anne, Capitol Hill, Belltown, and some parts of Burien, Renton, and Redmond.

Officers who are part of the Target Zero team have been directed to initiate at least three stops per hour. This means that officers are on the lookout for minor violations to ensure that their quota is met. Common reasons for stopping a vehicle include:

• Defective license plate lamp
• Lack of mud flaps
• No third brake light
• Touching the skip line

Once an officer has stopped a vehicle, it gives them free range to investigate the driver for DUI. The pressure of meeting a quota can result in stops where probable cause was not established.

At Beckwith DUI Law, we frequently come across cases where the constitutional rights of our clients has been violated by law enforcement. It is your right to speak to an attorney during any type of criminal investigation and it is also your right to not respond to the questions that the police ask.

North Carolina HB 494: Expanded Authorization for Continuous Alcohol Monitoring (CAM) Devices

By Maggie Marquez Jaynes, Esq

Continuous alcohol monitoring, which requires the abstinence from alcohol consumption for a period of time as a term of pretrial release or probation, has been highly controversial and cost prohibitive since its approval in 2007. A continuous alcohol monitoring (CAM) device is much like an ankle bracelet worn for house arrest or used for GPS tracking that monitors a person’s sweat for the presence of alcohol and transmits that result to the provider of the device. However, unlike the device worn for house arrest or used for GPS tracking, CAM costs far exceed the one time $90 fee for the house arrest/GPS tracking devices – installation fee of $75 plus daily costs of $12 for each day of monitoring, which are passed on to the receipt of the CAM device.

Recently, CAM authorization is increasing regardless of the prohibitive costs. In 2011, Laura’s Law was passed, creating a new Aggravated Level One punishment for DWI convictions requiring as a condition of probation abstinence from alcohol for a minimum of 120 days and verified by a CAM device. This Act authorized judges to: 1) impose CAM as a pretrial release condition for defendants charged with DWI and 2) require CAM for up to the full term of probation for Level One or Two DWI convictions.

In 2012, HB 494 expanded authorization for CAM in pretrial releases to include any criminal offense committed on or after December 1, 2012 and required positive screenings to be reported to the district attorney. Similarly, this act broadens the authorization for alcohol abstinence and CAM device use as a condition of community or intermediate punishment or as a special condition of probation in criminal cases generally “when alcohol dependency or chronic abuse has been identified by a substance abuse assessment”. N.C.Gen.Stat. 15A-1343 (a1)(4a) and (b1)(2c). Additionally, CAM has been authorized in Driving While License Revoked (DWLR) convictions where the license was originally revoked due to impaired driving revocation.

Regardless of the cost, the authorization of CAM as a term of pretrial release or condition of probation has expanded. The costs of CAM are no longer capped at $1,000 yet judges are authorized to consider the defendant’s ability to pay however not in the case of Aggravated Level One DWIs. Notably, the act provides that “the court must not impose CAM if it finds good cause that the defendant should not be required to pay of the costs of CAM”. N.C.Gen.Stat. 20-179(k4). Whether this imposition by the legislature renders the use of continuous alcohol monitoring devices moot is yet to be seen.

Attorney Maggie Marquez Jaynes is an associate with King Law Offices, PLLC, in Shelby, North Carolina.