A repeat offender with breath test of .08-.14 who has a prior .08-.14 in the last 5 years is now interlock eligible without a Hearing. That is because the offender is no longer eligible for a restricted driver’s license. That does not mean that the ALJs are going to interpret this as meaning that they should automatically grant a restricted license to everyone whose prior offense is more than 5 years ago. Quite the contrary, they are more likely to require an Interlock. For the most part, I have client’s like this voluntarily install the Interlock so that they have a track record of success when we appear for the Hearing.
Posts Tagged ‘Driving while Suspended or Revoked’
Interlock update
Thursday, November 17th, 20112nd State Trooper whose videos do not match his reports
Thursday, November 17th, 2011Yesterday I was in court where the tape and printed word did not match. But for the fact my client did poorly on 1 of the SFSTS, it would have been a trial. The tape supported a plea to the lesser offense as there was a medical issue surrounding the breath test. A second lawyer had a tape from the same trooper. His client looked like an Olympic gymnast on the tape so his case was dismissed. How can these guys be stupid and arrogant to do this. A different trooper expressed his outrage to me about this behavior. He said troopers like this ruin peoples lives, when they have done nothing wrong. My guess is they are using previously prepared reports and revising the observations. My client spoke so clearly, it was a joke, yet he was deemed to have “slurred speech.” The video and the report will be kept for the next time, as I might as well start a new collection. Innocent people and honest police are the victims of this kind of bogus behavior.
“Not one of my better Field Sobriety Days”
Monday, June 6th, 2011Thus spoke the police officer at an MVA Hearing last week. I will have the tape of this admission for the jury trial in Baltimore City. He condensed the HGN exam, because he sometimes does that. He admitted he was not supposed to. Wrong instructions on the Walk and Turn. The best explanation was for the 1 leg stand where he pointed his toe skyward (instead of parallel to the ground), but said to hold it straight out. My client watched him and held his foot the same way- the WRONG WAY. He claimed he had to demonstrate it incorrectly because he was so close to my client that it was for officer safety because he could have been attacked. This was after he searched him, and had 2 other officers standing there watching, and who could have provided “officer safety.” My client is 1/2 of his size. He also screwed up the breath test procedure. I LOST the MVA Hearing because the ALJ said none of it mattered, even though the breath test results were compromised. However, these matter in Court. I was going to hire an SFSTs’ expert for trial, but with the officer’s “confession” there is no need to waste the client’s limited resources. My client’s driver was in the hallway, and when the officer left the hearing room, he and the breath technician were talking about that F…ing, etc…. I was glad to hear that they appreciated my legal work. The breath technician and his involvement in a previous dismissed case is a story for another day.
Blasi case and odor of alcohol and SFSTs Instructions
Friday, February 18th, 2011Pay attention to the testimony!!!! A police officer yesterday may have confused himself when he recited the order in which he confronted my client and asked her to perform the Field Tests. He testified that he the car was lawfully parked and after he detected an odor of alcohol, he ordered her out to do the tests. Once outside the vehicle he detected the clues that would have warranted asking her to take the Field Tests. The odor of alcohol is not enough or every person leaving a bar would be walking the imaginary line. The judge had no choice but to suppress everything. I am a note taker- always have been. It allows me to argue that I wrote it down in this order and it makes it easy for the judge to review his notes or if no notes, agree that the officer testified in that order. AND NO CROSS-EXAMINATION!!!! Don’t lose a case because you are just dying to ask questions.
Had I lost the Motion the Judge was prepared to grant the Motion for Judgment of Acquittal because the police officer never testified about the instructions he gave my client on each Field Test. He knew what the instructions were supposed to be but he could not take judicial notice that the police officer gave them. The Sate suggested I could have asked, I don’t bake their pie. The client did residential treatment and some Aftercare, so her family and I hope this is the only time she has to visit with me.
SEARCH AND SEIZURE UPDATE ARIZONA V. GANT ( http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-542.ZS.html )
Monday, June 1st, 2009I was asked in 2004 by a judge to participate in his trial advocacy course at a local law school. I suggested that he use the Thornton v. United States ( http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5165.ZS.html ) case as his teaching example because Justice Scalia’s concurring opinion was going to become the new standard when the issue was next presented to the Supreme Court. In April, the Supreme Court did exactly that in the Gant case. Quite simply, if you are arrested to driving while suspended, cuffed, and placed in the rear of a police car, there is no reason to search you car. You no longer present a threat to the police and there is no evidence of that crime to be discovered in the car. The logic of this is quite simple, but the jails are full of people who had drugs or other contraband recovered in their cars as a result of these “Search Incident” searches. Although the logic is simple, the end result is not. Will police now “routinely” do an Inventory Search because they have decided to have the vehicle towed rather than leave it parked on the shoulder of a highway or parked on the street. There will now need to be an exhaustive cross-examination of the officer about his practices prior to Gant. A subpoena for previous police reports in these types of traffic offenses may be the most effective method of revealing what was the officer’s pre Gant practice regarding towing. Baltimore County police officer routinely tow vehicles in DUI cases. The Maryland State Police will leave the vehicle on the shoulder of the interstate if it is not impeding traffic. The Maryland State Police have jurisdiction throughout Anne Arundel County, Baltimore County, Carroll County, Cecil County, Harford County and Howard County. They do not operate in Baltimore City. The Maryland Transportation Police also operate not only on the toll roads, but parts of the interstate.