New DUI law lets arrestees drive

Amid the traditional holiday crackdown on drunken driving, Illinois will begin a major philosophical shift in how it punishes DUI – a shift that has the unusual support of both defense attorneys and anti-DUI activists. Instead, in keeping with a national trend, those arrested for DUI will be allowed to continue driving so long as they install special breath-measuring devices in their vehicles to ensure they haven’t been drinking. In the decades-long debate over proper punishment for DUI, the new law removes a type of punishment that has been a flashpoint in that debate. The suspensions – which start on the 46th day after a DUI arrest – are handled apart from a court process activists often have complained is laden with lenient plea deals. Defense attorneys have argued that the suspensions are counterproductive: People needed to drive to keep jobs and ferry kids, so many of those facing DUI charges drive illegally, without insurance or oversight. As the debate has simmered in Illinois, experts across the country and a popular anti-DUI group, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, have pushed for greater use of electronic devices that measure drivers’ breath for alcohol content – even to supersede any mandatory suspensions or revocations. With unanimous support from lawmakers, Illinois in 2016 will do away with the mandatory suspensions for most first-time and repeat offenders, although drivers still will have to apply for special permits and pay for the devices and monitoring, which typically cost more than $100 a month combined. Northfield lawyer Larry Davis, who pushed for the law on behalf of the Illinois State Bar Association, said he suspects some arrestees will still try to skip the process and drive illegally. He believes the vast majority of those arrested for DUI will be eager to have a cleaner path to resume driving legally. Many arrestees now will have less incentive to cut deals that require hefty fines to keep their licenses, when they can get the approval to drive while their cases are pending, Davis said.

Keywords: [“drive”,”DUI”,”Illinois”]
Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-dui-license-law-met-20151225-story.html

Knoxville TN DUI Lawyers

Hiring a Knoxville TN DUI Lawyer is one of the most important decisions you will make if you are arrested for a Tennessee DUI and should not be taken lightly. It is the philosophy of our Knoxville DUI Lawyers to vigorously protect the constitutional rights of Tennessee citizens. The mission of the Knoxville DUI Attorneys of the Oberman & Rice Law Firm is to zealously represent our DUI and criminal defense clients while maintaining the highest standards of professional responsibility and ethics. Of equal importance, our Knoxville DUI lawyers Steve Oberman, and Sara Compher-Rice as well as our staff strive to provide exceptional service to our clients and pride ourselves on prompt and thorough communication. Our Knoxville DUI Lawyers have received numerous honors from many legal organizations, recognizing their exceptional skills. If you are arrested for a Tennessee DUI, the immediate decisions you make about your DUI defense and your Knoxville, Tennessee lawyer will greatly affect the outcome of your case. DUIKnoxville.com provides a number of resources to assist you in making the best decisions when it comes to hiring a Knoxville DUI Attorney and defending your pending Tennessee DUI charge. Steve and Sara not only focus their practice on defending those charged with a Knoxville, TN DUI, but also frequently handle other criminal cases as well including traffic, alcohol, drug, or other driving-related offenses. Unlike Knoxville DUI attorneys and Tennessee DUI lawyers who use mass mailings to lists of people recently arrested we limit the number of cases we accept to ensure we devote the necessary time and effort to provide each of our clients the personal attention they deserve. The podcast features Knoxville DUI Lawyer Steve Oberman, former Dean of the National College for DUI Defense, Inc., as he expounds on all areas of DUI laws, including, but not limited to information about DUI arrests, the science surrounding DUI laws, and how to choose the best Tennessee DUI lawyer to handle your case.

Keywords: [“DUI”,”Tennessee”,”law”]
Source: http://www.duiknoxville.com

DUI Center

The following represent the 20 cases decided by the United States Supreme Court which, in Mr. Taylor’s opinion, have had the greatest impact on the practice of drunk driving defense. Mackey v. Montrym 443 U.S. 1, involving a license suspension for refusing to submit to a DUI breath test. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S. Constitution applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, thereby barring them from subjecting a citizen to repeated prosecutions for the same conduct. The Supreme Court held in a 9-0 opinion that this is a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. The Supreme Court held that it was a violation of the Constitutional prohibition against Double Jeopardy: The fact that one proceeding was criminal and the other civil did not matter, the Court said, as long as they both involved the same offense and both were intended as punishment. Although there have been federal court decisions taking this position, to date state courts have not accepted this reasoning and the U.S. Supreme Court has not addressed the issue in a drunk driving context. Presumptions pop up constantly in DUI cases today: defendants are presumed guilty if their blood-alcohol was over.08%; the blood-alcohol level at the time of testing is presumed to be the same at the time of driving if taken within three hours. Held: the judge abuses his discretion in permitting evidence of the prior conviction where the nature of the current criminal charge raises a risk of a verdict tainted by evidence of that conviction. The Supreme Court held that this constituted testimonial response to custodial interrogation and, since a Miranda warning had not been given, was inadmissible in trial. The court distinguished between questioning to determine the manner of speech and the content – that is, what was said rather than how it was said.

Keywords: [“Court”,”evidence”,”right”]
Source: https://caselaw.duicenter.com