Marijuana DUI Law Update Castillo Law
NC DPS: Driving While Impaired
There are five levels of misdemeanor Driving While Intoxicated. Level I and II drivers are repeat offenders, persons whose license are revoked, impaired drivers, impaired drivers who are transporting young children and impaired drivers who hurt someone in a crash. Impaired drivers must complete a substance abuse assessment and comply with any recommended treatment as a condition for having their drivers license restored at the end of the revocation period. The Governor’s DWI Initiative takes away from repeat DWI offenders the means to drive while impaired; namely, their cars. Under the new provision, a law enforcement officer can seize a driver’s car if the officer charges that person with DWI and that person was driving while his or her license was revoked due to a previous impaired driving offense.
If a court convicts the driver of DWI and of committing the offense while driving with a revoked license due to a previous impaired driving offense, the judge will order the vehicle forfeited. If an underage drinking driver refuses to take such a test, he or she now need only have the smell of alcohol on the breath to be convicted of driving after drinking. Offenders will have their licenses revoked for one year but can get limited driving privileges instated by a judge if the driver was at least 18 years old at the time of the offense and did not have a prior conviction. The Initiative also recognized North Carolina’s inability to prosecute and convict someone for driving while impaired by something other than alcohol. A limited driving privilege may be granted by the judge, but only if the driver did not hurt anyone, did not have a child under sixteen years of age in the car at the time of the drunk driving, and the driver obtains a substance abuse assessment.
The North Carolina State Highway Patrol arrested nearly 40,000 people for driving while impaired in 1998 and more than 43,000 the year before that. In North Carolina, it is illegal to drive a vehicle while noticeably impaired or with an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher.
Amendment to Kentucky DUI law divides prosecutors, defense attorneys
A Fayette district judge’s ruling on a 2016 amendment to the drunken-driving law has prosecutors and defense attorneys battling in court. District Judge Julie Muth Goodman issued an order Sept. 1 that the 10-year enhancement may not be retroactively applied to convictions that occurred before the amendment was signed into law on April 9. If a person is charged with a DUI after April 9, and he or she has two convictions within 10 years, that person will be charged with a third-offense DUI and face greater penalties. All either had pleaded guilty or had been convicted of a DUI when the enhancement had a five-year statute of limitations. Under the old law, Johnson’s second DUI arrest in June would have been treated as a first offense, with a penalty of four to 30 days in jail, a fine of $200 to $500, and a license suspension of 30 to 120 days.
Hayne said multiple courts have ruled that application of the DUI look-back window to previous convictions is constitutional. Hayne cited a July 19 ruling by Circuit Judge Kimberly Bunnell denying a defense motion to amend a fourth-offense DUI from a felony to a misdemeanor. The Kentucky Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court have held that the DUI enhancement is constitutional. Fayette District Judge Joseph Bouvier cited the state Supreme Court ruling in his Aug. 15 decision to deny a motion challenging DUI defendant Ronald Lee Bledsoe’s enhanced status.
Warren Circuit Judge John R. Grise wrote that plea agreements are binding contracts between prosecutors and defense lawyers. The prosecution sought to amend the charge to a third-offense DUI in light of the new amendment. At some point, various cases across the state challenging the amendment might be consolidated and go before the Kentucky Court of Appeals and/or the Kentucky Supreme Court, said Lee Turpin, first assistant in the Fayette County Attorney’s Office.
What Does the Prosecution Have to Prove in a DUI Case?
If you’re arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, you’ll typically need to decide whether to enter into a plea bargain with the prosecution or take your case to trial. The Elements of a DUI. All crimes are broken up into elements-the parts of the crime that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury or judge can find you guilty at trial. In some states, the prosecution must additionally prove that the defendant was on a public roadway while driving or operating a vehicle under the influence. While most DUIs involve driving, you can get a DUI in most states without actually moving your vehicle.
In a handful of other states, including California, you generally can’t be convicted of a DUI unless the prosecution proves that you were actually driving your vehicle. If Jane is in California, she’s probably not guilty of DUI because she’s hasn’t driven her car. Oftentimes, the prosecution will file two DUI charges against a defendant for the same incident-a per se DUI charge and a second charge based on impairment-with the hope that one or the other will stick. If the prosecution has a chemical test showing your BAC was over the legal limit, proving a per se DUI might be more straightforward than proving impairment. The DUI laws of many states prohibit driving under the influence only on highways and roads that are open to the public.
In these states, you generally can’t be convicted of a DUI for driving on your own private property, even if you do so while extremely intoxicated. There are also many states where the DUI laws don’t require proof that you were driving on a road that was accessible to the public-driving while intoxicated anywhere in the state is enough for a DUI conviction. A DUI defense attorney in your area can talk to you about the laws specific to your state and help you decide how best to proceed with your case.