My client REFUSED the BREATH TEST, but performed the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs), which he was unaware he could refuse.

The officer reported that my client had a strong odor of alcohol coming from his breath and admitted to consuming 5 beers, two Jager Bombs and Benadryl that evening. The officer said my client displayed all 6 of the possible clues of intoxication on the HGN (eye jerking) test. The officer said that my client lost balance during the instructions, turned improperly, failed to touch heel to toe and stepped off line during the Walk & Turn test. The officer further stated that my client exhibited 2 of the 4 clues on the One Leg Stand test.

We took the case to court and let the State Prosecutors know that we were going to fight. Eventually the prosecutor agreed to DISMISS THE DWI, and my client pled to a non-DWI charge. My client received deferred adjudication on the new charge, meaning that hw will excape being convicted of anything. My client will now be able to have any mention of the original DWI arrest permanently erased from his record, and we will be able to have the non-DWI charge sealed.

In December 2006, Gregg County commissioners approved a grant to participate in the statewide “Drink, Drive, Go To Jail” campaign with the funding being provided by the Texas Department of Transportation.

This grant provides resources necessary to conduct DWI enforcement throughout the holiday periods to increase the arrests of folks that drink and drive.

Captain Ken Hartley with the Gregg County Sheriff’s Department says; “We’d just like to remind people to drive responsibly. Don’t drink and drive. Enforcement will be out there and it’s not worth that chance and certainly not taking a chance of hurting yourself or others.”

Well, here lies the rub….it is not against the law to drink and then drive as long as two things are true: 1) you are at least 21 years of age, and 2) you are not intoxicated. I believe that the Sheriff is setting up a great argument for the fact that people are going to be arrested that don’t meet the above criteria. The police and prosecutors always want to lower the standard, but it just isn’t the law. Another example of their attempt to shift the standard is the “Buzzed driving is Drunk Driving” billboards. Neither Buzzed driving, nor Drunk Driving is the standard…..Intoxication is. I certainly hope a defense attorney in Gregg County is paying attention to this and is willing to use this to show the juries there that THIS Sheriff’s deputies have the potential for making wrongful arrests.

While we all know the Austin Police practice a “Drink, Drive, Go to Jail” policy, the administration has been smart enough not to voice it publicly.

Increasing the minimum jail time keeps few drunken drivers off the road and doesn’t significantly prevent fatal car crashes, according to the study, published in the journal Accident Analysis & Prevention.

The researchers examined the changes in DWI laws and policies between 1976 and 2002. They also studied the rates of DWI arrests and fatal alcohol-related car crashes.

Alexander C. Wagenaar cq , lead author of the study and epidemiology professor in the UF College of Medicine, said researchers wanted to find out if stricter regulations deterred people from drinking and driving and if the number of accidents would drop in the population as a whole.

“We found out that’s not the case,” he said.

James C. Fell, director of traffic safety and enforcement programs for the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation in Maryland, said on average, statistics show that a person drives under the influence 50 to 200 times before he or she is caught or gets into a crash.

I have said over and over and over, we must move our resources into education, rather than punishment. Until the powers that be, the Legislature, figures this out, they will continue to increase punishments to no avail. I was once told that the two areas that Legislators love to go home and tout, is tax cuts and being tough on crime. Unfortunately, I guess that still holds true today.

My client knew her rights and REFUSED THE BREATH TEST AND THE STANDARDIZED FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS (SFSTS).

The officer reported that my client emitted a strong odor of alcohol from her breath, had bloodshot, glassy eyes and confused speech. Due to her total refusal, the officer had to arrest my client based solely on this information.

We took the case to court and let the State know that we were going to fight. Eventually the prosecutor agreed to DISMISS THE DWI and my client pled to a minor traffic ticket for having no headlight.

My client provided a BREATH SAMPLE. My client also performed the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs). He said he didn’t know he could refuse them.

The officer reported that my client emitted a strong odor of alcohol from his breath, had bloodshot, glassy eyes and slurred speech. The officer reported that my client displayed all 6 of the possible clues of intoxication on the HGN (eye jerking) test. The officer stated that my client lost his balance during the instructions and failed to touch heel to toe during the Walk & Turn test. The officer then reported that my client performed the One Leg Stand test as instructed. In light of all these fact, the officer decided to arrest my client for DWI.

We took the case to court and let the State know that we were going to fight. Eventually the prosecutor agreed to DISMISS THE DWI and my client pleaded to a minor traffic ticket.

My client provided a BREATH SAMPLE. My client also performed the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs). He said he didn’t know he could refuse them.

The officer reported that my client emitted a strong odor of alcohol from his breath, had bloodshot, glassy eyes and slurred speech. The officer reported that my client displayed all 6 of the possible clues of intoxication on the HGN (eye jerking) test. The officer stated that my client lost his balance during the instructions and failed to touch heel to toe during the Walk & Turn test. The officer then reported that my client performed the One Leg Stand test as instructed. In light of all these fact, the officer decided to arrest my client for DWI.

We took the case to court and let the State know that we were going to fight. Eventually the prosecutor agreed to DISMISS THE DWI and my client pleaded to a minor traffic ticket.

My client REFUSED THE BREATH TEST, but performed the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs), which he was unaware he could refuse. The officer reported that my client displayed all 6 of the possible clues of intoxication on the HGN (eye jerking) test. The officer stated that my client could not maintain his balance and began the test before instructed on the Walk & Turn test. The officer also stated that my client swayed, used his arms to balance, hopped and put his foot down during the One Leg Stand test.

We appealed the so called “automatic” suspension of my client’s driver’s license. We filed discovery requests and subpoenaed all officers involved to justify the arrest and the suspension. At the Hearing, DPS realized they were not going to be able to prove all the elements necessary to suspend my client’s license. DPS agreed to dismiss the Suspension Case and my client’s LICENSE WAS NOT SUSPENDED.

My client REFUSED THE BREATH TEST, but performed the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs), which he was unaware he could refuse. The officer reported that my client displayed all 6 of the possible clues of intoxication on the HGN (eye jerking) test. The officer stated that my client could not maintain his balance and began the test before instructed on the Walk & Turn test. The officer also stated that my client swayed, used his arms to balance, hopped and put his foot down during the One Leg Stand test.

We appealed the so called “automatic” suspension of my client’s driver’s license. We filed discovery requests and subpoenaed all officers involved to justify the arrest and the suspension. At the Hearing, DPS realized they were not going to be able to prove all the elements necessary to suspend my client’s license. DPS agreed to dismiss the Suspension Case and my client’s LICENSE WAS NOT SUSPENDED.

Subsequent blood tests on the pilot showed a blood-alcohol reading of just over a fifth of the limit set for airline pilots - which in turn is a quarter of the drink-drive level.

The pilot’s nightmare began when he went through the security checks for flight crew one of the guards thought he could smell alcohol on his breath.

The pilot was allowed to board the plane but about 45 minutes before take-off police got on the aircraft and breathalysed the pilot in the cockpit using a machine calibrated to aviation levels. The pilot failed this test and was escorted off the plane.

A standby crew was called and the pilot was taken to the police station, where blood tests were taken.

He was suspended from duty and released on bail.

The pilot’s blood was sent it to a laboratory where they found only a minimal blood alcohol reading. After the lab tested two more samples, he was exonerated.

Even non-drinkers are capable of producing trace elements of alcohol in their bloodstream, which would explain the level in the pilot’s blood.

The breathalyser reading was attributed to the pilot’s low–carbohydrate diet, which can affect the smell of a person’s breath and their metabolism.

Breathalysers mainly detect ethanol (the type of alcohol found in drinks) But some machines are unable to distinguish ethanol from acetone, a chemical that is produced by people on low-carbohydrate diets such as the Atkins diet. In normal circumstances this is not a problem but with the alcohol limit in the aviation industry is set at about a quarter of the normal “intoxication” level (.02) even these traces can result in a positive reading.

Where this is most likely to cause problems is when a person has been drinking, but not to the level of being intoxicated (.08). You then add the fact that the person is on a low carbohydrate diet, which will produce acetone in their breath, and there is a strong likelihood you will end up with a unreliable result from the breath testing machine.

My client REFUSED THE BREATH TEST, but she performed the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs), which she was unaware she could refuse.

The officer reported that my client emitted a strong odor of alcohol from her breath and had bloodshot, glassy eyes. The officer said my client displayed all 6 of the possible clues of intoxication on the HGN (eye jerking) test. The officer said that my client displayed several clues on the Walk & Turn test, including: stepping off line, failing to touch heel to toe, stopping during the test and turning incorrectly. The officer further stated that my client exhibited 3 of the 4 possible clues on the One Leg Stand test, including: using her arms to balance, swaying and putting her foot down 4 times.

We took the case to court and let the State know that we were going to fight. Eventually the prosecutor agreed to DISMISS THE DWI and my client pled to a non-DWI offense and paid a small fine.