Here’s the list for 2009, the address and the number of motorists who reported having their last drink at the locations:

J. Blacks, 710 W. Sixth Street, 27
The Ranch, 708 W. Sixth Street, 22
Rain, 217 W. Fourth Street, 17
Maggie Mae’s, 323 E. Sixth Street, 16
Blind Pig, 317 E. Sixth Street, 16
Oilcan Harry’s, 211 W. Fourth Street, 15
Fado, 214 W. Fourth Street, 15
Pure, 419 E. Sixth Street, 13
Cedar Street, 208 W. Fourth Street, 13
Union Park, 612 W. Sixth Street, 12
Fuel Nightclub, 607 Trinity St., 12
Lavaca Street Bar, 405 Lavaca St., 12
Key Bar, 617 W. Sixth St., 12
Jackalope, 404 E. Sixth St., 12
Sherlock’s, 9012 Research Boulevard, 11
Shakespeare’s, 314 E. Sixth St., 11
Antones, 213 W. Fifth St., 11
Gingerman, 304 W. Fourth St., 10
Lucky Lounge, 209 W. Fifth St., 10
Dizzy Rooster, 306 E. Sixth, 10
The Yellow Rose, 6528 N. Lamar Blvd., 10
Charlie’s, 1301 Lavaca St., 10
Groove, 101 W. Fifth St., 10
Ace’s Lounge, 222 E. Sixth St., 9
Red Fez, 209 W. Fifth St., 9
Molotov, 719 W. Sixth St., 8
Qua, 213 W. Fourth St., 8
219 West, 219 W. Fourth St., 8
Six, 117 W. Fourth St., 8
Speakeasy, 412D Congress Ave., 8
Stubb’s, 801 Red River, 8
Little Woodrow’s, 520 W. Sixth St., 8
Eddie V’s, 301 E. Fifth St., 8

Travis County’s central booking facility had been the place where APD took their suspected DWI folks for the forced blood draw. APD would rely on the Sheriff’s nurses to do the forced blood draw. (If the person refused, they would literally strap them in a chair so that the person couldn’t move their arms, and then stick them with the needle) The Sheriff’s Department nurses stopped taking blood samples on January 1. The Sheriff’s Department has finally realized that the nurses main function should be to treat inmates, not collect evidence. Further, they are deeply concerned about having to give nurse’s overtime pay to appear in court after having been the one that draws the blood.

Since the Sheriff’s Office stopped doing the blood draws, APD started taking suspects to the hospital for the blood draws. (I can’t verifiy this, but I heard that the hospital was charging APD $400.00 per blood draw.) The Hospital representatives have now told APD they don’t want them to bring suspects to jail for blood draws. The Hospital staff are worried about lawsuits, and are concerned because these types of blood draws are not being done for medical reasons. Further, the Hospitals are worried about who will pay for the nurse’s time when they are called to court to testify about the procedure they used to draw the blood.

Chief Acevedo thinks he has figured out a way around these problems. APD contracted with a private phlebotomist to draw the blood of folks on Halloween weekend and New Years Eve. APD agreed to pay the phlebotomist for three eight hour shifts during these weekends. What APD didn’t contract for was pay for this phlebotomist when she is drug into court to testify about the blood draws. I predict there will be a lot of screaming from the phlebotomist when she finally figures out that the money she received per hour will now be reduced by the number hours she has to sit in court.

In the Statesman article, an “expert in blood draws” states that “the state laws are clear that nurses and hospitals are protected from such suits. What the “expert” appears to be referencing is Section 724.017 of the Texas Transportation Code. The relevant section states:

The person who takes the blood specimen under this chapter, or the hospital where the blood specimen is taken, is not liable for damages arising from the request or order of the peace officer to take the blood specimen as provided by this chapter if the blood specimen was taken according to recognized medical procedures.

However, this “expert” left out the final sentence to section (b) “This subsection does not relieve a person from liability for negligence in the taking of a blood specimen.” Now, what the “expert” seems to be forgetting is that it will ultimately be up to a fact finder (judge or Jury) to determine if negligence took place.

Also, I bet no one informed the phlebotomists that they could be help liable for the blood draws either.

APD is treading on thin ice on this issue, and the sad part is, they either don’t even realize it, or they don’t care.

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.

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.