I have been getting a lot of questions, regarding the New SOAH rules.
Of the 3 major issues that we thought might happen, none of them did. Hearings are still in person, no subpoena is needed for BTO’s or Tech Super, and they are still required to be there if we request. The new rules can be found here.
The major changes that are presented are in the subpoena arena. If there are other major changes, I haven’t noticed them yet.
I had to point out that DWI attorney Ken Gibson made his triumphant return to blogging today after over a year hiatus.
In his post, Ken details the problems with forced blood draw, and examines why the Austin Police cheif cant seem to get the message. Makes you wonder about what the motivation is behind the forced blood draws.
Thanks to Robert Guest for pointing out to me that I was mentioned on Dallas/Ft Worth’s 1310 the Ticket. They pulled up this blog, and the entry HERE.
Apparently, they show’s Gordon Keith was talking about Charles Barkley’s recent DUI arrest. They were examining the difference between DUI and DWI.
However, I think the information from my site probably is not what they were looking for. My site lists the difference between DUI and DWI in Texas. What they probably wanted to know is why Charles Barkley’s offense was DUI. The answer is simple. Each state calls this crime something different. Acutally, most states refer to the crim of driving while intoxicated / driving under the influcence as DUI. It is the same thing, with slightly different laws from state to state. So, what Barkley was charged with is our equivalent of DWI.
I was pretty disgusted when I read an article today on chron.com. A while back I posted about Rep. Michael Krusee, who pushed for legislation fining people between $3000-$6,000 for DWI convictions. Of course, part of this is if you give a breath sample above .16, you are liable to the government for $6000.
Well, as do most judges and people in the know when they are arrested for DWI, they refuse the breath test. I knew that someone that who pushed for this legislation would never take the breath test. Not only does the test have tons of problems, but if you score high, you are fined an extra $3,000.
Apparently, today, ‘ole Mike got his case dismissed. I can’t even begin to tell you how many cases have what would seem to be the same facts as described in the article:
Ok, so I haven’t blogged in approximately .. forever. But I am determined to get back in the game.
In playing around online today (alright, you caught me, I was googling my name), I came across the Sunshine Report’s new issue of what looks to me like passed resolutions. If someone else out there knows how to interpret this paper better, let me know. My understanding is that the Sunshine Commission makes recommendation to the legislature on what they should do.
If you take a close look, myself and Larry Boyd seem to be the only ones that showed any opposition to the strongarm tactics of the State and DPS. (At least, we are the only ones listed).
I have always been bothered by one of the ramifications of a DWI conviction: The Substance Abuse Evaluation.
I am all for the premise and theory behind it.
If you are place on probation following a conviction for DWI, you are required by law to take a substance abuse evaluation, and perform any conditions imposed. This can be something as small as "no alcohol while on probation," or larger (very time consuming) things like attending AA several times per week, or going to an intensive inpatient or outpatient program.
If DPS gets their way, yes.. all License Suspension Hearing will be by phone. So the Administrative Law Judge will never be able to look you, the lawyers, or the officer in the eyes.
Thanks to Grits for Breakfast for posting on Criminal Justice Agencies Under Review, and discussing the Sunset process, which reviews some of the criminal justice agencies. DPS’s report is here.
Although not pointed out yet in Grits’ post, of utmost importance in the DWI world, is their review of the ALR, or License Suspension process.
In a brand new case out by the Court of Criminal Appeals, the Court has declared that the state does not need to be specific on which theory or theories of intoxication they need to prove.
In order to find someone guilty of DWI, the State must prove that person was intoxicated. Intoxicated means not having the normal use of your mental faculties, not having the normal use of your physical faculties, or having an alcohol concentration of above .08 at the time of driving. (this is my simplified definition — so attorneys, don’t jump on me about it!)
In the past, the state would have to add into the charging document (information for misdemeanors, indictment for felonies), which of those three definitions of intoxication they wanted to prove.
In an ALR hearing, it is the job of the Respondent (Defendant) to serve a subpoena on a police officer if they want them to appear. I do this in almost all of my cases.
In order to serve a subpoena, one must first request it from the judge. You then deliver the subpoena to a process server who must find the officer and give it to them.
Many officers purposely "hide" or "duck" service, in order to not have to show up to the hearings. I will let you decide for yourself if you think that is ethical. Or part of the makings of a good officer you want on the street.
I read an article today about a prison that started a new DWI rehab program within the prison. In "Area prison implements DWI rehab program," it details the new program. It is a "six-month initiative that teaches life skill lessons, alternatives to drinking and driving and the medical, lifestyle and stress effects of alcohol."
This should not be confused with the DWI Court program for misdemeanor DWI’s (usually DWI 2nds).
Anyone in this program has already been sent to prison. Keep in mind, in order to go to prison, your sentence has to be over 2 years long — so this would be for DWI 3rd+, or Intoxication Assaults or Intoxication Manslaughter. You can see the punishment ranges for DWI Felonies here.
The program houses the inmates together with other DWI offenders to offer support between the inmates. Inmates also meets with counselors daily in group and individual sessions.
Frisco DWI Lawyer & Attorney Blog