Broward DUI Lawyer Blog

Our Fort Lauderdale DUI attorneys know that sometimes, under the influence of alcohol, people don't always think about their words before they open their mouth.

In many cases, that results in a Fort Lauderdale DUI because people speak to freely about where they're coming from, where they're going and how much they've had to drink. You are under no obligation to answer these types of questions from an officer. In fact, they can often get you into trouble.

However, a lot of times, officers don't even have to ask these questions. People offer information spontaneously. And sometimes, they offer a lot more than that.

Such was the case for a 29-year-old owner of a Fort Lauderdale bar.

According to 25WPBF News in Boca Raton, police stopped the driver of a Mercedes Benz on suspicion of drunk driving. He had reportedly been driving erratically and speeding in the Mizner Park area.

There were pedestrians in the road, and police felt the driver was posing a significant danger.

The officer reportedly approached the driver after he had exited his vehicle, after he had stopped and handed his keys to a valet. When the officer tried talking to the driver, he told them that he needed to use the facilities and tried to talk away.

The officer did not allow the driver to walk away, and instead requested that he complete several field sobriety tests. Those included commonly-known tests such as reciting the alphabet, touching his finger to the tip of his nose and standing on one leg. He failed.

He then refused to submit to a breathalyzer test. Under FL DUI laws (specifically, implied consent, which is found in Florida Statute 316.1932), that will mean an automatic 1-year suspension. For a second offense, it's an 18-month suspension.

But it's what he said next that could have landed him in even more trouble. The suspect reportedly told the officer that he hoped the officer would get shot in the line of duty, adding, "I always get what I want."

Now, there is no indication that this individual had a weapon or any means by which to actually carry out this threat. This is likely why he wasn't charged with an additional crime.

However, he could have been. Under FL Statute 838.021(b), a person who threatens harm to a public servant can be found guilty of a third-degree felony, which carries a maximum prison sentence of five years.

The defendant may have been half-kidding or spoken these words out of anger, but the consequences could have been severe.

Another point that's important to make is that while a police officer who stops you is certainly not your friend and is not looking out for your best interests (that's what your attorney is for), it is worth your while to remain polite and courteous to him or her. Sometimes, there is a fine line of discretion an officer walks when deciding whether to arrest someone for a Fort Lauderdale DUI. If you are rude and disrespectful, you greatly increase your chances of ending up behind bars.

Continue reading "Fort Lauderdale DUI: Suspect Threatened Arresting Officer" »

Fort Lauderdale DUI attorneys know that in cases that result in a death, emotions run high.

However, that doesn't mean the facts of the Fort Lauderdale DUI case warrant felony charges, as opposed to misdemeanors.

A perfect example of this happened recently in Palm Coast. Now, that is nearly five hours from here, but the same DUI laws are applicable regardless of where you live in Florida, so it's relevant for those arrested for Fort Lauderdale DUIs as well.

Here's what we know of the case, as reported by The Daytona News-Journal:

A 15-year-old was riding his bicycle at night on a dark road. He was struck by a 32-year-old pickup truck driver. The 15-year-old was killed, just one month shy of his 16th birthday.

The case was horribly tragic.

Now here's where it gets tricky.

The driver of that pickup truck was found to have a blood alcohol level of 0.15 - more than double the legal limit of 0.08.

Usually, under those circumstances, a state trooper would file DUI manslaughter charges, which would fall under FL Statute 316.193. This is a second-degree felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

And yet, the driver is charged with misdemeanor DUI, punishable by up to 6 months in jail and a $1,000 fine.

How is this possible?

The teen who was on his bicycle on that dark road did not have the proper lights or reflectors on his bicycle, as required by state law. What's more, troopers could find no evidence that the driver was responsible for the crash. He stopped immediately following the accident. Troopers said other than his blood alcohol level, there was no indication that he was intoxicated. Another driver who was close behind even said the defendant hadn't been swerving or doing anything else that would indicate he was drunk.

There was also another teen who was riding his bike alongside the 15-year-old. He did not have reflectors on his bicycle either.

The trooper, in an interview with the paper, noted that if the teens had reflectors on their bikes, he would have charged the pickup truck driver with the more serious charge, reasoning that if the reflectors had been on, the driver would have most definitely seen the cyclists.

So while he was impaired, he did not cause the accident.

The pickup truck driver then pleaded no contest to the misdemeanor DUI charge. His vehicle was impounded. He was ordered to complete 50 hours of community service. He had to pay a $500 fine. He lost his license for six months. And he was given one year of probation and no jail time.

In this case, law enforcement stepped up at the outset and created a report based solely on the facts, and not emotions. However, this is not always the case. It's easy enough to want justice for a family who has suffered such an incredible loss. However, that should not be done without regard for the facts of the case and the law. This is why hiring a skilled Fort Lauderdale DUI attorney is so vitally important.

Continue reading "Fort Lauderdale DUI: Misdemeanor vs. Felony" »

Florida House Bill 618 - which would have required judges to choose between either ignition interlock or vehicle immobilization for a first-time offender charged with a Fort Lauderdale DUI - has failed.

Fort Lauderdale DUI attorneys are relieved that this bill did not pass, as it would have restricted the rights of judges to consider penalties based on the unique set of circumstances before them.

House Bill 618, which would have been tacked on as an amendment to Florida Statute 316.193, had passed three prior committees - The Transportation and Highway Safety Subcommittee, the Judiciary Committee and the Economic Affairs Committee. All this raised concerns that it might actually pass.

But on March 9, the Criminal Justice Subcommittee voted it down. It is likely that they recognized that stripping judges of judicial discretion is not a wise move, no matter what the issue.

What this bill would have meant is that in first-time, misdemeanor DUI cases, an individual would face between 10 and 90 days of either vehicle immobilization OR an interlock ignition device that would have had to be installed in the defendant's vehicle.

Vehicle immobilization works by rendering the vehicle involved in the offense totally immobile for a set period of time. Ignition interlock devices, on the other hand, work a lot like police breathalyzers. They are installed in a defendant's vehicle, and the individual is required to blow into the device prior to starting the car. If the device detects alcohol, the vehicle will not start.

Proponents of the measure said that it was time to crack down on DUIs in Florida. They said that DUIs were killing an increasing number of individual's on our roadways.

The truth of the matter, however, is that this bill was completely unnecessary because under FL Statute 316.1937, a judge already has the discretion to decide whether to order vehicle immobilization or an interlock ignition device for a first-time DUI offender. And in fact, a judge has the ability to decide to do both, if he or she chooses.

The law would have made it so that the judges would be mandated to hand down either one or the other - but not both, as judges are now permitted to do.

House Bill 681 was intended to get tough on DUI. But Fort Lauderdale DUI defense attorneys would urge lawmakers to be cautious in the bills they push forward, because while their intentions may be noble, there will almost always be consequences that may not be immediately apparent. In this case, the bill would have all but defeated its original purpose - to harshly punish DUI offenders.

Continue reading "House Bill 681 - Concerning Fort Lauderdale DUIs - Fails in Committee " »

Recently, we wrote about the high-profile West Palm Beach DUI manslaughter case involving polo club founder John Goodman as he prepared to go to trial.

Our West Palm Beach DUI manslaughter defense attorneys, like many in the region, have been closely following this case as it has proceeded through the criminal justice system.

Now, the prosecution has rested its case, and it is time for Goodman's defense attorneys to show why they believe their client should not be found not guilty according to Florida statute 316.193.

From what we can surmise, these defense attorneys are certainly going to face a number of challenges, but that does not mean the case is not winnable.

There is always a risk anytime you go to trial that a jury is not going to agree with you, no matter how much doubt you present. This is particularly true when someone has been killed. Jurors have a tendency to want justice for the family, and there have been instances in which they have overlooked the unique facts of the case in order to give it to them.

In this case, the person killed was a young, 23-year-old recent college graduate who was on his way home to his mother. His car collided with Goodman's in Feb. 2010, causing him to flip into a canal and ultimately drown. Goodman is accused of DUI manslaughter and leaving the scene of an accident with serious injuries.

Unlike a robbery or a murder case, where there are certain concrete facts or possibly video surveillance, a lot of what jurors have to rely on is subjective. It has to do with how jurors may perceive a person's actions or behavior on the night in question.

Another thing Goodman may have against him - something over which he has no control - is the economy. Many people have found themselves down and out these days. Goodman, on the other hand, is a wealthy polo magnate, who was leaving a fancy charitable event in an expensive vehicle on the night of the crash.

This and the fact that he recently legally adopted his 42-year-old girlfriend in an effort to protect his fortune - it may skew people's perceptions of him.

What's more, prosecutors have reported that Goodman's blood alcohol level was 0.177 percent - well above the 0.08 legal limit - and that was three hours after the crash. His defense attorneys have previously said this was not due to a lot of alcohol consumption prior to the crash, but rather drinking after the crash, which Goodman did to help self-medicate following the injuries he suffered. Similar defenses have successfully been argued before, but those involve witnesses who testified that they saw the individual drinking after the crash. It doesn't appear Goodman's defense has anyone who will attest to that.

Still, defense attorneys may have some room to attack the theories presented by a forensic toxicologist who testified for the state. The scientist presented general evidence regarding how much alcohol the average person might be expected to metabolize in a given time frame, but there didn't appear to be specific evidence showing how much alcohol Goodman had actually consumed prior to the crash.

We'll be continuing to follow this case as it continues. The bottom line, however, is that if you are accused of DUI manslaughter in West Palm Beach, your very first phone call should be to a qualified West Palm Beach DUI defense attorney.

Continue reading "Strength of West Palm Beach DUI Manslaughter Case Weighed" »

St. Patrick's Day reveler's should take heed: law enforcement is going to be out in full force, trying to nab people suspected of a Fort Lauderdale DUI.

Our Broward DUI defense attorneys know that officials across Florida are putting out warnings. They're paying for officers to work overtime. They're setting up DUI checkpoints. They're going to be waiting outside bars and other drinking establishments, ready to pounce.

This is especially true when the holiday falls on a Saturday, as opposed to mid-week. In fact, DUIs more than double when St. Patty's Day is on a weekend. That's according to the Alcohol Monitoring Systems marketing firm, which figures that while drinking violations on a mid-week St. Patrick's Day increase by about 10 percent over the average day. But when the holiday is on a weekend, there is a 25 percent spike.

The director of the Florida Highway Patrol, Col. David Brierton, has been quote by the Sun Sentinel as saying that law enforcement is planning a zero tolerance enforcement effort.

It's best not to press your luck - have a plan before you kick start the party. Designate a sober driver or have the cab company on speed dial or already prearranged. Or host a party at your own house, and make sure there are arrangements for your guests to crash - in a guest bed or on a pull-out mattress.

The Traffic Safety Marketing organization reports there were over 100 fatalities on St. Patrick's Day in 2009, with nearly 40 percent of those involving alcohol.

Of course, we realize that's not going to stop everyone. And it certainly doesn't mean that if you do get stopped for driving impaired that you are doomed. However, you shouldn't rely solely on the luck of the Irish. You need an experienced Fort Lauderdale DUI attorney who is willing to challenge the evidence and work to have your charges reduced or dismissed.

And if you are stopped by police when you have been drinking, here are some things to keep in mind:

1. Look for a safe spot to pull over. Not only do you want to avoid potentially putting yourself or the officer at risk of injury, but the officer is going to be taking note of where you stop. If it's in a place that is hazardous, the officer is going to take note of that and assume you are intoxicated.
2. Keep your movements slow and relaxed. Officers are trained to watch for sudden movements. They are always on guard in an effort to protect themselves. Just keep your hands on the steering wheel, where the officer can see them.
3. Be courteous. It's not going to help your case at all if you're rude or disrespectful.
4. Give the officer the basic information he or she is asking for - your name, birth date, license, insurance card - and don't answer any further questions. Be polite but firm. You don't have to tell them where you were coming from, how much you've had to drink or anything else that could potentially incriminate yourself.
5. Decline to take a field sobriety test. These tests are subjective, and typically are not going to work in your favor.
6. If you are arrested, upon your release immediately write down every detail you can recall about the encounter. Then contact an experienced DUI attorney as soon as possible.

Continue reading "St. Patrick's Day Crackdown to Result in More Fort Lauderdale DUIs" »

In an overzealous attempt to ignite politicians in an election year, a national road safety group is gunning for a crackdown on first-time drunk drivers in Fort Lauderdale and across the country.

Fort Lauderdale DUI defense attorneys are carefully following the developments emerging from the debate, which has been gaining momentum in the national media.

USA Today reports that the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is pushing for nationwide reform that would require all first-time offenders to have an interlock ignition system installed in their vehicles. Essentially, these are devices that work much like a breathalyzer. They go in the vehicle's dashboard, and are rigged so that if a person blows into the device and alcohol is detected, the vehicle won't start.

In theory, it doesn't necessarily sound like a bad idea. But there are several issues here.

The first of which is that Florida, like a number of other states, already has DUI ignition interlock programs, though they are for offenders who have had multiple DUIs.

Secondly, the institute backs its recommendation with research they conducted. They claim that these devices will reduce recidivism rates by upwards of 12 percent. But consider the source: an insurance institute. Are they really concerned with upholding the rights of individuals? Maybe. One might also argue that their greatest concern is to completely mitigate their own risks, regardless of how over-reaching such a program might be.

And thirdly, we must analyze the cost. Under a new bill proposed at the federal level, states would receive money to implement this program. However, it's going to cost more than $400 million annually to supervise the program. Furthermore, the majority of the financial burden for installing these devices is going to lie with the first-time offender. That is in addition to the already-exorbitant fees and fines that first-time offenders are slapped with. This additional cost could be simply too much for an offender to cover. At a certain point, you are not helping people rehabilitate, but rather ensuring that they will fail.

Another aspect to consider is a point brought up by the American Beverage Institute, which represents more than 8,000 restaurants across the country. A spokeswoman there said that of course having the device installed in a car may prevent someone from driving drunk in the short term, thereby reducing initial rates of recidivism. But most states only require that a person keep the device installed for six months. After that, the recidivism rates are going to shoot right back up. So essentially, this is, if anything, a short term fix that is ultimately ineffective.

This sentiment is also backed by the American Probation and Parole Association, which was quoted by USA Today as saying that requiring these devices is not only expensive, but unnecessary.

Continue reading "1st Time Fort Lauderdale DUI Offenders Face Ignition Interlock Requirement" »