All states have set a legal blood alcohol content, above which you can be charged with driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence. Additionally, most states have “implied consent” laws under which law enforcement officials can arrest you for driving drunk even if you refuse to submit a breath or blood sample.

Although some argue that implied consent laws violate your rights against self-incrimination and illegal search and seizure, the justice system has argued that driving is actually a privilege, not a right, and therefore it can be taken away from you. Additionally, because drunk driving has proven to be so dangerous, they believe that it is better to remove drunk drivers from the road without expressed consent rather than allow them to remain a hazard on the roads.

Thus, when you get in the car and turn on the ignition, you are “consenting” through your actions to subject yourself to drunk driving tests should police tell you to pull over. If the circumstances, such as your inability to drive safely, suggest that you are driving while intoxicated, then law enforcement officials can act on implied consent laws and request that you submit a sample for chemical BAC testing.

If you still refuse to consent, the police cannot forcibly extract a sample unless you have caused a serious accident. However, they can still arrest you for “per se intoxication,” meaning that although the police do not know your exact BAC, they have reason to believe that you are a danger to yourself and others due to drunk driving.

After this, your license can be revoked for 180 days. If you have a previous DWI or DUI conviction, this can jump to a 2-year license suspension.

If you have been charged with drunk driving, you are still innocent until proven guilty, and you are still afforded certain rights.

To help you protect these rights as well as handle your charges, you should contact an experienced Dallas criminal defense attorney from the Lassiter Law Offices today.

James Witherspoon

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=James_Witherspoon
http://EzineArticles.com/?Drunk-Driving-and-Implied-Consent-Law&id=4966708

Researchers assessed 34 male, second-time DUI (driving under the influence) offenders enrolled in a rehabilitation program and a control group of 31 healthy, non-offenders matched for age, education, and alcohol use.

All the participants underwent psychiatric assessments ad conventional neuropsychological testing, including the the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), to help assess personality patterns.

The IGT, Kasar explained, is used in many studies investigating alcohol problems because it simulates real-life decision-making.

“We found that second-time DUI offenders have a poorer performance on the IGT test than their matched counterparts,” Muzaffer Kasar, a resident in psychiatry at the Bakirkoy Research and Training Hospital in Istanbul, Turkey, said in a journal news release.

In contrast, he and colleague David J. Nutt, a professor of psychiatry at Imperial College London in the U.K., found no differences between the repeat DUI offenders and the control group on conventional neuropsychological testing and temperament and character testing (TCI) scores.

“These findings suggest that second-time DUI offenders do not suffer from motor impulsiveness — that is, a lack of impulse control in ‘here and now’ situations,” Nutt said. Instead, he explained, “they suffer from cognitive impulsiveness, which depends on associating negative experiences with possible negative consequences.”

In other words, “there are brain reasons for why people make poor choices regarding DUI,” he added.

The researchers urged that such testing be expanded for people convicted of DUI, which they noted accounted for 40 percent of the fatal motor vehicle crashes in the United States. In addition, they said, 33 percent of the DUI drivers were recidivists, or repeat offenders.

Source

The suit claims that Mee, who is Jewish, was asked by superiors to delete portions of his report, “effectively participating in covering up the anti-Semitic posture of Mr. Gibson.” Gibson allegedly spewed a string of anti-Semitic statements on the night in question. The lawsuit also alleges that Gibson is a close friend of Sheriff Lee Baca and other top officials.

“My client is being retaliated against because he is a Jewish deputy,” Mee’s lawyer Etan Z. Lorant told People. “He was the most logical person for the police to investigate, but they didn’t look into any other deputies. They started with him and ended with him, even though other deputies had access to the report. They should’ve kept investigating.”

The lawsuit states that no charges were ever filed against Mee and that the case has been filed as “unresolved.”

“We categorically deny this lawsuit,” Sheriff’s spokesman Steve Whitmore told People. “This has nothing to do with ethnicity. What the sheriff’s department did was launch an investigation because someone was releasing confidential documents, which is a crime. We look forward to telling the whole story in this case.”

Want more Celebrity Legal News?

Source