Despite serving three prison terms for various DUI offenses, Eberhardt remained an avid and unrepentant drinker. Eberhardt landed in jail for the umpteenth time in April 2014 when stopped in Parker County. His blood alcohol content was four times the legal driving limit of 0.08. Even though he was freed on bond for that incident, he cut off his e-cuff monitor and fled to Colorado. It was not too surprising that he was arrested for drunken driving while there.

Our firm represents plaintiffs that have been harmed by negligent, drunk drivers. Plaintiffs need a voice to pursue their case through court in order to obtain compensation for their injuries and medical bills. While DUI cases land in criminal courts, plaintiffs are free to file a civil, personal injury lawsuit.

Never deal with an insurance company if you have been involved in an accident with another driver, drunk or not. They are not your friends and will work to discredit anything you may say, or will attempt to prove any injuries you sustained are pre-existing to diminish or dismiss your claim. Speak only to an experienced personal injury attorney to get actual justice and the settlement or court award you deserve.

Lee, Gober and Reyna – If you need a personal injury lawyer or help with an auto accident, motorcycle accident, wrongful death, or burn injury case, contact Lee, Gober and Reyna by visiting http://www.lgrlawfirm.com or calling 512.800.8000

One biker rear-ended another in an intersection. The force of the impact ejected the 22-year-old biker onto the street, and although emergency medical personnel got him to hospital quickly, he succumbed to his injuries. The second motorcycle rider was charged with DWI.

The main factor to consider in motorcycle accidents is that riders are completely exposed and have virtually no protection as they would in a car. Even though they may be wearing helmets and the proper riding gear, such as leathers, if they are ejected into a stationary object, they are seriously injured, maimed permanently or die.

The number of bikers that died in motorcycle accidents in the U.S. in 2013 was 4,381. Biker deaths accounted for 13 percent of all fatal collisions in 2013, double the number of fatalities in 1997.

Riding a motorcycle sober is challenging enough without riding while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. If you have been involved in an accident with a rider that was inebriated or high, make certain to discuss the case with a competent motorcycle accident attorney. You may need compensation to take care of medical bills, replace lost wages or require round-the-clock care.

Personal injury accidents involving motorcycles are complex and no one involved in one should attempt to represent themselves with insurance companies or the courts.

Lee, Gober and Reyna – If you need a personal injury lawyer or help with an auto accident, motorcycle accident, wrongful death, or burn injury case, contact Lee, Gober and Reyna by visiting http://www.lgrlawfirm.com or calling 512.800.8000

The 47-year-old officer, a 24-year veteran of the local force, faced two other charges as well as driving while intoxicated (DWI): possession of a controlled substance and the unlawful carrying of a weapon. Another officer who spotted him swerving all over the road stopped him and administered a field sobriety test. The driver showed definite signs of intoxication and was carrying prescription pills in his pocket and a firearm in his vehicle.

Travis County took immediate action and terminated the police officer — sending a message to not only other members of the force, but to the public as well. Even police officials may be punished for driving under the influence. There are consequences to driving while drunk: you can lose your job, or your life.

Lee, Gober and Reyna – If you need a personal injury attorney or help with an auto accident, motorcycle accident, wrongful death, or burn injury case, contact Lee, Gober and Reyna by visiting http://www.lgrlawfirm.com or calling 512.800.8000

Texas jails are home to 32 other inmates doing time for having three or more DWI convictions. Martin’s record shows he has done prison time twice before for DWI convictions — one four-year sentence and one 15-year sentence.

Montgomery County has the dubious distinction of having the most DWI drivers behind bars (four) than compared to Harris County (one), whose population is larger. It actually has more DWI drivers behind bars than any other locale in Texas. While penalizing habitual DWI drivers might get them off the streets for the duration of their sentence, it appears the convictions alone do not stop them from drinking or re-offending once released.

Lee, Gober & Reyna represents victims of drunken drivers. We are plaintiff’s attorneys and have a great deal of experience dealing with cases involving DWI drivers. We know what is required to take a case to court and seek equitable and fair damages.

Lee, Gober and Reyna – If you need a personal injury lawyer or help with an auto accident, motorcycle accident, wrongful death, or burn injury case, contact Lee, Gober and Reyna by visiting http://www.lgrlawfirm.com or calling 512.800.8000

In a multi-year study by the chief of developmental and behavioral pediatrics at Cohen Children’s Medical Center in New Hyde Park, N.Y., Dr. Andrew Adesman, shows that smartphones “allow teens to do stupid things while driving a car.” Even though many states have attempted to curtail texting and driving, the practice continues to take the lives of texters and innocent victims alike.

Researches surveyed thousands of teens nationwide and discovered that texting-and-driving rates dropped from 43 percent in 2011 to just over 30 percent in 2013 when some states made it illegal to text and drive.

Despite the well-known fact that texting while driving kills, it is four times more common among high school students compared to DWI — a shocking differential. Even though figures appear to have dropped over time, there is still much to be done to reduce these statistics. Because this issue is largely a human behavior problem, it may take a long time before everyone gets the message.

Lee, Gober and Reyna – If you need a personal injury lawyer or help with an auto accident, motorcycle accident, wrongful death, or burn injury case, contact Lee, Gober and Reyna by visiting http://www.lgrlawfirm.com or calling 512.800.8000

There is no dispute that texting while driving is dangerous.  Studies have even shown that it’s more dangerous than drinking while driving.  You would think that a state-wide ban would be a no-brainer.

But apparently it’s not.  Some legislators argue that a ban would be an unnecessary invasion into people’s rights.  Are you kidding me?  Is the speed limit an unnecessary invasion?  Are laws against DWI an unnecessary invasion?  Texting while driving is just as dangerous, if not more dangerous, and we need to be doing what we can to protect our kids and families.  Will a ban stop texting while driving?  No.  But it will help, and that’s better than nothing.

You should watch the stories of these families below.

Despite the efforts of drunk driving campaigns, drinking and driving remains one of the leading causes of death in the United States. According to the most recent statistics available for Texas alone, there were 1,296 deaths as a result of impaired driving in 2012, with 169 of those deaths classified as alcohol-impaired fatalities.

Drinking and driving never has a good ending. Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention clearly demonstrate that. On a daily basis, nearly 30 Americans die in car accidents involving a drunk driver – a death every 51 minutes. The cost of crashes of this nature runs to more than $59 billion annually.

Drinking and driving killed 10,322 Americans in 2012, a figure that represents nearly 31 percent of all traffic deaths in the nation. The problem plagues every state. Laws take some of the offenders off the road, but other laws put those offenders right back on it. Effectively keeping tabs on serial drunk drivers is almost impossible. Jail time and sobriety programs may work in some cases, but ultimately, as Alcoholic Anonymous states, alcoholics only go for help when they themselves recognize that they have a problem.

Lee, Gober and Reyna – If you need a personal injury lawyer or help with an auto accident, motorcycle accident, wrongful death, or burn injury case, contact Lee, Gober and Reyna by visiting http://www.lgrlawfirm.com or calling 512.800.8000

Auto accidents can be financially, emotionally and physically devastating, especially during the holidays. Fortunately, it is easy to reduce the risk of being involved in a crash.

• Stay off the road after 1:00 a.m. Most drunk driving accidents occur between 1:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. Even if most people drive sober, inevitably, some will not. Keep loved ones off the roads in the early morning hours as much as possible.
• Get some sleep. The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety has found that cutting sleep short by even two or three hours can make an accident up to four times more likely. Anyone who is hung over or sleepy should stay out of the driver’s seat on New Year’s Day or the day after Christmas.
• Talk to young people. According to the CDC, a staggering 32 percent of fatal alcohol-related crashes involve a driver between the ages of 21 and 24. Know a young person coming home for the holidays? Let them know how much they are loved, and warn them about the risks of impaired driving.
• Get the car checked. Around the holidays, the National Safety Council recommends a full inspection and tune up to ensure optimal brake and acceleration response times. Temperature changes and extreme temperatures can cause mechanical problems. In addition, make sure the car has a spare tire, jumper cables and a first aid kit.
  Remember that no-refusal DWI checkpoints may be in effect. The Dallas police have made a habit of setting up mandatory sobriety checkpoints around the holidays. Anyone who refuses to take a breathalyzer or blood test may be arrested and taken to jail for a forced sample collection. Avoid the drama and make sure your driver has had absolutely nothing to drink.

At The Hale Law Firm, we have helped thousands of clients successfully prosecute their personal injury claims including auto accidents, wrongful death, dangerous products, brain injuries, burn injuries, and defective medical devices. Clients depend on their personal injury lawyers for guidance and legal advice across a broad range of personal injury accidents. To learn more, visit http://www.hale911.com/ or call 972.351.0000.

Drue turned left on to a thruway and ended two lives. The families of the victims chose to file a wrongful death lawsuit against Dennis Drue, his mother (who let him drive her car even knowing his driving record), the steakhouse where he was drinking the night of the accident, and the bartender and server. The statement of claim indicates that Drue was noticeably impaired when he arrived at the steakhouse, but was still served three double gin and tonics in an hour.

It’s obvious that this man should have never been driving. The trial is expected to begin in 2015. In the meantime, Drue remains in jail and two families hope their messages comes through loud and clear. Do not drink and drive. If you know someone is drunk, do not serve them and do not let them drive. Take responsibility for your children. Do not turn away from reporting a drunk driver.

Lee, Gober and Reyna – If you need a personal injury attorney or help with an auto accident, motorcycle accident, wrongful death, or burn injury case, contact Lee, Gober and Reyna by visiting http://www.lgrlawfirm.com or calling 512.800.8000

James Fisher has been arrested 12 times since 1991 for driving while intoxicated. Fisher’s last arrest took place just after his release from prison for serving time for a 2009 DUI conviction. There are hundreds of cases like this every year. According to the Department of Safety and Homeland Security, 37 percent of the 5,400 individuals arrested for DUI in 2012 were repeat offenders.

Many states have extremely strict DWI laws and steep fines, but they have not stopped some people from driving while intoxicated, even with prior convictions. Even offenders who have served time frequently return to drinking when they get out of jail, and they drive whether or not they have a legal license to do so. At his most recent arrest, Fisher was driving unlicensed and uninsured, and his vehicle was not legally registered.

So new solutions are being studied. They include mandated ignition interlock devices for offenders that prevent them from operating their vehicle while drunk. But “more” devices will not necessarily solve the issue for repeat offenders, already familiar with alcohol treatment modalities and their evasion.

As such, many states have started approaching the root of the problem: addiction. Delaware has a DUI Court ready to swing into operation, with a mandate to compel offenders into treatment. Similar court programs in Colorado and Wisconsin have had success with changing an individual’s behavior by requiring accountability, intensive supervision and long-term treatment.

If you have been involved in an accident with a drunk driver, contact an experienced personal injury lawyer who handles DWI/DUI plaintiff cases. He or she can ensure you get the justice and compensation you deserve.

Lee, Gober and Reyna – If you need a personal injury lawyer or help with an auto accident, motorcycle accident, wrongful death, or burn injury case, contact Lee, Gober and Reyna by visiting http://www.lgrlawfirm.com or calling 512.800.8000

There are at least three grieving families who may soon file wrongful death lawsuits against him in civil court. Numerous hospitalized individuals may wish to obtain compensation for the injuries that resulted from Owens’ actions.

If you are ever in a similar situation, do not hesitate to reach out to an experienced DWI plaintiff’s lawyer. Legal counsel is the best step toward justice, and your attorney will ensure that your rights are protected.

Lee, Gober and Reyna – If you need a personal injury attorney or help with an auto accident, motorcycle accident, wrongful death, or burn injury case, contact Lee, Gober and Reyna by visiting http://www.lgrlawfirm.com or calling 512.800.8000

After Kelly Noel, a local popular blogger, was killed by a drunk driver this weekend, Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo is calling for a summit on drunk driving issues.  The article noted that fifty-five percent of Austin’s traffic fatalities this year involved drivers who were impaired by alcohol or drugs.

I don’t know whether a summit is the answer.  But I am encouraged by the discussion. Like alcoholism, recognizing you have a problem might be the first step in treating it.

Unfortunately, this larger problem only reflects what we’re seeing in our firm.  Over the last couple of years, we have been helping more and more clients who are being seriously injured by drunk drivers.  And while most of these cases have been late night wrecks, it seems there are more and more happening during the day.

This might be better for another article, but if you or a loved one has been injured by a drunk driver, and you’re looking for a lawyer to help, make sure the lawyer has ample experience in representing victims of DWI or DUI.  Most lawyers treat these as run of the mill car wreck cases.  But they aren’t.  There are a number of important steps and tactics that good attorneys utilize to help increase the value of your case.  Make sure you have a lawyer who can adequately represent you and your interests.

The 99-year sentence applied to the murder charge. Another 42 years were added to run concurrently for the assault conviction.

It never, ever pays to drive while under the influence of alcohol. No one is immune from being caught. No one is immune from the possibility of killing someone and/or themselves. If you insist on drinking, do not drive – period. If you have been involved in an accident with a negligent drunken driver, speak with a competent DWI attorney to protect your rights.

Lee, Gober and Reyna – If you need a personal injury lawyer or help with an auto accident, motorcycle accident, wrongful death, or burn injury case, contact Lee, Gober and Reyna by visiting http://www.lgrlawfirm.com or calling 512.478.8080

According to the NTSB, 90 percent of all transportation-related deaths occur in motor vehicle accidents. Many of these involve alcohol or drug impairment and are therefore considered completely avoidable. In the past decade, more than 119,000 people have been killed in auto accidents involving alcohol impairment. According to a AAA study, about one in seven drivers admits to having driven when suspecting him- or herself to be over or close to the legal BAC limit.

The problem extends beyond alcohol. Over-the-counter, prescription and illegal drugs can also cause impairment. The National Survey on Drug Use and Health found that more than 10 million people admitted to driving under the influence of illegal drugs within the previous year.

Efforts to prevent impaired driving can be divided into general deterrents and specific deterrents. General deterrents are aimed at the general public, and they include legal limits on blood alcohol content (BAC) and high-visibility enforcement campaigns. Specific deterrents are used to encourage those who have been caught driving while impaired to refrain from doing so again. These include jail terms, fines and license revocation.

The NTSB points out that conventional deterrents are often ineffective in cases where the individual has a substance abuse problem. Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) courts aim to change offender behavior by focusing on accountability and long-term treatment with close, comprehensive supervision.

The agency has also highlighted technological advances for curbing impaired driving. Passive alcohol sensors are small electronic devices built into police flashlights or clipboards that detect alcohol in the ambient air. They do not require a suspect’s cooperation, as they can work from outside a vehicle’s open window. Ignition interlock devices can be installed in offenders’ cars, requiring them to breathe into the device for a BAC reading before the car can be started.

The NTSB advocates a reduction of the BAC at which a driver is presumed impaired from the current 0.08 percent to 0.05 percent. It also recommends incorporating the use of passive alcohol sensors into enforcement efforts, expanding the use of ignition interlocks and developing best practices for DWI courts.

If you need to speak with a auto accident lawyer, Call Joyce & Reyes at 1.888.771.1529 or visit more of http://www.joyceandreyespa.com/.

Last year, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) suggested that the states lower the legal drinking limit to 0.05 (from the present 0.08). The NTSB pointed out other nations have already taken such measures. In addition, recent studies show that some people are already impaired with a 0.07 BAC. Allegedly, when someone’s BAC is 0.05, the risk of involvement in an accident increases. More than 4 million people admit to drinking and driving. Lowering the legal limit could save up to 1,000 lives each year.

While it may make immediate sense to lower the legal drinking limit in Texas, note it took 21 years to change the legal limits to their current standards. Nonetheless, the change would provide a powerful starting point.

Lee, Gober and Reyna – If you need a personal injury lawyer or help with an auto accident, motorcycle accident, wrongful death, or burn injury case, contact Lee, Gober and Reyna by visiting http://www.lgrlawfirm.com or calling 512.478.8080

The accident scene in this case was a collection of torn and twisted metal, busted glass, torn off vehicle parts and incensed drivers. The man who caused the collision ran a red light at an intersection. Police determined later he had been going so fast, even if he had applied the brakes, the accident would have still happened.

A 2012 BMW and a Jeep Cherokee met in a clash of metal and screaming tires in the middle of the road. The Cherokee driver was incensed to the point of inarticulate rage and let police know the BMW driver went right through the red light at a high rate of speed. Other eyewitnesses saw the BMW driver weave all over the road.

It turned out that the driver of the BMW, and his passenger had both been drinking, and the driver did not have a license on him. Both car occupants refused to take a field sobriety test and the agitated, aggressive passenger was restrained to permit the police to conduct their investigation. Although the driver said he only had one Scotch with his lunch, he blew a blood alcohol level of .17 percent. Police charged him with running a red light, speeding and DWI, as they were instructing a tow truck driver to remove his car.

For those who have been involved in a car accident with a drunk driver, do not waste time trying to deal with insurance companies or the police. If you want the case resolved and need compensation to pay your medical bills and make up for lost wages, as a result of injuries, then speak to a competent and experienced Austin injury lawyer. Insurance companies only want a case settled cheaply and quickly, which is not in the best interests of an injured victim.

Lee, Gober and Reyna – If you need a personal injury lawyer or help with an auto accident, motorcycle accident, wrongful death, or burn injury case, contact Lee, Gober and Reyna by visiting http://www.rwleelaw.com or calling 512.478.8080

Many of the calls emergency dispatchers receive must be transferred to other jurisdictions and the 911 callers may not be present to see the driver they suspected of driving while inebriated, but both Texas dispatchers and police have stated that passing motorists are a great help. The director of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Jeff Miracle, says that he speaks to someone approximately once a month who feels they called 911 to report a potentially drunk driver, only to have to eventually give up when an officer did not arrive in time to make a stop. But, says Miracle, he knows the police are trying to catch as many drunk drivers as possible.

The police have stated that the 911 calls from a concerned citizen often must be transferred from one jurisdiction to another as the driver crosses county lines and other police departments must become involved. A typical department may have as few as half a dozen officers in the DWI unit, and those officers cannot be throughout the city. A citizen call to 911 can be the crucial connection which allows a DWI officer to respond to suspected drunk driving in an area through which pass thousands and even tens of thousands of cars.

When someone calls 911 to report a suspected inebriated driver, dispatch operators are trained to ask specific questions, including the cross street, direction heading, a description of the vehicle, the color, the license plate, and what direction in which they are heading. While an individual can follow the driver if they feel safe doing so, the decision to do so is voluntary.

Of the approximately 182,000 911 emergency calls the city of Irving received last year, it is estimated that close to 2,400 of those calls were for suspected drunk driving. In 2011, there were more than 2,500 DUI-related car accidents in Texas, which resulted in more than 3,000 deaths.

In Texas, it is a crime to drive with a blood alcohol content concentration (BAC) of 0.08% or more. More restrictive laws apply for commercial drivers. Commercial vehicle operators must not have a BAC of 0.04% or more. Minors (individuals under age 21) commit an offense if driving with a BAC of 0.01% or more.

At The Hale Law Firm, we have helped thousands of clients successfully prosecute their personal injury claims including auto accidents, wrongful death, dangerous products, brain injuries, burn injuries, and defective medical devices. Clients depend on their personal injury lawyers for guidance and legal advice across a broad range of personal injury accidents. To learn more, visit http://www.hale911.com/ or call 972.351.0000.

A prior offender is a driver who at the time of his stop and detention as a DWI suspect has previously entered a plea of guilty to or been convicted after trial of an alcohol/drug related driving offense. For this person, whether to consent or to refuse chemical testing of his blood alcohol content involves considerations not present in the case of the driver who is experiencing his first contact with law enforcement as a DWI suspect.

The driver who finds himself in this situation needs to already be aware of the consequences and evidentiary implications of a refusal. Further, he needs to be aware of his right to take 20 minutes to contact an attorney once the officer has read him the implied consent law. He needs to use those 20 minutes to contact a lawyer whose telephone number he has on his person. Even if his DWI arrest occurs in the middle of a normal business day, the odds of directly contacting an attorney within the time allotted are not good. I know of no lawyers whose day is spent sitting by the telephone waiting on a call from someone being detained as a DWI suspect.

If the driver is able to get a lawyer on the phone, the driver needs to be able to provide the lawyer with precise information about his previous alcohol/drug related driving history. The law and the prosecuting authorities in most venues take a hard stance with drivers who are considered prior offenders. The law first of all takes away jury sentencing if the driver should elect trial by jury. The jury returns a verdict of guilty or not guilty. If guilty, then the judge decides the sentence. The penalty range for a prior offender is enhanced by law. For example, the penalty range to which the court may sentence a person being prosecuted for his second alcohol/drug related driving offense is exactly twice that of a person being prosecuted for his first offense. The stakes get higher with the number of prior offenses the driver has.

When the driver contacts the lawyer, the lawyer may be able to discern that the driver is obviously impaired. If that is the case, the lawyer, in my opinion, should tell the driver to refuse the test. As a lawyer who has tried these types of cases to a jury, I know that I had rather deal with the evidence that the driver refused the test than with a high test result. If the driver is convicted, as a prior offender, it is likely that he will also have had a previous suspension or revocation of his driving privileges stemming from the last DWI arrest; therefore, if convicted of the present offense, it is also likely that he will lose his driving privileges for a year anyway; therefore, obtaining a favorable result for the driver on the criminal charge of DWI prior offender or prior and persistent offender is the real objective and not saving the driver’s driving privileges.

Once the driver has told the lawyer that he has a prior alcohol/drug related driving conviction or plea of guilty, unless the driver does not “sound” intoxicated during the conversation and tells the lawyer that he only had one or two drinks 2 or 3 hours ago, the lawyer is going to advise the driver to refuse consent. If to the lawyer the driver seems to not be under the influence and the driver clearly and emphatically insists to the lawyer that he could not be intoxicated and is confident that he would “pass” the chemical test, the lawyer had another consideration to ponder being deciding how to advise the driver.

The lawyer will be aware that if the driver has a prior offense, the arresting officer will have been aware of that fact before he ever made the decision to take the driver to the station for one of the allowed tests. If the officer has learned through the MULES system that the driver has had a previous plea of guilty or conviction of an alcohol/drug related driving offense, that driver is going to be handcuffed and taking to the station for further testing if the officer has detected even a hint of alcohol on or about the driver’s presence; so, it could well be that the driver actually has a low blood-alcohol level. In this particular fact scenario, the lawyer may well advise the driver to cooperate and give his consent.

Should the lawyer’s advice, however, ultimately be that the driver refuse consent, the lawyer should be sure to inform the driver that the officer may then seek a warrant (whether the lawyer needs a warrant is currently on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court) for a blood draw and obtain the damning evidence of a high blood alcohol content without the driver’s consent. The lawyer should also inform the driver that once the warrant is obtained, the officer will take the driver to a medical facility to have the blood drawn by a medical person qualified to do the draw.

**DISCLAIMER: This article is intended to provide general information and is not and should not be taken as specific legal advice or as creating an attorney/client relationship with any reader. Any specific situation requires specific legal advice. Anyone facing a legal problem should contact an attorney for specific legal advice and should not rely solely on any information contained in this article. An attorney licensed in the state of Missouri writes all articles and all legal information discussed addresses the law as it stands in Missouri at the time of writing. Not only may there be significant differences in how the law would be applied in Missouri versus other states, the law is not static and can change over time. Nothing in this article is intended to have any relevance outside of the state of Missouri and should be taken as general information only, not legal advice.

What constitutes a refusal? The most common acts or non-acts of the driver that result in the officer marking “Refused” on his report thereby triggering the one year revocation notice are:

1) The officer requests the driver to submit to one of the authorized tests and the driver simply says “no” or words to that effect.

2) When ostensibly consenting to the breath test, the driver in the opinion of the officer is not following instructions as to how to blow into the tube of the machine that will allow the machine to measure the alcohol content of the driver’s breath. The machine will not give a “read”, and the officer will usually note in his report that the driver was simply “puffing” into the machine and not drawing a breath from his lungs to blow in the machine as instructed.

3) The driver gives an equivocal answer. The officer interprets the driver’s response as not exactly saying “yes” and not exactly saying “no” The officer will simply note the exact response in his report and mark it as a refusal.

4) The driver conditions his consent. For example, the driver says to the officer “yes, I will take the test but only if you agree not to charge me with driving while intoxicated.” The driver may mistakenly believe he has the right to make a phone call to whomever he wishes before giving consent or refusing and tell the office that he wishes to call his mother/father/friend, etc. before answering yes or no. The officer marks “Refused.”

5) The driver says no thank you to the request for a blood test but informs the office that he will happily do the breathalyzer test, or the driver says I won’t take a breath test, but I will take a blood test. The officer marks “Refused.” The driver does not get to choose which test he will take. He must take the test requested by the officer, or he has refused the test.

6) The driver remains silent, refusing to answer yes or no. The driver has refused.

In part 2 of our last post on this subject, November 19, 2012, I opined that generally a driver suspected of driving while intoxicated who is asked to take one of the tests authorized by statute (usually the breathalyzer test) will better off taking the test. For the driver who has been charged with driving while intoxicated before, the decision of whether to give consent to one of the tests requested by the officer becomes much more difficult.

Before finding himself in the situation where he has to make this decision, it is crucial that the driver know his own driving record. Of course it is easy if the driver knows he has never been accused of driving while intoxicated; however, when the driver has been previously arrested for an alcohol/drug-related driving offense, he must know the precise outcome of that case in order to make a rational decision, or to enable any attorney he may consult to be able to help the driver make the best decision. If the driver knows for a fact that the prosecutor refused to prosecute the DWI case, then the driver falls into the category of having no previous alcohol/drug-related driving contacts for the purpose of reaching a decision of whether to consent or not consent.

If through plea negotiations, the previousDWI charge was amended to a non-alcohol/drug-related driving offense, for example careless and imprudent driving, then the driver still falls into the category of no prior alcohol/drug related driving contacts for purpose of giving or refusing consent. When the driver has been convicted of or entered a plea of guilty to DWI or to the lesser offense (on paper at least) of driving with a blood-alcohol level of .08% or higher, the decision of whether to consent or not consent becomes more complex. A person in this category is considered a “prior offender” and whether to consent or refuse requires legal advice from an attorney who routinely practices DWI defense and who is very familiar with the practices and policies of the prosecuting authorities in the jurisdiction of arrest. The matters the “arrestee” and the attorney he consults must consider will be discuss in the next posting, December 3, 2012.

**DISCLAIMER: This article is intended to provide general information and is not and should not be taken as specific legal advice or as creating an attorney/client relationship with any reader. Any specific situation requires specific legal advice. Anyone facing a legal problem should contact an attorney for specific legal advice and should not rely solely on any information contained in this article. An attorney licensed in the state of Missouri writes all articles and all legal information discussed addresses the law as it stands in Missouri at the time of writing. Not only may there be significant differences in how the law would be applied in Missouri versus other states, the law is not static and can change over time. Nothing in this article is intended to have any relevance outside of the state of Missouri and should be taken as general information only, not legal advice.

The driver at the time of the initial stop must pay close attention to officer’s questions about whether the driver will consent to take certain tests. Almost always the officer will first ask the driver if he will agree to do some field sobriety tests for the officer (FSBT). These tests will include certain physical coordination tests like the walk and turn test and the one-leg stand tests. Included among these tests in many instances will be the preliminary breath test where the officer requests the driver to blow into a hand-held device to gather physical evidence that the driver has imbibed an alcoholic beverage. There is no penalty for refusing these tests, but neither refusal is an advantage to the driver. (See blog of 11/2/12). The officer, when asking the driver whether he will take the preliminary breath test, may, if the driver refuses, THEN ask the driver if he will take the breath-test at the station, and at this point, the officer should read the implied consent law to the driver. Normally, this question as to whether the driver will take the breath-test at the station is not asked until the driver is arrested and is at the station; however, we have seen instances where the officer asks that question, or says he did, while at the site of the initial stop.

Once the driver is at the station or county jail and the arresting officer has read to the driver Missouri’s Implied Consent Law to him, the officer puts the question to the driver: “I have probable cause to believe that you were operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. I want you to give a breath sample into the breathalyzer. Will you give that sample?” (Assuming the officer believes the driver to be intoxicated by alcohol rather than drugs.) Now the officer has formally and correctly triggered the Missouri Implied Consent law that obligates the driver to either consent to take the test requested or refuse. The officer has no obligation to give the driver legal advice and will not do so; however, the law says that if the driver requests to call an attorney, the officer must give the driver twenty minutes within which to consult with a lawyer. The law does NOT require the officer to notify the driver that he or she can have twenty minutes to contact an attorney for advice, the officer is only obligated to honor such a request. After the twenty minute period has expired, whether or not the driver has been able to consult with counsel, the officer will tell the driver it is now time to take the test. The driver cannot refuse because he was unable to contact a lawyer.

Generally, assuming the driver has no previous pleas of guilty or convictions for an alcohol/drug related driving offense, and no previous alcohol-drug related suspensions or revocations, he is going to ultimately be better off taking the tests requested by the officer. If the driver takes the tests and the tests show that his blood-alcohol is under eight-hundredths of one percent by weight, and that result is not wholly inconsistent with the officer’s observations so that a second test is not administered, the officer could very well decide neither to issue a summons nor request an arrest warrant for the offense of driving while intoxicated; or, if the officer does decide to issue the summons despite the low test result, the prosecuting attorney may well decline prosecution. If the prosecutor charges the driver despite the low BAC, the driver has a powerful tool with which to persuade the trier of fact that he is not guilty. If the driver’s BAC proves to be in excess of the eight- hundredths of one percent limit, then his driving privileges will be suspended for a period of 90 days (as opposed to a revocation for one year for a refusal), and will be eligible to apply for a limited driving permit after 30 days (as opposed to after 90 days for a refusal).

The astute reader will pick up on the use of the word “Generally” with which I commenced the above paragraph. As with most things in life, there are going to be exceptions. Under the scenario described above, if the driver tests over the legal limit, he is about 99% assured that he will lose his driver’s license for the prescribed period. This “administrative suspension” is handled entirely by the department of revenue. Though the driver is entitled to a hearing on the matter, the attorney prosecuting the suspension for the department of revenue is a department of revenue attorney and the administrative officer deciding the issue of suspension is likewise a department of revenue attorney. As a practical matter, provided the officer operating the machine is properly certified, all the department of revenue has to show at the hearing is that the driver was operating a motor vehicle and at the time his blood alcohol level was at a level of eight-hundredths of one percent or higher, or that the blood test-salvia-urine test showed the driver to be under the influence of a drug.

By refusing the test, the driver is able to place his driving privileges in the hands of the local prosecuting attorney who will in most cases be representing the State on the forthcoming driving while under the influence/intoxicated charge rather than in the hands of the Department of Revenue. Because the driver’s attorney on the DWI charge will also be representing him on the Refusal matter (there is a vehicle by which the driver can challenge the officer’s claim that the driver knowingly refused to consent to the requested test), the driver’s skilled lawyer may very well be able to negotiate a “package” deal with the local prosecuting attorney that will entail the driver’s driving privileges not being revoked or suspended. The driver is able to obtain a temporary driving permit while these negotiations are proceeding. The prosecutor, in exchange for agreeing that the driver’s driving privileges will not be revoked, will almost certainly drive a harder bargain in dealing with the DWI offense than he would have had the driver taken the requested test and had his driving privileges suspended by the department of revenue.

The next blog will cover what conduct on the part of the driver may be considered a refusal as well as the dilemma of drivers who have had a previous alcohol/drug related driving offense.

**DISCLAIMER: This article is intended to provide general information and is not and should not be taken as specific legal advice or as creating an attorney/client relationship with any reader. Any specific situation requires specific legal advice. Anyone facing a legal problem should contact an attorney for specific legal advice and should not rely solely on any information contained in this article. An attorney licensed in the state of Missouri writes all articles and all legal information discussed addresses the law as it stands in Missouri at the time of writing. Not only may there be significant differences in how the law would be applied in Missouri versus other states, the law is not static and can change over time. Nothing in this article is intended to have any relevance outside of the state of Missouri and should be taken as general information only, not legal advice.

The Implied Consent Law

Missouri has a statute that is referred to as “the implied consent law.” The statute states that if a police officer has “probable” cause to believe that a person who is driving “a motorized vehicle” while under the influence of alcohol or drugs impliedly consents to a chemical test for the purpose of determining the drug or alcohol content of his blood. The chemical tests authorized by law to which one must consent or face consequences are “the person’s breath, blood, saliva or urine.” The officer determines which test he will request the driver to consent to take. The officer will read from a form that basically contains the implied consent law and the language that if the driver refuses to take the test the driver’s driving privileges will be revoked for one year. The driver does not have a choice of which test to take. The officer can request the driver to take any two of the specified tests but no more. (RSMo 577.020).

The breath test is most often performed at a “station” such as at the county sheriff’s department or police station, though at times they are performed in a van set up for that purpose. A van is most often the location for the test when the police are conducting a “deterrence roadblock stop,” and the van is at the location of the stop along with a tow truck to tow the vehicles of DWI suspects. It is the refusal to take the breath test at the station or in the van that triggers the bad consequences for the driver. Of course if the driver refuses any one of the other tests specified by the statute, blood, saliva or urine, the legal consequences are also triggered. Many officers, especially those assigned to a specialized DWI detection unit, carry in their patrol vehicles a preliminary alcohol-content testing device, or commonly referred to as a portable breathalyzer. At the site of the initial traffic stop, the officer may well ask the driver if he will take the portable breath test. This test is considered by law as a part of “field sobriety testing”, and there is no penalty for refusing this test. On the other hand there is absolutely nothing to be gained by the driver in refusing the test. The test results may not be admitted into evidence nor can the fact that the driver refused to consent to this test be used against him as evidence of intoxication in a criminal prosecution. There is one likely downside of refusing to blow into the officer’s portable machine. The officer may adopt a very unpleasant attitude toward this uncooperative driver. The biggest problem we have seen is the officer will ask the driver at the site of the traffic stop if he will submit to this preliminary breath test. If the driver refuses consent, the officer then will ask again at the station if he will take a breath test. The driver is often confused, because he knows that he has already refused a breath test. If the officer does not take the time to patiently explain that this second test at the station is a different test and the fact that the driver refused to be tested by the “portable” machine is of no consequence, the driver will often just say he refuses without really understanding his situation and the consequences.

The Legal Consequences of Refusal

Any “refusal” to comply with Missouri’s implied consent law has serious consequences, but it is not currently a crime in Missouri to refuse to comply with the implied consent law. If you are deemed to have “refused,” the Department of Revenue will revoke your driving privileges in the state of Missouri for one year, whether you were impaired or not, and regardless of the outcome of the prosecution for driving while intoxicated or other alcohol-related driving offense. If the driver’s driving privileges are revoked for a refusal, the driver is not eligible for a “hardship” license (one that would let you drive to work, for example) for ninety (90) days. Furthermore, the “refusal” to comply with the law can be used against the driver in court in any criminal case that results as evidence of the driver being under the influence of alcohol or drugs; this means the State is permitted to tell the judge or jury the driver refused to take the test and to argue to the judge or jury that the driver refused the test because he knew he would not pass the test, because he knew he was intoxicated.

Adding insult to injury, when a driver refuses any of the tests requested, the officer will mark “Refused” thus triggering the year’s revocation of the driver’s driving privileges, and then the officer may very well seek a warrant for the involuntary taking of the driver’s blood for analysis. If a warrant issues, the driver has created a situation where 1. His driving privileges are subject to being revoked for one year, 2. His refusal to consent to the test can be used as evidence against him in a criminal prosecution, and 3. The result of the blood test analysis can also be used against him in a criminal prosecution. As of this writing, because of a Missouri Supreme Court case, if the driver refuses the officer’s request to be tested, in most circumstances, the officer is required to obtain a warrant before having blood drawn from a driver suspected of driving under the influence. The Missouri case requiring a warrant has been appealed by the State to the United States Supreme court, and the case is currently pending before that court.

Presently, the driver may refuse his consent to be tested without incurring any criminal liability; however, there has been recent legislation proposed that would make it a misdemeanor offense for a driver to refuse his consent to a chemical test when requested by an officer who has probable cause to believe the driver is driving on a public roadway while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. It is not unlikely that sometime in the future that proposed law will again be before the legislature for a vote and could very well become the law.

Part 2 of this blog will deal with whether a driver who is asked to consent to the taking chemical tests should give his consent or refuse.

**DISCLAIMER: This article is intended to provide general information and is not and should not be taken as specific legal advice or as creating an attorney/client relationship with any reader. Any specific situation requires specific legal advice. Anyone facing a legal problem should contact an attorney for specific legal advice and should not rely solely on any information contained in this article. An attorney licensed in the state of Missouri writes all articles and all legal information discussed addresses the law as it stands in Missouri at the time of writing. Not only may there be significant differences in how the law would be applied in Missouri versus other states, the law is not static and can change over time. Nothing in this article is intended to have any relevance outside of the state of Missouri and should be taken as general information only, not legal advice.

This three vehicle collision left six people with serious injuries just because the at-fault driver wanted to have an extra drink or two and then drive. What a bad decision. An even worse decision was made when the driver went through a stop sign, which resulted in the car hitting a truck and another vehicle trying to avoid the wreck, but instead, crashing into the corner of the intersection.

The force of the impact was so significant that one of the vehicles landed on its side, trapping the driver in the wreckage. EMS crews had to extricate that driver to get him to the hospital, where he was listed in critical condition. There were also six others rushed to area emergency rooms for medical attention. Those six were listed in stable condition.

According to police reports of the 2 a.m. crash, speed and booze were factors, and the finger points back to the driver that decided he did not need to obey a stop sign and sped right through it into the side of a truck. It was complete mayhem at the accident scene, with EMS crews trying to do triage and extracting trapped drivers, and the police trying to sort out who caused the mess in the first place.

Until all the blood tests taken at the hospital were confirmed, charges would be held in abeyance. However, it is likely the driver of the car that ran the stop sign will be charged with DWI among other things. And the survivors of this mess? They will most likely be checking around for a personal injury lawyer to find out how to obtain compensation for their medical expenses and other costs.

Some of them might even sue the drunk driver and while they are waiting for their case to go to court, they would need cash to pay their bills. Since that will be hard to come by if they are not working, they could check into sourcing litigation funding.

If the drunk driver’s conduct is deemed negligent, and it would be hard to think it was not, since he chose to drive while drunk, his insurance would help the injured in this case handle their enormous medical bills. But litigation can take months, even years, to come to an end.

How will these families deal with their horrendous medical bills on top of their regular monthly expenses? If they have filed a lawsuit, they can apply for lawsuit funding from a lawsuit loan company. Legal funding is easy to apply for and helps victims out of their awkward debt situation until a verdict is handed down or they reach an equitable settlement with the other side.

Pre-settlement funding is a lawsuit cash advance, which is an emergency loan that allows the plaintiff to pay off important bills and expenses. Plaintiffs will then have the time and money to wait for justice, and in the meantime they can turn down inadequate offers from insurance companies.

If you have been injured in an accident thanks to someone else’s negligence and you are filing a lawsuit with a seasoned injury attorney, litigation funding is worth checking out. It will pay your bills while you wait for a fair resolution to your case.

Daren Monroe writes for Litigation Funding Corp. To learn more about lawsuit &ufding and litigation funding, visit Litigationfundingcorp.com.