DUI Lawyer Las Vegas

?We are a nation of laws, more specifically, the common law inherited from the British legal system.  Unlike most nations, which use some version of the French civil law where laws are found in codes, we look to the precedent of judicial decisions interpreting statutory law.?  The importance of precedent in our legal system cannot be overstated.  Constitutional rights are being lost, not through the quick actions of political or military decisions, but through the slow erosion of precedent in our court systems.  Drivers who are charged with ?driving under the influence? or DUIs are most susceptible to this loss of rights.  Add to this picture politically charged groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) which began as a mother grief stricken over the loss of her thirteen year old daughter and today is a major political voice with revenues of over 47 million annually.

Drunk driving is a politically incorrect topic.  People are unanimously opposed to it both morally and socially.  Nearly every religion in the world has ordinances and warning against intoxication and drunkenness.  The fact remains, drunk drivers are a danger to themselves and others, causing a huge number of fatal accidents.  However, the inherent wrongness of drunk driving does not mean we should allow the erosion of constitutional rights.  On the contrary it is even more important for justice?s sake that a guilty citizen has the rights outlined in our Constitution.

The deterioration of rights began in 1990 when the Supreme Court found in Michigan v. Sitz. that sobriety checkpoints, although clearly a violation of the Fourth Amendment, were permissible because, as Judge Rehnquist stated, ?No one can seriously dispute the magnitude of the drunken driving problem or the States? interest in eradicating it.?  Dissenting Justice Clarence Thomas countered, ?I rather doubt that the Framers of the Fourth Amendment would have considered “reasonable” a program of indiscriminate stops of individuals not suspected of wrongdoing.?

Further infringing on citizen?s rights, South Dakota v. Neville. found that refusing to submit to a breathalyzer was illegal, although the Fifth Amendment gives citizens the right against self-incrimination.  Finally the Sixth Amendment?s right to a jury trial was lost next in Blanton v. North Las Vegas.  As attorney Lawrence Taylor paraphrased on his blog, ?First they came for the drunks, but I was not a drunk so I did not speak up?..?

Originally published here.

It is inevitable for anyone who tries to get away with driving after they have been imbibing alcohol will get caught one day. The police are getting ever stricter on this point and some states have started a zero tolerance attitude when it involves this type of charge. For those who have been caught out, they will certainly need the services of a DUI attorney to get them through the trying times ahead. Indeed, it is a DUI lawyer who will probably be able to mitigate their punishment as long as they have access to all the details.

For example, those who have been stopped at the roadside under the suspicion of drunk driving do not actually have to undergo the roadside tests that we all know about. Indeed, any driver can ask to be taken to the station house for all and any tests that the police may want to do. Not only does this give the driver enough time to collect himself, it also gives the blood time to clear some of the alcohol. If he was only just over the limit then this could mean the difference with getting off with a warning and actually being charged.

Of course, it is immoral to drink and drive, or to take illicit drugs and then get into a vehicle and drive it away, but people being people, this will always be a problem. However, with the punishment that is being meted out these days, the erstwhile driver will eventually realize that he cannot get away with this unsocial behavior anymore.

There are many campaigns going on which are related to family members of victims of drunken drivers. With all the resulting publicity that they get, many states are going for a zero allowance for alcohol and drugs. Since a car can do so much damage, it is logical that no one should attempt to drive even if they are on prescription medications which make them drowsy.

There are some rare cases, however, when a driver is forced to take the wheel even though he knows that he is over the limit. Emergencies are just one of those times when the driver really has no choice. However, he will be held liable even though he felt he had to drive because there was no one else capable of getting someone to a hospital, for example. Some cases where the driver did not damage anyone or any property will be looked upon less severely. But do not rely on this as there is really no telling what the court will do in any given case.

Finally, it may just be better never to attempt any kind of driving while under the influence. It is obvious that, as the penalties for doing this get worse, that the deterrent factor is enough to put most people off, but there are those who always think that they can beat the system in one way or another. This is how the expert earns his keep!

Originally published here.