Kentucky DUI Defense Lawyer

DUI Offenders Subject to Identity Theft

September 15, 2009 - The Department of Justice announced it has charged Donald Stoner, of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, with conspiracy to commit identity fraud in a scheme wherein he targeted DUI offenders in Lancaster and York Counties.

According to the press release by Dennis C. Pfannenschmidt, United States Attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Stoner would target DUI offenders who hired private attorneys, reasoning that they would have money to steal in contrast to those DUI offenders who used public defenders. Stoner obtained the names of the DUI offenders using the internet, and would then obtain the DUI offender’s personal information directly from the court files in the clerk’s office using an accomplice. From the court files, Stoner and his accomplice obtained the DUI offender’s social security number, drivers license number and other identifying information disclosed in the court documents. Stoner and his accomplice thereafter opened fraudulent bank accounts, created phony email addresses, and applied for loans in the victim’s name.

As a result of this type of identify theft scheme, the clerk of court for York and Lancaster County were asked to redact identifying information from court documents prior to release to the public.

Stoner agreed to plead guilty to the charge. He faces up to five years’ imprisonment and $250,000 in fines upon conviction of the offense.

Post by Kentucky Attorney Stephen J. Isaacs, Isaacs Law Office.

Stay informed: add this blog to your Technorati Favorites, . . .

 

Tips For The Selection of a DUI Attorney

After a person is stopped and charged with DUI, they usually do not know where to go nor who to call for legal help.  Immediately after arrest while still in jail, out comes the telephone book and a search in the yellow pages for attorneys.  Or perhaps the arresting officer or booking officer knows the name of a DUI lawyer who can help. Maybe after arrest and release on bond an internet search is performed for a DUI defense attorney.  A DUI lawyer is selected and called. How do you know they are the right lawyer for your case? 

Several times this year I received telephone calls from parents of potential DUI clients. The conversation typically starts by the parent stating that they (their adult child) had just fired their DUI attorney and wanted to hire an experienced Kentucky DUI defense attorney. The former attorney's were either from legal aid or were private attorneys. Typically during the conversation I learned that the attorney's client had fired their DUI defense lawyer because the attorney had stated that there was no hope of defending the case and that the accused person should just plead guilty to the DUI. Obviously, the accused person disagreed with the advice.

So as to better meet their needs, I first verify that the representation had indeed been terminated. I also make it a habit of asking the caller how they chose the former DUI defense lawyer. I was not surprised by the responses I heard: they typically selected the former private DUI attorney based on cost: the former attorney's were either the least expensive or had quoted a very low fee to just plead their client's guilty. I also ask the caller why they chose to contact my firm. The parent's typically state during the conversation that they firmly believe in their (adult) child's innocense.  As such they inform me that they looked up the names of the local Kentucky DUI defense attorneys, made some inquiries of either prior client's or other non-DUI attorney's, and that they thereafter decided to contact my firm for more information on my services.  

During the conversations I have been told that some of the former DUI attorney's had quoted legal fees for the defense of DUI's without meeting with the accused, without determining the complete list of charges against the accused, and without getting the accused's observations of what the officer had done to make the stop and arrest.  I am of the opinion that it is difficult to determine how much work and time will need to be performed to properly defend a case without having the aforelisted facts. 

In discussing this topic with other attorney's, I have compiled a short list of questions a potential client should ask and have answered before selecting a DUI defense lawyer to handle their case.  Note that this list of questions is only a starting place, and is not meant to be all inclusive:  

1)  Does the lawyer handle the defense of DUI's on a regular basis?  

2)  Does the lawyer personally consult with the client to discuss the facts of the case, review potential records, and research the criminal charges before quoting the client a fee for the DUI defense?

3)  Does the lawyer impress you with their knowledge of DUI law?

4)  Has the lawyer lectured or taught or written articles on the subject?

5)  Does the lawyer listen to the client and discuss possible defenses to the charges? 

6)  Does the lawyer maintain a library upon which they rely and which includes procedures, manuals, books, and etc. used to train Kentucky officers in making a DUI stop and arrest?

7)  If the lawyer lives more than 40 miles away from the courthouse of the pending action, will they be able to effectively handle the case?

8)   If the lawyer lives more than  40 miles away from the courthouse of the pending action, will they charge more for travel time to handle the case?

9)   Can the DUI attorney explain to the client a comparison of risks vs benefits along with the associated costs to defend their innocense as opposed to just pleading guity?

Post by Fayette County Kentucky Attorney Stephen J. Isaacs, Isaacs Law Office.

Stay informed: add this blog to your Technorati Favorites, . . .

Can Taxing Marijuana Save Kentucky?

In this challeging economy, a Lexington Kentucky attorney has a solution for Kentucky's budget crisis: legalize and tax marijuana. 

In a prepared statement, Attorney Gatewood Gailbraith, former political candidate for governor of Kentucky, states that Kentucky is looking for new sources of taxation and seems bent on adding a "sales tax" on services including our legal fees. However, he points out that "there is a much larger source of revenues lying untapped which will keep them out of our pockets and solve our budget problems for years to come."  Galbraith's solution, tax marijuana.

In a letter to Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear, Galbraith argues that Kentucky should take advantage of this opportunity by studing ways to tax and regulate cannabis (marijuana and hemp) so as to help Kentuckians. 

As an example, Galbraith calculates "that getting 30 joints per ounce, the Kentucky public consumes 114,000 ounces of marijuana per day. At a $100 per ounce tax, that would yield the Commonwealth an additional $511 MILLION in new taxes the first year. If we were the first [state] east of the Mississippi River to pass these laws, the income would be astronomical, dwarfing the gambling/casino commerce to Kentucky." Gatewood prepared a chart entitled "Are You Tough Enough for The Truth", wherein he states that "in 07, Kenucky was ranked 2nd in total domestic marijuana production wih most of this production going out of state".  According to Gatewood's calculations, Kentucky could realize new annual income of at least $1,7893,283,200.00. 

 

Note:  The views contained herein by attoney Gatewood Galbraith regarding legalizing marijuana are the views and opinions of Gatewood Gailbraith and are not the views of the author.  Documents received from attorney Gailbraith are used with permission of Gatewood Galibraith. It is illegal to use and / or possess and / or sell marijuana in the Commonwealth (State) of Kentucky.

Article by Lexington Kentucky criminal defense Attorney Stephen J. Isaacs, Isaacs Law Office.

Stay informed: add this blog to your Technorati Favorites, . . .

Out-of-State Drivers May Receive Enhanced Administrative DUI Penalties In Their Home State For A Kentucky Conviction

An issue that surprises many Out-of-State drivers who are charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI) in Kentucky is how their home state will handle a DUI conviction in Kentucky. 

Many drivers charged with DUI in Kentucky believe that if they plead guilty to the DUI in Kentucky, it will not affect them back home.  Perhaps their home state will not know about the DUI.  Unfortunately, this is usually not the case.

What few people realize, is that driving a vehicle in Kentucky, as in most states, is considered a privilege - not a right.  This means that a state can administratively revoke a person's driving privileges according to state public policies.  The general rationale, after heavy lobbying and legislative admentents, was to make sure that those individuals accused of DUI would have their driving licenses suspended, regardless of the outcome in the criminal courts.

It has been this attorney's experience that once a person either pleads guilty or is found guilty by a jury, the Kentucky Department of Transportation will report the DUI conviction to the driver's home state. While the driver's home state will not be able to constitutionally bring duplicate DUI charges against the person convicted of DUI in Kentucky, they can invoke administrative revocation of that driver's privilege to drive. A person convicted of DUI-1st in Kentucky may loose their privilge to drive in Kentucky for 30 to 120 days. However, in addition, the same out-of-state driver convicted of DUI-1st in Kentucky may also loose their privilege to drive in their home state for longer periods of time. 

Also of importance, the length of the out-of-state administrative suspension may also be dependent of the facts of the DUI arrest.

Fortunately, in limited cases, based on case facts, a Kentucky defense attorney may be able to help the out-of-state driver convicted of DUI in Kentucky to avoid the impact of an administratively suspended driving privilge in the state which issued the driving licence.  

Post by Lexington Kentucky Attorney Stephen J. Isaacs, Isaacs Law Office.

Stay informed: add this blog to your Technorati Favorites, . . .

Stephen Isaacs Lectures on DUI to New Kentucky Attorneys

The Kentucky Bar Association held its New Lawyer Program on January 15-16, 2009 at the Northern Kentucky Convention Center.

The Kentucky Bar included the topic of Driving Under the Influence in Kentucky.  This author, Stephen Isaacs, was pleased to be the featured lecturer at the DUI seminar for the new lawyers.

This was the second time attorney Stephen Isaacs provided presentations at the request of the Kentucky Bar Association Continuing Legal Education department.

Post by Lexington Kentucky Attorney Stephen J. Isaacs, Isaacs Law Office

Stay informed: add this blog to your Technorati Favorites, . . .

No Plea Deals for Kentucky DUI Charges

Kentucky prosecutors do not enter into plea bargaining deals for individuals charged with DUI.

Kentucky statutory law (KRS 189A.120) mandates that the prosecutor shall not agree to amend the DUI charge(s) to a lessor offense or the alcohol concentration for a person twenty-one (21) years of age or older with a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) at or above 0.08, or for a person under the age of twenty-one (21) with a BAC at or above 0.02, or when the defendant, regardless of age, has refused to take an alcohol concentration or substance test.

Exceptions do exist. The prosecuting attorney may agree to amend the DUI charge to a lesser offense if all prosecution witnesses are, and it is expected they will continue to be, unavailable for trial. Furthermore, a prosecuting attorney shall not amend a blood alcohol concentration, and shall
oppose the amendment of the percentage, unless uncontroverted scientific evidence is presented that the test results were in error.

Post by Kentucky DUI Lawyer, Stephen J. Isaacs, Isaacs Law Office.

Standard Field Sobriety Tests Do Not Accurately Measure Driver Impairment.

Standard Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs) do not accurately determine impairment for probable cause to support an arrest for Driving Under the Influence (DUI).

The SFSTs originally researched by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) fail to provide a standardized means of objectivity and unscientifically assessing impairment. The SFSTs were originally developed to assist the officer screen a driver for probable cause to arrest the indivudual for drunk driving. Yet frequently the officer gives the SFSTs after deciding that the driver is guilty of DUI.

The effectiveness of the SFSTs has been called into question since they were developed by NHTSA and are therefore "self-serving". In a 1977 study, researchers learned that 47 percent of the subjects that would have been arrested based upon test performance actually had blood-alcohol concentrations less than the legal limit of 0.10 (the legal limit was reduced to 0.08 in 2000). In 1981, the same researchers conducted further "standardized" testing and learned that the the false results dropped to 32 percent: in other words, in this test nearly one out of every three individuals who failed the test were not legally intoxicated. 

Subsequent independent scientific researchers have found these Standard Field Sobriety Tests  flawed.  Many of these same researchers in 1987 observed that the SFSTs determined balance, steadiness, and reaction time but  concluded that a connection between these factors and driving ability was not apparent because neither a steady stance nor simple movement time is essential to the safe operation of a motor vehicle. The researchers did concede that the Standard Field Sobriety Tests may show the presence of alcohol, but that they did not necessarily measure driving ability.

Research on the validity and accuracy of the Standard Field Sobriety Tests conducted in 1991 at Clemston University further showed the SFST's yield false results.  In this study, 21 sober individuals with a blood alcohol content of .00 were videotaped performing six common Field Sobriety Tests. The videotapes were then shown to 14 officers who were asked to determine if the individuals had too much to drink and drive. The officers were not informed that the individuals on the videotapes were sober.  The officers found that 46 percent of the time the individuals were too intoxicated to drive.

Generally officers do not give the Standard Field Sobriety Tests uniformly, and as noted, there is no scientific basis for assuming they are valid. Many officers either administer the wrong tests or improperly instruct the suspect driver on how to perform the tests. A DUI defense attorney can obtain a pretrial suppression ruling to exclude the SFSTs and their alleged indication of impairment due to lack of scientific foundation and improper instructions.

Post by Kentucky DUI Lawyer, Stephen J. Isaacs, Isaacs Law Office.

Common Mistakes Police Officers Make In DUI Arrests

Police Officers frequently make mistakes when they investigate and arrest a driver for driving under the influence in Kentucky. Many of these mistakes include, but are not limited to the following:

1. Assuming that "witnessed" driving behavior (i.e.: weaving, cell phone use, distraction) is related to alcohol consumption.
2. Observing driver behavior from a distance and attributing the behavior to the driver and not to the road conditions (i.e.: swerving to avoid potholes or animals in the roadway)
3. Assuming that the odor of alcohol means a person consumed alcohol and is intoxicated, when in fact the odor may be due to other causes (i.e.: mouthwash, denture solutions, alcoholic drink which was spilled on the driver's clothes, etc.)   
4. Failing to investigate a driver’s potential medical problems which could imitate intoxication (such as diabetes, knee / ankle / leg / foot problems, inner ear disturbance, etc.).   
5. Requesting all people submit to Standard Field Sobriety Tests (SFST), regardless of whether the person is physically unable to pass the exercises even while totally sober.   
6. Failing to eliminate distractions and obstacles during the SFST which invalidate the test (i.e.:   loose gravel, unlevel surfaces, wind blowing, darkness, strobe lights, moving traffic, etc.)   
7. Failing to properly instruct the driver during the instructional phase of the SFST's.
8. Failing to properly instruct the driver during the administration of the SFST's.   
9. Failing to properly follow the sequence of the SFST as described in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Manual or the Kentucky Department of Justice Center for Training (KDOJCT) Manual.
10. Administering invalid field sobriety “tests” which are not supported by research studies.
11. Failing to properly administer the Portable Breath Test (PBT), causing a false positive result (i.e.: not following the law and waiting 20 minutes before administering the test) to support a probable cause for arrest. (Note: PBT results are not admissible in Kentucky courts.)
12. Not having the Intoxilizer 5000EN breath test within 2 hours of cessation of the vehicle operation.

The above list of police officer mistakes is only a partial list of mistakes made by officers. It applies to Kentucky DUI / DWI arrests. If any of the above mistakes exist in a Driving Under the Influence matter, then a good defense may exist to the DUI / DWI charges.

Post by Kentucky DUI Lawyer, Stephen J. Isaacs, Isaacs Law Office.

Kentucky Police Officer Charged with DUI

A grand Jury indicted former police officer Brad Nighbert, on January 7, 2007, on charges stemming from a 2006 DUI accident.  Brad Nighbert is best known as the son of Kentucky State Transportation Secretary Bill Nighbert.  Brad Nighbert had been a police officer for 7 years.

The April 2006 accident occurred when Nighbert’s police cruiser struck a minivan as it pulled out of a gas station.

The Whitley County grand jury indicted Nighbert on charges of 2nd degree assault, or in the alternative, 1st degree wanton endangerment, 1st degree criminal mischief, 1st degree possession of a controlled substance, and driving under the influence (DUI).

Read the Story.

Firefighter Driving Drunk and Joyriding in Firetruck

Canyon County, Idaho sheriff's deputies arrested Winston Goering for drunk driving after taking a fire truck for a joyride.

Sheriff’s deputies called dispatch centers shortly after midnight to investigate where the fire truck with its lights and sirens blaring was heading.  No one knew of any fires, so the deputies pulled the fire truck over and found Goering driving the truck.  Deputies arrested Goering after finding him to be driving under the influence (DUI) at twice the legal limit, and charged him with joy riding and DUI - second.

Read the story.