Florida DUI Lawyer Blog

The Mayo Clinic Health Letter explains that Diabetes is a group of diseases with one thing in common -- a problem with insulin. The problem could be that your body doesn’t make any insulin, it doesn’t make enough insulin, or it doesn’t use insulin properly. Over 16 million people in the United States suffer from Type 2 (adult-onset) diabetes and that number is growing rapidly.
Insulin is a hormone secreted by your pancreas. It’s a key part of the way your body processes the food you eat because it helps maintain the proper level of a sugar (glucose) in your blood. Glucose is your body’s fuel. Cells use it to produce energy to grow and function.
Diabetes can lead to serious problems such as blindness, impotence, loss of limbs, and death. Unfortunately, the incidence of diabetes is growing rapidly in the United States and a number of other countries.
Actually, it has been widely reported that drinking one or two alcoholic beverages per day is good for diabetics. On the other hand, it is not uncommon to see hypoglycemia and diabetes in connection with driving errors and accidents on today's roads, but even more frequently are unwarranted DUI and DWI arrests stemming from diabetic symptoms that mimic those of a drunk driver.
Hypoglycemia occurs in the human body where there are abnormally low levels of blood glucose (blood sugar), usually under 60 mg/dl. Diabetes occurs when the blood sugar level is greater than 120 mg/dl and there is a total absence of insulin. Insulin, regulated by your pancreas, is a necessary hormone needed for digestion and blood glucose balance. If you have a normal metabolism, your blood glucose level generally will be between 70 and 120 mg/dl.
Is all of this significant? Hypoglycemic or diabetic symptoms can sometimes be confused with those of someone who is under the influence of alcohol. Though most commonly experienced by a hypoglycemic or diabetic, these symptoms can also occur in non-diabetic individuals if they have not eaten within twenty-four hours or are on a low-carbohydrate diet. A diabetic undergoing a breathalyzer test can have a false assessment due to the chemical changes in their body.
When a diabetic experiences a hypoglycemic attack, their bodily symptoms may include anxiety, hunger, rapid heartbeat, nausea, sweating, and tremors. Symptoms that affect the central nervous system could include confusion, delayed reflexes, headache, light-headedness, loss of consciousness, seizures, and slurred speech. Unfortunately, most people who experience hypoglycemic episodes while driving are unaware of how serious their symptoms really are and are putting themselves in danger.
Four possible reasons why diabetic symptoms can be deceptive to police officers during a DUI investigation, causing them to believe a driver is intoxicated due to alcohol use are: (1) If a diabetic’s blood sugar rises to 250 mg/dl or more, their body is not able to utilize any carbohydrates for energy. Their body will begin to compensate and start to burn stored fat for energy, which produces ketones. This may cause drowsiness, thirst, lost of appetite, rapid heartbeat, labored breathing, and a flushed face (flushed face is a common sign that police officers look for when evaluating a subject). This phenomenon is called "diabetic ketoacidosis;"
(2) During a diabetic ketoacidosis state, ketones and acetones on the breath will cause a unique bad breath that is often confused with breath alcohol odor (another common DUI “symptom”);
(3) Presence of acetones on the breath is a common cause of an elevated or false breath test reading of blood alcohol level. A study conducted in 1988 found that acetone levels could produce a breath test result of .06%, just under the legal limit of .08%. (Mormann, Olsen, Sakshaug, and Morland; Measurement of Ethanol by Alkomat Breath Analyzer; Chemical Specificity and the Influence of Lung Function, Breath Technique and Environmental Temperature, 25 Blutalkohol 153); and
(4) As a final point, in any DUI case where the accused is a diabetic, any projection of the blood alcohol level backwards to the point of arrest may be unreliable, as insulin naturally increases the rate at which alcohol oxidizes, or burns off, within the body.

-William Ryan Moore, Esq.

Posted by William Ryan Moore | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DIABETES AND ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION

Bookmark:

Mom, Dad Accused Hours Apart Of DUI
Each Parent Had Child In Car

A married couple were arrested within hours, each on suspicion of drunken driving.

First the husband, then his wife were arrested.

Police in a Michigan town said they stopped the man and gave him a preliminary breath test after watching him allegedly run a red light.

Police said the test registered above the legal .08 drunken driving limit.

He had his 12-year-old son in the car with him, and police told the boy to call his mother to pick him up.

After she arrived, with her 9-year-old daughter in the car, police said, the woman was tested and also found to be legally drunk.

Both children were turned over to a relative until the parents were determined to be sober.

Posted by William Ryan Moore | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In:

Bookmark:

In some counties, there is a trend toward a “DUI Awareness Campaign,” whereby individuals arrested for driving under the influence have their names posted in the local paper for all of the community to read. Such postings are done for no regard to the amount of evidence obtained by law enforcement to prosecute said individuals, let alone the outcome of the individual cases. For example, the Lee County Sheriff’s Office named 25 individuals arrested for DUI on October 9, 2007, and has no plans to release the names of individuals on that list who are subsequently acquitted of the charge.

-William Ryan Moore, Esq.

Posted by William Ryan Moore | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: THE PUBLICIZING OF DUI ARREST LISTS AS A DETERRENT

Bookmark:

Isn’t it reasonable to think that one might not fully comprehend their level of impairment until getting behind the wheel of an automobile and staring on a trip? In a peculiar set of rulings throughout the country’s State courts, it can be said that we are presumed to know with specificity our blood alcohol level at all times. In fact, some courts have gone so far as to say that a Defendant in a DUI trial can testify to what his blood alcohol level was at the time of his arrest, despite his not being an expert. The State courts have quoted the use of alcohol impairment charts that are readily available and widely publicized to the public, coupled with their knowledge of precisely how many drinks that they consumed on the night in question. Quite frankly, I would be amazed if anybody on earth, with specificity, could state the alcohol content within their blood after having consumed any amount of alcohol. A diabetic, someone who had just consumed bread, worked around industrial compounds, or used mouthwash would have an equally difficult time, despite their having consumed no alcohol whatsoever.

With this in mind, it is not unreasonable to think that most people at some point might find themselves in a situation when they realize that their faculties are, in fact, impaired by alcohol after they have gotten behind the wheel and begun driving. This would be due to the scientific fact that alcohol, like all drugs, is absorbed by the body, and reaches a peak, and is then eliminated. Many drivers may have not been impaired when starting to travel, only having the alcohol “hit them” and subsequently render them impaired at the “peak period.” In any situation such as this, we would imagine that the responsible thing to do would be to pull over immediately and sleep it off. Do this in Florida and you might as well call the Sheriff’s office from your cell phone after pulling over and have them haul you to jail. Pulling over just about anywhere in this State, to sleep in your car will almost certainly result in an officer and/or paramedic tapping at your window. When officers see signs of impairment, a DUI investigation will ensue and an arrest will be made.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving and other powerful lobbyist groups who have made DUI the politically charged crime that it is, justify such arrests by claiming that either the person was impaired at some point while they were driving (such rationale completely disregards the scientific reality which is absorption and elimination of alcohol), and should be punished, or that while still impaired, a person might wake up at any time, drive and endanger other motorists. The argument makes sense, however, punishing people for what they might do is, at least at this moment unconstitutional, as it makes otherwise legal behavior criminal,. Nonetheless, to arrest and prosecute individuals for what they might do, the Florida courts have extended to the utmost degree the definition of “dominion and control” of an automobile.

Under Florida law, a person can be “operating” or “in physical control” of a vehicle if he is asleep, passed out, hunched over the wheel, or his or her keys are in their pocket. You might be surprised that there are some states in this country do not agree with Florida’s ruling and don’t criminalize such behavior. The statutes and case rulings of these other states will be of little solace, however, to the people who pulled over and did the right thing in Florida only to find themselves sitting in a jail. Traveling outside of Florida, be mindful that the law on this issue changes as you cross each state line. Variations that make “sleeping it off” criminal are: if the engine is on but the vehicle is parked; the engine is on but the vehicle is inoperable; the engine is off and the vehicle is parked; or, the engine is off and the vehicle is inoperable. Florida conforms to the toughest and most illogical standard which makes it a crime to be unconscious behind the wheel of a car on private property, without the engine running. This includes in a parking space, in a private development, in front of your own home.

Once again we see the effect of the politically charged crime of DUI as evolving a set of unconstitutional laws which are upheld and supported. The truth is that as a society we are making criminals out of people who were just trying to do the right

Posted by William Ryan Moore | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: SLEEPING BEHIND THE WHEEL

Bookmark:

The following incident occurred in St. Petersburg, FL. Travis Merriex was dazed and disoriented from taking drugs last month when he got behind the wheel of a public bus, careened off Central Avenue and crashed into a shopping center, police said.
Six people were injured in the Sept. 12 crash after Merriex drove through trees and slammed into cars before finally ramming into a check-cashing business. One man broke his leg. Police arrested Merriex after receiving his blood test results, which showed he had Methadone, Alprazolam and Lorazepam in his system.
Merriex, 37, was arrested on a felony charge of driving under the influence in a serious bodily injury crash. He also was cited for careless driving. He was working at the time for the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA).
Methadone can be prescribed as a painkiller. Alprazolam, which is commonly known as Xanax, is often used to treat anxiety disorders and can affect driving skills by causing drowsiness. Lorazepam is also used to treat anxiety, with drowsiness or dizziness as possible side effects. Merriex told police that he was taking the drugs to treat back pain from an earlier accident, according to a traffic homicide investigator.
While no law prohibits people from driving after taking medication, drivers can be charged with DUI if they are pulled over and show signs of impairment. Merriex was acting erratically before the crash; a bus camera showed that he slurred his speech, frantically looked around the bus and even rested his head on the steering wheel. He was acting irrationally. Merriex had been working for the PSTA for a year before the accident. He was fired Sept. 20.
PSTA spokesman Bob Lasher said Merriex had passed all of his drug screenings and had undergone an extensive criminal and driving history check before he was hired. The PSTA randomly tests all drivers after accidents, in addition to randomly testing 25 percent of its drivers every year. Merriex was screened after he was involved in a minor accident in August; he passed.
However, PSTA officials put Merriex on administrative leave for two weeks after the August accident. Merriex claimed his back had been injured in the accident, and the agency eventually learned that he had lied on his job application about a previous workers' compensation claim he had filed while working for the city of Tarpon Springs.
After multiple doctors dismissed his injury claims following the August accident, Merriex was allowed to drive a PSTA bus again. After his September crash, the PSTA fired Merriex upon learning he had told police that he was taking prescription drugs. Lasher said drivers are required to tell their supervisors if they are on any medication. Merriex did not disclose that.

-William Ryan Moore, Esq.

Posted by William Ryan Moore | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF PRESCRIPTION MEDICATION:

Bookmark:

When someone is arrested for a crime in South Florida they are taken to jail and eventually sent notice of a court date. This first hearing is known as the arraignment and is held for the purpose of allowing an individual to either plead no contest, guilty, or not guilty. At this point there would have been no disclosure of information by the State, such as a witness list, police reports, taped statements, video surveillance, scientific evidence and/or doctor’s reports. In fact, if somebody is appearing at their own arraignment it is due to the fact that they have not hired an attorney prior to this date. Consequently, the arraignment is the date that most people are appointed public defenders if they are otherwise eligible.

The arraignment, however, is also the date that the prosecutor’s office uses high pressure techniques to get Defendants to plead their case at this first appearance. To get Defendants to plead their case at this first appearance relieves the State Attorney’s obligation to not only to prepare and send all discovery documents but also to begin working on the case and setting and attending future hearings. With such great incentive to lower their case loads, prosecutors are quick to make a “one-time offer” at arraignment. Failure of a Defendant to take this deal at that moment will result in said offer being withdrawn. The prosecutor will be clear that future offers will be much more stringent and the penalties enhanced.

Pleading a case at arraignment denies a Defendant the right to even investigate their case for possible defenses and is the quickest and most efficient way to lower the court docket and the state attorney’s caseload.

Pressure tactics such as these, unfortunately, must always be endured by the less fortunate in South Florida, as the only way to be appointed a public defender is to attend arraignment and succumb to such high pressure tactics. Defendants who can hire private attorneys, however, enjoy the luxury of their attorneys’ filing a Notice of Appearance and a Written Plea of Not Guilty on their behalf. This eliminates an accused having to attend an arraignment and yield to a one-time offer by the State. After all, how can the prosecutor threaten retaliation for a Defendant’s refusal to plea a case out at a hearing he is not even required to attend.

Equal protection arguments have been made in this regard with little success. Unfortunately at this point, the only way to avoid having a first appearance not knowing the State’s evidence against you, is to hire a private attorney and avoid the issue altogether.

-William Ryan Moore, Esq.

Posted by William Ryan Moore | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: BUY YOUR WAY OUT OF ARRAIGNMENT.

Bookmark:

The constitutionality of automobile checkpoints has been challenged consistently since their implementation, yet upheld by the United States Supreme Court which has set a “so-called” stringent set of guidelines before they are considered free from violating our constitutional rights. Once such guideline is an officer’s inability to stop vehicles of his choosing and that he or she must briefly examine a driver for signs of intoxication. Where such signs are evident, the driver would be redirected to an area of low traffic for further sobriety testing. The detention of law-abiding drivers is supposed to be kept to an absolute minimum, thus allowing travelers to move along quickly.

It’s no wonder that I am not surprised by yet another news article on the subject of DUI checkpoints. The Sun-Sentinel’s October 11, 2007 edition describes how drastically the State’s use of DUI roadblocks contradicts the Supreme Court’s strict guidelines for setting up checkpoints. In the article entitled, Officers Defend DUI Checkpoints, But Say Other Strategies Are Also Needed, the Broward Sheriff’s Office deputies’ quotes were demeaned regarding such checkpoints: there were statements to the effect that such checkpoints are justified in that “regular sobriety checkpoints. . .catch drivers wanted in other crimes [and they also generate hundreds of traffic citations for violations such as unsafe equipment and driving without a license or registration.]” The article quoted a statement that “very few DUI arrests were made as a result of the efforts of some 50 officers,” however, praises the issuing of some “118 traffic citations and the arrest of eight people (only four on DUI charges).” Clearly, the area of law enforcement under the guise of catching drunk drivers, serves an entirely different and admitted purpose.

How this jibes with the Supreme Court’s balancing of the State’s interest in preventing drunk driving, to the extent the system can reasonably be said to advance that interest and the degree of intrusion, remains as an apparent contradiction. Keeping in mind that the constitutionality of automobile checkpoints requires safety mechanisms to be in place such as written guidelines, notice to drivers, publication, proper lighting, proper police uniforms, and a methodical stopping system to avoid profiling, one can easily become offended, I should say, from an officer’s bragging to justify the ineffectiveness of such roadblocks other than the other amount of traffic citations written. Nowhere in the justification of automobile checkpoints on a constitutional level is it argued that the State has a vested interest in enforcing tail light violations.

News articles quoting the officers that conduct automobile checkpoints as stating that they are justified due to the high number of “tickets” that they yield, serves only to bring to light the criminal justice system’s talking out of both sides of its mouth. On the one side the State argues a strong vested interest in deterring drunk drivers through the use of sobriety checkpoints to the Supreme Court, on the other side, law enforcement officers admit that as a whole, they are entirely ineffective, but are otherwise great for generating revenue.

Understanding that the crime of DUI is a politically charged crime since the inception of Mother’s of Drunk Drivers and powerful lobbyist groups, we can comprehend that the prosecution all the way down to the “special conditions that are mandatory for each DUI conviction” are fueled entirely by money. As a result we see the continuous growth of the “DUI machine” which feeds off of itself and grows and increases with size and power by the passing of every new law that further impedes a citizen’s constitutional rights and lines the pocketbooks of both the State and privately owned rehabilitation centers, DUI schools, immobilization companies, Intoxilyzer manufacturers, ignition interlock providers and MADD scared straight programs.

In 2005, a news station in Sacramento CA., conducted an independent investigation in an effort to uncover what Broward County officers readily admit to the media today. Its undercover investigation determined that DUI grant money that was being used specifically to conduct sobriety checkpoints was motivated by the enforcement of other laws separate and apart from driving under the influence. KCRA investigators determined that said money was a “fraudulent use of resources.” According to State Senator Gilbert Cedillo, the news station also found that DUI checkpoints were becoming so large in scale that they involved dozens of officers cracking down on everything from felonies to driving without a license. Considering the steps taken to uncover things readily admitted in the latest article on the subject in Broward County, the trend toward accepting the erosion of our constitutional rights through the gateway crime, which is DUI, has only been exemplified.

Additionally, it is clear that the increasing number of required officers, i.e., 50 Broward County officers compared to a dozen or so Sacramento officers, is also readily accepted by the public in under two years.

-William Ryan Moore, Esq.

Posted by William Ryan Moore | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: AUTOMOBILE CHECKPOINTS: Unconstitutional but good for writing tickets…

Bookmark:

Actor/comedian, Tracy Morgan is best known for his portrayal of characters like animal expert, Brian Fellows on Saturday Night Live, and more recently for his role on NBC’s acclaimed show “30 Rock.” However, the funnyman may also be known for his run in with the law and love of drinking and all things alcohol.
In November 2006, Morgan was arrested on suspicion of DUI at 4:30 a.m. in his beloved city of Manhattan. He reportedly admitted he had been drinking beer at a local night club. Sadly, Morgan was already on probation stemming from a prior DUI charge. In order to avoid jail time for a second DUI and possible violation of probation, he entered into a plea agreement to wear a SCRAM bracelet, or DUI ankle bracelet made popular by other celebrities like rapper, Eve, and appear at high schools to warn students about the dangers of drinking and driving.
In a recent interview with the Associated Press, Morgan reflected on his partying ways, saying:
“It happened. Unfortunately, it happened. I'm not perfect. I'm like anyone else. Driving under the influence isn't cool. I have kids and I don't want anyone to get the wrong message about that. It's something I've resolved in my life. Things got a little bumpy and it was taken care of. And I feel great about it and feel good in my sobriety."
Morgan told the reporter he takes his sobriety “one day at a time” but what he really wanted was “25 to 30 drinks!" Morgan fell off his chair in laughter and admitted to the reporter he was only kidding. Perhaps laughter really is the best medicine.

-William Ryan Moore, Esq.

Posted by William Ryan Moore | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Celebrity DUI

Bookmark:

How many chances and lucky breaks do celebrities seem to enjoy these days following arrests for DUI? Far too many it seems. Those of us familiar with DUI laws and penalties for the rest of us non-celebrity folk know all too well that we aren’t serving 82 minutes of a jail sentence for a second DUI conviction. Nor are we likely to be released after only a few days of our jail sentence due to anxiety? Anxiety? Early releases for anxiety would at the very least serve to reduce inmate crowding I suppose.
Unless you were living on another planet this year, it was impossible to avoid the news of celebretards, Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie, two girls known more for their wealthy parents than anything truly noteworthy, who were both sentenced to serve jail time for their respective DUI charges. Paris Hilton was sentenced to 45 days but ultimately served about 21 days. However, several days into her stint in the local county jail she was released due to “anxiety” and allowed to go home. Who doesn’t remember the look on the face of the poor little rich girl, with tears streaming down her face being driven back to jail to complete her sentence after the L.A. County Sheriff’s “mix up?” Injustice indeed.
And Ms. Richie, a former heroin addict and all-around party girl, who received her second DUI (mind you she admitted to being high on pot and the pain killer Vicodin, not on alcohol) who served less than an hour and a half of her sentence. No doubt reinforcing the lack of faith non-celebrities have in the judicial system. At least in California’s judicial system.
However, could the tide be turning? Just this month two celebrities appeared to have been handed unusually lengthy sentences for violating DUI related laws, at least in Hollywood. The star of “24,” Kiefer Sutherland, arrested for his fourth DUI charge, pled no contest and was sentenced to serve 30 days in jail. A whole 30 days. That’s like serving three years in non-celebrity world. Of course, for the sake of the public (and Fox) the Court will allow him to serve this sentence while “24” is on a filming break for the winter. How lucky for us viewers.

And perhaps lesser known celebrity Michelle Rodriguez of “Lost” fame shouldn’t have ignored the Court’s order to perform community service. Ms. Rodriguez, who along with her “Lost” co-star, Cynthia Watros, was arrested for DUI back in December 2005 was court ordered to complete 30 hours of community service for her DUI related charges. She recently admitted to failing to do so. (She got the boot from “Lost” – didn’t she have all the time in the world to complete 30 hours?) She will be required to turn herself in on Christmas Eve to complete 180 days in L.A.’s county jail. 180 days? Now that’s a sentence. Coincidentally, Michelle only served 4 hours and 20 minutes in jail in May 2006 for her DUI charge due to (you guessed it) overcrowding – even though she was sentenced to two months for violating probation.

Yes it appears the tide is indeed turning when it comes to celebrity DUI sentencing, but the actual time served, remains to be seen. Am I alone in thinking that Jack Bauer, I mean Kiefer Sutherland, will be out in less than 24 hours?

-William Ryan Moore, Esq.

Posted by William Ryan Moore | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Celebrity DUI

Bookmark:

Could ‘Lord of the Rings’ and ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ star, Orlando Bloom be the next celebrity caught in an alleged ‘hit and run’ or DUI scandal? Bloom was involved in an accident at approximately 2:15 a.m. early Friday morning on October 12, 2007, after leaving a night club in Los Angeles. TMZ reported that he driving a Toyota Matrix belonging to the director of photography for ‘Pirates’ when he crashed into a parked Porsche Cayenne. Just before the accident, Bloom was spotted arguing with an unidentified man about the man’s wife before taking off in the Matrix.
Bloom had two female passengers with him, one of whom reportedly sustained a fractured neck in the wreck. Photographers and camera crew filmed Bloom as he walked away from the scene of the crash leaving his two bleeding passengers at the scene! Paparazzi ran after Bloom and encouraged him to return to the scene of the accident which he did after second thought. TMZ reports that upon returning to the scene, LAPD did not administer sobriety tests and declared that Bloom was not under the influence of alcohol despite having just left a night club. Once again, it seems to pay to be a celebrity. Let’s see what his female passengers have to say once they recover from their injuries.

-William Ryan Moore, Esq.

Posted by William Ryan Moore | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Celebrity DUI

Bookmark:

We all know she said “no no no” to going (and staying) at rehab but apparently British songstress, Amy Winehouse, also says “no no no” to getting behind the wheel of a car. The talented but troubled Winehouse has made no secret of her love for alcohol and other substances. She recently celebrated her 24th birthday by drinking with some mates in London. She admitted she would be drinking at her party but was overheard saying “drugs were a private matter.” It has been reported she and her husband, Blake Fielder-Civil, were treated briefly for addictions to heroin and other drugs. Fortunately, to date, Ms. Winehouse has not been seen behind the wheel of a car.

-William Ryan Moore, Esq.

Posted by William Ryan Moore | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Celebrity DUI

Bookmark:

The Right to Refuse a Breat Test in Florida & Implied Consent

Any person who exercises the privilege of obtaining a license to drive in Florida, or of operating a motor vehicle within the State, is deemed to have given his consent to submit to an approved chemical test or other physical test. These tests include, but are not limited to an infrared light test of breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of blood or breath, and a urine test for the purpose of detecting the presence of certain chemical substances or controlled substances. These tests are applicable if the person is lawfully arrested for any offense allegedly committed while the person was driving or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages, chemical substances, or controlled substances. In addition, a nonresident or any other person driving in a status exempt from the requirements of the driver’s license law, by the act of driving in that exempt status, is deemed to consent to these requirements.

-William Ryan Moore, Esq.

Posted by William Ryan Moore | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: The right to refuse a breath test in Florida

Bookmark: