Since the accident in December 2007, Leyritz has reportedly obsessed over the details of the accident, withdrawn from the community, stopped his charity work, and run out of money. Now out on bond, he is forbidden from consuming alcoholic beverages and, although he is currently allowed to drive, he can do so only with an ignition interlock device attached to his vehicle. The device, which is frequently used on the cars of DUI suspects and DUI offenders, requires Leyritz to blow into it in order to start his car. Ignition interlock devices have been particularly lauded by Mothers Against Drunk Driving and similar groups, which believe that widespread use of the devices could stamp out drunk driving entirely. Broward DUI attorney Moore, however, believes there is a significant problem with their usage: they are not always accurate, as Leyritz’s recent experiences have demonstrated.

Last month, Leyritz tried to start his car to leave the home of his former wife, with whom he shares custody of their three boys. He blew into the ignition interlock device, which registered a reading indicating that he had been consuming alcohol. Leyritz, who had not been drinking, became distraught. A second try yielded the result he was looking for, but the damage was done: the device notifies authorities that the car’s owner has been consuming alcohol.
Leyritz was eventually cleared. He submitted two separate urine samples, both of which confirmed what he already professed: he had not been drinking. The ignition interlock device apparently malfunctioned. Fort Lauderdale DUI attorney Moore believes that this is a serious problem. Leyritz’s case was publicized due to his fame – but how often does this situation occur, where an ignition interlock device or a breathalyzer incorrectly points the finger at someone who is innocent? In a state like Florida, where a person can be convicted of DUI just on the basis of the breath test reading, the possibility is frightening.

Fort Lauderdale DUI lawyer Moore says that Stallworth faced up to 15 years in prison for the DUI Manslaughter charge. The case might not have been ideal for the state attorney’s office to take to trial, however, due to two points that jurors might believe shifted at least a part of blame to the victim: Reyes was jaywalking, not in a crosswalk, across the road at the time of the accident and Stallworth’s statements that he flashed his headlights and honked at the pedestrian. It is not clear, however, if Stallworth’s statements have been substantiated. Stallworth submitted to roadside field sobriety tests following the accident and a breathalyzer device recorded his BAC at 0.126, higher than the “legal limit” at which Florida law presumes a driver is impaired. After being charged, Stallworth posted bond and was permitted to travel between Miami and Cleveland due to his obligations with the Cleveland Browns.

Stallworth’s plea deal was accepted by the judge in his case. Under its terms, he will spend 30 days in jail in exchange for his guilty plea. He will also be required to complete two years of house arrest, eight years of probation, and 1,000 hours of community service. Stallworth’s driver’s license has been permanently revoked. Prosecutors said they had taken into consideration the defendant’s remorse over the accident, his cooperation with police, and his lack of prior driving problems. The family of Mario Reyes had also considered filing a wrongful death civil lawsuit against the football star, but sources close to the family say that they have reached a monetary settlement with Stallworth. The family reportedly was ready for the painful criminal saga, as well as the potential civil component, to be over.

According to media reports, Diann Lopez, who is 34, was driving her sport utility vehicle on April 18, exceeding the posted speed limit on Seminole Pratt Whitney Road in Loxahatchee. Her vehicle allegedly sideswiped another vehicle as it crossed the double yellow line, striking a pickup truck driven by 17-year-old Kelsea Frick head-on. A BMW then collided with Frick’s truck from behind.

Frick suffered serious injuries, requiring surgery on her legs, and was also treated for injuries to her head and abdomen. A passenger in her truck was treated at an area hospital and later released. She and Lopez had to be removed from their respective vehicles by emergency responders. Like Frick, Lopez underwent leg surgery and received treatment for head and abdominal injuries. Lopez was unable to maintain consciousness when she was removed from her vehicle. The driver and passengers in the vehicle that Lopez allegedly sideswiped were also treated and released. Fort Lauderdale DUI lawyer Moore says that these injuries are consistent with typical reports from accidents occurring at relatively high rates of speed.

Law enforcement officials found five empty beer bottles, one broken bottle, and six bottles that had not yet been open inside the vehicle belonging to Lopez. It is not clear, however, that Lopez was drinking the beers at the time she was driving. Additionally, her 18-month-old son, Dwayne Lopez, was riding in the back seat of the SUV at the time of the accident. He was released into the care of relatives and police did not provide information on his medical condition or whether he was injured. His mother’s blood samples indicated that her blood alcohol concentration was in excess of 0.1 percent, above the 0.08 percent at which Florida law presumes a motorist is intoxicated.

Lopez was also charged with child abuse because her son was present in the vehicle, says Broward DUI lawyer Moore. Under the Florida child abuse statute, an act of child abuse must be an intentional infliction of physical or mental injury to a child or an intentional act which the actor could reasonably expect to cause such injury. A person can also be convicted under the child abuse statute by actively encouraging another person to commit such an act.

Breathalyzer results are important to the state’s case when prosecuting a DUI case. It is the only crime for which a criminal defendant can be convicted solely on the basis of the results of a mechanical device. There are a myriad of problems associated with breath test devices. They can be unreliable for a host of reasons, says Fort Lauderdale DUI lawyer Moore. For example, the devices are calibrated for an “average” person, one whose lung capacity is within that range, and is likely less reliable the farther from that “average” size a person taking the test actually is.

Additionally, some DUI lawyers believe that there is a confrontation problem. The manufacturer of the breath test equipment, a company called CMI, Incorporated, has refused to release the source code for the Intoxilyzer device. The source code is the computer coding that tells the machine what calculations to run. Because a DUI defendant cannot argue against the way the calculations are made, there is an analogy to being unable to confront an adverse witness.

A driver must generally submit to giving samples, including breath samples, for testing when he or she is under suspicion for driving under the influence. This is called implied consent and refers to the legal doctrine that a driver has already implicitly consented to providing samples by driving on Florida roadways or holding a Florida driver’s license.

In the United States, many people take it for granted that if they are accused of committing a crime, they will not have to face a criminal court alone or unaided by legal counsel. The Constitution recognizes a right to have counsel when criminal proceedings have begun against a person. Additionally, the famous Miranda warning advises suspects that they have the right to speak with an attorney if they so choose prior to being interrogated by police. Criminal suspects also have the right to remain silent and not to provide any information. In any case, information derived from interrogations which occurred prior to the reading of the Miranda warning is often not admissible in a courtroom. The Constitution also provides that defendants have the right to a fair, speedy, and in the vast majority of cases public trial.

Defendants who are charged with felonies and misdemeanors in Florida have the right to counsel. Indigent individuals will be assigned a public defender, although defendants only qualify for those services if they make less than twice the amount of the federal poverty guidelines listed for their family size. For reference, a single person is impoverished if he makes less than $10,830 in income each year, and eligible for public defense services if he makes less than $21,660.

All other defendants should bring a private Fort Lauderdale DUI lawyer and many indigent clients still elect to hire a private attorney. The right to counsel attaches in all cases in which time in jail or prison is a possibility. In some very minor misdemeanor cases, the prosecutor can certify that she will not seek any time in jail, an unusual step. In most instances, being represented by an attorney allows a professional who is familiar with court procedure to advance sophisticated legal arguments on your behalf in a way a layperson is unable to do.

First, there are the typical problems associated with any breath test (breathalyzer) device. They may not completely compensate for the rate of absorption of alcohol into the bloodstream. They can give false positives. Breathalyzers may incorrectly identify a foreign substance as alcohol, when it is something else entirely. Women or those with smaller lung capacities may appear to have a different concentration of alcohol in their breath than they really do, because the machines are calibrated for the lung capacity a “typical” person would have.

In addition to all of those problems that all breathalyzers have, there is new evidence to show that the ignition interlock devices do not prevent additional DUIs. In 2005, the California Department of Motor Vehicles made its report to the state legislature on the devices. Its findings showed that the expected result, which would be fewer subsequent DUI arrests for those who had the device installed, “was not observed.” In fact, the risk of a subsequent motor vehicle accident was 84 percent higher in those who had installed the device versus those who had not. The results “clearly show that IIDs are not effective in reducing DUI convictions” and that there is “no evidence” that the devices work.

Who is pushing for their continued use? Mothers Against Drunk Driving has long been a proponent of ignition interlocks. The companies the devices even lobby state legislatures – and their business incentive to do so is readily apparent.

DUI roadblocks are not good tools for cracking down on driving under the influence, says Broward DUI lawyer William Moore. The DUI checkpoints nab troublingly few motorists who are actually suspected of driving under the influence, however, which is just one serious problem with their usage. For example, a checkpoint in northern Florida last weekend caught one DUI suspect, yet stopped 700 sober drivers. That particular sobriety roadblock was probably more successful than many for nabbing even a single suspect.

In reality, says Broward County DUI attorney Moore, the best reason for a roadblock is sheer profitability. Police departments can potentially issue hundreds of citations and dole out hefty fines for much more minor offenses: everything from seat belt violations to flawed car registration papers and recently expired drivers licenses. The law enforcement officers conducting the sobriety checkpoints must put into place certain protections for the benefit of the motorists and to prevent profiling. For example, the police force must have a predetermined and unbiased plan for which vehicles to stop, such as every third vehicle, every seventh, or every single one that passes through the roadblock.

Police departments must also advertise the existence of the roadblocks in advance. Frequently, they are publicized in the local newspaper, including the location. The roadblock must provide an alternate route of passage or a place to turn around – no driver is forced to go through the checkpoint, although the flashing lights and general environment can be intimidating, and many motorists may feel as though they would actually be drawing attention to themselves by obviously driving in a different direction.

The law governing DUI checkpoints is complex and each roadblock is required to abide by a number of rules in order for the stop to be constitutional. If you have been arrested for driving under the influence at a DUI roadblock, contact an experienced DUI lawyer immediately.

Judge Sotomayor has ruled on just a single case with DUI ramifications. She heard a case dealing with the New York City ordinance that allowed the police department to impound vehicles driven by DUI suspects because they were used during a crime. The owners of the vehicles were not, however, allowed an opportunity to challenge the impounding of their motor vehicles for long periods of time, sometimes as long as one year after the car was taken. This is true even when the driving under the influence charge was dropped entirely or reduced to a lesser charge, such as reckless driving. Broward DUI attorney Moore believes this law created significant problems for defendants and their families. The suspects who challenged the law’s constitutionality all cited the hardships that were a direct result of the long-term impoundment of their vehicles: inability for an elderly couple to get to medical appointments; serious difficulty getting to work or maintaining employment; inability to take a grandchild to and from school; and a suspect’s inability to visit her mentally ill daughter who resided in a neighboring state. Additionally, suspects frequently had to continue meeting their car payment obligations, although they did not have any use of the vehicle for long periods of time.

New York City argued that the procedure was necessary to protect the public safety, a rationale correctly rejected by Judge Sotomayor. The city did not prevent people who had been arrested for driving under the influence from driving vehicles belonging to other people or even other vehicles they already owned – only the ones driven at the time of the arrest. The real issues of the case, however, were seizure of property and due process. As a constitutional matter and in keeping with a long line of Supreme Court decisions, Judge Sotomayor determined that the city must have a reasonably fast opportunity for a judge to review the impoundment.

The first law criminalizing DUI dates back to 1910. The New York state legislature passed the law and, in due course, other states began to follow suit. These statutes were the predecessors to the laws that make up part of the DUI legislation used in Florida at the present time. Most people are familiar with the 0.08 percent blood alcohol concentration level at which the law presumes a driver is impaired, but they may not be familiar with the statute that simply makes operating a motor vehicle while impaired – even if the driver’s BAC is well under 0.08 percent – a crime. Like this component of modern Florida law, the early DUI laws did not specify a method of measuring intoxication.

Later, in 1938, the American Medical Association studied alcohol impairment and made recommendations that the states should establish 0.15 percent as the level at which a driver was presumed drunk. For reference, a 180 pound man would probably have to consume between seven and eight beers in only an hour to achieve that level of intoxication – an amount that almost everyone would agree is excessive before getting behind the wheel. Likewise, a female weighing 130 pounds would have to consume five glasses of wine in an hour, or approximately an entire bottle, to be impaired under that standard.

The 1980s saw a tremendous shift in DUI law, says Broward DUI attorney William Moore. In addition to changed standards as to what constitutes impairment, organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving advocated for significantly more law enforcement officials devoted to arresting drunk drivers. The 1990s continued this trend, resulting in harsher sentencing even for first-time offenders. Now, the level at which a driver is presumed to be intoxicated is 0.08 percent BAC in every U.S. state, almost half of what it was several decades ago.

Many law enforcement agencies have a specific set of guidelines. The National Highway Traffic Safety Association has published a list of symptoms for law enforcement officers to use when identifying intoxicated drivers. The percentages next to each behavior indicate the statistical likelihood – according to the NHTSA – that the vehicle’s driver is intoxicated. The following table and percentages are from the NHTSA:

Turning with wide radius 65%
Straddling center or lane marker 65%
Appearing to be drunk 60%
Almost striking object or vehicle 60%
Weaving 60%
Driving on other than designated roadway 55%
Swerving 55%
Slow speed (more than 10mph below limit) 50%
Stopping (without cause) in traffic lane 50%
Drifting 50%
Following too closely 45%
Tires on center or land marker 45%
Braking erratically 45%
Driving into opposing or crossing traffic 45%
Signaling inconsistent with driving actions 40%
Stopping inappropriately (other than in lane) 35%
Turning abruptly or illegally 35%
Accelerating or decelerating rapidly 30%
Headlights off 30%

The list gives a good idea of some factors police officers will notice and may attribute to drunkenness. Interestingly, there is only a 60 percent chance that a driver who appears drunk actually is, which is one reason why the testimony of a police officer that a defendant appeared intoxicated is far from conclusive. Making unusually wide turns is actually more likely to be symptomatic of intoxication than appearing to be intoxicated is. A police officer looking to determine if a DUI suspect is intoxicated will look for evidence of intoxication, such as red eyes, a flushed appearance, the smell of alcohol on the suspect, and other factors.

In instances where the need to apprehend the suspect is compelling, police will give chase. Police officers are trained to handle these situations in ways that regular drivers or not. For example, law enforcement officers are trained in techniques to wreck their vehicles when necessary or to “butt” the other car with the front end of the police vehicle. Whenever possible, they also lay strips on the road which puncture and deflate a suspect’s tires – thus ending the chase more quickly. Sometimes, fleeing suspects attempt to escape on foot after the vehicle has been disabled, but these attempts are rarely successful.

South Florida police officers pursued a female driver for about 15 minutes on a northbound lane of I-95 this week. Officers have not released details surrounding the reason the chase took place, but the driver was pursued by police in Palm Beach County. Local police attempted to puncture the vehicle’s tires, but the car was eventually involved in a disabling three-vehicle crash. The driver, who is 23, was taken to an area hospital for treatment, while her male passenger, who was 26, was killed in the accident after he was ejected from the vehicle. The driver of an unrelated vehicle who was involved in the accident, as well the police officer whose car was involved, were not seriously injured.

No charges have been filed at this point and it is not clear if alcohol played a role in the deaths of the two men. The owner of the Porsche claims his friend must have been the driver. Ryan Levin, 34, is the owner. He was arrested in February, shortly after the crash, in Illinois for violating the terms of his probation. Levin was on probation after leading police in Chicago on a high-speed car chase through the city in 2006. Earlier this week, a judge sentenced him to two years in an Illinois state prison for violating probation.

Fort Lauderdale DUI lawyer Moore has learned that the families of Elford and Watkinson, from Great Britain, are suing Levin and his friend, Derek Cook, 37, for the wrongful death of the men due to reckless driving. The civil suit claims that both men were intoxicated and that one of the two were involved in a drag race on the streets of Fort Lauderdale just prior to the accident that killed Elford and Watkinson. Fort Lauderdale police have continued to investigate those two issues and have not yet made a final determination. Law enforcement officials have a search warrant to collect a DNA sample from Cook to compare to the interior of the Porsche 911, as it is still unclear which of the men – if either of them – were actually driving the vehicle at the time of the wreck. Prosecutors need more information about who was actually the driver of the Porsche at the time the accident occurred before any criminal charges, such as reckless driving, DUI, or DUI Manslaughter, can be filed.

The DUI administrative fee will rise by $15 to $130. The Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles will charge a significantly higher fee to reinstate a driver’s license – jumping from $12.50 to $60. A driver’s license might need to be reinstated due to unpaid parking tickets, a breath test refusal, a DUI arrest or conviction, or for other reasons, says Fort Lauderdale DUI lawyer William Moore. A replacement driver’s license jumped markedly in price, from just $10 to $25. For people convicted of DUI or people serving probation with certain conditions, an additional $12 fee will now apply for the installation of ignition interlock devices, which require breath samples with very low or no levels of alcohol to start or continue operating a motor vehicle. Prisoners in Florida currently have a non-emergency health care co-pay of $4; under the new budget, it will rise to $5. Commercial driver’s licenses will increase by $8, costing $75. Some of the largest tax increases affected tobacco. The cigarette sales tax, which was 34 cents per pack, rose by an entire dollar per pack.

Fort Lauderdale DUI defense attorney Moore knows that prisoners and people with criminal convictions, including for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, are among the hardest hit during a budget crisis. It is not surprising that ignition interlock device fees, administrative DUI fees, and driver’s license reinstatement costs are all rising. The public thinks that those who are perceived to be wrongdoers should bear the brunt whenever possible – it is the same reason, at least in part, why the tobacco tax is rising. Additionally, the state government believes it has an interest in the prevention of smoking.

On March 27, police responded to a car accident in Oakland Park. Paramedics there treated a dazed man at the scene. The man, 31-year-old Davydson Soares of Pompano Beach, allegedly smelled strongly of alcohol and apparently did not remember driving. Soares allegedly caused a fatal wreck by driving the wrong way on a highway on-ramp, killing a person in another vehicle.

Investigators took two blood samples from Soares, Fort Lauderdale DUI attorney Moore has learned. The first, collected one and a half hours after the accident, showed a blood alcohol concentration of 0.16 – twice the 0.08 percent level at which state law presumes a driver is impaired. A second sample, collected two and a half hours after the crash, showed a BAC of 0.15 percent. Prosecutors could use these blood samples as strong evidence to show that Soares was impaired at the time of the car accident.

Soares was not arrested at the time because prosecutors have only three weeks to file charges against a suspect after an arrest. Oftentimes, the lab results take longer to process and law enforcement officers need to investigate the alleged crimes more thoroughly, both to assure that they are making the correct arrest and also to build the strongest case possible against the person they believe to be the perpetrator. There are downsides, however: now, police cannot locate Soares, and critics think he should have been arrested at the time of the accident. He presented a foreign passport as his identification and thus could have been perceived as a flight risk. The greater the perceived likelihood of a suspect to flee is, the more likely it is that law enforcement will make an immediate arrest instead of risking a situation like the one in which they find themselves with Soares.

Ignition interlock devices are breath test machines that are rigged up to the ignition of a vehicle. The devices function similarly to a traditional breathalyzer, in that they purport to provide accurate measurements of a person’s blood alcohol concentration. If the device registers a specific reading – perhaps 0.02 percent or higher – then the motor will not turn on. Additionally, the device may require that the driver continue blowing into it periodically while driving, as alcohol may continue to be absorbed into the bloodstream over time. The device may also automatically report back to a central location. For example, a person with a DUI conviction may have a device that sends a signal to his probation officer if he attempts to drive with a BAC over a specified level.

According to Fort Lauderdale DUI defense lawyer Moore, ignition interlock devices are most frequently used to allow people who have been convicted of DUI to receive their driver’s license again. It is a condition that permits them to drive. The devices can be extremely costly and the companies manufacturing these devices have lobbied state legislatures to increase their usage. In fact, MADD hopes to eventually have mandatory ignition interlock devices on every vehicle on the roads in the United States. Although this would be extremely invasive and expensive, the organization believes it would completely eliminate the problem of drunk driving.