Published on:

By

Last month, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed charges against Breathometer, Inc.–a company that markets two smartphone accessories designed to measure consumers’ BAC–and its CEO in federal court, claiming they lacked scientific evidence to support their claims. The complaint, filed on January 23, 2017 in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California, seeks a permanent injunction, rescission of contract, monetary damages, and other equitable relief in connection with the marketing and sale of the applications Breathometer Original ($49) and Breathometer Breeze ($99). The company and its CEO recently settled with the FTC.

Both are devices operated in conjunction with the Breathometer smartphone app. While the Original attaches to a smartphone via the audio jack, the Breeze is operated by Bluetooth. The devices work by blowing into the device. Within seconds, a BAC level is displayed on the phone. The company even had a deal with Uber in which Uber would pick up riders whose BACs were too high to drive.

Continue reading →

By
Posted in: DUI
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

The Idaho Supreme Court recently vacated a defendant’s DUI conviction because it was enhanced based on a prior conviction obtained in violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

The State charged Farfan-Galvan with felony DUI on November 3, 2014. The DUI was charged as a felony because Farfan-Galvan had two prior DUI convictions, one from 2008 in Jerome County and one from 2010 in Twin Falls County. Farfan-Galvan moved to dismiss or remand the charge, based upon his claim that one of the 2010 convictions upon which the State relied to enhance the charge from a misdemeanor to a felony was obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. The district court denied the motion.

Continue reading →

By
Posted in: DUI
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

After a jury trial, defendant Jeannine Jenkins was convicted of aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol and sentenced to 12 years in prison. Following Jenkins’ direct appeal, the Illinois Court of Appeals for the First District remanded the case to the trial court for a hearing on Jenkins’ pro se motion for a reduction of her sentence. On remand, the trial court denied the defendant’s motion. Jenkins appealed. The appeals court affirmed the judgment against the defendant in an unpublished opinion.

At trial, the evidence established that in April 2012, the defendant picked up her granddaughter from daycare. The daycare workers reported that the defendant was possibly intoxicated. The Palatine police were called and located the defendant within minutes. The defendant appeared to be under the influence. The defendant’s granddaughter was not strapped into a car seat and was “sitting loose” in the car. The defendant was arrested and charged with aggravated DUI. Following a jury trial, the defendant was found guilty of aggravated DUI.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Defendant Mary Osborne was charged with operating a vehicle while intoxicated in a manner that endangers a person and operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of at least 0.08. Before trial, Osborne filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the warrantless traffic stop preceding her arrest was constitutionally invalid. The trial court denied her motion. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the police exceeded their Fourth Amendment authority in stopping Osborne’s car out of an alleged concern for her medical state.

On interlocutory appeal, the Indiana Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ opinion and reversed the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress, holding that the government failed to show that the stop was justified by an exception to the warrant requirement.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The Illinois Court of Appeals for the Third District recently held that suspicion aroused by bloodshot eyes, unless confirmed by another factor (such as poor driving, stumbling, or an inability to communicate), does not rise to the level of probable cause that a DUI was committed.

At the hearing on the defendant’s petition to rescind the summary suspension of his driver’s license, Officer Lopez testified that on the morning of the December 2014 incident, he observed defendant Anthony Day driving safely. Lopez pulled Day over because excessive noises were emanating from his exhaust system.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In West Virginia, people often drive their ATVs on their own property after drinking a few beers. The West Virginia Supreme Court, however, struck down this common cultural practice in a decision last month.

In a 4-1 opinion, the state high court ruled that the DMV can lawfully revoke driving privileges for drivers caught driving under the influence on private, as well as public, roads. The case came up to the state high court from the Monroe County Circuit Court.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

A recent study suggests that blood tests are not an accurate method to measure whether an individual is driving while impaired by cannabis. The current legal blood levels can lead to impaired drivers going without punishment, while others are wrongfully convicted.

The study was released last month by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. The AAA found that drivers can have a low amount of THC (the active ingredient in marijuana) in their blood and be impaired, while others can have higher levels and be fit to drive.

Continue reading →

By
Posted in: DUI
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

The Minnesota Supreme Court recently held the Fourth Amendment requires law enforcement to secure a warrant before requiring its citizens to submit to a blood or urine test, meaning Minnesotans can now lawfully refuse such a search when law enforcement doesn’t have a warrant. The Minnesota ACLU heralded the decision.

Late one evening in April 2012, an Owatonna police officer watched patrons leaving a bar at closing time. The officer saw a vehicle, which police later determined appellant Thompson was driving, jump the curb and then stop quickly before reversing and leaving the parking lot. As the vehicle turned onto the street outside the bar, it cut the corner short and crossed the center line. The officer initiated a traffic stop.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

At the close of Tennessee’s 59th special legislative session last month, the state legislature approved changes to a DUI law that did not comply with federal law. The federal government said the statute, unaltered, could cost Tennessee $60 million in federal funding.

The Tennessee law was out of compliance with federal law because the legislature had eliminated a provision that rendered the allowable BAC as .08. The bill’s purpose was to add stiffer penalties for underage drinkers. The federal government found that the law did not comply with the federal zero tolerance law, which requires states to set the allowable BAC at .02 for drivers under 21. The federal government reacted stringently, giving Tennessee until October 1 to align the state’s BAC limit for 18-year-olds to 21-year-olds with the federal law.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Illinois law is clear that the state need not prove impairment to convict a driver under the influence of drugs of aggravated DUI . The area of disagreement is whether the driver can offer evidence to counter the presumption of impairment. Last month, the issue was argued before the Illinois Supreme Court. People v. Ida Way is one of 21 cases (nine criminal) that the Illinois Supreme Court heard last month.

Way was charged with aggravated DUI in January 2012. The crash injured Way’s son, her passenger, and a woman in another car, who happened to be pregnant. Her 14-year-old son told police that his mother “fell asleep” shortly before the crash.

Continue reading →

By
Posted in: DUI
Published on:
Updated:
Contact Information

We have provided effective advice and assistance to thousands of clients facing driver's license suspensions and revocations, both in Illinois and out-of-state, including students from area colleges and universities.

1100 S 5th St
Springfield, IL 62703
Phone: 217.525.0520 Fax: 217.525.0901

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2014 – 2024, Harvatin Law Offices P.C.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design