Under-21 DWI could mean a one-year license suspension

Posted on September 24, 2009 by Stephen Hamilton

A new law starting this month eliminates the distinction between being under-21 at the time of a DWI arrest and over-21 when convicted of a DWI no longer exists. The law recently changed to make clear that if a person is under-21 when arrested for a DWI and over-21 when they convicted, their driver license is still subject to a one year suspension.

This new law means that if a person is arrested and convicted of a DWI, then his or her driver's license will be suspended for a year from the date of conviction or for 90 days but that the person would then have to install an interlock device on their vehicle to drive.  

Yet another reason to fight any under-21 DWI conviction.

Tags: ,

Are DWI suspects' rights being violated by new mandatory blood law?

Posted on September 24, 2009 by Stephen Hamilton

September 1st of every odd year many new laws go into effect in Texas.

This is because our legislature meets every odd year and many laws passed by the session start of September 1st of that year.  In 2009, the legislature passed a law that allows for a "mandatory" blood test of any one suspected of driving while intoxicated (PDF) IF certain conditions are met. One of the requirements is that the arresting officer have "a reasonable belief" that the suspect has two prior DWI convictions.  

According to the release,

Senate Bill 328 allows authorities to draw blood without warrants for the following additional offenses: driving while intoxicated-3rd offense; driving while intoxicated with a child passenger; driving while intoxicated, where the officer 'reasonably believes an individual other than the suspect suffered bodily injury and was transported to a hospital or similar facility'; driving while intoxicated with a previous conviction of DWI with a child passenger, intoxication assault or intoxication manslaughter.

I'm intrigued to see how law enforcement attempts to use the law. Specifically, I'm curious:

  • How far can an officer go in his reasonable belief?  
  • What if the officer is wrong?  
  • What if the prior case against a citizen accused was dismissed or rejected?  
  • What if there was a finding of not guilty by a court or jury?  

I believe this law is unconstitutional and overreaching by the government. But what else is new these days. The government wants to take away many rights. The bigger question here is what will happen to this law, will it be upheld? I have my ideas, but as they say, time will tell.

Tags: ,

To be guilty of a DWI, you have to be the DRIVER

Posted on September 19, 2009 by Stephen Hamilton

Interestingly enough most DWI cases involve, whether or not the state can show beyond a reasonable doubt, that the citizen is intoxicated when they were stopped. In Lubbock, and all of Texas, the definition of intoxication means that either the person was at or above a .08 at the time of driving or that the citizen had lost the "normal" use of mental or physical faculties.

A few weeks ago I tried a DWI case that involved the issue of whether the state could prove my client was driving the vehicle.  It was clear from the video, the witnesses and the officer that my client was certainly intoxicated. What was not clear was whether my client was driving the vehicle.  After an accident, the Lubbock Police Department showed up and arrested my client, in Lubbock, for driving while intoxicated.

I presented evidence to a jury of six that showed my client could not have been driving because she received injuries that were consistent of her being a passenger. The jury agreed and acquitted my client. A few weeks later, a Lubbock Court signed an order removing the arrest from my client's record.

The bottom line is Texas DWI defense is not "cookie cutter" law. Every case has different fact and different issues.  My job as the attorney is to find those facts and those issues that will help my client.

Tags: