This holiday weekend, I found a WGN news story simply inspiring:
Monday, December 26, 2011
Monday, November 21, 2011
No Breaking Dawn for this young lady. She's grounded.
Illinois Teenager Blames DUI Crash On Not Seeing 'Twilight' Film: Police Arrest Olivia Ornelas
Thousands of dedicated fans turned out over the weekend to see "The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1." But for one teenage girl, the tragedy of not making it was a lot worse than choosing between Jacob or Edward.Oh yeah. HuffPo does an Illinois DUI story right.
Police in Illinois arrested an "extremely upset" 18-year-old girl on Saturday after she told authorities that she crashed her car because her boyfriend did not take her to see the new Twilight movie.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Chicago revenue . . . er . . . camera speeding ticket bill goes to Governor Quinn
If you love your Chicago red light camera tickets, you're gonna love your Chicago speeding tickets via cameras in school zones. As of today, we're just a stroke of Governor Quinn's pen away from a mindless revenue stream of little to no proven value in improving public safety.
Here's the scoop.
Here's the scoop.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
DUI statistics used, incorrectly again, for the force of good?
The hand of Prohibition is still being felt across the country, if this article from Pennsylvania is any indication. The author notes that "privatization" actually seems to reduce DUI fatalities. By privatization, he means allowing merchants to decide what type of alcoholic beverage to sell, and when to sell it, to the maximum extent possible. The article specifically points to DUI in Illinois as an example of lower DUI fatality rates. The author notes:
The statistics and figures given by the NHTSA do not measure drunk driving fatality.
These statistics include any person involved in an accident with any measurable amount of alcohol present in their system. Thus, a rear-seat passenger with a blood-alcohol content of 0.01 (which incidentally may not indicate consumption of alcoholic beverage at all) in a vehicle driven by a completely sober driver determined to be not-at-fault would still be considered in the accident. Doubt me? Check the glossary in NHTSA's own documents here under the term "Alcohol Involvement".
The value of theses statistics is dubious. The value of drawing conclusions related to the efficacy of DUI law in Illinois or any other State of the union is almost . . . silly. Or perhaps more accurately . . . pernicious?
"I compared Pennsylvania's alcohol-related traffic fatalities with those of the five largest states that freely allow sales to adults of all three types of alcoholic beverage — beer, wine and spirits (the hard stuff, such as gin and whiskey) — in grocery stores."Upon comparing those results according to the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), he see that:
"In 2008, the most recent year for which I found statistics, every one of those five states had fewer fatalities per capita than Pennsylvania, which had one alcohol-related traffic fatality for each 25,604 in population. In California it was one per 36,248; Illinois, Indiana and Michigan were only slightly worse; and in Massachusetts the rate was only one in 52,419."While I think the author is essentially correct, I'd feel . . . remiss, I suppose . . . if I didn't at least point out that he is using the same failed logical argument that leads those who (whether they consciously recognize it or not) promote prohibition, such as MADD or AAIM advocates. These advocates all miss, intentionally in some cases, a very important distinction.
The statistics and figures given by the NHTSA do not measure drunk driving fatality.
These statistics include any person involved in an accident with any measurable amount of alcohol present in their system. Thus, a rear-seat passenger with a blood-alcohol content of 0.01 (which incidentally may not indicate consumption of alcoholic beverage at all) in a vehicle driven by a completely sober driver determined to be not-at-fault would still be considered in the accident. Doubt me? Check the glossary in NHTSA's own documents here under the term "Alcohol Involvement".
The value of theses statistics is dubious. The value of drawing conclusions related to the efficacy of DUI law in Illinois or any other State of the union is almost . . . silly. Or perhaps more accurately . . . pernicious?
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Mark Ditka, son of ex-Bears Coach Mike Ditka, accused of DUI | abc7chicago.com
Mark Ditka, son of ex-Bears Coach Mike Ditka, accused of DUI | abc7chicago.com
Now if Mark Ditka is later acquitted of this Lake County DUI here in Illinois, or his case is dismissed, will abc7chicago deign to write about that? Probably not.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Troy Davis and the integrity of the legal system
Readers familiar with the Troy Davis case out of Georgia might wonder what I'm doing posting about this on a DUI blog. Good question.
For one thing, I focus on criminal defense in Illinois as well. For another, one of the great problems presented by DUI investigation and prosecution is a problem of general integrity in the legal system.
Here we have just such a problem. Seven of nine key witnesses have recanted their testimony? When we, as a society, execute people, there must be no room whatsoever for doubt. Even if Troy Davis is guilty in fact, and not just in law, this is a failure of our system of justice and a blight on it's integrity.
High court refuses to block Troy Davis execution | ajc.com
For one thing, I focus on criminal defense in Illinois as well. For another, one of the great problems presented by DUI investigation and prosecution is a problem of general integrity in the legal system.
Here we have just such a problem. Seven of nine key witnesses have recanted their testimony? When we, as a society, execute people, there must be no room whatsoever for doubt. Even if Troy Davis is guilty in fact, and not just in law, this is a failure of our system of justice and a blight on it's integrity.
High court refuses to block Troy Davis execution | ajc.com
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Is refusing to submit to DUI breath testing in Illinois good advice?
Probably one of the most common questions we get at Fagan, Fagan & Davis is "if I'm stopped for DUI in Illinois, should I take the breath test?" This is always a tough one. Part of the problem is that people don't know what to expect.
Certainly, drinking and driving is not illegal.
Go ahead, read that again and get it over with . . . you know you want to.
The legal limit is 0.08, true enough, but that's just a number - a bright line drawn almost arbitrarily. Not everyone is necessarily impaired at that level in fact, but in law, all states have passed laws to support the legal fiction that it is. So what is a person to do when confronted with the guessing game of figuring out whether they're anywhere near or over that arbitrary 0.08 number on the street in the middle of the night after being confronted by a rather . . . well, confrontational police officer?
Let's see what a State's Attorney has to say about the effect of refusing to submit to breath testing has on the ability to prosecute DuPage county DUI cases.
In a press release promising the latest "no refusal" weekend the State's Attorney notes that "refusal can make it more difficult to prosecute DUI cases."
He's quite right, of course.
However, when we advise clients not to submit to breath testing (or to submit to any performance tests either for that matter), the purpose isn't to frustrate prosecution. Given the amount of public pressure put on police and prosecutors by organizations such as MADD or AAIM, DUI is prosecuted aggressively. That starts on the street, where officers who observe even a slight odor of alcohol are highly reluctant to let anyone drive away. Motorists need to expect the police are out looking for DUI, but they do not have any obligation to assist in their collection of evidence. Polite and cooperative is quite enough, including a polite refusal to take any tests including a breath or chemical test (unless you've consumed absolutely no alcohol, have not consumed any food or beverage of any kind within about 20 minutes and are the picture of perfect health).
As for "no refusal" weekends, what to do? In our opinion, don't take the field sobriety tests, refuse to answer any questions regarding anything not contained on your driver's license, insurance or registration (which the police are entitled to see), and finally . . . make them get the warrant.
One last thing. Unless you want to risk a charge of obstruction of justice or resisting arrest, when the officer tells you to exit the vehicle, do so.
Certainly, drinking and driving is not illegal.
Go ahead, read that again and get it over with . . . you know you want to.
The legal limit is 0.08, true enough, but that's just a number - a bright line drawn almost arbitrarily. Not everyone is necessarily impaired at that level in fact, but in law, all states have passed laws to support the legal fiction that it is. So what is a person to do when confronted with the guessing game of figuring out whether they're anywhere near or over that arbitrary 0.08 number on the street in the middle of the night after being confronted by a rather . . . well, confrontational police officer?
Let's see what a State's Attorney has to say about the effect of refusing to submit to breath testing has on the ability to prosecute DuPage county DUI cases.
In a press release promising the latest "no refusal" weekend the State's Attorney notes that "refusal can make it more difficult to prosecute DUI cases."
He's quite right, of course.
However, when we advise clients not to submit to breath testing (or to submit to any performance tests either for that matter), the purpose isn't to frustrate prosecution. Given the amount of public pressure put on police and prosecutors by organizations such as MADD or AAIM, DUI is prosecuted aggressively. That starts on the street, where officers who observe even a slight odor of alcohol are highly reluctant to let anyone drive away. Motorists need to expect the police are out looking for DUI, but they do not have any obligation to assist in their collection of evidence. Polite and cooperative is quite enough, including a polite refusal to take any tests including a breath or chemical test (unless you've consumed absolutely no alcohol, have not consumed any food or beverage of any kind within about 20 minutes and are the picture of perfect health).
As for "no refusal" weekends, what to do? In our opinion, don't take the field sobriety tests, refuse to answer any questions regarding anything not contained on your driver's license, insurance or registration (which the police are entitled to see), and finally . . . make them get the warrant.
One last thing. Unless you want to risk a charge of obstruction of justice or resisting arrest, when the officer tells you to exit the vehicle, do so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)