Monday, March 26, 2012
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Man bites dog: Woman with 0.295 breath test NOT charged with DUI in Illinois!
In a bizarre twist, according to the Chicago Sun-Times, a driver in an accident in Cook county, right around the corner from Chicago, Illinois, allegedly was found with a spent bottle of Patron, failed field sobriety tests, and then submitted to a breath test that showed a 0.295 breath alcohol level. For those who may have been living on Mars, that's a lot.
And then she was not charged with DUI.
The officer reportedly told the driver she was "getting a break." I have to agree - an Illinois DUI arrest means big trouble, including a minimum six month license suspension, criminal charges that carry penalties up to 364 days in jail and $2500 in fines plus court costs. As I've said here before, according to the Illinois Secretary of State, dealing with a DUI in Illinois costs around $15,000.00 when all is said and done. The Illinois Department of Transportation puts that number more at about $19,000.00.
So yes, while there may indeed be missing facts we don't have (maybe the officer saw the driver chugging the bottle of Patron while standing outside her car after the accident, or maybe she's in the Federal witness protection program?), it's fair to suggest this qualifies as "getting a break".
Most people aren't so lucky, and if you or your loved one is not "getting a break" on a DUI, criminal or traffic matter, don't hesitate to call and speak with me or one of my partners at Fagan, Fagan & Davis by calling 847-635-8200 now for a free consultation.
And then she was not charged with DUI.
The officer reportedly told the driver she was "getting a break." I have to agree - an Illinois DUI arrest means big trouble, including a minimum six month license suspension, criminal charges that carry penalties up to 364 days in jail and $2500 in fines plus court costs. As I've said here before, according to the Illinois Secretary of State, dealing with a DUI in Illinois costs around $15,000.00 when all is said and done. The Illinois Department of Transportation puts that number more at about $19,000.00.
So yes, while there may indeed be missing facts we don't have (maybe the officer saw the driver chugging the bottle of Patron while standing outside her car after the accident, or maybe she's in the Federal witness protection program?), it's fair to suggest this qualifies as "getting a break".
Most people aren't so lucky, and if you or your loved one is not "getting a break" on a DUI, criminal or traffic matter, don't hesitate to call and speak with me or one of my partners at Fagan, Fagan & Davis by calling 847-635-8200 now for a free consultation.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Will this be another oops? Illinois trials to be televised?
From the Chicago Tribune:
Illinois trials may soon be televised
The Illinois Supreme Court is promulgating rules that will allow a more open courtroom by allowing court proceedings to be televised. While this change is meant to be positive, as with many governmental "advances", this may actually create complex problems down the road. The article notes the possibility that witnesses may feel uncomfortable coming forward, and that's a valid problem, but it's only the tip of the iceberg.
Illinois has laws allowing expungement or sealing of case information in many types of cases where defendants are found not guilty or the case is dismissed, and even in some felony matters resulting in conviction. Once a Court orders a case sealed or expunged, the information about the case is sealed or even destroyed. A potential employer, for instance, would not be able to see information about that case.
What's the point?
What about visual search? Never heard of visual search? If not, you will. It's a technology in its toddling stages, well past infancy. Go ahead and do a Google search for "Visual Search" and as of this moment, you'll find some 30,500,000 results. You plug in your image or photo and the search engine looks for related material. And facial recognition software? It's here now. Apple's iPhone and iPad? There's an app for that. Motorola's Xoom comes with facial recognition built in.
So you beat a criminal charge at trial and go through the process of expungement all with help from your local highly qualified Illinois Criminal defense attorneys, but guess what? Your trial was televised! And some soul with more time than tact uploaded a copy of the video to, where else, YouTube. So when you pop in for your job interview, your interviewer snaps a photo, uploads it to the Google of visual search (which will probably be Google) and presto chango - Illinois' expungement law is circumvented.
I can't help but wonder if this was considered by the Illinois Supreme Court? What do you think?
Illinois trials may soon be televised
The Illinois Supreme Court is promulgating rules that will allow a more open courtroom by allowing court proceedings to be televised. While this change is meant to be positive, as with many governmental "advances", this may actually create complex problems down the road. The article notes the possibility that witnesses may feel uncomfortable coming forward, and that's a valid problem, but it's only the tip of the iceberg.
Illinois has laws allowing expungement or sealing of case information in many types of cases where defendants are found not guilty or the case is dismissed, and even in some felony matters resulting in conviction. Once a Court orders a case sealed or expunged, the information about the case is sealed or even destroyed. A potential employer, for instance, would not be able to see information about that case.
What's the point?
What about visual search? Never heard of visual search? If not, you will. It's a technology in its toddling stages, well past infancy. Go ahead and do a Google search for "Visual Search" and as of this moment, you'll find some 30,500,000 results. You plug in your image or photo and the search engine looks for related material. And facial recognition software? It's here now. Apple's iPhone and iPad? There's an app for that. Motorola's Xoom comes with facial recognition built in.
So you beat a criminal charge at trial and go through the process of expungement all with help from your local highly qualified Illinois Criminal defense attorneys, but guess what? Your trial was televised! And some soul with more time than tact uploaded a copy of the video to, where else, YouTube. So when you pop in for your job interview, your interviewer snaps a photo, uploads it to the Google of visual search (which will probably be Google) and presto chango - Illinois' expungement law is circumvented.
I can't help but wonder if this was considered by the Illinois Supreme Court? What do you think?
Monday, December 26, 2011
DUI - don't want one? Top ten things NOT to do!
This holiday weekend, I found a WGN news story simply inspiring:
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)