Teen drunk driving has declined dramatically since 1991.  According to USA Today, there has been a 54 percent reduction in the number of teenagers who get behind the wheel after consuming alcoholic beverages. Despite the dramatic decline in teen impaired driving, the law continues to impose more stringent limitations on young people when it comes to alcohol consumption and driving. Further, an arrest for DWI can result in harsh penalties for young people.

Teens and parents need to be aware of the tremendous consequences an impaired driving conviction can have as prom season and graduation season approaches. Both prom and graduation are times of year when rates of impaired driving among young people are historically higher.

Law enforcement officers are aware of the high rates of teen impaired driving during these events and there may be increased patrolling on both prom and graduation nights. Teens who are pulled over by police may unfortunately be unaware of their rights.   Parents and teens need to ensure they get help with DWI defense if an arrest occurs because a conviction for impaired driving can have profound consequences for a young person’s future.

Teens Face Added Risks of DWI Arrest During Prom and Graduation Season

When police increase patrolling efforts on special event nights, teens have a greater chance of being pulled over by police. Law enforcement officers are supposed to have probable cause before stopping a driver, but many teens are not aware that law enforcement shouldn’t force them to stop their cars unless they’ve broken a traffic law or have engaged in behavior that gives reason to suspect impairment.

Once a teen has been pulled over, few young people are going to be comfortable declining a field sobriety test or a breath test. Many young people are not aware of the fact these tests can be inaccurate and they do not realize they have the right to refuse to take them. Teens can be intimidated when pulled over by police and may not feel as comfortable as adults would in politely questioning the reason for the traffic stop or the justification for being asked to take tests of impairment.

Unfortunately, if a teen agrees to take these tests, this can provide further evidence to be used against them in a DWI case.  Teens can actually face consequences for impaired driving with a blood alcohol concentration that is far below the .08 legal limit for adults as a result of zero tolerance laws.  This means a young person could have just a small amount of alcohol and still be in trouble with the law.

When a teen does face consequences for impaired driving, the affects can also be more profound than the consequences for adults. Huffington Post warns that being arrested for impaired driving is one of the top five reasons why a young person might have a college admission rescinded. To prevent undesirable consequences, teens and their parents need to ensure they get prompt help to avoid an impaired driving conviction after a teen is pulled over on prom night or graduation.

A DWI charge is serious, but not as serious as being accused of causing an accident while driving under the influence. If you are accused of causing a collision while driving drunk, you can expect to face much more serious criminal charges with much harsher penalties.  Raising a vigorous DWI defense is absolutely essential when accused of an accident. In such cases, you can argue there is insufficient evidence of intoxication and/or insufficient evidence to prove your actions were actually the cause of the collision and any resulting injuries or deaths.

Unfortunately, it can sometimes be a challenge to successfully prove your actions were not the cause of an accident.  In one recent instance, for example, a driver who was allegedly drunk ended up being convicted of 10 different charges in connection with a DWI accident which left a police officer dead.  The problem is, the driver in this case was not actually the motorist who struck the police officer. As Pix11 reports, the prosecution of this driver marked the first time an allegedly impaired motorist was charged with manslaughter offenses in an incident where he wasn’t operating his vehicle at the time the death happened.

DWI Charges for An Accidental Death When Not Driving

The driver in this particular case reportedly had a blood alcohol concentration of .13 to 14 and got into his car upon leaving a night club.  He reportedly hit a BMW and disabled the steering on the BMW, then continued on the expressway before stopping short prior to an exit and causing an off-duty police officer to hit the brakes and suffer bone fractures. The allegedly impaired driver subsequently came to a stop with his vehicle on the HOV lane of the expressway.

A police officer responded to the scene and was securing the collision scene when an SUV approached. The SUV driver reportedly slow down his own vehicle, but not enough and did not see the police officer who was securing the crash scene. The driver of the SUV struck the police officer and killed the officer. The driver who actually hit and killed the officer, however, didn’t end up getting charged with any crime. In fact, he was given immunity in exchange for agreeing to testify against the person who was reportedly drunk but whose vehicle was at rest in the HOV lane at the time the officer was killed.

The allegedly drunk driver faced multiple charges and was convicted of 10 different offenses, including manslaughter for the death of the officer. The case shows how far prosecutors are willing to go to try to secure convictions against people who are impaired, and shows juries are often eager to convict at a time when there has been extensive public advocacy on drunk driving prevention.  It is a landmark case because it could lead to attempts to hold allegedly impaired defendants accountable even for crashes which they are not the direct immediate cause of.

Many defendants who are arrested for impaired driving undergo testing of their blood, breath, or urine in order to determine the level of drugs or alcohol in their system. Prosecutors use toxicology tests and lab reports to show a defendant was too impaired to drive. Defendants who know there are lab results indicating impairment may feel as if this evidence is sufficient for a prosecutor to meet the burden of proof, demonstrate guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and secure a conviction.

The reality, however, is scientific testing is imperfect and it is often possible to mount a successful Texas DWI defense, even if there are lab results showing levels of drugs or alcohol above legal limits. Lab tests are not always accurate, and even the Department of Justice has expressed concerns about many of the crime labs throughout the country which perform various types of testing used in criminal cases.

Lab Results Can be Called Into Question as a DWI Defense

Labs throughout the country are asked to process all different kinds of information, as scientific evidence is important not just in DWI cases but also when serious crimes are committed. Many people believe these crime labs are subject to the strictest standards for accuracy and quality control because defendants’ futures hang in the balance.

According to a recent PBS report, however, these crime labs are subject to very little oversight, mistakes are common, and many cases have had to be re-tried or verdicts have been thrown out as a result of problems with lab testing.

The Department of Justice has put forth a plan to try to fix myriad problems at crime labs. DOJ says labs that work with the Department of Justice will need to be accredited by 2020. This “solution” however, does little to actually fix problems with labs throughout the United States. First, the plan provides an out because it only requires an accredited labs be used when practicable- so an argument can be made to use a non-accredited lab if there isn’t an accredited one available right away to conduct testing. Second, most crimes- like DWI- are not prosecuted by the Department of Justice but instead are prosecuted on the state level, so this requirement won’t even apply.

The DOJ’s plan is also woefully inadequate because accreditation is not necessarily a difficult process. Most accreditors actually let labs determine which cases to provide for review during the accreditation process. Of course, labs are going to submit only cases for review where they are sure they have followed quality control protocols. Even with this lax standard, 17 percent of public crime labs aren’t accredited and accreditation rates at private labs are likely even lower. One of the major accrediting agencies has accredited 356 publicly funded labs but just 26 privately funded labs.

Because there are such serious issues with labs throughout the country, DWI defendants shouldn’t necessarily assume any lab testing done in their impaired driving case is going to be accurate enough that it cannot be challenged with a good DWI defense.

Police, prosecutors, and lawmakers have routinely passed strict laws against drunk driving and have sometimes engaged in tactics to enforce DWI laws which abridge defendants’ rights.

In 2013, a case came before the Supreme Court called Missouri v. McNeely. The case addressed a claim by police that they could conduct a blood test to determine blood alcohol concentration (BAC) even if the driver did not consent to the test and even if no warrant had been obtained. The police said this was justified because of exigent circumstances – the body was metabolizing the alcohol and the evidence of impaired driving was being destroyed.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court ruled the body’s metabolic processing of alcohol was not an exigent circumstances and said a warrant (or consent) was required or a blood test was an unconstitutional search.

Unfortunately, however, the rights protected in McNeely to be free of warrantless blood searches are now being abridged throughout the United States. The Supreme Court has now been forced to become involved again in litigating the rights of DWI defendants and the court’s decision could have a profound impact on the rights of alleged impaired drivers nationwide.

Supreme Court to Address DWI Defendants Rights

Two major cases have come before the U.S. Supreme Court:  Bernard v. Minnesota and Birchfield v. North Dakota. Both cases center on the increasing trend of states to criminalize a refusal to undergo a blood test when suspected of impaired driving.

There are currently 13 states which have made it illegal for defendants to refuse to take a blood test. In these states, drivers are essentially told to consent to a warrantless search or face criminal charges and go to jail… despite the fact McNeely said police either had to get consent or get a warrant before making DWI defendants take blood tests.

More states are expected to pass similar criminal laws, so the decision the Supreme Court will make on the constitutionality of these criminal laws is going to impact every driver nationwide who is suspected of impaired driving.

The court in Hawaii recently addressed the issue of whether it was constitutional to criminalize a refusal to submit to a warrantless blood search, which is essentially the same question the U.S. Supreme Court will be considering. The case involved a driver who had refused consent to a blood test initially. However, when he was told he could be imprisoned for 30 days, he signed the consent form.

The Hawaii Supreme Court held the consent was not given freely, but rather was coerced and the defendant’s constitutional rights were violated. His conviction was reversed.  The decision of the Hawaii Supreme Court, however, do not offer any relief to defendants outside of Hawaii, since the decision applies only in the state.

Hopefully, the Supreme Court will also determine McNeely is undermined by criminal laws imposing penalties for refusal to take a blood test. Defendants are essentially left with the choice of criminal penalties or submitting to a warrantless search. If the Supreme Court decides this is OK, more defendants nationwide can expect to be put into a position of forced consent, as states continue the trend of criminalizing blood test refusal.

In 2013, there was a decline in the number of impaired driving arrests in Houston over Thanksgiving weekend. Your Houston News reported one local prosecutor believed the decline in arrests was due to no refusal weekends. No refusal weekends routinely go into effect in Houston on holidays like Memorial Day or Thanksgiving day.

During these times, you are unable to refuse a test of your blood alcohol concentration if you are pulled over and there is probable cause to suspect impairment. If you do not agree to take field sobriety or handheld breath tests, you could be transported to a hospital nearby to undergo a blood test.

Drivers need to be aware of the impact of no refusal weekends on their rights, and need to be cognizant of the fact police will be out in full force over Thanksgiving weekend in an effort to identify suspected impaired drivers. If you are arrested and charged with DWI, you need to explore your options for DWI defense so you can fight to keep your license and aim to avoid consequences like jail time and higher insurance costs.

Houston Drivers Face Added Enforcement Efforts Over Thanksgiving

In 2014, the Texas Court of Appeals ruled it was unlawful for police to force suspected drunk drivers to undergo BAC tests without first securing a warrant. The actions of officers to force testing was considered a violation of Constitutional rights because it was an unlawful warrantless search. Houston Public Media indicated this ruling could put an end to no refusal weekends, including one scheduled for the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday weekend.

The reality, however, is the decision did not actually stop police from using these harsh tactics to try to arrest allegedly impaired drivers. Instead, as Star Telegram reported, a local district attorney in one location in Texas simply said they would find a way to make sure warrants could be issued immediately. This meant those suspected of impaired driving would still be subject to the no refusal requirement to give blood to see if they were impaired. The solution came in the form of having judges on call on holiday weekends to sign warrants, which could be sent via fax or email.

With this quick fix in place, law enforcement was able to continue scheduling no refusal weekends during times considered high risk. Those who drive on holidays, including over Thanksgiving weekend, are thus still at risk of being unable to refuse testing and being forced to take a blood test after being pulled over.

If your BAC is tested after you are pulled over for Thanksgiving, you need to make sure police followed proper protocol both for the initial traffic stop and for subsequent actions leading to a warrant being secured and your alcohol levels being tested. In their zeal to make arrests over Thanksgiving, which is considered a high-risk day for drunk driving, the rights of motorists may be infringed. If this happens to you, evidence obtained illegally cannot be used to convict you of DWI.

Football and alcohol-use seem to go hand-in-hand, both for players and fans. According to USA Today, on average, NFL players are arrested for impaired driving between 13 and 14 times annually. NFL players have faced 177 arrests since January 2007 for driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs, and three NFL players have caused fatal accidents while allegedly impaired.

Football fans also commonly face arrest during football season, especially as police tend to be on the lookout for impaired drivers on game days.

One University of Texas study found football games are among the days with the heaviest alcohol consumption over the course of the year. Of Texans who drink, 51 percent said they consumed three or more alcoholic beverages while watching football games and the Texas Department of Transportation indicated 45 percent of those motorists drove home. Police are often present around stadiums when the Houston Texans or Dallas Cowboys are playing to catch drunk drivers.

If you are pulled over after attending a football party or game, you may find yourself forced to submit to a test of your blood alcohol concentration. If you are found to be over-the-limit, you could be arrested and charged with impaired driving. You need to understand what your legal rights are and what to do after an arrest for DWI during football season.

What to Do If You Are Arrested For a DWI During Football Season

If you are arrested for a DWI during football season, the steps to take after the arrest are the same as they would be any time of the year – you need to contact an experienced attorney. Your lawyer will help you to decide if you should plead guilty to try to reduce penalties or if you can raise defenses.

Many people arrested after watching a football event end up with a blood alcohol concentration that is above .08 percent. If you consume three or more drinks while watching football and then you drive home, there is a very real possibility you could have a blood alcohol concentration above the permissible level. However, even having a high BAC does not necessarily mean you are going to be convicted. Just recently, ABC reported on forensic errors in a crime lab in Chicago that were jeopardizing DWI prosecutions.

Attorneys defending a client accused of causing a drunk driving accident were able to recover internal audits showing the crime lab expressed concern about evidence handling and scientific methods. Subsequent investigations showed numerous problems at the testing lab including mixing up test results, improperly destroying samples, and improperly calibrated equipment. When there are problems with tests, it is possible the evidence won’t be able to be used effectively by prosecutors to secure a conviction.

Forensic evidence including the results of blood and urine tests for alcohol can often be challenged, and a DWI defense lawyer can help determine how you can best defend yourself if you are arrested for impaired driving during football season.

A driver in Texas who is found guilty of operating a vehicle while impaired by alcohol can face a suspension of a personal driver’s license. Not being able to drive is a major problem for most people, as work and family commitments may be difficult to fulfill without a valid driver’s license. For those with a commercial driver’s license (CDL) however, the loss of a license can mean the end of a career.

A commercial driver’s license holder can have his CDL suspended both for a drunk driving conviction while operating his own personal vehicle and for a drunk driving conviction while operating his commercial vehicle.   Because conviction can lead to a lengthy CDL suspension or a lifetime revocation, it is very important for a Houston commercial driver to raise a strong DWI defense if he is accused of breaking Texas laws on impaired driving.

Why You Need a Good DWI Defense When You Have a CDL

Most truckers in Texas who drive passenger vehicles or big trucks are subject to regulations established on the national level called Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). The regulations are passed and enforced by Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).

FMCSR 383.51 is the relevant federal regulation addressing the situations under which a commercial license can be suspended.  A CDL suspension may occur after:

• A refusal to take a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) test when there is probable cause the driver is impaired by drugs or by alcohol.
• A conviction for driving drunk while in a personal car.
• A conviction for driving under the influence of a controlled substance, or any combination of drugs and alcohol, while in a personal car.
• A conviction for driving drunk or under the influence of drugs or controlled substances while operating a commercial motor vehicle.

A commercial motor vehicle is typically defined as a truck with a gross weight rating of 26,001 or more pounds or a tow trailer of 10,000 or more pounds. Vehicles that are able to transport 16 or more people, including the driver, may also be considered commercial vehicles.

When a driver is in a commercial vehicle and refuses to take a BAC test or is considered to be impaired by alcohol or other substances, the driver could face:

• A one year CDL suspension for a first conviction.
• A three year CDL suspension for a first conviction while operating a vehicle that contains HAZMAT/ hazardous material.
• A lifetime revocation of a CDL for a second conviction.

Under Texas law, as throughout the United States, there is a lower limit set for drivers who are operating a commercial motor vehicle. A CDL holder in a truck or passenger vehicle is considered to be in violation of impaired driving laws as soon as his BAC is .04 percent. The lower limit is set at half of the standard limit in a passenger car.

Because a DWI can mean the suspension or lifetime loss of your CDL, you need to develop a very effective DWI defense if you don’t want to lose your professional license and career.

Texas Vehicle Code Section 724 provides rules on implied consent. Under this law, an individual driving or operating a boat within the state gives consent to chemical testing to determine if the individual is breaking the law by driving while driving. If a defendant refuses to submit to a test when there is probable cause of impairment, this can result in a license suspension. The refusal to submit to the testing may also be used against defendant in subsequent criminal proceedings, including in a trial for impaired driving.

When you are facing drunk driving charges and the prosecutor is going to use your BAC test refusal against you, it is important to talk with a DWI defense lawyer about what your options are for defending yourself. You do not want the jury to be convinced of your impairment by your refusal to take the test, and your attorney should help develop an effective legal strategy to try to ensure this does not happen.

Defenses to Drunk Driving Charges After Refusing to Take a BAC Test

In every drunk driving case, it is important to develop a strategic plan for how you will defend yourself from accusations you operated your vehicle while impaired. In cases where you have refused to take a breathalyzer test, an explanation for the refusal generally must be incorporated in some way into the defense because the prosecutor may submit your refusal to provide proof you knew you were too impaired to be behind the wheel.

A strategic defense must be crafted that is specific to the facts of your case and that provides you with compelling arguments to make to a jury. A Bar Association article addressed some of the issues paramount to creation of an effective DUI defense when you have declined to take a chemical test in spite of implied consent law.

One of the best outcomes after a chemical test refusal is to successfully motion to suppress evidence of the refusal. You have the right to be informed of the Texas implied consent laws and to be alerted to the fact declining the testing will result in a license suspension and can be used against you. If you were not warned of the consequences of refusing to take the chemical test, it is possible the evidence obtained may be considered inadmissible in court. The prosecutor will not be able to present to the jury the fact you refused to take the test.

If evidence cannot be suppressed, then there are different approaches to take to try to ensure the prosecutor cannot successfully prove you’re guilty by showing you did not take submit to the testing.

Red states tend to impose harsher penalties on people who drive under the influence of alcohol, as compared with blue states. Wallet Hub ranked all 50 states plus the District of Columbia in terms of how strict each was with its impaired driving penalties. The strictest state (Arizona) was ranked 1st and the least strict state (South Dakota) was ranked 51st. When classifying all of the states, red states had an average ranking of 23 and blue states had an average ranking of 28.2.

Texas was one of many red states that was stricter than most other locations in the U.S. in its treatment of people convicted of drunk driving. Because those found guilty face serious criminal penalties, anyone accused of impaired driving should consult with an attorney familiar with all aspects of Texas DWI law as soon as possible post-arrest to begin developing an effective strategy to fight charges.

Texas Imposes Strict Penalties on DWI Defendants

The state of Texas ranked 18th out of 51 in terms of how strict its penalties are when a defendant is found guilty of impaired driving. It was tied with New Hampshire and was above South Carolina (ranked 20th) and below Colorado (ranked 17th).

One area in which Texas is stricter than most other locations is in the mandatory minimum jail terms imposed on defendants convicted of impaired driving. In Texas, a first time offender who is convicted of driving while impaired will be sentenced to a minimum of three days imprisonment and a repeat offender with one past conviction will be sentenced to 30 days. The national average is one day in jail for a first offense and 21 days in jail for a second offense.

Texas had a shorter look back period, or time period during which past convictions count against offenders. In Texas, only convictions in the prior five years count to determine whether you have past convictions. Many other states, including South Carolina, Florida, New Hampshire, Oregon and Louisiana, have a 10-year look back period.

Texas, like many other locations, makes a third offense for DWI a felony conviction. Some locations like Alabama and Arkansas do not impose an automatic felony charge until a fourth offense, while others like Colorado never make impaired driving an automatic felony.

Texas is among the states imposing a 12-month ignition interlock device requirement on those who are found guilty of a first DWI with a BAC of .15. Only four states impose longer than a 12-month ignition interlock requirement (Delaware at 14 months, Oklahoma at 18 months, Massachusetts at 24 months, and Rhode Island at 24 months).

Unlike many other states, however, Texas does not have minimum fines for a first or second conviction for impaired driving. Some states will fine repeat defendants as much as $2100. While conviction won’t necessarily lead to large fines, Texas drivers do see a 44 percent increase in insurance premiums after a conviction, compared to other locations with much lower premium increases.

Defendants need to be aware that Texas is stricter than many other states and need to ensure they are taking aggressive steps to defend themselves from a guilty verdict.

When police pull you over, they may ask you questions like whether you have consumed any alcohol. A law enforcement officer may also ask you how much you’ve had to drink.

Many people pulled over by police incorrectly believe evidence obtained cannot be used against them if they weren’t given a Miranda warning before they answered questions. This is not necessarily true. While evidence collected in violation of your rights can’t be used against you in a drunk driving case, police aren’t required to read your rights every time you have an interaction.

It is important to determine when your rights actually were violated so you can make a compelling legal argument to keep illegally obtained evidence from being used. You should consult with an experienced DWI defense lawyer after you’ve been charged for help with the process.

When Must Police Mirandize You in DWI Cases?

You’ve probably seen police reading people their rights on TV. This is called Mirandizing, and involves delivering the Miranda warning i.e. telling you you have the right to remain silent and to call a lawyer. Police have to go through this recitation of your rights before a custodial interrogation or prosecutors won’t be able to use any statements you make during the interrogation.

When you are subject to a traffic stop, you could make an argument you are in custody. Custody is typically defined as subject to the common restrains of arrest and/or being in a situation where you do not feel free to leave the presence of officers. You can’t just drive away when police stop your car.

You could also make an argument you’re being interrogated if police ask you questions about whether you’ve had anything to drink. The answers to these questions could result in your arrest and prosecution, and anything you say can be used against you.

Despite this, the Supreme Court ruled in Berkemer v. McCarty there’s no Miranda warning required before police talk to you at a roadside stop because: “In short, the atmosphere surrounding an ordinary traffic stop is substantially less “police dominated” than that surrounding the kinds of interrogation at issue in Miranda.” If you are formally arrested for DWI, however, police must at this point give you a Miranda warning because you are being taken into custody. If police arrest you without reading your rights, you can petition to have evidence suppressed if it was collected during a subsequent interrogation. Evidence suppressed can’t be used to secure a conviction.

Prosecutors have the legal burden of proving drunk driving occurred beyond a reasonable doubt. There are times when evidence can be suppressed, like if you were pulled over without probable cause. An attorney can provide assistance determining if the Fourth Amendment was violated in your case. A failure of police to read your Miranda rights as soon as you’re stopped is not likely to be one of these situations where a constitutional argument will work to prevent evidence from being presented.