Phoenix DUI Abogados

It seems that every time one turns around in this state there is another DWI or DUI-related traffic accident reported on the web, in the papers or on the local news. As New Jersey drunken driving defense lawyers and motorists ourselves, we often advise our friends and colleagues never to get behind the wheel of an automobile with even a sip of liquor, beer or wine in one’s system.

Why such a strict statement? Because the laws in this state provide for fairly stiff penalties for those defendants who are convicted of drunken driving, even a first-time offense, and there is nothing that we have seen to suggest that driving while intoxicated is worth risking not only one’s hard earned money, but also life and limb. Regardless of where you live, be it Bergen, Passaic, Ocean or Monmouth County, being arrested for drunk driving or DUI associated with prescription drugs, the costs of a conviction are not worth taking a chance.

The other reason, though it isn’t even something that drivers should contemplate, is that once a motorist is driving on a public road with some alcohol in his or her bloodstream, being stopped for even the most innocuous or seemingly minor traffic offense, moving violation or vehicle infraction can open one up to close scrutiny by a state trooper or municipal cop.

We had a rather difficult hearing yesterday on what is a simple issue: did the police officer have reasonable suspicion of impairment in order to require my client to perform field sobriety tests? Unfortunately, the answer was yes. In Maine, the officer doesn't need much to stop you and he needs even less to expand his initial stop into a full-blown OUI investigation. In this particular case, in spite of calling the officer's credibility into question, the presiding judge sided with the State. Although he indicated that it was a very close issue, he did find that the officer had enough reasonable suspicion of impairment to order my client to perform field sobriety tests.

So, what happens if you lose a hearing on a motion to suppress? Well, there are a couple of options. 1st, you could go back to the drawing board and see if a plea agreement can be negotiated. 2nd, you can keep pushing the envelope and push the case to trial in the hopes of either securing a better offer like a drop down or in the hopes of obtaining an acquittal before a jury.

These are decisions that only the client can make with the advice of counsel. In my client's particular case, he took my advice and decided to push his case to trial. My philosophy is that if there are viable trial issues and the last offer made by the DA is no better than what the judge would impose following an unsuccessful trial, why bother accepting it?

Remember when you could go to a pub or bar and have a drink with a friend in privacy?

San Francisco Club:  Police Tried to Force Us to Install Surveillance Cameras to Spy on Our Customers

San Francisco, CA.  Mar. 21 — According to a San Francisco nightclub, the city’s police department has been manipulating and coercing bar and club owners into installing surveillance cameras and then granting the police open access to the footage. 

After the city government’s failure to pass legislation that would have required bars to install surveillance cameras and metal detectors, the police appear to have taken to making veiled threats to the few bar owners who won’t comply with their spy-on-your-customers-for-us directives.

The website for the DNA Lounge, a club owned by former Netscape programmer and open source hacker Jamie Zawinksi, describes how the police tried to intimidate the establishment into going along with its surveillance plans:

We got a funny phone call today, and by "funny" I mean "not actually even a little funny."

Officer Chan, the permitting officer for SFPD, called to remind us that we're required to have video surveillance that records everything our customers do, and to give that footage to SFPD any time they ask, without a warrant or explanation. "Actually, that's not the case, I'm not required to do that," says Barry. "It's a part of the Good Neighbor Policy," says the cop. "No, actually, it's not. And it's also not a condition of our permits."

"Well! I guess I'll have to speak to the Entertainment Commission about that, then!"

Thirty minutes later, Barry got a call from this guy's boss, admitting that while we're not technically required to, we really, really should "consider" it. After some back and forth, he says, "Should I take from this conversation that you're not willing to consider this?" "We have considered it, which is why we fought to have that condition not put on our permits."

Someone from the Entertainment Commission said, "Yeah, it's really weird that you don't have that condition, because they're putting that on everybody's permits now. Nobody else has fought it."

Which isn't surprising, since apparently everyone who works for SFPD is going around telling everyone that it's required by law when that's not even remotely true. It's just another sneaky, backdoor regulation that ABC and SFPD have been foisting on everyone without any kind of judicial oversight, in flagrant violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The San Francisco police department is, like a lot of other major urban departments, somewhat obsessed with surveillance. In January 2013, the local media reported that the SFPD was interested in turning city streetlights into monitoring devices…

Are "drunk driving drones" next?
 

(Thanks to Joe.)