| Victim Impact Statements in DUI/DWI Cases |
|
| Victim impact statements are typically addressed in cases involving drunk driving accidents resulting in serious injury or death. Such offenses are charged as felonies, punishable by incarceration of up to five to seven years in the case of injury and up to 30 years in the case of death. More... |
|
|
| Penalties for OUI/OWI (Operating Under the Influence or While Intoxicated) |
|
| The penalties imposed by states for operating while intoxicated (OWI) and operating under the influence (OUI) follow the same pattern of penalties imposed by states enforcing laws for driving under the influence (DUI) and/or driving while intoxicated (DWI). In general, all states and the District of Columbia have "per se" laws defining it as a crime to drive with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at or above a proscribed level of 0.08. percent and above. More... |
|
|
| Vehicle and License Plate Sanctions for DUI/DWI |
|
| When a defendant is convicted of driving under the influence or driving while intoxicated, the defendant is usually subject to a license revocation or suspension, fines, and possible jail time. In addition, many states provide for penalties that affect the defendant's vehicle and license plates. More... |
|
|
| Rising Alcohol Defense in DUI/DWI Cases |
|
| Drunk driving statutes across the country are not always uniform in how they describe the degree of inebriation that is required for conviction for driving under the influence (DUI) and driving while intoxicated (DWI). However, they do generally provide that it is unlawful to have an excessive blood-alcohol concentration at the driving of driving – not at the time of being tested. The statutes in most states provide provisions for a per se illegal offense when a motorist's blood-alcohol level is at or above 0.08%. More... |
|
|
| Defendant's Right to Counsel Before Consenting to Chemical Test in Drunk Driving Case |
|
| Most people are aware that Miranda warnings must be given an accused before he or she is subjected to custodial interrogation. The warnings are intended to protect the privilege against self-incrimination, and the Fifth Amendment right to counsel was created to protect that privilege. However, if the privilege against self-incrimination is not implicated, the warnings are not required, and there is no right to counsel. The United States Supreme Court has held that "physical" evidence may be obtained from an accused without running afoul of the privilege. Therefore, the right to counsel privilege has been held inapplicable to physical or performance tests and chemical tests of bodily substances. More... |
|
|