Why Your City Ignores the Constitution in Cases of DUI

Continental Congress

The constitution itself, is supposed to be applied to everyone, just for being a citizen and not excused on specific criminal charges. That means that someone accused of murder is entitled to the same rights as someone accused of writing a bad check. These rights apply to you simply for being a citizen, not to a specific charge. This is the way it is ‘supposed to be’, but in the real world, it is ignored.

Our courts have continuously found ways to forget the Constitution and ignore the rights of the people accused of DUI/APC. You will find the following statments difficut to believe, but they are true:

• if you are arrested for DUI/APC, the officer will IMMEDIATELY seize your driver’s license and will not return it. This is a form of punishment and you have not even had an opportunity to talk with a lawyer, see a judge or post bail. You ARE PRESUMED GUILTY when our Constitution guarantees that you are to be presumed innocent unless proven otherwise – constitution ignored.
• if you are arrested, the Officer will rarely read your Miranda rights to you even though he will continue to question you. You have watched TV and know this is wrong—Not for DUI’s. The court again has found – constitution ignored.
• if you are arrested and taken to jail for DUI, you should feel confident that you will be allowed to talk with an attorney prior to questioning or being asked to give incriminating evidence against yourself. This is true in all crimes except DUI, again – constitution ignored.
• if you are arrested and refuse to take a breath test, our state law says that refusal can be admitted to a jury and a presumption of guilt attached. But— What about the 5th Amendment saying I have the right to remain silent and it cannot be used against me? – constitution ignored.
• if you are driving and are stopped at a roadblock, then questioned about drinking- you easily think “wait, you have to have a reason to stop me, this is not legal”. This would be true if they were looking for drugs, or any other crime, but if it is a DUI stop — constitution ignored.
• in most cases, if the government knowingly destroys evidence, that evidence cannot be used against you. In a DUI case, you are asked to take a breath test. The machine is capable of preserving the sample of your breath for additional testing. The Government, for monetary reasons and knowing there will be no punishment for destroying that evidence, has chosen not to maintain the sample, yet they are allowed to introduce their evidence — constitution ignored.
• if you have a couple of quick drinks and are stopped within 5-10 minutes of leaving your house or a meeting, you may not be affected by the alcohol yet—still you will be requested to take a breath test and as long as it is taken within 2 hours of your arrest, that is close enough for Government work. It can be used against you and show you with a much higher alcohol level than what you had while you were actually driving. In effect you will be guilty of being capable of committing a crime even though you were not intoxicated when stopped — constitution ignored.
• a man’s home is his castle!  We have heard this many times and you know the Constitution says the government must have a search warrant to enter your home, even for a murder investigation. A recent California case allowed the police to enter a home for a misdmeanor DUI investigation without a warrant. This was based on a neighbors tip; that is the police did not even see the person driving, they just entered the home without a warant. Surely this would not be allowed.  Sorry — constitution ignored.
• the constituion requires a warrant before evidence can be forcefully taken. In a nearby state, if you are stopped, asked to submit to a breath test and refuse (remember the 5th Amendment and your right not to incriminate yourself)—A’Batmobile’ will be called to the scene, you will be strapped down and a police officer will take your blood on the spot. Yes, this is happening in Amercia because we have another — constitution ignored.
• you can be convicted of DUI even if your driving was not impaired. The law has what we call a ‘per se’ provision. That means if the machine says you are .08 or more, you are presumed guilty even if your driving was not affected. The government will not have to show your driving was impaired, just that a machine gave a certain number. You just thought you had a right to be presumed INNOCENT — constitution ignored.
• the Constitution guarantees an accused the right to face their accuser in court before a jury. This is the Right of Confrontation. In DUI cases, the accuser is most often a machine that makes mathematical conversions to reach a number. This mathematical conversion is secret because the manufacturer considers it‘proprietary’. Math is generally considered to be an absolute and no one owns it, but in DUI cases you will not know the method used to compute your number because it is proprietary to the manufacturer. — constitution ignored.
• actual innocence is “irrelevant”. In August 2006 the Michigan Supreme Court said actual innocence of ‘impaired’ driving was IRRELEVANT! You read that correctly…. actual innocence of ‘impaired’ driving was IRRELEVANT! The Court convicted the defendants even though the court acknowledged the drivers were not impaired. They had apparently ingested marijuana at some point in the prior 3-4 weeks. The testimony was clear and the Court accepted the fact that they were not under the influence of the substance at the time they were driving. Still, they were convicted of DUI.— constitution ignored.

DUI has become a political lightning rod and no politician will speak against the charges or means of applying penalties if they wish to remain in office. We also continue to move away from the problem—intoxicated drivers. The limits are lower and you can be convicted for a number that has no relationship to your driving abilities. None of this addresses the repeat offenders who are heavily intoxicated but it does move towards a new form of prohibition in our country.

One state has lowered the number to .04 for repeat offenders and it is easy to envision a nationwide move to lower the number to .04 for all drivers. In addition, DUI’s are the ‘cash cow’ for our court system.

Court cost for a first time DUI are higher than for a felony drug possession. There are numerous reasons your case is being placed on a ‘fast track’. There are many powerful forces striving to increase the number of DUI convictions throughout our nation, namely Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which is a political organization now, not an outreach group.  They are moving slowly towards prohibition, their ultimate goal.

Are We Being Setup?

Hmmm

More DUI attorneys are sounding the alarm across the land.  But, no one is listening.  DUI is admittedly not on everyone’s mind, yet mandatory sentencing and stiff penalties and skyrocketing car insurance are happening every day.  This cannot be coincidence.  These things are normally reserved for drug dealers, not college kids out on a joy ride.

So why the sudden crack down?  One organization is squarely behind it, Mothers Against Drunk Driving.  However, if you dig deep enough into the organization, you will find at the core of their beliefs: prohibition.

Hmmm

Yes MADD’s ultimate end-game solution to DUI is prohibition.  In their eyes, we did it once, we can do it again.  For them, no alcohol is safe.  They have simply chosen to force states to adhere to their DUI demands.  Over the years they have tightened and tightened.  And, since they are organized and we, common citizens are not, they make campaign contributions and have lobbyists.  They are painting this country into a corner.  Look at the drinking “age”.  Most countries have no law against drinking, of any sort, for any age.  In the U.S. prohibition is live and well below the age 21.  There is no rhyme nor reason why the drinking age is 21, instead of even 18, when most legal contracts become enforceable.

Who implemented the drinking “age”?  MADD got the drinking age passed and went from state to state strong arming legislators to pass it, or else.

The message is clear and is based on some very flimsy numbers and science.  DUI is not the leading cause of car accidents, nor deaths in accidents.  In fact, DUI doesn’t even rank among the top 10 reasons for car accidents.  With such meager numbers how is it DUI became public enemy number one? Again, MADD.  While certainly a sad event, a loved one dying in a car accident that may have been preventable does not belong on the priority table when it is below the 100th leading causes of death in the United States.

Prohibition

Look at any chart that lists the top 100 leading causes of deaths and drunk driving doesn’t even appear on the chart.  In fact, all motor vehicle accidents, combined, still do not reach the one percentile for leading cause of death in America.  As cars become more and more safe, more lives are saved.  Of all motor vehicles accidents, drunk driving does not rank among the top 10 causes.

So what is really going on? MADD is going on.  They spend millions in ad campaigns yearly to try and make the case that drunk driving is a big scary boogeyman.

Those resources would be better served combatting:

• Heart disease: 616,067
• Cancer: 562,875
• Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 135,952
• Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 127,924

Not even 10,000 people die from drunk driving each year.  Yet millions are spent trying to make the case that it is ever present.  More people die from simply falling and breaking their hip, than being in a drunk driving accident.

Your Constitutional Rights Stop at DUI

The Fourth Amendment DUI Exception – DUI Checkpoints

The Fourth Amendment protects Americans from unreasonable search and seizure by police. That means that police can’t search you or arrest you without probable cause that you’ve committed a crime. But the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that, in the case of DUI sobriety checkpoints (where police can stop cars with no reason, simply to check for drunk drivers), Fourth Amendment rights don’t apply.

The Case: In Sitz v. Michigan, the Supreme Court ruled that the potential benefit to society of removing impaired drivers from the roads justified the violation of Fourth Amendment rights caused by checkpoints.

The Facts: Some states, including Michigan, have ruled that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision violates rights granted by their states’ Constitutions, and have outlawed DUI sobriety checkpoints.

The Conclusion: If you’re stopped at a DUI checkpoint and arrested for DUI (or a crime unrelated to DUI!), your arrest was probably legal. Talk to a DUI attorney for details about your state’s laws.

The Miranda Rights DUI Exception – DUI Arrests

Watching TV and movies, police officers are required to inform you of your Sixth Amendment rights when you’re arrested. If they don’t read you your so-called Miranda rights (right to an attorney, right to remain silent, etc.), anything you say is inadmissible as evidence in court. Except, as it turns out, in DUI cases.

The Case: In Berkemer v. McCarty, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police aren’t required to read DUI suspects their rights until sometime later than they would during any other criminal arrest.

The Facts: In its decision, the Supreme Court didn’t specify when Miranda rights must be read.

The Conclusion: If you’re questioned by police on the way to the station, or while in custody, the evidence you offer may be admissible even if you haven’t been read your Miranda rights.

The Fifth & Sixth Amendment DUI Exception – DUI Evidence

If you’re arrested, police inform suspects that they have the right to an attorney – that is, they are legally permitted to consult with a lawyer before answering any police questions. As mentioned above, though, DUI suspects aren’t always read those rights. And, it seems, some might not apply anyway.

Fifth Amendment protects suspects from self-incrimination. Suspects can choose not to answer questions (“I plead the fifth”) rather than answer in a way that could harm their cases. Further, if a suspect refuses/withholds evidence, that refusal cannot be entered as evidence in court.

Sixth Amendment grants criminal suspects the right to an attorney – that is, the right to consult with a lawyer before proceeding with police questioning.

The Case: In South Dakota v. Neville, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that DUI suspects have no right to refuse a breath test. Breathalyzers can provide highly incriminating evidence in DUI cases, but, because of the Supreme Court’s ruling, DUI suspects are required to submit.

The Facts: Besides the Fifth Amendment violation, many jurisdictions refuse to allow DUI suspects to consult with a lawyer before submitting to a breath test – and this has been ruled legal. In short, Sixth Amendment rights have been denied in DUI cases.

Note that a few states have outlawed these practices permitted by the Supreme Court, because of conflicts with state Constitutions.

The Conclusion: Many states have “implied consent” laws that allow breath test refusals to be submitted as evidence during a DUI case. Most states even have penalties for refusing a breath test. It’s a good idea to have a basic understanding of your state’s DUI laws to get an idea of what you can expect.

Destruction of Evidence Exception – DUI Breath Test Results

When police officers test your breath for alcohol content, they’re required to give you the “Trombetta advisement,” which consists of telling you that you can submit to a blood test (and later have it analyzed by an independent lab) if you’d prefer. Unfortunately, most officers don’t do this – and don’t face any penalties.

Additionally, police officers are not required to save your breath sample (even though breath testing machines permit them to do so) to be analyzed by another machine.

The Case: In Trombetta v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that effectively destroying breath evidence by not saving it for further analysis is not illegal, despite federal laws prohibiting the destruction of evidence.

The Facts: In most jurisdictions, the only way police might be penalized for failing to save breath evidence is if you can prove it was exculpatory (i.e. it would have proven your innocence). Naturally, without access to the destroyed evidence, that’s pretty hard to do.

The Conclusion: If you believe you’re not impaired, you may want to consider asking for a blood sample. Breath machines are far from perfect devices, and, depending on the facts of your case, having a more precise BAC measurement from blood could bolster your case.

The Article Three Exception – DUI Trials without Juries

Article Three of the Constitution, which outlines the judicial branch of government, calls for a trial by jury for all criminal cases. But, thanks to a decision by the Supreme Court, that right has been revoked for those charged in certain DUI cases.

The Case: In Blanton v. North Las Vegas, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, for DUI charges that could lead to no more than six months in jail, defendants are not guaranteed a trial in front of a jury of their peers, and may have a hearing in front of only a judge.

The Facts: This requirement varies by state, but several states prohibit jury trials if a defendant stands to spend less than half a year behind bars.
The Conclusion: This varies on a case-by-case basis, but clearly demonstrates a negation of basic constitutional rights.

Know Your Rights!

Despite the “Constitutional exceptions” in DUI cases, DUI lawyers are still finding ways to fight DUI charges across the country. If you’re facing DUI charges, contacting a DUI attorney practicing in your area may help you fight your case.

No Right to an Attorney

You think to yourself, you have nothing to hide.  Only criminals don’t cooperate with police. And, just that quickly, you have give away all your constitutional rights.  All of your constitutional protections are gone.  You think to yourself,  I have a right to remain silent. Why should I agree to take a test? The 5th Amendment says I don’t have to incriminate myself. Something’s not right here…. And anyway, you think, do I really have to take a test? Are those Breathalyzers accurate? Would a blood test be better?

You think to yourself, I have a right to counsel: I’d better call my lawyer and get his advice before I decide whether to take a test or not, and which one I should take.

So you tell the officer you wish to remain silent, and you want to make a call on your cell phone to your attorney. “Are you refusing to take a test?” he asks darkly. “I just want to talk to my attorney,” you reply. “Your funeral,” the officer says. Now what did he mean by that?

What he meant was that, depending upon the state, a refusal to submit to chemical testing will trigger increased penalties — mandatory jail terms and longer driver’s license suspensions over and above the usual DUI penalties — and may even be considered a separate criminal offense. And, in most states, the jury will be instructed by the judge that this refusal can be viewed as “consciousness of guilt”.

Believing you have constitutional rights in a DUI case can be very dangerous. This is very commonly known as: “officer-induced confusion”. Three apparently contradictory things are communicated to the (very frightened) person arrested for DUI:

• you can remain silent and refuse to possibly incriminate yourself,
• you can consult with a lawyer, and
• you have to take a chemical test that may incriminate you.

What would the normal person conclude? Well, let’s take a closer look at the laws involved here.

First, the “implied consent” law says a person driving on the state’s highway impliedly consents to a chemical test when requested by an officer. Second, the Fifth Amendment right to “remain silent”, or not incriminate yourself, protects you from custodial interrogation, not from having to give physical evidence. Third, the U.S. Supreme Court has been vague on how the right to counsel applies in a DUI case (the well-known “double standard”).

As a result, some states permit the right to counsel after an arrest; most, however, deny the arrestee any access to a lawyer in a DUI case until after the police are through with him — even if he is arrested, taken to the station, and held in handcuffs until he is tested (the post-arrest process can take up to two hours or more). So when the officer said you had a right to counsel, that wasn’t quite true. He should have said, “You have a right to counsel…usually, but since this is a DUI arrest you can’t talk to one for an hour or two”.

(As we say, “the DUI exception to the Constitution”.)

What if you change your mind five minutes later and agree to take a test? Some courts have reasoned that if a short delay does not affect the value of the test, there is no good reason for not letting the suspect take the test. Most states, however, will not let you change your mind. As one appellate court bluntly put it,

“One offer plus one rejection equals one refusal and one suspension”. Dunlop v. DMV (156 Cal.App.3d 279).

Translation: tough titty. Granted it’s all very confusing, and even the courts don’t all agree, but you are going to be prosecuted and punished for refusing to take a test. In other words, believing you really have a constitutional right not to incriminate yourself and to talk with an attorney in a DUI case can get you into a lot of trouble.

Miranda Rights Gone

Supreme Court Building

1. Someone who speaks, are automatically assumed to have waived all legal rights to remain silent
2. it is assumed you have waived your rights if you do not speak
3. see point #1
4. rinse repeat

In other words, Miranda is completely and utterly gone.  To further hit home this incredible waiving of rights, police have no obligation to stop questioning you, regardless of what you say.

The Miranda warning stems from the U.S. Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The basic holding of the Court was that the prosecution may not use statements made by a subject stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See Miranda.

Police Car

For those who are skeptical of how egregious [bad] this is, let us go over how the right was put in practical terms.

In practical terms, you were read your rights and you then signed a paper with the rights on them, indicating that you completely heard, read and understood those rights.

This decision now completely throws out all practical implications of Miranda.  You do not need Miranda warnings spoken to you.  You do not get to sign a document indicating you understand your constitutional right.  Police can now interrogate you under the full assumption that you waive your right.

“Today’s decision turns Miranda upside down,” Justice Sotomayor wrote in her dissent. “Suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so.”

Conclusion

Let me see if I can understand the majority’s reasoning: The constitutionally enumerates rights given to us by God; these enumerated rights exist outside of the law, and are just written into the constitution to state that we recognize these rights and will not touch, nor breach them; the Miranda warning is simply a notification of those God given rights, to make absolutely sure people are already aware of those rights; but those rights are now taken away.

The entire impetus of the enumerated rights of the constitution is that they exist outside of any laws written down.  Concordantly the presence or absence of the Miranda warning is immaterial to your God given right to remain silent.  Therefore there is no constitutional NEED to invoke a right you already have, given by the almighty creator, which man cannot abridge.

This was the very heart of why the rights were written down in the constitution, to stop a government that would come into your house, ransack it, question / torture you and throw you in jail just because they are sovereign.

Our constitutional rights supersede any claim of sovereignty the government claims to have over us.

This decision is wrong at the very core. How could 5 men in good conscious deliver such a heinous ruling.  It is not even up for interpretation that a man need not assert their rights.  The right was asserted 200 years ago.

Your Day in Court is Not on the Sidewalk in Handcuffs

Field Sobriety Test

“Any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to police under any circumstances.” – 1949 opinion by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson.

Yes the very same supreme court that is the last court in the land has consistently said, citizens should not talk to police. This might be contrary to everything that education has told you. This might be against everything your very political church has told you. This might be against everything your good intending parents have taught you.

You cannot be innocent if you are waiving you right to remain silent.

On the nightly news you see stories like this one:

• a man accused of shooting and killing his wife
• the couple had 3 children
• the wife was 7 months pregnant

The man has been charged with Capital Murder. While in handcuffs the man was asked a question by a reporter and responded with, “She had it coming.”

Don’t Admit to What You Don’t Know You’re Being Accused of

Eighty percent of the population has never had any dealings with law enforcement, nor the courts, ever in their life.  When asked should a killer confess to a crime, nearly all of them would say yes.  But, those who are in the know, knows that you do not confess to crimes.  Why?  Because you might confess to more than what you think you’re being accused of.

There are times when the police will bring you in for what you think is a mere speeding ticket and you willingly confess, and they charge you with manslaughter.  How is that possible?  Because their facts show that a person who committed a killing was driving a car that fit your description and fled the seen at high speeds.  And, this happens far more often than you could possibly believe.

You should always contact your lawyer at your earliest convenience and let your lawyer deal with law enforcement.  Never, ever assume you know the inner workings of law enforcement, or the courts.

How Often Are the Police Wrong in a Criminal Case?

officer asking you "innocent" questions

Lately with the widespread sharing of DNA technology it has been found, so far, that 25% of all criminal cases completely exonerated convicted men.  That means that 1 in 4 prisoners, in jail and prison were completely innocent of crimes that they went to trial and were convicted of.  So that is to say 25% of the time the police are completely wrong.

What does that mean to you?  That means confess to your priest, but when it comes to police keep quiet.  You do not want to get yourself involved in something that is so far beyond your scope of thinking that it would dismay you.  “Any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to police under any circumstances.” – 1949 opinion by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson.  The police never ask innocent questions.  The only thing you should share with police is your driver’s license, registration and insurance.  If the police show up at your door, do not answer it and definitely do not let them in without a warrant.  Make absolutely sure they do not come into your house without a warrant and never invite them in.

“Anything Can Be Held Against You”

You have no idea what is on the mind of police.  Remember 25% of people who were in prison were completely innocent.  That number could include you, very easily.   I see it so often, that people, mostly men, stick out their chest and say the famous last words “I have nothing to hid, go ahead.”  It is such a game of child psychology that it is amazing that grown adults fall for it.  More often than not, a policeman can search your car or home and find something to charge you with.  Yes, even you, mister “I have nothing to hide.”  There are hundreds of laws, codes, restrictions that you probably don’t know about, that an officer could easily charge you with.

Drunk, Driving and Talkative

Click Here to Get the Total DUI Package

This has to be the worst combination ever.  Let’s say a police officer stops you and suspects you of drunk driving.  Without even giving you a breathalyzer test or a field sobriety test a policeman could walk up ask you: if you’ve been drinking; how many drinks you’ve had; when was your last drink and charge you with drunk driving by your own confession.  Was there a test given?  No.  But, he didn’t need to, you just confessed to drunk driving.  Seems like reasonable questions right?  Wrong.  The only thing you are ever obligated to give to police is your driver’s license, registration and insurance.  You are under no obligation to actually chit chat with the police.  There is no law on the books that says you have to make pleasant conversation with a policeman.  If there was, it  would be unconstitutional.

What’s So Wrong With Talking to the Police

The general public is completely confused as to what the role of the police are.  They operate under the false assumption is the person that convicts people.  The police do not convict anyone of anything.  The police are only there to bring recommendations to court.  Their sole authority is to charge you with violations of laws.

What does that have to do with anything?  Confessing to police does not have the effect the general public thinks it has.  Since the police cannot convict you, they also cannot exonerate you.  That decision is made by the district attorney’s office and visa vis the courts.  Therefore making your heart felt confession to police is simply barking up the wrong tree.

Your absolute best advice is to completely bite your tongue around police and wait till you get in front of a judge “at trial” or your own lawyer.

Can I Clear My DUI Record?

Click Here to get the Complete DUI Manuals

It is no surprise that people wish to clear their record of any DUI arrests and or convictions.  But how, is the question most people ask.  Knowledge is always the road block for most things legal.  Wouldn’t it be great to have a step by step manual you could refer to online that would guide you through the process, that you could have, yours to keep?

You’ve probably seen the product you take with you that helps you in case you actually get stopped by the police, which shows you your legal rights, including the right not to be harassed.  But, not everyone has that product, or not everyone thinks about that product until it is too late.  This is where this manual comes in.  You’ve already been stopped by the police.  You’ve already received your ticket from the police.  You’ve already been convicted by the courts.  How do you clear your DUI record?

Many people want to clear their record for many reasons.  Some people are trying to go into the military.  Some people are trying to apply for a school position.  Some people are trying to hold a state or local government job.  I’ve even heard truck drivers that were concerned by a former DUI conviction.  Either way, removing your DUI conviction might be essential to get these or other positions.  Some positions require a background check.  Some position require that you have a certain reputation.

Before moving on, let’s break the bad news to those that are clearly not qualified to use the manual.

1. If your offense is related to vehicular manslaughter you are not eligible.
2. If your DUI offense is complicated with felony drug charges you most likely are not eligible
3. If your DUI offense involves extensive property damage and/or severe accident or injury you are not eligible.

Those that fall into any of those categories cannot simply clear their records.

If Your DUI Or Drunk Driving Offense Was Not Listed Above Then You Will Benefit From The Information Provided By The DUI Process Manual.

So that is the good news.

What’s in the manual?

• A step-by-step, fool proof process to clearing your DUI record. This process can be followed from every state.
• Simple to follow plan that will enable you to pass pre-employment background checks, even if you are not eligible for expungement!
• How to legally pay little to nothing on the outrageously expensive SR-22 requirement. This one piece of information alone could literally save you hundreds of dollars per month!

That is pretty straight forward.  But, some of you might be right in the thick of things and your DUI is not behind you.  Some of you might want to have some sort of defense to know your rights [as mentioned above] when a police officer actually stops you.  Some of  you have been arrested, charged and need to get a lawyer quickly before trial.  Not to worry.  There are also other manuals for all of that.  In fact there is an entire package of manuals that covers each and every one of those situations.  You can put them in your library and have them as your guide in everything involving DUIs.

Often people ask questions online of how they can help their teenage or even adult kids who have gotten into trouble.  These manuals will show you from start to finish what to do.  Inside you’ll find:

• A complete explanation of how the courts and motor vehicles store and keep your records and the 3 things you must do to limit the sharing of your record.
• How there is a lack of communication between agencies involved in the DUI Process and how you can legally use this to your advantage.
• Why there is a 95% chance that the state has no record of your offense and what you must do to ensure that they never get a copy of the record.
• Why private companies are buying up copies of your record and what you need to do about it to stop them from damaging you.
• How the department of motor vehicles tracks your driving record and what you can legally do about it.
• Drivers license strategies to help you get legally re-licensed. Several methods that have worked for many people.

Click Here to Get the Total DUI Package

Disclaimer: (always needed)

This website is not and should not be considered experts in DUI as it represents the collaboration and opinions of several ordinary people and not lawyers.  The information is just that, information and not advice in any way, shape or form.  The owners of duiprocess.com make no claims as to the accuracy or completeness of any information provided.  Every effort has been made to provide full and complete information at time of publication but duiprocess.com assumes no responsibility for any information presented nor implied.  Only a qualified attorney can offer legal advice and we are not attorneys’ therefore we are not offering any advice, only information on the general dui process.

We do not accept any responsibility for any content provided on any other website linked to duiprocess.com as it is the sole responsibility of the author’s of that website.  We make no special endorsements and merely provide relevant links as a courtesy to our visitors.  Each visitor is required to evaluate the quality and content of each website that they visit regardless of whether or not it is linked to duiprocess.com.

Ratek Group, Inc. and the owners of duiprocess.com are not liable to any visitors for any actions taken or any loss or damages arising from the information posted on this website or included in any manual or e-book offered from this website.  Each individual visitor is strongly encouraged to evaluate any information taken and seek the legal advice of a qualified attorney before taking any action on their own behalf(s).

The information contained in this website is provided “as is” without warranty of any kind.  The entire risk as to the results and the performance of the information is assumed by the user, and in no event shall Ratek Group, Inc. and/or the owners of duiprocess.com be liable for any consequential, incidental or direct damages suffered in the course of using the information provided at duiprocess.com.

SUMMARY:  THE CONTENT ON THIS WEBSITE IS MERELY INFORMATION ON THE DUI PROCESS AND NOT LEGAL ADVICE.  ONLY A QUALIFIED ATTORNEY CAN GIVE LEGAL ADVICE.

How Juries are Being Misled to Convict in DUI Cases

Prosecutor Lulling a Jury

However, in a DUI case none of this happens.  The prosecutor does point a finger at the defendant, and the defense attorney comes up after him, but neither one goes over facts in the case.  The prosecutor instead say “His B.A.C. was 0.10 ladies and gentlemen,” and sits down.  Wait, what?  That’s the incontrovertible proof?  He had alcohol in his blood and all of a sudden that rendered him a blithering idiot by proxy?

There is no presentation of facts.  There is no weaving of the tale of the night of September 19.  There is no story of a dark road through the woods.  There is nothing about an argument with the wife of the defendant earlier that evening.  Nothing!

In fact, in DUI criminal cases, hardly anything is proven at all.  To make matters worse, the police do absolutely no investigation if they find any evidence of alcohol at the scene.  They completely shut down, once they see alcohol.  And by “evidence of alcohol”, it can be so obtuse as to be bottles of packaged alcohol, still in the case, in the trunk of the car.  How about that for not proving a case?

It proves nothing.  We opperate under a constitution and a body of case law.  When and why did we start not applying that to DUI cases?  Money!  They want to present a fast quick case, with no proof, so they can get paid to throw the person in jail.  As mentioned before, jail is big money.  HUGE money!  It doesn’t matter that it was your grandma, she’s gotta go to jail.

And, if the prosecutor and judge and defense lawyer are all in on the act, then the more the merrier.  Laws are now rewritten to take judging these cases out of the hands of the judge.  Instead of revoking the prosecutor’s non-proof of the case, the judge has to sit there and agree.  Instead of having some discretion over the sentencing of the defendant, the judge, more often than not, is mandated to sentence him to jail.

This only applies to DUI cases.  Even if there is no victim.  And, if you think it’s about some notion of being heavy handed to send a message, it’s not.  It is about money, pure and simple.

Any prosecutor that rests upon B.A.C. as incontrovertible proof of his case is stomping all over the very constitution that he swore an oath to defend.  Obviously he is bought and paid for.  Any judge that would allow this charade in his court is overseeing a kangaroo court of the highest circus degree, and is also stomping on the very constitution he swore an oath to uphold.  Shame on both of them.

How Your Trust in Law Enforcement is Being Fleeced

Declaration of Independence

The average American, for good or for bad, has an undeniable trust in their government.  That is, they trust that the local, state and national governments will do the right thing to protect, watcher over, make them aware of and guard their rights.

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” – Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence copying the first article of the Virginia Declaration of Rights adopted by the Virginia Convention of Delegates on June 12, 1776 written originally by George Mason.

And, yet trounce on your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, indeed, the government does daily.

I present to you the issue of drunk driving.  We have been made to believe that someone that gets behind the wheel of a car, slovenly drunk is a demon to behold.  Therefore we automatically assume that any individual that is arrested by the police for DUI [driving under the influence] must be guilty, and by proxy in need of being jailed, ruined and left for dead to rot in jail throughout eternity.

I present to you this little gem -
“In the United States the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that 17,941 people died in 2006 in “alcohol-related” collisions, representing 40 percent of total traffic deaths in the US. Over 500,000 people were injured in alcohol-related accidents in the US in 2003.  NHTSA defines fatal collisions as “alcohol-related” if they believe the driver, a passenger, or an occupant of the vehicle (such as a pedestrian or pedalcyclist) had a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.01 or greater. NHTSA defines nonfatal collisions as “alcohol-related” if the accident report indicates evidence of alcohol present.  NHTSA specifically notes that “alcohol-related” does not necessarily mean a driver or nonoccupant was tested for alcohol and that the term does not indicate a collision or fatality was caused by the presence of alcohol. On average, about 60 percent of the BAC values are missing or unknown. To analyze what they believe is the complete data, statisticians simulate BAC information. Drivers with a BAC of 0.10 are 6 to 12 times more likely to get into a fatal crash or injury then drivers with no alcohol.”

Declaration of Independence Signing

Wait did I just read that correctly?  You mean not only is there no evidence of alcohol, but they don’t even bother to be specific if its the driver, but include the passenger, or even if you just went and bought booze and put it in the trunk.  Wait a minute.  Does that even make sense?  You mean to tell me, you put out these numbers yearly and scare people to death, and demonize good people, for what?

For what is indeed the question.  Remember the “unalienable rights”?  Oh and that government will not impinge upon them?  Let’s expose this farce for what it is.  Let’s look at the “for what”.

Money, money, money I’m sure you knew that was the why of it all.  And, not only money, but everyone involved has their hand out.  Government at every level is its own entity feeding upon itself and the population it serves.  It needs to grow, and that growth costs money and power.  The more money you throw at it, the more power it takes.

So let’s see who gets paid:

• arresting fees
• jail fees
• breathalyzer fees
• blood test lab fees
• urine test lab fees
• prison fees
• police fees
• sr22 insurance company fees
• court fees
• attorney fees [if you're smart]

private prisons

I may have missed some fees, but that should take care of nearly 90% of the money.  Who writes the laws?  Concerned citizens?  No!  Mothers Against Drunk Drivers  didn’t begin till 1980.  DUI laws have been around for decades before MADD came on the scene.  I’m not taking anything away from MADD, but I need you to see, who is writing the laws.  Is it far fetched that insurance companies put forth legislation?  Is it far fetched that the police unions [yes the police have unions, did you know that?] put forth legislation?  Is is far fetch that the PRIVATE jails and prisons [yes there are privately owned prisons and jails] put forth legislation?

America arrests more people related to DUI than any other nation on the planet.  Wait, why?  Are Americans more drunk than other countries? [answered below]  Surely, you know that Europeans drink at nearly every meal.  Surely, they would be sloshed night and day.  In fact the penalties overseas pale in comparison to our U.S. penalties.  Overseas there’s rarely any jail time, and if the person is a repeat offender, they are sent to rehabilitation, obviously they have a problem.  Other countries take your license plates, impound your car or just invalidate your license plates.  Also quite a few countries base their fines upon YOUR INCOME LEVEL,  or, better yet, require community service.  The very harshest penalties overseas were suspending the license for up to 4 years, in egregious cases, imprisonment for up to 6 months.  Ironically the U.S. has the 2nd lowest per capita Alcohol consumption in the world. Yet we jail our citizens for minor alcoholic infractions.  Ironically, although the U.S. has the highest threshold for illegal B.A.C. on the planet, and other countries criminalize B.A.C. levels starting as low as 0.01, we imprison more people than any other country, including the communists.

B.A.C. responsibly

Let’s stop and clarify something that a recent study and any student of the subject will tell you.  There is no way to test alcohol tolerance.  What does that mean?  That means that a B.A.C. level of 0.32 doesn’t mean anything.  It is not an indication that the person is impaired, cannot function, cannot drive, is visibly drunk.  In fact to even get to a B.A.C. of 0.16 a person would have to drink non-stop for months on end to develop a tolerance to get his/her B.A.C. that high.  You can theoretically say that someone with a B.A.C. that high actually may be less likely to be impaired that someone with a B.A.C. of 0.05 due to the fact that the person built up such a high tolerance versus the lower B.A.C. has probably no tolerance to alcohol and thus could be impaired.

For instance, it is common knowledge that Asian people have no tolerance for grain alcohol, since their alcohol is based on rice.  If you have seen them drink a thimble full of beer you will notice they are completely intoxicated and impaired nearly immediately.  By definition that person is impaired.  Versus, comparatively speaking an Irish person that drinks beer like water and seemingly would never be impaired by a pint of beer.  I shall repeat, there is no way to indicate impairment by B.A.C. levels.  This is scientific fact.  Yet we are locking people up and throwing away the key based on these numbers.  The government doesn’t just test your B.A.C. levels.  They use pseudo retrograde extrapolation to arrive at a new B.A.C. level.  In short, they add B.A.C. levels onto your breathalyzer test and arrive at a new level.  In fact, you could, in questioning, say you had 4 drinks 4 hours ago and you will automatically be assumed drunk, so drunk that you could go directly to state prison, assumed of felony grade DUI.  Do you disbelieve it?  Go ask a DUI Lawyer

Retrograde Extrapolation chart

“Retrograde extrapolation” is the term given to the assumption that blood-alcohol levels always drop after a citizen stops drinking. The presumed level of blood-alcohol, at the time of the traffic stop or collision, is theoretically equal to the blood-alcohol test result plus approximately 0.015% for every hour that had passed between the time of the incident to the time of the BAC test. Other experts recommended 0.20% BAC drop per hour, which is even more damaging to a citizen (in this example). This is to allow time for the liver to metabolize the alcohol. One legal textbook on DWI law points out that: “One should not lose sight of the requirement that the prohibition is for driving or being in physical control ‘while ‘under the influence’ of an intoxicant or prohibited drug.”

In other countries any fatalities are viewed in light of the actual accident, alcohol is never ascribed as the cause of the accident.  Thus people are treated as individuals and judged according to the fact of the case.  We have been brainwashed to think that it is ok in a legal proceeding to prejudge nearly every human in the court based on various groupings.  An honest, decent legal system that was reputable and trustworthy would never dream of doing such a heinous thing.

Think for one second,  “people who drink and drive are bad and should go to jail”  Where did you get this thinking from?  And, is this how our legal system is supposed to work?  This is the same thinking not too far in the distant past that said “black people in court are wrong because black people cannot be trusted” [this was in our recent American history, this is not conjecture nor opinion upon my part]  We had to wake up from that nightmare and move forward to the thinking of “all men are created equal” and are “entitled to their day in court”.

America you have been sold a bill of goods that is so tainted with lies you don’t even know what the truth is any longer.  That was the main reason I wrote my website: Las Vegas DUI Lawyer.  It tells you your rights, and how to act to avoid a DUI arrest.  The police do not care about completely destroying your life, reputation or career.  Why?  Because, the way the system is set up they will catch millions of people annually.  And, they feel they need that money for all of those fees I listed earlier.  They need the fees.  The state needs the fees.  The huge insurance companies need the fees.  The privately held prisons need the fees.

Private prisons are a booming business

Private companies in the United States operate 264 correctional facilities, housing almost 99,000 adult offenders. Companies operating such facilities include the Corrections Corporation of America, the GEO Group, Inc, Cornell Companies, and Community Education Centers. The GEO Group was formerly known as Wackenhut Securities.  Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) has a capacity of more than 80,000 beds in 65 correctional facilities. The GEO Group operates 61 facilities with a capacity of 49,000 offender beds, while Cornell Companies has 79 facilities to service 19,226 adult and juvenile offenders in secure containment and community-based corrections.  Most privately run facilities are located in the southern and western portions of the United States and include both state and federal offenders.

Just take a look:

“According to the lead editorial in the NY Times 3-9-08 citing a recent Pew Center on the States study, the United States leads the world in the percentage of it’s population that is imprisoned–more than 1 in 100 Americans is in prison or 1.6 million people. One in 9 black men, ages 20 to 34 are serving time. The figure for Hispanics men is 1 in 36. The states spent $44 billion in tax dollars on corrections, up from $11 billion in 1987.”

“While the nation’s economy flounders, business is booming for The GEO Group Inc., a private prison firm that is paid millions by the U.S. government to detain undocumented immigrants and other federal inmates. In the last year and a half, GEO announced plans to add a total of at least 3,925 new beds to immigration lockups in five locations. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency and the U.S. Marshals Service, which hire the company, will fill the beds with inmates awaiting court and deportation proceedings.”

Back to DUI

You Can’t Drink Your Holiday Depression Away

Drunk and Depressed Santa

Now that the holidays are over and we can adequately reflect on them with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I’d like to broach the subject of the “holiday downs”. For whatever reason, quite a few of us instead of getting excited and joyful at the year end holidays, actually become “down” about them. This could be due to loneliness; memory of an ex-loved one; some painful memory associated with that time; or an insatiable need to not be bothered with what you “must” do.

While these reasons on the surface or from the comfort of your chair reading this now, seems distant and inconsequential, for many these are real and brain pressuring manifestations. They may even culminate into a full fledged depression. One person may shut off; another may become emotionally sensitive; or lastly one might turn to abusive behavior, like drugs and/or alcohol.  It has been found that older adults are also susceptible to a higher suicide rate.

Let’s dissect the role of drugs and alcohol in depression. During the holidays a lot of emphasis is placed on alcohol as a means to celebrate, a traditional spiked egg-nog, spiked apple cider, mulled wine.  Increasingly those suffering from depression visit their health-care professional and walk out with a prescription for anti-depressants. On the surface this would seem adequate, but in my opinion, and in the opinion of some medical professionals, it avoids the actual underlying “problem”. Those who turn to alcohol when depressed are far worse off than those who do not.  Alcohol is a depressant and lowers the serotonin and norepinephrine levels.  It depresses the brain and nervous system, leaving you worse than you were before drinking.  So people get depressed, they may feel the need to go out and it gets them even more depressed, due to the fact that others are celebrating and they are not.  Then there they are sitting drinking all night feeling miserable about their perceived situation.  Not uncommonly, these same people get behind the wheel of a car, not thinking straight and we have a deadly cocktail of a depressed person, intoxicated, with perhaps already thoughts of suicide, behind the wheel of a 1to2 ton vehicle.

Other Options Besides Drowning Your Sorrows at the Bottom of a Mug

Other Options

Let’s think of some alternatives to this scenario. And since this is the new year, let’s strive to avoid this reoccurring issue. There will be more holiday seasons. We are social creatures by nature. Realizing this, let’s feed this side of us to be social. But, let’s now be conscious of this social fact and seek to better the situation. It’s not a matter of seeking out other people. It might be the case that your current crowd isn’t equipped to elevate you to the status of self-improvement. I’m not talking about someone “enabling” you. I’m talking about you actively seeking people that are positive in your life.

Every new year I take an inventory of my current circles of friends. I systematically go over each one and purposely think “is this person a positive being in my life”? If they reach the level that I feel they are a negative being, I pick up the phone and “let them go”. I’m sure that might sound funny, but I do it to make it black and white how I feel about myself, them and the situation. Maybe they’ll also rethink themselves and be better for the next person.

With that done, then we must look for positive people. They’re all around us actually. And the beauty of this is, they don’t have to become close friends or even “Christmas card” friends. We just simply have to recognize who these people are that are positive and encourage conversation with them. That’s the basis of our social nature, communication. So, we actively converse with those positive people. Strike up a conversation with them. I’m not saying, approach them with your problems and seek therapy from them. I’m saying a simple conversation with a positive person is therapeutic in and of itself. Multiply your positive circles and draw in that positive energy. A lot of times, the depression we feel is due to some negative energy that we burden ourselves with and can’t understand how to unshackle. Retrain yourself with these positive people. Build up positive experiences in your life for you to draw on in the wee hours of the night. Surround yourself with a cornucopia of wise sayings to serve as an instructional manual to cope with stress. And, if all else fails, call one of these new positive people and just share with them.

Lastly, don’t think you have to hang on to someone, for whatever reason. There are billions of people in the planet. Trust me there is someone just as special and loving as that person, just as you yourself are special and loving. Give your specialness and love to someone that appreciates it and move on. Pick yourself up and meet those positive people that you did not notice before. I call this the social circle, reconstruction approach.

Back to DUI