Alabama: Appellate Court strikes down drunk driving roadblocks.

Roadblocks are illegal if police conducting them fail to operate under strict guidelines that the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals strongly suggested Friday ought to be written down. In a split, 3-2 decision, the court considered the July 2, 2011 roadblock set up by Alabama state troopers in rural Elmore County on the weekend of the July 4 holiday.

At the checkpoint, Trooper Eric Salvador stopped the truck driven by Charles Edward Ogburn Jr. As Salvador scanned the interior of the truck, he noticed unopened containers of beer. Ogburn did admit to having "a couple" drinks, so Salvador ordered him to pull off the road for sobriety testing. Ogburn failed, blew a .14 on the breathalyzer and was ultimately convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI).

The appellate court conducted an inquiry into whether this checkpoint had been operated in a legal manner. Corporal Jesse Thornton had been in charge and chose the Friendship Road at Cherokee Trail location because he thought it would yield DUI arrests and generate tickets for failure to produce a driver's license or proof of insurance. Salvador testified that he believed he had the discretion to wave through important people, such as judges, so they would not be hassled by the stop. Salvador added he always stopped everyone regardless of who they were.

The 1979 US Supreme Court decision Brown v. Texas set the principle that if police seize someone, they must do so according to a set of "neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers" to prevent Fourth Amendment violations. Ogburn argued there were no specific limitations on the Alabama troopers' conduct at the roadblock, despite the claim that "policies" were in place.

"Although we hold today that a written plan is not required by the Fourth Amendment, we strongly suggest that having a previously established plan that is in writing before the execution of the checkpoint is the best practice," Judge Liles Burke wrote for the majority. "If no previously established written plan is submitted into evidence, a witness for the state must specifically articulate the full details of the previously established plan that limits the discretion of the individual officers at the checkpoint in accordance with Brown v. Texas."

The case at hand lacked both written guidelines, and Trooper Salvador's testimony that he had discretion to let a judge go free proved fatal to the prosecution's attempt to claim that limitations were in place.

"In the present case, the state did not present any evidence of the limits on the field officers' discretion," Burke wrote. "Therefore, the warrantless stop of Ogburn at the checkpoint without any individualized suspicion of wrongdoing was unreasonable; thus, the evidence obtained pursuant to that stop should have been suppressed. Without that evidence, there is no evidence to support Ogburn's conviction for DUI." 

http://thenewspaper.com/news/38/3835.asp

Ogburn v. Alabama ruling: http://thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2012/al-roadblock.pdf
  
Cost of DUI to rise for many first-time offenders.
RICHMOND, VA. -The cost of getting a DUI is about to get steeper for thousands of first-time offenders in Virginia.

Starting July 1, a new state law will require people convicted of their first charge of driving under the influence to drive only with an ignition interlock device, which prevents a car from being started when a driver is under the influence.

Currently, the law requires judges to impose the interlocks for first-time offenders with a blood alcohol content of 0.15 percent or higher and for second and subsequent offenses of the DUI law. The legal driving limit is 0.08 percent.

About 4,500 interlock devices are installed in vehicles in Virginia, according to the Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program. The number is expected to soar under the new law.

Last year, 245 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes in Virginia and 28,162 drivers were convicted of DUI, according to the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles.

"When you drive impaired, not only do you risk killing yourself or someone else, but the trauma and financial costs of a crash or an arrest can be significant," DMV Commissioner Richard D. Holcomb said. "With these new restrictions, even one drink could lead to the expense and embarrassment of having an ignition interlock device on your car."

Bob Battle, a Henrico County attorney who handles DUI and reckless driving cases, estimated that a person's first DUI now costs about $8,000 on average, including the costs of an attorney, court costs, fines, higher insurance costs and a fee to enter the Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program.

"I think the new law will take it to $10,000-plus," said Battle, who co-wrote "Virginia DUI Defense: The Law & Practice," a textbook on how to defend people charged with DUI.

Included in his estimate is the cost of having to pay an attorney to ask a judge to allow removal of the system from a vehicle. A VASAP spokesman said courts in some jurisdictions require such approval.
Richmond defense attorney Bart Chucker estimated that a DUI conviction currently costs a first-time offender from $6,000 to $15,000 over a four-year period, and that the interlock law will raise the cost at least hundreds of dollars.

Offenders also must take their car to the interlock provider at least every 30 days to have the system checked for any violations.

"You can't quantify missed time from work," Chucker said.

He estimated that more than 15,000 first-time offenders will be affected by the new law over the course of a year. Chucker said the increase in the number of people needing an interlock device will raise concerns of a backlog in getting the devices installed. That could cause people to miss work because they cannot legally drive while they are waiting, he said.
 http://www2.insidenova.com/news/2012/jun/25/cost-dui-rise-many-first-time-offenders-ar-2011925/?referer=None&shorturl=http://bit.ly/LLfY7T