Showing estimated percent of alcohol in the blood by number of drinks in relation to body weight. This percent can be estimated by:

[Created from NHTSA chart, with modifications - everybody has different metabolic ratios, do not rely on this chart]

An interactive BAC calculator
(It may require you download Shockwave software to display)

Field Sobriety Testing Information

FIELD SOBRIETY EVALUATIONS OR “TESTS”

GENERALLY

Motorists suspected of DUI / DWI are routinely asked by police officers to perform one or more field sobriety exercises. These voluntary "tests" (yes, voluntary) were developed by police agencies to assist law enforcement officers in making roadside determinations as to whether a motorist is under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Through the performance of these tests or evaluations, the officer subjectively determines how the motorist reacts to and performs the requested tasks.

Almost EVERY knowledgeable DUI / DWI attorney will say to you, "NO. Don’t attempt ANY 'field tests'---EVER." That is because many studies have concluded that the SFSTs are “designed to fail”. When asked any questions regarding how much you have had to drink, simply state: "I do not want to answer any questions without my attorney present other than my identity" you can even state that you attorney has advised you never to take a sobriety test, as he believes that they are designed to fail.

A motorist's alleged poor performance on field evaluations may provide the "probable cause" (legal justification) an officer needs to arrest a person for impaired driving and may also become part of the proof used to later convict the person at trial. See Parrish v. State, 216 Ga. App. 832, 456 S.E.2d 283 (1995). Therefore, it is very important that, in defending you, your defense attorney know as much or more about these tests as the police, if he or she is going to defend you.

One sure way to know that your attorney is up to date: is your lawyer "NHTSA certified"? Certified as a "student"? Or certified as an "instructor". Ask him/her. This training has been available to defense attorneys since 1994, and over 1000 attorneys nationwide have received the training.

Counsel for the defense should challenge the subjective nature of the evaluations, the accuracy of the principles behind the tests, the accuracy of the administration of the tests, the credibility of the officer who "requested" the tests, and challenge all circumstances connected with the evaluations. The attorney representing you must attack the factual and legal issues that may arise regarding the officer's scoring and evaluation of the field tests.

Only three tests have been "scientifically" studied (in lengthy studies paid for by the federal government) and represented to have any measure of reliability in helping an officer predict whether a subject is above a certain legal limit (0.10 BAC, in the original testing). These tests, known as the "standardized field sobriety tests" [SFSTs], were designed pursuant to numerous federal grants and ultimately sanctioned by NHTSA (the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration) beginning in 1984. These three tests are (1) the walk and turn [WAT] test, (2) the one leg stand [OLS] test, and (3) the horizontal gaze nystagmus [HGN] test. However, the manuals (plural here, because 6 separate versions have now been released) say that if not performed properly, or if conducted without adhering to the training protocols, such actions "compromise" the validity of these evaluations.

Starting in the 1970’s, NHTSA began studying and funding "field tests" to see if any of the dozens of police exercises had any correlation to showing if a drinking driver had a blood alcohol level of 0.10 grams percent or higher. The "studies" determined that only the three named evaluations had any reliable correlation better than 50-50 (flipping a coin and guessing 'heads', being a 50-50 reliability test, for example) to identify a person having a BAC of 0.10% or more. These evaluations in no way were used to determine whether a driver is impaired . . . only whether the person may be 0.10 or more.

The HGN evaluation, when performed correctly on proper subjects, had a 77% "claimed" reliability rating. The WAT exercise, when conducted properly on a qualified subject on a dry, level surface, was found to be 68% reliable. The OLS exercise, when conducted properly, on a qualified subject on a level, dry surface and under proper instructions and where correctly demonstrated and scored, reportedly yields about 65% reliability. Cumulatively, if all are done correctly, up to 83% correlation to a BAC of 0.10% or more may be expected.

Knowledgeable criminal defense lawyers know that 98% or more of the officers administering these evaluations do them wrong, or conduct them in a manner (or on a test subject) not approved by the SFST manual, or grade the evaluations improperly, as per the manual, or ALL OF THE ABOVE. When done incorrectly, these evaluations have ZERO predicted reliability. Hence, a top-notch DWI lawyer can cross-examine the arresting officer using his/her OWN training materials that the federal government and YOUR state government have approved.

Recent research and scientific review of the testing protocols and scoring methodology have brought the NHTSA “Standardized Field Sobriety Tests ("SFSTs") into serious question. Courts across America are taking a closer look at the original research, to see if proper scientific methods were employed in the initial research. More and more courts are now saying "no" to these questions. In a recent New Mexico case, a high-level court has declared that the person who "developed" the tests (Dr. Marcelline Burns) was not qualified to testify as an expert witness about the scientific principles behind the HGN test. (Lasworth v. State, 42 P.2d 844 (N.M. App. 2001).)

HISTORIC ROOTS

Prior to the 1980's and NHTSA's studies on field testing, police officers across America were taught a wide variety of "tests" to be given to persons stopped for suspected drunk driving. Most of these "tests" had never been studied to determine "fairness" or accuracy in detecting either impaired drivers or drivers who were operating a vehicle while their BAC level was 0.10 BAC or more. Moreover, no standardized method (that is, not being done the same way by officers who used these tests) of scoring or grading these tests had been attempted. Simply stated, the decision to arrest was based upon the subjective whim of the officer. Mistakes were made in a large percentage of cases.

Tests given by some officers may have included reciting the alphabet (or a portion thereof), picking up coins off the ground, or touching index fingers to the tip of the nose while the person’s eyes were closed and head tilted back. Some involved strange, one-legged tapping on the roadway with a raised foot (similar to what that famous television horse, Mr. Ed, used to do). These "made-up" tests were administered to subjects without any scientific or empirical basis for reliability in detecting an impaired driver. These tests were designed for failure, not for fairness. Even worse, police officers often forced people to perform these voluntary evaluations, thereby violating these citizens' rights.

Some "non-standardized" tests were so ridiculous and difficult that proof of non-validity was easy with almost any jury or judge. Today, officers who lack NHTSA training invariably cannot cite any studies or scientific research which "validated" their tests, the scoring (e.g., “pass” or “fail”) or their testing methods. Almost always, no scoring system is used on tests which do not adhere to NHTSA guidelines. If non-standardized tests are used, the number of errors that are required for a subject to fail is totally subjective with each officer. Hence, the untrained officer is usually an easy target for a skilled and knowledgeable criminal defense attorney who knows the “limitations” of these field tests.

THE ISSUE OF THE ``SCIENCE" OF FIELD TESTING

A great rift exists among scientific experts on the question of whether field sobriety tests are ``scientific." For example, Georgia's appellate courts have blown hot and cold on this subject. Torrance v. State, 217 Ga. App. 562, 458 S.E.2d 495 (1995); Manley v. State, 206 Ga. App. 281, 424 S.E.2d 818 (1992); Foster v. State, 204 Ga. App. 632, 420 S.E.2d 78 (1992); Crawford v. City of Forest Park, 215 Ga. App. 234, 450 S.E.2d 237 (1994) [holding that field tests given by the arresting officer were not ``a scientific procedure," but ``simply a behavioral observation on the officer's part"]; Hassell v. State, 212 Ga. App. 432, 442 S.E.2d 261 (1994); Hawkins v. State, 223 Ga. App. 34, 476 S.E.2d 803 (1996). Challenges to field sobriety tests based upon proof of a scientific foundation by an expert have been rejected by the court of appeals. Druitt v. State, 225 Ga. App. 150, 483 S.E.2d 117 (1997). See also Padgett v. State, 230 Ga. App. 659, 498 S.E.2d 84 (1998), where the court of appeals held that field sobriety tests are merely dexterity exercises and the word ``tests" is a misnomer.

The reason that most credible scientists across America (and in other countries) are unwilling to categorize field tests -- even NHTSA's tests -- as being “scientific” is that too many variables are involved in roadside testing to ever eliminate pure chance and non-controlled circumstances from the equation (e.g., environmental conditions such as lighting and roadway slope). Numerous states, including Texas, Alabama and Mississippi, do not permit HGN evidence to be admitted at trial. The reason behind this is that these “party games” (as noted Swedish scientist Dr. A.W. Jones has called them) do not pass well-established rules f evidence (the court rules for determining when certain types of information may be told to the jury) for scientifically acceptable tests.

Even NHTSA admits that under optimal conditions (i.e., in an air-conditioned, well lighted room) 35% of sober, drug-free subjects get inaccurate results on the one leg stand test, 32% of sober subjects get flawed results on the walk and turn, and 23% of sober subjects are inaccurately said to be “over the legal limit” on the horizontal gaze nystagmus test. By comparison, polygraph (lie detector) tests are more than 90% accurate when conducted by a qualified operator), and (absent a stipulation by both parties) are still not permitted into evidence by most courts.

Issues of unreliability and lack of scientific validity cannot be extensively addressed on this website. The author commends the following articles for your study of this fascinating subject:

(1) Nowaczyk, Ronald H., and Cole, Spurgeon, Separating Myth from Fact: A Review of Research on the Field Sobriety Tests, NACDL Champion Magazine, August, 1995, p. 40.

(2) Cowan, Jonathan D., Proof and Disproof of Alcohol-Induced Driving Impairment Through Evidence of Observable Intoxication and Coordination Testing, 9 Am Jur Proof of Facts 3d, p. 459 (1990).

(3) Cowan, Jonathan D., Proof and Disproof of Alcohol-Induced Impairment Through Breath Alcohol Testing, 4 Am Jur Proof of Facts 3d, p. 229 (1989).

(4) Trichter & Peña, DWI/DUI Field Sobriety Testing Revisited, NACDL Champion Magazine, August, 1996, p. 17.

(5) Price, Phillip B., Sr., Field Sobriety Testing, NACDL Champion Magazine, August, 1996, p. 46.

THESE ARE VOLUNTARY TESTS

Only a small number of states have tried to pass laws to make the field tests not be 100% voluntary. These states typically will assess a monetary fine against someone who says “no” to these voluntary tests. So what? I tell all my fiends and relatives and clients: DON’T ATTEMPT THESE TESTS. Other states have said that the State Constitution provides that no person can be compelled to take such tests.

Case law in virtually all U.S. jurisdictions indicates that if a person is being detained or is “in custody,” no field tests can be given without first providing Miranda advisements (i.e., right to remain silent; right to an attorney; if you can’t afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you). State v. O'Donnell, 225 Ga. App. 502, 484 S.E.2d 313 (1997). Hence, the new focus for defense attorneys is to establish that some sort of ``custody" or detention has occurred prior to the field tests. See also Price v. State, 269 Ga. 222, 498 S.E.2d 262 (1998).

However, many appellate courts have bent over backward to ignore clear signs of custody. For example, despite guns being drawn on a driver, the Georgia Court of Appeals (in Hassell v. State---see citation above) ruled that this was not “custody”. Of course, this is a ridiculous ruling, but part of “Georgia law,” regardless.

Other courts have stood tall and said “if NHTSA tests are supposed to be scientific, then they must be done correctly”. The previously mentioned Lasworth case from the New Mexico Court of Appeals is just such a case.

The Supreme Court of Ohio recently held that the officer’s failure to fol­low NHTSA training in administering field sobriety exercises was a factor in determining the admissibility of the test. State v. Homan, 732 N.E.2d 952 (Ohio 2000). In Homan, a NHTSA‑trained officer’s admitted failure to administer the field sobriety exercises in strict compliance with NHTSA’s standardized testing procedures invalidated (and excluded) all of the State’s evidence about the field sobriety exercises. The Homan court made the following findings regarding the unreliability of field tests not conducted in compliance with NHTSA procedure:

When field sobriety testing is conducted in a manner that departs from established methods and procedures, the results are inherently unreliable. In an extensive study, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) evaluated field sobriety tests in terms of their utility in determining whether a subject’s blood‑alco­hol concentration is below or above the legal limit. The NHTSA con­cluded that field sobriety tests are an effective means of detecting legal intoxication “only when: the tests are administered in the pre­scribed, standardized manner[,] . . . the standardized clues are used to assess the suspect’s performance[, and] . . . the standardized cri­teria are employed to interpret that performance.” National High­way Traffic Safety Adm., U.S. Dept. of Transp., HS 178 R2/00, DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing, Student Manual (2000), at VIII‑3. According to the NHTSA, “[i]f any one of the standardized field sobriety test elements is changed, the validity is compromised.” Id. Experts in the areas of drunk driving apprehension, prosecution, and defense all appear to agree that the reliability of field sobriety test results does indeed turn upon the degree to which police comply with standardized testing procedures. See, e.g., 1 Erwin, Defense of Drunk Driving Cases (3 Ed.1997), Section 10.06[4]; Cohen & Green, Apprehending and Prosecuting the Drunk Driver: A Manual for Police and Prosecution (1997), Section 4.01.

ROADSIDE ALCOHOL SCREENING TESTS

A portable breath testing device may be used by police officers in determining whether or not a motorist is under the influence of alcohol. Some states have banned the use of these voluntary “non-evidential” screening devices. “Non-evidential” means that “the digital number” can’t be used against you in court. Some states have ruled that the only place at trial that these can be used is at a pre-trial hearing at which “probable cause” for arrest is involved.

Like other “field tests”, these devices are used at the roadway. Often, police officers do not regularly check the devices for calibration. Furthermore, the manufacturer’s instructions (e.g., failing to observe a 15 minute deprivation period, waiting at least 4 minutes between tests, or clearing the prior test results) for proper use are routinely ignored.

Some states have started using these roadside testers as evidential tests. This is accomplished when a small printer is attached to the breath test apparatus. Unless your state uses such a device as an OFFICIAL state-mandated breath test, no person should ever submit to these devices and risk a false positive result and almost certain arrest. Politely DECLINE to give this voluntary sample, if it is not the official state test.

THE NEWEST “VOODOO” SCIENCE: THE “DEC” PROGRAM TO IDENTIFY DRUG USE

Government studies have revealed that many drivers are under the influence of drugs, or a combination of alcohol and drugs. To combat this, an effort has been mounted since the early 1990’s to add some type of training to the police officer's arsenal that will assist in identifying drug-impaired individuals. Hence, NHTSA has created the ``Drug Evaluation and Classification" (DEC) Program. A DEC officer does not typically work in the field (i.e., making traffic arrests), or make the initial arrest of an impaired driver. A DEC officer is called in after a subject either shows a low score on an alcohol test, or otherwise ‘smells’ like or ‘acts’ like he/she has been using drugs. The proper procedure is for the DEC officer to give Miranda warnings to the person (already in custody), and then start “the evaluation for drug usage”. SIMPLE RULE: SAY NO! You have just been told of your constitutional rights---USE THEM! Say nothing and do nothing beyond say, “I’d like to speak to an attorney.” More information on Your Constitutional Rights.

The function of DEC is to ascertain:

(a) Whether the person is impaired by something;

(b) If impaired, is it from drugs as opposed to alcohol;

(c) If the impairment appears to be from drugs, what ``manifestations" or visible indicia of impairment would indicate the TYPE or CATEGORY of drug being used?

As opposed to trying to target a single ``impairing" chemical, the DEC process seeks to ``recognize" indications of any of seven broad categories of drugs:

(1) Central nervous system depressants, such as Valium, Xanax or alcohol;

(2) Central nervous system stimulants (e.g., crack or powder cocaine);

(3) Hallucinogens, such as L.S.D.;

(4) Phencyclidine, such as P.C.P. (which can manifest itself as a stimulant, depressant or hallucinogen, and is highly unpredictable);

(5) Inhalants, such as glues or other aerosol products, which block the passage of oxygen to the brain;

(6) Narcotic analgesics, such as Demerol, Dilaudid, opium, heroin, Methadone and other powerful pain relievers; and

(7) Cannabis (marijuana and its ``family" of psychoactive plants.)

[For more detailed information on all types of common drugs

The hope of the police is that these DEC evaluations can be used in court to identify impairment from drugs even if the person refuses all blood and urine testing. Absent a blood or urine test or an admission of recent drug use, “opinion” testimony must be based upon something more than a wild guess or speculation. Ironically, NHTSA designed the DEC Program for post-arrest investigation, to be done in a carefully controlled environment (as opposed to “field” evaluation).

Numerous “task force” officers across America have taken IACP-approved DEC classes to enable them to identify a subject impaired by drugs. IACP is the acronym for International Association of Chiefs of Police. Sometimes referred to as “DREs” or “DRTs” (drug recognition experts or drug recognition technicians), these officers utilize a series of simple evaluations and observations to help them identify individuals impaired by drugs.

Interestingly, even the IACP recognizes the limitations of the DEC program. For example, the agency recognizes that DEC-trained officers cannot identify exactly what drug (or drugs) a person is “on.” Only one of the seven broad “categories” listed might be identified, if the person has been fully trained and certified. IACP has emphasized the need for an analytical chemical test (such as a GC-MS test) to confirm the officer's “suspicions” about drug use. This is because anything less than a chemical test is just “an educated GUESS”. The law does not support guesswork in criminal trials, because the State must prove guilt BEYOND A REASONABL DOUBT.

The DEC process includes an alcohol screening evaluation on a roadside screening device such as an Alco-Sensor. It also includes administering the NHTSA standardized field sobriety tests. The twelve components of the DEC process include:

(1) A breath alcohol screening test to determine an estimated BAC level;

(2) Interviewing the arresting officer, to see what was seen or heard in earlier contact;

(3) The preliminary examination, including questions to determine pre-existing injury, or the existence of a health or mental condition that may mimic drug use;

(4) Eye examination, using both horizontal and vertical nystagmus tests, plus checking to see if the eyes converge properly;

(5) Divided attention tests, including walk and turn, one-leg stand, finger to nose and the Romberg balance test;

(6) Vital signs examination, checking pulse rate, blood pressure and temperature;

(7) Dark room examination, including measurement of pupil size, reaction of the eyes to light and tell-tale evidence of ingestion of drugs by nose or by mouth;

(8) Examination of muscle tone -- Depending on the type of drug used, muscles can be rigid or flaccid. Examination is performed from the bicep to the wrist;

(9) Looking for injection sites, (i.e., needle marks or “tracks”) on the arms, neck, legs, etc.;

(10) Questioning the suspect -- After giving all the required “constitutional and statutory” advisements, ask the subject questions concerning the drug or drugs suspected to be involved;

(11) The opinion of the DEC evaluator is used to summarize the “findings” and to fill out reports designed to document the observed facts which support the officer's conclusions; and

(12) A toxicological examination (blood test) to provide scientific, admissible evidence to substantiate the DEC evaluator's conclusions. (This assumes that a person submits to the test offered, where an option to NOT do so exists.)

A properly equipped DEC officer will have these items with him or her:

(a) blood pressure kit;

(b) an electronic aneroid thermometer;

(c) a pupillometer (to measure the size of the subject's pupils);

(d) a preliminary alcohol screening device, such as an Alco-Sensor; and

(e) access to a dark room.

The DEC protocol teaches officers to not only look for either contraband (illegal) or controlled substances (i.e., those drugs which cannot be purchased without a prescription), but to take note of over-the-counter medications that the subject has ingested which may have caused or contributed to the suspect's impairment. Certain allergy and cold medicines have been determined by the American Medical Association and FDA to be particularly unsafe for persons who are driving. These include Benadryl, Allerdryl, Contac Severe Cold Formula, Vicks Nyquil, Trifed, Phenergan and others.

Although the use of DEC evaluations by “DRE” officers requires extensive training, this is a wave of the future. Decisions in several states have upheld DEC evaluations by DRE officers, utilizing both a Daubert analysis and a Frye analysis of admissibility. Daubert and Frye are well-known federal cases that have carved out the rules of when and after what type of judicial review scientific evidence can be admitted at a trial. About 45 of the 50 states follow one standard or the other. See State v. Klawitter, 518 N.W.2d 577 (Minn. 1994) [using a Daubert analysis] and People v. Quinn, 580 N.Y.S.2d 818 (Suffolk County Dist. Ct. 1991), rev'd and remanded on other grounds, 607 N.Y.S.2d 534 (Sup. Ct. App. Term 1993) [using a Frye analysis]. See State v. Sampson, 6 P.3d 543 (Or.App. 2000) for a fascinating analysis of prior DEC admissibility in various states.

As with other “pro-prosecution” types of “scientific” evidence, expect courts to overrule objections to DEC evaluations based on highly discretionary trial court review of “proper” evidence. The need of the State to “make our highways safe” will likely outweigh the “voodoo” nature of the DEC “opinion” evidence. The best hope for the defense is that a fair-minded judge will look at the highly irregular nature of this evidence and declare “the State has not laid a proper foundation for this scientific evidence. Therefore, this evidence is excluded.”

(The following article and additional materials about DWI Convictions and your Automobile Rates have been re-printed here with permission from www.Insure.com. Visit their web site for highly competitive rates for auto, life and health insurance).

Many insurance companies check your motor vehicle record only once every three years or when you're applying for a new policy (or changing insured vehicles, adding a new driver or making a claim for coverage). Sometimes, accidents, tickets, and drunk-driving convictions can escape your insurer's attention or don't end up on your motor vehicle record. However, if your insurer does find out about a driving under the influence (DUI) conviction, you're likely to feel the pinch of higher rates and possible policy cancellation or non-renewal.

There are two ways insurance companies generally deal with customers convicted of DWI. First, your insurer will likely raise your insurance premiums and label you a high-risk driver if it finds out you've been convicted of DUI. In this case, you'll likely have to file proof of insurance for three — sometimes five (in some states) — years with your state's department of motor vehicles. Your insurance company will have to provide the DMV with an SR-22 form, which removes your license suspension by providing the state with proof of insurance. An SR-22 also means your insurance company is required to notify the DMV if it cancels your insurance for any reason.

Most state laws require DUI convicts to get an SR-22 from their insurers, so you can't hide. In addition, your company may cancel your insurance mid-term or terminate the policy at the end of the term because of your DUI conviction, especially if you are currently in a preferred class. Your company will send you a notice stating why you've been canceled, and then you'll have to find another insurer while having a cancellation on your claims history.

Some insurance companies don't offer SR-22 policies, so you may also be non-renewed or canceled because your company can no longer provide what you need.

Certain states don't allow insurance companies to drop you in the middle of the policy term even for a DUI, so make sure you know the laws in your state.

Insurers can miss DUI convictions

It's possible that your insurance company will never find out about your conviction if you don't have to get an SR-22. A June 2002 study by the Insurance Research Council revealed that as many as one-quarter of driving convictions never end up on motor vehicle records, due to lack of shared information between courts and motor vehicle departments or because a conviction has been erased through alternative means, such as driving school. If you get your charge reduced in a plea bargain, or have a limited license suspension (such as an ALR or ALS suspension), such as 30 days, it's also very unlikely your insurer will find out about your conviction.

If your insurance company misses the conviction at the time it happens, it has three years, according to most state laws, to cancel your policy or raise your rates because of the DUI. In other states, the time limit is five years.

Rates don't always go up

You may be surprised to know that when your insurer does find out about a DUI conviction it doesn't automatically impose higher premiums. The insurer will look at your history with the company and your claims record, and your fate is in its hands.

For example, State Farm's action depends on which subsidiary you're with. If you have a preferred policy with State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. and receive a DUI, State Farm may move you into State Farm Fire & Casualty, which is the standard-policy company. If you're moved from preferred to a standard status, you'll be paying higher rates already. State Farm will also review your motor vehicle and insurance claims history to determine if it needs to raise your rates further.
[Source: http://info.insure.com/auto/duiconviction.html}

[Note from Mr. Head: In multiple vehicle families, the additional cost of insurance after a DUI can be staggering. For one South Carolina dentist Mr. Head represented in the mid-1990s, the additional cost for his family’s 6 vehicles would have been $52,000 per year, if his DUI arrest in Georgia became a DUI conviction. South Carolina has ‘integrated’ insurance laws wherein all convictions MUST be reported by DPS to your insurance carrier and the rates paid MUST be increased by your carrier, in accordance with a legislated formula designed to penalize high risk drivers. Fortunately, the DUI case was dismissed at pre-trial motions filed and argued by Mr. Head.]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[The following letters relating to DUI and automobile insurance, addressed to www.Insure.com were answered as part of its “Auto Insurance Forum”]

Auto Insurance Forum

Dec. 18, 2001

Q: I was recently arrested for DUI and my car was seized. Will my auto insurance rates go up as a result of this?

A: Bob, North Carolina

Dear Bob,

Whether your rates go up depends on two factors: if your insurance company finds out about your arrest and what its rules are for drivers who are arrested for a DUI.

Insurance companies generally check motor vehicle records on their policyholders about every three years, so a DUI arrest might go unnoticed. However, even if your insurance company does notice your DUI, there's no guarantee that it would cancel your policy or raise your insurance rates. Rules vary by insurance company, but insurers say they generally look at a policyholder's total driving record and claims history when considering what penalty, if any, they will assess for a DUI.

You mentioned that you have been arrested, but you did not say whether you were convicted. That may make a big difference in the eyes of your insurer. Your insurance company probably won't take any action until you have been convicted. {Source: http://info.insure.com/lawsuits/auto/forum/121701/dui.html}

Insure.com

Jan. 22, 2001

Q: I was recently convicted of a DUI for the first time. I have had a perfect driving record for 53 years. Should I write to my insurance company with an explanation of the circumstances before they learn of the conviction?

Sam, California

A: Dear Sam,

You may want to explain your DUI conviction only if your insurance company finds out about it. Insurance companies generally check motor vehicle records on their policyholders about every three years, so your DUI conviction might go unnoticed.

However, if your insurance company does notice your DUI, there's no guarantee that it would cancel your policy or raise your insurance rates. Rules vary by insurance company, but insurers say they generally look at a policyholder's total driving record and claims history when considering what penalty, if any, they will assess for a DUI conviction.

{Source: http://info.insure.com/lawsuits/auto/forum/012201/dui.html}

Insure.com

March 12, 2001

Q: I live with someone who recently had a DUI and now my insurance company will not renew the policy for my vehicles. What should I do? Do I need to change my address to get away from the DUI factor?

Mark, Minnesota

A: Dear Mark,

Yes, either you or the person with whom you live will have to move for you to get away from the "DUI factor."

Bruce Gordon, a spokesperson for the Minnesota Department of Insurance, says that Minnesota Statute 65B.15 allows insurance companies to cancel or non-renew your policy if you live with someone who has a DUI and that person does not have his or her own insurance, regardless of whether the person is listed on your policy.

Gordon says your only other option in this case is to purchase high-risk auto insurance, which will be more expensive than what you've paid previously.

{Source: http://info.insure.com/lawsuits/auto/forum/031201/dui.html}

Insure.com

April 11, 2001

Q: I was in a two-car accident in which I was issued a DUI. Can my insurance company deny my claim because of the DUI?

Chad, Texas

A: Dear Chad,

Lee Jones, a spokesperson for the Texas Department of Insurance, says that an insurance company cannot deny your claim because you were issued a DUI after the accident. Your insurance company has an obligation to pay for your damages, regardless of your condition at the time of the accident.
{Source: http://info.insure.com/lawsuits/auto/forum/040901/dui.html}

Driving While Intoxicated

Lawyer attorney Texas lawyer Austin attorney
DWI / Drunk Driving

Being charged with the offense of DWI (Driving While Intoxicated) is a Class B Misdemeanor, with a punishment range of 3 to 180 days in Jail, up to a $2,000 fine and suspension of your driver's license. It is important to determine all of the possible defenses you may have in your DWI case.

If you have not taken the breathalyzer test, your case will be determined on the videotape of the arrest and the police report. Lawyer attorney Texas lawyer Austin attorney

There are countless strategies I use to provide the best possible DWI defense for my clients, including:

1. Challenging the legality of the traffic stop when you were pulled over

2. Challenging the Police Report

3. Attacking the Credibility of the Breath or Blood Test

4. Evaluating and interpreting the videotape of the arrest

I will keep looking for the evidence that will help me get your DWI case dismissed or get the charges reduced.

If you took the breath or Blood test.

If you have chosen to take the breathalyzer or Blood test, intoxication is defined as a breath or blood sample over the .08 level. The defense to a alcohol level over .08 is to attack the accuracy of the result looking at the person giving the test, the procedures used in administering the test, and the accuracy of the calibration of the equipment.

It is much more difficult to contest a DWI when a test has been performed. Many times it becomes a matter of viewing the videotape in an effort to reduce the sentence and obtain probation.

If convicted, probation is usually offered on a first offense and if the Texas Department of Public Safety Driving Course is taken within 6 months of the conviction, you will get your license reinstated.

I do not recommend taking the breathalyzer test or any of the sobriety tests, including the eye test (Horizontal Nystigmus Gaze). You should be polite, answer the officers question regarding you identity only. If asked how many drinks you have had, or any other questions, simply state: "I do not want to answer any questions without my attorney present" If you do not take the breathalyzer test, your case will be determined on basis of the video tape and the police report.

If you need an experienced Criminal Defense attorney, please contact us today. We can help you!

Call Mike 24 hours: 512-833-7825

George W. Bush long has tried to avoid questions about the days when, as he puts it, "I was young and irresponsible." Before last week one of his closest shaves came in September 1996, when he was called for jury duty in the Travis County Court of Law--a jurisdiction with a heavy docket of DWI cases. Bush suggested he was raring to go. "If you're going to live in a democracy... you need to participate," he told reporters.

Privately, Bush's legal team was worried. A few days before his appearance, NEWSWEEK has learned, staffer Patricia McDaniel was called to a meeting with Bush's chief counsel, Al Gonzales. What sort of questions would Bush face as a potential juror, he wanted to know. McDaniel had worked for years as a defense lawyer on DWI cases. In court papers filed in an unrelated case last year, McDaniel said she was ...

NEW YORK -- P.J. Clarke's, a landmark restaurant and bar, has been ordered to pay $2.2 million in damages to a woman who became permanently brain damaged in an auto accident caused by an intoxicated man who had been drinking at the bar for hours.

A Manhattan jury held Clarke's liable for the accident and chastised the famed East Side restaurant and bar for continuing to serve the man triple scotches for five hours even though several patrons observed he was noticeably drunk, said Paul Dansker, the lawyer representing the injured woman.

The woman, Joan Senn, a former advertising space salesperson, broke five ribs, fractured her collarbone and vertebrae, and sustained permanent brain damage--losing 15 to 20 points from her I.Q. --when she drove off with the man in his Alfa Romeo in 1985, Dansker said.

Ironically, P.J. Clarke's popularity began nearly 50 years ago in a movie depicting the horrors of alcoholism, "The Lost Weekend." The 1945 film won the Academy Award for best picture and got Ray Milland an Oscar for best actor for his portrayal of an alcoholic.

COPYRIGHT 1993 Reproduced with permission of the copyright holder. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group

 by: Earl Powers

Lemon law refers to the statement from the government that was created to protect consumers from defective piece of automobile. An automobile that has manufacturing defect or if it asks for repeated repairs after purchase and if the automobile is under warranty period, such a vehicle is termed as a lemon.

A law was placed for the benefit of consumers to prevent them from a lemon vehicle. In a nut shell if any vehicle such as a car is under warranty period and is suffering from various defects that prevent a consumer to use the vehicle effectively then Lemon law act or the Magnuson Moss Act comes into force.

Lemon law can be enforced on any sort of vehicle like a car, truck, van, SUV, motorcycle, boat or computer, etc. If any of these consumer durables is found to be defective then the consumer is entitled for either money back, replacement or a cash settlement. The law can be consulted with a Lemon law attorney as various states have different lemon laws. Some states have a lemon law for only the automobiles but some also include other consumer durables like computers, etc.

A dealer or manufacturer should have made number of attempts to repair the vehicle before being declared as lemon. Usually three or more attempts in row over a short period of time are required for any vehicle to be termed as lemon. Lemon law is also applicable to vehicles which have been resold but are still under warranty and meet the mileage and time criteria. More often it is very difficult to persuade a manufacturer to accept a lemon vehicle. In such cases a lemon suit is often called for.

To ensure whether a vehicle is a lemon or not one should observe certain conditions of the vehicle before pursuing a lemon law suit. A vehicle should exhibit some serious defect or some abnormal condition. Such a condition should be covered by manufacturer’s warranty. Number of attempts for repair should also be taken into account before preparing a lemon law suit. A written notice should have also been issued to the manufacturer prior to a lemon law suit.

A vehicle that has been bought back by the manufacturer from the customer is known as a Lemon Buy Back. Such lemon buy backs are often sold in auctions as used cars by the manufacturers.

The Lemon law enforced for protecting consumers from the lemon vehicles is Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. This lemon law states that any advertised guarantee should explicitly state relevant information about a warranty. This law ensures that any warranty for goods above $15 should be clearly expressed on the goods and should be clear and easy to understand. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty act enables a consumer to bring suit to any manufacturer, supplier, warrantor, or service contractor for any defective piece of good or services.

A lemon vehicle explicitly loses market value due to its manufacturing defect. Moreover, manufacturing defects may lead to several life threatening circumstances. It also substantially impedes a person's ability to control or operate a motor vehicle for ordinary use or intended purposes. Any manufacturing defect can also create a substantial risk of fire or explosion. All these risk elements call for enforcement of Lemon law in the states of United States. This law helps consumer from all such threats and hazardous circumstances.

Lemon laws were designed to protect the consumer. Buying a vehicle is one of the major purchases a person can make and having protection against a bad deal is important. Lemon laws differ from state to state, but the basics of the law are standard throughout the United States.

The lemon law gives consumers a basic definition of what considers a vehicle to be a lemon. It also states the manufacturer is responsible for problems and goes on to define how matters should be handled when a lemon is in question. The lemon laws sets up a warranty period that is usually between 12 and 24 months. It also specifies how many attempts must be made to correct the defect before a refund or replacement is ordered. Most often serious defects that would affect the safety and security of passengers is allowed one attempt to correct. Other lesser concerns usually are allowed three attempts. When the refund is given there are dedications for use of the vehicle. This usually correlates with the number of miles on the vehicle. Not every situation qualifies under the lemon law, so checking state regulations is important before attempting to use the law.

Once you know your situation qualifies under the lemon law there are some steps to take. Repairs are an important part of the lemon law, as stated above, there are a certain number of attempts allowed to try to repair the defect. It is important that you keep good repair records to prove the attempts have been made. After repairs have been attempted you have to notify the manufacturer about what is happening. You should then be set up to get the refund or replacement. Sometimes the manufacturer will disagree and you may have to go to court to resolve the matter.

Lemon laws are a way to make manufacturers responsible for the vehicles they make. When a person buys a vehicle they expect to be able to drive it and use it, not be stuck with major problems. Fortunately more often than not major defects are caught as soon a the vehicle is on the market and the manufacturer steps up to replace them. However, if this doesn't happen then your state's lemon laws are there to look out for your rights.

by: Stuart Simpson

If you are fortunate, you can purchase a brand new car. If your fortune takes a turn after you purchase the car and problems arise with the car, what can you do? Are you covered under the state lemon law? Can you just return the car? Will the dealer talk to you? What requirements must my car fit in to be called a “lemon”?

Do you have a lemon? You may not like something about the car, but that doesn’t qualify it as a lemon. Now, if the brakes don’t work or the car won’t go into gear or it won’t run over 30 mph, then you might have a lemon. But, you must give the manufacturer an opportunity to fix the problem. In most states, 10 different defects during the warranty period do not constitute that the car is a lemon. In some states, a single defect that might cause serious injury makes your car a lemon if the manufacturer cannot fix the problem within 1 attempt. First rule: Keep up with all of your receipts and repair history.

State laws vary, but a rule of thumb is if the car problem can’t be fixed with 4 tries or the car has been out of commission for more than 30 days during the first year or 12,000 miles.

Before you buy the car, you should have checked out the car’s repair history. Did you check the VIN number on some popular websites to see if the car was in an accident?

The manufacturer doesn’t have to replace or refund the car if the defects do not impair the use and value of the car or the condition of the car was due to customer’s abuse, neglect, or unauthorized alterations. Be careful, as you can get yourself into a pickle.

A lawyer that is familiar with state lemon laws can help you determine a variety of problems like whether the car was damaged at the time of delivery. Was there fraud or deception in your financing paperwork? Were repairs attempted beforehand to cover up defects? Lawyers go through an extreme investigation on your vehicle to make sure how these items affected your value, safety, or use.

The lawyer will submit a detailed account to the manufacturer, usually after hiring an ASE certified mechanic to go over the car. Did you know that the auto repair shops use several work orders? They have one for you to look at, but they also have one for the technician. If the problems are too hard to fix, they may be told not to fix the car. Your lawyer will drag all of this out in front of the manufacturer or judge, if necessary.

In summary, you understand now that if your paint is peeling, then you don’t have a lemon. If your brakes aren’t working and the dealer can’t fix them, then you may have a lemon.