DWI Blogs

by: Terry Dunn

Contrary to what its name suggests, the Texas Lemon Law is not a legislation that deals with the buying and selling of fruits or rule against its bright color.

It does not even come close.

Rather it involves the right of American consumers, who buy vehicles, used or brand new, cars or trucks, to return defective products and ask for a refund.

Along with the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the Uniform Commercial Code, the Texas Lemon Law or Lemon Law in general protects the rights of American citizens to quality products that would give them value for their money.

In general, the Lemon Law requires car manufacturers and not car dealers to refund the money a consumer has paid for if a car is found to be a “lemon.” The definition of a “lemon car” is of course different with every state depending on what the state legislation says. Usually, states differ in their definition of what a “lemon” car is and the period of warranty that is given to the consumer.

The Texas Lemon Law, for one, allows for four repair attempts or 30 days out of service for defects that are not so life-threatening. For serious product defects that pose a serious safety hazard such as problems in the steering wheel or in the brake, the Texas Lemon Law allows for only two repair attempts. If after the stated number of repair attempts, the defects have not been fixed, then a car will considered a “lemon” and therefore eligible for refund. The repair attempts under the Texas Lemon Law should of course happen within a period of two years or 24,000 miles whichever comes first for the four attempts. A period of one year or 12,000 miles is given to defects that affect the safety of the car.

Similar to other state laws, the Texas Lemon Law also requires consumers to have their cars fixed in authorized service centers and to make no unauthorized modification or alterations in the car. This is done to avoid questions that will be raised by manufacturer as they are accorded the right to investigate and challenge the claim. If the defect has been found to be caused by neglect, abuse and alterations not sanctioned by the manufacturer then no refunds will be given.

Consumers, under the Texas Lemon Law, are also asked to put their complaint into writing, stating the defects of the car. This is especially needed if it is stated in the vehicle’s manual. Supporting documents should be kept in hand such as receipt of the purchase, which would state when the car was bought, repair receipts as well as diagnosis of the problem.

In addition to refunding the money, the Texas Lemon Law may also invoke the manufacturer to pay for incidental costs that the consumer has incurred due to the defect in question such as towing services and even rental of car while the “lemon” is still in the repair shop. Refunds will also not be given in full. Under the Texas Lemon Law, the purchase price will be lessened by the equivalent amount of the mileage that the owner has used the car.

While most companies have good arbitration programs which they use to cut down legal costs just in case the complaint goes to court, there are some car manufacturers who will remain firm that the defect was not there when you bought the car. If this happens, complainants are encouraged to seek legal counsel.

Methodology
Most of the information for this report was gathered through inquiries from key informants identified in each of the countries of interest. Most informants were from government transportation agencies. Some informants were from relevant university departments. In some cased, available information was collected from other published or unpublished sources. Appendix A indicates the source(s) of information for each country.

Results
The results of the overview of laws indicate some of the major differences across countries and some of the contrasts between the United States and other countries. Major findings include:

The illegal BAC for most of the United States is higher than for any of the other countries studied.
The minimum purchase age for alcohol is older in the United States than for almost all other countries studied.
Licensing age for most countries is some years older than the minimum purchase age for alcohol.
Sanctions in other countries tend to be based primarily on arrest BAC.

The potential impact of international free trade agreements on laws and policies related to traffic safety must be considered in this context. Another important factor in international comparisons is the cultural differences reflected in public attitudes towards impaired driving and towards relevant laws.

Analysis of the relationship between laws related to impaired driving and the proportion of alcohol-related crashes is a logical next step. This analysis must be undertaken with caution because of the complicated measurement issues inherent in reporting of alcohol involvement in traffic crashes.

Laws Included
While many different laws are relevant to impaired driving, this project focused on several of the most important laws. These laws include:
Illegal blood alcohol content (BAC) levels for various classes of drivers;
The minimum purchase age for alcohol;
Age of driving licensure;
Standard sanctions for first offenses and multiple offenses;
The imposition of more severe sanctions for drivers with higher BACs
Graduated licensing systems;
Systems for the regranting of licenses.

Countries Included
The primary purpose of this project is to provide comparisons with the United States, and therefore possible guidance in the development and implementation of impaired driving policies in this country. Therefore, the main focus of data collection was on countries that would be considered most directly comparable to the United States, economically and demographically, as well as those countries with which we have the most direct dealings. These countries include:
Members of the European Union, including Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom
Other western European countries, including Norway and Switzerland
Canada
Mexico
Australia
New Zealand
Japan

Other countries of possible interest were included as data were available.

The Habit That Leads To Dangerous Accidents(DWI)Now-a-days, the accidents that are taking place in so many countries are due to the people who consume alcohol and drive. This article is mainly for alcohol consumers. You could lose your driver's license, be placed in jail and be fined substantial fees. Your insurance rates may rise and you could end up with a criminal arrest record would impact your future, especially employment opportunities. And the main effect is going to be on your physical system.Acquire some knowledge about DWI

DWI does mean that Driving While Intoxicated or Driving While Impaired.

It has so many Synonyms such as DUI(Driving Under the Influence),

OVI (Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence), OVWI (Operating a Vessel While Intoxicated),

OUIL (Operating Under the Influence Liquor),OUI (Operating Under the Influence)

,APC (Actual Physical Control),DWAI (Driving While Ability Impaired),BWI (Boating While Intoxicated) and

OWI (Operating While Intoxicated).

These are the charges that are charged upon the action of driving a vehicle while taking alcohol. Problem that has to be facedDWI (Driving While Intoxicated, Driving While Impaired), are all different definitions of drunk driving charges that are being charged for the persons driving with alcohol consumption. In many of the countries, the charge will be depending on the age of the person, to what extent they are responsible to the accident, and the will have to undergo some tests, which the police will be conducting. This is the process the police follow to charge the victim. They also take into consideration the tolerance laws. Many states have Zero Tolerance Laws for drivers under the age of 21.If you will have to face the police....For suppose, if you come over with police, then cooperate with what he or she asks you to do, because it will be against your own interests to be uncooperative or rude. Anybody can find himself or herself in this situation, and your background (apart from any previous DWI offenses) will have no relevance, but your behavior when stopped will definitely be relevant. Generally, the police asks for some tests. Breath and/or alcohol tests, the tests that you will have to undergoThere will be a legal limit of alcohol differs according to what type of vehicle you’re driving and how old you are. The basic limit in all states is 0.08%. But if you’re younger than 21, it’s lower. If you drive a commercial truck, it’s 0.04%. Bus drivers have their own legal limit.If you test at a level above the legal level for you, do cooperate and take any subsequent tests.You will have to take care of the following things during tests.· This refusal in itself may be treated as a separate crime· Your driving privilege can be suspended for a year· You can be viewed as admitting your own guiltTry to know about the effects on your physical systemBlood alcohol concentration (BAC) is the relationship between the amount of alcohol consumed and the elimination of alcohol in your blood. This is usually measured as the percentage of deciliters of blood. So if it is measured by how much blood you have, your body weight makes a difference on how much you can drink. There are a few variables that determine your blood alcohol level:

-Weight-Male or female

-Amount consumed-

How long the time frame was while drinking

-How long it takes to get back to a 0 BACExplanation how the effect goes on in your bodyA BAC of .

04 means you have 4 drops of pure alcohol for every 10,000 drops of blood. An average man at 160 lbs. that drinks two beers would have a BAC of .04 after about an hour, on an empty stomach. Someone who reaches a BAC of .10 will normally show signs of intoxication. On average, it takes about 1 hour for 1 drink to leave the body. On women, it takes long because usually women have lower water in their body and have a higher percent of body fat than men. The fatter you are, the longer the alcohol stays in your system.First, the alcohol is absorbed through your stomach. When you eat, then the alcohol is absorbed into the food and has to go on to the intestinal track for absorption. This takes longer for the alcohol to be absorbed.It all depends on how much you drink and how much you eat. A small amount may be absorbed through the stomach, but most alcohol is absorbed through the intestines where it enters the blood stream and travels to the brain.Just think does our physical system need to undergo such mystical effects!Alcohol is a system suppressor along with other drugs like sedatives, painkillers and marijuana. Other drugs have a different effect on impaired driving, like cocaine and amphetamines, which are system enhancers. Alcohol impairs judgment, coordination, vision, and reaction time and increases drowsiness.

Why do some people (who have been charged with an alcohol-related offense) been issued both a civil suspension and a criminal suspension for the same violation?

Effective December 1, 1989 the Vermont legislature passed a law that provided a means for a law enforcement officer to issue a Notice of Intent to Suspend, which is considered a Civil (alcohol-related) suspension, to be issued to an offender. This law also permits criminal (alcohol-related) charges to be filed against the offender. As a result, an individual can be suspended both civilly and criminally for the same incident. The Notice of Intent to Suspend was supposed to ease the burden of cases in the Vermont court system as well as providing a means of issuance of a suspension in a more timely manner. An individual who has been charged under this law has a choice of either requesting a hearing on the civil charge or having the suspension go into effect on the date noted on the Notice of Intent to Suspend. If the individual requests a hearing on the civil charge it is generally held in the Vermont District Court at the same time as the hearing for the criminal charge. As they are actually two different charges under two different sections of the law it is possible to have only one of the two charges dismissed ...but both charges must be addressed. If you are suspended for both the civil and the criminal charges the suspensions run concurrently (at the same time). For example, if you were suspended for 90 days for the civil charge and 90 days for the criminal charge the suspensions would either happen at the same time, or, (if one suspension started before the other one) you would be given credit for the time served for the first suspension issued and that time would be deducted from the amount of suspension time to be served for the second suspension issued. See 23 V.S.A., Chapter 13, Subchapter XIII: Drunken Driving in Vermont law.

DWI Lawyer Benjamin Sansone has handled hundreds of DWI and DUI cases in Missouri and Illinois. The vast majority of his clients are NOT convicted and only a couple have done a few days of jail time in Felony cases (3rd offense). CDL driver's beware, your cases require and deserve special attention from a top DWI lawyer. Below is a list of just some of the cases lawyer Ben Sansone has handled.

City of Ladue v. James V., January 2008 - .12 BAC - DWI amended to C&I

Ladue Missouri DWI on highway 40/64 in St Louis County on Thanksgiving weekend. Defendant is an airline pilot and a DWI plea, even pursuant to probation in avoidance of conviction, would have caused issues with the FAA. Was able to secure amendment to careless and imprudent driving with no probation, supervision, or other actions. Driver's license maintained with no suspension and no action by the FAA.

City of Berkeley v. Tony C., November 2007 - .16 BAC - DWI Case Dismissed

Missouri DWI case dismissed with payment of court costs. Defense was based primarily on probable cause and technical mistakes made the the police officer. The defendant had a BAC of .16, well over the legal limit. However, despite the BAC level the defendant did not act in a way to give rise to reasonable suspicion.

Kevin H. v. Missouri Dept. of Revenue, Trial 10/25/2007

St Louis County DWI and alleged refusal to submit to breathalyzer test by my client Kevin. Based on Missouri's implied consent law he was subject to a 1 year revocation. Forced to a trial and we won as the State could not prove that Kevin refused to submit to a blood test. No license revocation and driver's privileges reinstated in full and any indication of DOR revocation Ordered stricken from Kevin's record.

Wentzville MO v. Brian T., September 2007

Missouri DWI Dismissed and amended to Careless and Imprudent Driving. No probation.

State of Illinois v. Joe L., (St Clair DUI - 6/2007)

CDL licensed driver maintained his full and complete CDL driving privileges

Client is a CDL driver and his livelihood was in jeopardy if the Statutory Summary Suspension of his license was allowed to apply based on his failure of field sobriety tests and his BAC was over .08. License suspension was dismissed based on improper warnings to Defendant by the police officer. CDL driver kept his license and did not have a single day of suspension or any affect on his license or CDL status. Defendant was granted probation on the criminal charges to avoid a conviction, all other cases were dismissed.

State of Missouri v. Paul M., (DWI - 3/2007)

DWI DISMISSED. Companion charge of Improper Lane Usage, Dismissed.

Defendant stopped by police for improper lane usage and submitted to Field Sobriety Tests. Submitted to Breathalyzer and BAC level of .186%. Ben Sansone successfully defended the case based on issues of probable cause for the stop and proper procedure for field sobriety tests were not followed by the arresting officer. Despite a high BAC of .186% (more than double the legal limit) the DWI charge was dismissed on procedural grounds argued by DWI lawyer Ben Sansone.

State of Missouri v. Sam M., (St Charles DWI - 2/2007)

DWI DISMISSED remaining charges amended to improper muffler
Defendant arrested after colliding with a concrete support for a light post in a Target parking lot. DWI lawyer Ben Sansone defended case based on police officer's failure to properly establish intoxication by field sobriety tests and observations. Additionally, procedural errors were made by the arresting officer leading to a successful defense and dismissal of the DWI charge.

State of Missouri v. M. Pratt, (St Louis DWI -11/2006)

CASE DISMISSED & NO LICENSE SUSPENSION
DWI Lawyer Ben Sansone successfully argued that the Police lacked probable cause for Defendant’s arrest and that there was insufficient evidence to support a DWI charge. The police failed to properly conduct the Field Sobriety Tests in compliance with NHTSA (National Highway and Transportation Safety Administration) guidelines as required by law and therefore lacked probable cause to arrest defendant. The case was dismissed.

State of Illinois v. M. Hawkins, (St Clair DUI – 6/2006)

CASE DISMISSED & LICENSE SUSPENSION RESCINDED
DUI lawyer Ben Sansone filed and argued a Motion to Suppress Evidence attacking the Police officer’s claim that the Defendant was "weaving within his lane" and this was the State's probable cause for the traffic stop. Court ruled "weaving within lane" is not a traffic violation as the Illinois Vehicle Code section 11-709 states "that a vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable within a single lane." The Court agreed it is impossible to drive in a perfectly straight line within a traffic lane. Citing People v. Manders, 317 Ill. App. 3d 337 (2000).

State of MO v. Jason L., (St Louis DWI – 7/2005)

CASE DISMISSED & NO LICENSE SUSPENSION.
DWI lawyer Ben Sansone argued that the Police failed to substantiate probable cause for the traffic stop; moreover, Ben Sansone’s argument pointed out the police officer's failure to properly administer the breathalyzer test making it inadmissible as evidence in the State's case, therefore, the case was dismissed.

State of IL v. M. Masseoud, (St Clair DUI -10/2006)

CASE DISMISSED & LICENSE SUSPENSION RECINDED.
Defendant submitted to breathalyzer test at 1:31 a.m. but was not read his Miranda Rights until 1:43 a.m. DUI Lawyer Ben Sansone cited US Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966) and prevailed based on failure to read Miranda Rights before submitting to the breathalyzer. Additionally, the police failed to provide sufficient evidence that the breathalyzer was administered properly and maintained and calibrated pursuant to Illinois law. Judge ruled in Defendant's favor, CASE DISMISSED.

State of MO v. Ted V., (FELONY DWI - 2006)

NO JAIL TIME AND PROBATION CONTINUED DESPITE SUBSEQUENT DWI VIOLATION

Felony DWI involving a multiple vehicle accident on Highway 370 in St Charles County, Missouri. DWI Lawyer Ben Sansone represented the Defendant and he ended up with NO JAIL TIME and was granted probation. Additionally, the Defendant was currently on probation for the previous DWI 1 year earlier in Town and County, Missouri. DWI Lawyer Ben Sansone represented Defendant at the probation revocation hearing and the court ruled to continue his probation without any additional conditions.

State of MO v. James V., (FELONY DWI – 7/2005)

DEFENDANT RELEASED WITHIN 48 HOURS, NO ADDITIONAL JAIL TIME.

Defendant charged with Felony DWI in 1995 and remained "on the lamb" for 10 years until he was arrested in St Louis County in 2005. DWI Lawyer Ben Sansone was contacted by Defendant after he was arrested and Ben Sansone was able to get his bond reduced and Defendant was released within 48 hours of contacting Mr. Sansone. Defendant did not do any additional jail time and was granted probation.

Signs of a DWI

• If your tires are riding on the on center line between lanes or between a lane and
  the shoulder
  
• Accelerating or decelerating rapidly
  
• Making turns of a wide radius
  
• Making sudden or turns
  
• Weaving, veering, drifting, etc.
  
• Almost running into an object or another vehicle
  
• Braking randomly