A string walks into a bar with a few friends and orders a beer. The bartender says, “I’m sorry, but we don’t serve strings here.”The string goes back to his table. He ties himself in a loop and messes up the top of his hair. He walks back up to the bar and orders a beer.The bartender squints at him and says, “Hey, aren’t you a string?”The string says, “Nope, I’m a frayed knot.”
INDIANAPOLIS — A woman accused of driving drunk and killing a 66-year-old Noblesville man was sentenced to four years in prison Wednesday after agreeing to a plea deal.
Elizabeth Vargas-Hernandez, 35, was charged in February with operating a vehicle while intoxicated, operating a vehicle without ever having received a license and causing death when operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated following a fatal crash on I-465.
Indiana State Police say Vargas-Hernandez was driving on I-465 just before 2:30 a.m. on Feb. 13 when she rear-ended a vehicle driven by David Kriehn, 66, of Noblesville, near Michigan Road.
Kriehn was ejected from his 2002 Honda as it rolled into the ditch. He was transported to St. Vincent Hospital, where he died from his injuries.
Vargas-Hernandez’s vehicle also inverted into the ditch. Amazingly, neither she nor three passengers in the vehicle with her at the time of the crash were injured.
On Wednesday, Vargas-Hernandez entered a plea of guilty to one count of causing death while operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content of .15 or greater. A Marion County judge sentenced her to four years in the Indiana Department of Correction. She will also be unable to receive a driver’s license for 10 years.
Vargas-Hernandez could also potentially face deportation upon her release from prison, as police believe she is an undocumented Mexican national.
Consider a hypothetical: a police officer stops you for a minor traffic violation or suspicion of an Oklahoma DUI charge. He goes through the usual routine of checking your driver’s license, vehicle registration and proof of insurance, and they all check out. He writes you a warning about the traffic infraction. You think that the encounter is over, and want to get on your way. But for some reason, the officer does not seem to want to let the matter rest. Next he asks you for permission to walk a drug sniffer dog around your vehicle. You refuse to give permission, and the officer refuses to let you leave. Backup arrives. The officer does the dog pass around your car anyway, and the dog alerts to the presence of an illegal drug. You are arrested on charges for drug possession.You ask yourself: was it reasonable for the officer to continue the traffic stop once he issued the warning? How long is too long to conduct a routine traffic stop?Interestingly, earlier this year the U.S. Supreme Court examined this very issue, and its conclusion may make a significant difference in how police perform traffic stops in Oklahoma and other states.The above hypothetical is not just a thought experiment. It really happened to a driver in another state. The driver argued that prolonging the traffic stop without any basis in reasonable suspicion violated his constitutional rights and that accordingly the drug evidence should be suppressed. The prosecution countered that the added time – seven to eight minutes – represented only a “de minimis” intrusion on the driver’s personal liberty and was therefore acceptable. The trial court sided with the prosecution, as did the Court of Appeals. For its part, however, the US Supreme Court disagreed. In an opinion that found support from both its conservative and liberal Justices, it ruled that unless reasonable suspicion exists for the officer to do a drug search, including a dog sniff, he or she cannot extend a traffic stop to search for drugs in your car. The officer can stop you long enough to complete the “mission” of the traffic stop – for example, to issue you a ticket or warning for the original reason for stopping you – but then must let you go without prolonging the stop in the hope that a dog sniff of your vehicle might turn up something. The Court also disagreed with the prosecution’s argument that if the officer conducting the traffic stop does it “expeditiously” that should somehow grant additional time for a drug search. In short, performing a dog sniff test is beyond the scope of the mission of a vehicle stop based on a traffic violation, meaning that the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution cannot countenance absent grounds for reasonable suspicion for a search. If you are held longer than you believe is reasonable for a traffic stop, and police use that extra time to do a drug search of your vehicle, you should inform your defense attorney of this – it might make the difference between being convicted of an offense or not.
Source: Oklahoma DUI
A car stopped in the Town of Wethersfield with no windshield, doors or a license plate and with an ax in the roof led to the arrest of the driver on charges of driving while impaired by drugs, the Wyoming County Sheriff’s Office said Tuesday.After receiving a report about a “suspicious vehicle” on Monday, deputies pulled over a car with many missing parts driven by Jared T. Price, 21, of Java, at the intersection of Younger and Wethersfield roads, the sheriff’s office said.”Price performed poorly on field sobriety testing and was taken into custody,” according to a sheriff’s office news release.Price was taken to the sheriff’s office for a drug influence evaluation and a certified Drug Recognition Expert found him to be “impaired by multiple different drug categories,” officials said.ADVERTISEMENTJared T. Price (Provided by Wyoming County Sheriff’s Office)He was charged with driving while ability impaired by drugs, driving while ability impaired by the combined influence of drugs and numerous traffic infractions, including operating a vehicle without insurance.Price was arraigned in the Town of Gainesville Court where bail was set in the amount of $10,000 cash bail or $20,000 bond. He is scheduled to appear Aug. 1 in the Town of Wethersfield Court.
As a Maryland DUI/DWI Attorney I am frequently asked by friends and acquaintences whether they should take the breathalyzer if they are stopped for suspicion of Driving Under the Influence . This question is almost invariably followed by the statement, “because I have always heard that you should never take it”.
I am not completely sure where this idea that one should never take the breathalyzer came from, although I suspect it is simply dated advice that is still being recirculated because in my view, under most circumstances, a person who is stopped by the police should take the breathalyzer if asked to do so. Here’s why:
As most people are aware, significant changes have been made to the law regarding Driving Under the Influence over the past 20 years. For instance, 20 years ago the legal limit was a BAC of .12 as opposed to .08 today for Driving Under the Influence. In those days judges were also far more likely to give a well represented defendant the benefit of the doubt in cases where there was no breathalyzer. The administrative sanctions imposed by the MVA for refusing the breathalyzer were also far less severe than they are today. The bottom line was in those days not taking the breathalyzer gave you a better shot at being found not guilty in criminal court and did not subject you to extreme administrative penalties. It may very well have been sound legal advice to advise people to never take the breathalyzer before these changes.
Today, the police are trained much better than they were in the past and know how to observe and explain a suspects intoxicated behavior in language that is persuasive to judges and juries in most cases. Laws have also been changed to aid prosecutions in which the breathalyzer was not taken. For instance, it used to be the case that the State was not even allowed to mention the fact that a test was not taken to the judge or the jury. Today, they are allowed to argue to the judge or jury that they should draw a negative inference from the defendant’s refusal to submit to the breathalyzer.
In recent years judges have also been trained, and some my say also cajoled by groups such as MADD, into being much more likely to convict without the benefit of the test. Finally the administrative penalties are much harsher today than in the past. Today for a first refusal there is a mandatory suspension of 120 days. A second or subsequent refusal requires a suspension of a year. There is no provision for a work restricted license such as there is when the test is taken. The only way around the suspension is to participate in the interlock program for a year.
Unfortunately, the decision as to whether to take the test was further complicated a few years ago when the legislature changed the law to increase the adminstrative sactions for readings of .15 or greater. These higher readings now require a 90 days suspension that, like the refusal, may not be modified unless the person participates in the interlock program.
So what is my advice? Today, I tell people that if you are not completely intoxicated and it is your first offense, in most situations you are better off to cooperate fully to include taking the breathalyzer. For the reasons explained herein, there is really little to gain in criminal court by not taking the test and refusing to do so will ensure the much more onerous administrative sanctions I described. On the other hand, if the test is taken and the result is below .15, the person will only face a 45 day suspension that may be modified so that the person can drive to and from work. This is obviously far easier to deal with than a mandatory 120 day suspension or a year with the “blow and go”
An old man walks into a bar and orders a beer. The bartender notices the guy’s head is the size of a cue ball.”I got to ask, sir,” says the bartender. “What happened?”The old guy sighs and tells him, “My ship was torpedoed by the Germans in WWII. A mermaid rescued me and promised to grant me three wishes. For my first wish, I asked to return to the States. My second wish was to have all the money I would ever need. Finally, my third wish was to have sex with the mermaid.””That doesn’t sound too bad,” says the bartender. “Then what happened?””Well,” sighs the man, “mermaids can’t have sex, so I asked her if I could just have a little head… .”
John Bowlen, son of Broncos owner Pat Bowlen, arrested on suspicion of DUI in CaliforniaMark Belcher10:40 AM, Jul 31, 20176:50 PM, Jul 31, 2017nfl arrests | broncos news | john bowlen arrested | son of broncos owner arrested | pat bowlen son john bowlen Autoplay:PauseMuteLoaded: 0%Progress: 0%Remaining Time -1:29CaptionsFullscreenSHOW CAPTIONPASO ROBLES, Calif. — The son of Pat Bowlen, the owner of the Denver Broncos, is facing charges in California over driving under the influence. Police in California arrested John Bowlen Sunday afternoon and booked him into the San Luis Obispo County Jail.According to police records, Bowlen faces two charges related to driving after drinking alcohol, including Driving with BAC .08 or Higher and Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol. Those charges are booked as 23152(A) VC and 23152(B) VC. Police in California say they do not release arrest reports, but Denver7 is working to obtain the records. It’s not the first time Bowlen has been in trouble with the law.He was found guilty in April 2016 of harassing a girlfriend the year before, and was sentenced to 24 months of probation with drug and alcohol evaluation. He was also ordered to undergo a mental health evaluation and treatment.He’d originally been charged with two domestic violence counts in that case after his girlfriend called 911 on him because he was inebriated, and he followed by shoving her against a wall, according to police reports.He also pleaded guilty to driving while ability impaired in August 2005, according to Colorado court records.A spokesperson for the Broncos could not provide a comment concerning the arrest, citing “a personal matter for John, who is not employed by the team.