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.
The heart of this case — State v. Boecker if you want to read it yourself — involves the type of issue that only lawyers can really get behind . . . complex statutory interpretation. But even the most convoluted cases can be simplified for non-lawyers, and State v. Boecker is no exception. Basically, this case came about because the Minnesota Legislature has done a terrible job writing our DWI laws, creating loopholes and contradictions across various statutes. Because we get a new Legislature every two years, the situation gets progressively worse, as future law makers then make even dumber decisions, like inserting language describing the “intent” of previous lawmakers from decades past.
This isn’t uncommon — very few of our legislators are actual attorneys, or even have legal training— but it seems to get especially ugly with our DWI laws. And our Courts, who are responsible for interpreting the letter of the law (not the “spirit,” and especially not when the statute imposes a criminal penalty) sometimes make a deliberate effort to “look the other way” when a DWI law is being scrutinized for lousy drafting.
And that’s what happened here. Minnesota’s DWI laws make any DWI a felony-level offense (meaning you can go to prison) if you have a prior felony offense at any point in your lifetime. In fact, the statute lists all of the possible ways of enhancing a misdemeanor DWI to a felony.
But in Boecker’s case, the statute didn’t list his specific offense, that happened in 1998. The Minnesota Supreme Court relied largely on some “statement of intent” language that was inserted by the 2012 Legislature, purporting to describe the intent of the 2007 Legislature . . . and things just got more confusing from there. Long story short, the Court concluded that even though Mr. Boecker’s prior 1998 DWI wasn’t listed as an option for enhancing his current offense to the level of a felony, they were just going to “read it into the statute” (that’s me paraphrasing).
That’s typically a huge no-no — if a criminal statute doesn’t say something explicitly, it’s not the role of the the Courts to invent language to cover any gaps. But that’s what happened in Boecker . . . and now he’s going to spend several years in prison for driving with an alcohol concentration of 0.14. That may or may not have been the intent of the Legislature, but if it was their intent, they should have done a much, much better job of saying it.
Source: Ramsay Law Firm
A guy walks into a bar and asks for a beer. He chugs it, looks into his pocket and asks for another beer. He chugs that beer, looks into his pocket and asks for another.The man does this a few more times until the bartender asks, “How come you ask for a beer, chug it, then look in your pocket?”The man says, “Because there is a picture of my wife in my pocket and I’m gonna keep drinking till she looks good enough for me to go home.”
Josh Daves was standing in the gravel parking lot across from the brewery around 7:30 p.m. when he heard a loud crashing sound, he said. He looked over at his Chevy Silverado that was parked on Green Street and saw a Ford Ranger had crashed into it.
“I was hoping (the driver) was OK because that was a bad accident,” Daves said.
But when Daves ran over to his truck, he said the woman behind the wheel was screaming and seemed ready to drive away .
“I told her, ‘You don’t leave,’” Daves said. “She just slammed on the gas and drove away.”
Officer B.M. Linares responded to the scene and eventually located the vehicle on Kirksey Drive, according to a police report.
Linares arrested the driver, Ruth Ann Lyons, 54, and charged her with driving while impaired and felony possession of a controlled substance with intent to manufacture after oxycodone, hydrocodone and alprazolam were found in her vehicle, the report said.
Daves said he bought his 2014 truck in April, and it was hit by another vehicle two weeks ago. He was prepared to get the earlier incident taken care of on Friday, but the crash on Thursday made his situation even worse.
“I finally worked my way up to where I could get a nice vehicle, and this is what happens,” Daves said.
Daves estimates about $15,000 worth of damage was done to the truck, which was valued at $32,000 before the crash.
Daves is a brewer at Catawba Brewing Company and was working when the crash happened. He said his background in beer makes him even more upset that an allegedly impaired person got behind the wheel.
“I knew she was gone — under the influence of something,” Daves said. “It’s terrible. You should not be out driving and drinking or drugging. She could have easily hit a pedestrian. It could have been a lot worse.”
Linares also found marijuana in the vehicle, the report said. Lyons’ additional charges include simple possession of schedule VI narcotics, possession of drug paraphernalia, no operators license, safe movement violation and misdemeanor hit and run.
Lyons consented to a blood test before being transported to the magistrate’s office, where she was issued a $20,000 bond, the report said. The crash also caused Dave’s truck to hit a Jeep parked beside it.