Shortlink

Occupational Drivers License

For those of you whose license is suspended for whatever reason, you can probably get an Occupational Drivers License (ODL).  You’ll need your driving record (https://txapps.texas.gov/tolapp/txldrcdr/TXDPSLicenseeManager), an SR-22 (almost any insurance company), proof of employment or seeking employment and a filing fee of about $250-300.  My fees for this service are very reasonable, depending on the circumstances.

See my webpage at http://www.davehowardlaw.com/ to contact me.

Shortlink

Edits to davehowardlaw.com

I have made a few edits and have updated some of the information on davehowardlaw.com.  Check it out!

Shortlink

Reminding my clients

In some cases the state will agree to dismiss if the defendant jumps through a hoop or two. For instance, in an assault case the defendant can take an anger management class. In a drug case they can take a drug class and get a clean UA. But many defendants have a hard time getting these things done. Should you find yourself in this position I implore you to get your tasks done so your case can be dismissed.

Shortlink

Brass Knuckles

One of the stupidest laws in Texas is the prohibition on owning brass knuckles. They are considered “decorative” when being sold at the mall, but are illegal weapons as soon as you buy them. Every single case I’ve ever seen has been a kid who thought they were cool when he bought them and had no idea he could be arrested for possessing them. www.davehowardlaw.com

Shortlink

Interest article from ArcPoint Labs about hair and nail testing.

Hair or Nail Testing – What’s the difference? Testing for drugs and alcohol in hair has been gaining market share with employers and courts for quite a while. Now we are seeing an increasing trend in using nail tests to determine drug use. The question that we get asked with these testing methods is, “What are the advantages of both types of tests?” First – Both tests are very effective at determining sustained drug use and give a longer history of both illegal and legal drug use than traditional urine analysis. While hair testing allows us the option of segmenting the hair into ~30 day increments to determine if levels of a drug are increasing or decreasing within a donor over time, we see that the tests have the same overall capability to identify drug consumption. Both hair and nail testing collections are directly observed by the technician and there is no opportunity to substitute the sample. This eliminates cheating and precludes many of the challenges of urine drug testing. Additionally, both hair and nail testing can be completed by opposite gender collection technicians so there is no need to be concerned about privacy issues. Advantage of Hair testing – The vast majority of the population has sufficient hair, either body or head hair, to complete the test. In the case of body hair, it can even be combined from various parts of the body to reach sufficient weight/volume for testing. And while various hair products can affect the testing process these products usually require long-term use and do not normally affect the results in the short-term. There are however products on the market that claim to enable the user to “beat” a hair test and they may have varying degrees of effectiveness. As for detection windows, hair testing is designed to go back approximately 90 days, can identify dozens of drugs and is legally acceptable for court applications. Advantages of Nail testing – The biggest advantage that nail testing has over any other form of testing is the virtual impossibility of masking, adulterating or cheating the test. Coupled with nail results being designed to go back approximately 180 days, the longest testing window, nail tests provide a tremendous asset in determining long-term drug use. The challenge with nail testing usually lies in having enough nail present to complete a collection. Since we cannot mix toe and finger nail samples there are times when a donor does not have sufficient nail to complete the test and must return in 2 weeks when the nail has grown back. We have provided lawyers and judges with wording for legal orders that is designed to preclude cheating, improperly trimming hair/nails prior to collection so that no sample can be collected or intentionally altering the hair to defeat the test. Please contact our office for more information. If you have any more questions about hair and nail drug testing please contact us at ARCpoint Labs of San Antonio: http://sanantonio-tx-medicalcenter.arcpointlabs.com/ Ph: (210) 340-9992 or at ARCpoint Labs of Austin: http://austin-tx-south.arcpointlabs.com/ Ph: (512) 992-0872

Shortlink

Williamson County changes

We’ve had numerous changes in the makeup of criminal justice in Williamson County. New judges, new prosecutors. Overall, these changes are for the better. There’s room for improvement, but there’s a little blue showing through the red.  Room for optimism.

Shortlink

Assault Statute

Sec. 22.01. ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another, including the person’s spouse;

(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person’s spouse; or

(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.

(b) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor, except that the offense is a felony of the third degree if the offense is committed against:

(1) a person the actor knows is a public servant while the public servant is lawfully discharging an official duty, or in retaliation or on account of an exercise of official power or performance of an official duty as a public servant;

(2) a person whose relationship to or association with the defendant is described by Section 71.0021(b), 71.003, or 71.005, Family Code, if:

(A) it is shown on the trial of the offense that the defendant has been previously convicted of an offense under this chapter, Chapter 19, or Section 20.03, 20.04, 21.11, or 25.11 against a person whose relationship to or association with the defendant is described by Section 71.0021(b), 71.003, or 71.005, Family Code; or

(B) the offense is committed by intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly impeding the normal breathing or circulation of the blood of the person by applying pressure to the person’s throat or neck or by blocking the person’s nose or mouth;

(3) a person who contracts with government to perform a service in a facility as defined by Section 1.07(a)(14), Penal Code, or Section 51.02(13) or (14), Family Code, or an employee of that person:

(A) while the person or employee is engaged in performing a service within the scope of the contract, if the actor knows the person or employee is authorized by government to provide the service; or

(B) in retaliation for or on account of the person’s or employee’s performance of a service within the scope of the contract;

(4) a person the actor knows is a security officer while the officer is performing a duty as a security officer; or

(5) a person the actor knows is emergency services personnel while the person is providing emergency services.

(b-1) Notwithstanding Subsection (b)(2), an offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a felony of the second degree if:

(1) the offense is committed against a person whose relationship to or association with the defendant is described by Section 71.0021(b), 71.003, or 71.005, Family Code;

(2) it is shown on the trial of the offense that the defendant has been previously convicted of an offense under this chapter, Chapter 19, or Section 20.03, 20.04, or 21.11 against a person whose relationship to or association with the defendant is described by Section 71.0021(b), 71.003, or 71.005, Family Code; and

(3) the offense is committed by intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly impeding the normal breathing or circulation of the blood of the person by applying pressure to the person’s throat or neck or by blocking the person’s nose or mouth.

(c) An offense under Subsection (a)(2) or (3) is a Class C misdemeanor, except that the offense is:

(1) a Class A misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a)(3) against an elderly individual or disabled individual, as those terms are defined by Section 22.04; or

(2) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed by a person who is not a sports participant against a person the actor knows is a sports participant either:

(A) while the participant is performing duties or responsibilities in the participant’s capacity as a sports participant; or

(B) in retaliation for or on account of the participant’s performance of a duty or responsibility within the participant’s capacity as a sports participant.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (b), the actor is presumed to have known the person assaulted was a public servant, a security officer, or emergency services personnel if the person was wearing a distinctive uniform or badge indicating the person’s employment as a public servant or status as a security officer or emergency services personnel.

(e) In this section:

(1) “Emergency services personnel” includes firefighters, emergency medical services personnel as defined by Section 773.003, Health and Safety Code, emergency room personnel, and other individuals who, in the course and scope of employment or as a volunteer, provide services for the benefit of the general public during emergency situations.

(3) “Security officer” means a commissioned security officer as defined by Section 1702.002, Occupations Code, or a noncommissioned security officer registered under Section 1702.221, Occupations Code.

(4) “Sports participant” means a person who participates in any official capacity with respect to an interscholastic, intercollegiate, or other organized amateur or professional athletic competition and includes an athlete, referee, umpire, linesman, coach, instructor, administrator, or staff member.

(f) For the purposes of Subsections (b)(2)(A) and (b-1)(2):

(1) a defendant has been previously convicted of an offense listed in those subsections committed against a person whose relationship to or association with the defendant is described by Section 71.0021(b), 71.003, or 71.005, Family Code, if the defendant was adjudged guilty of the offense or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere in return for a grant of deferred adjudication, regardless of whether the sentence for the offense was ever imposed or whether the sentence was probated and the defendant was subsequently discharged from community supervision; and

(2) a conviction under the laws of another state for an offense containing elements that are substantially similar to the elements of an offense listed in those subsections is a conviction of the offense listed.

(g) If conduct constituting an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under another section of this code, the actor may be prosecuted under either section or both sections.

 

Shortlink

Aggravated Assault Statute

Sec. 22.02. AGGRAVATED ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person commits assault as defined in Sec. 22.01 and the person:

(1) causes serious bodily injury to another, including the person’s spouse; or

(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon during the commission of the assault.

(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree, except that the offense is a felony of the first degree if:

(1) the actor uses a deadly weapon during the commission of the assault and causes serious bodily injury to a person whose relationship to or association with the defendant is described by Section 71.0021(b), 71.003, or 71.005, Family Code;

(2) regardless of whether the offense is committed under Subsection (a)(1) or (a)(2), the offense is committed:

(A) by a public servant acting under color of the servant’s office or employment;

(B) against a person the actor knows is a public servant while the public servant is lawfully discharging an official duty, or in retaliation or on account of an exercise of official power or performance of an official duty as a public servant;

(C) in retaliation against or on account of the service of another as a witness, prospective witness, informant, or person who has reported the occurrence of a crime; or

(D) against a person the actor knows is a security officer while the officer is performing a duty as a security officer; or

(3) the actor is in a motor vehicle, as defined by Section 501.002, Transportation Code, and:

(A) knowingly discharges a firearm at or in the direction of a habitation, building, or vehicle;

(B) is reckless as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied; and

(C) in discharging the firearm, causes serious bodily injury to any person.

(4) Expired.

(c) The actor is presumed to have known the person assaulted was a public servant or a security officer if the person was wearing a distinctive uniform or badge indicating the person’s employment as a public servant or status as a security officer.

(d) In this section, “security officer” means a commissioned security officer as defined by Section 1702.002, Occupations Code, or a noncommissioned security officer registered under Section 1702.221, Occupations Code.

Shortlink

Stop and Seize

From the Washington Post, Written by Michael Sallah, Robert O’Harrow Jr., Steven Rich
Published on September 6, 2014

After the terror attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, the government called on police to become the eyes and ears of homeland security on America’s highways.

Local officers, county deputies and state troopers were encouraged to act more aggressively in searching for suspicious people, drugs and other contraband. The departments of Homeland Security and Justice spent millions on police training.

The effort succeeded, but it had an impact that has been largely hidden from public view: the spread of an aggressive brand of policing that has spurred the seizure of hundreds of millions of dollars in cash from motorists and others not charged with crimes, a Washington Post investigation found. Thousands of people have been forced to fight legal battles that can last more than a year to get their money back.

Stop and Seize: In recent years, thousands of people have had cash confiscated by police without being charged with crimes. The Post looks at the police culture behind the seizures and the people who were forced to fight the government to get their money back.

Behind the rise in seizures is a little-known cottage industry of private police-training firms that teach the techniques of “highway interdiction” to departments across the country.

One of those firms created a private intelligence network known as Black Asphalt Electronic Networking & Notification System that enabled police nationwide to share detailed reports about American motorists — criminals and the innocent alike — including their Social Security numbers, addresses and identifying tattoos, as well as hunches about which drivers to stop.

Many of the reports have been funneled to federal agencies and fusion centers as part of the government’s burgeoning law enforcement intelligence systems — despite warnings from state and federal authorities that the information could violate privacy and constitutional protections.

A thriving subculture of road officers on the network now competes to see who can seize the most cash and contraband, describing their exploits in the network’s chat rooms and sharing “trophy shots” of money and drugs. Some police advocate highway interdiction as a way of raising revenue for cash-strapped municipalities.

“All of our home towns are sitting on a tax-liberating gold mine,” Deputy Ron Hain of Kane County, Ill., wrote in a self-published book under a pseudonym. Hain is a marketing specialist for Desert Snow, a leading interdiction training firm based in Guthrie, Okla., whose founders also created Black Asphalt.

Hain’s book calls for “turning our police forces into present-day Robin Hoods.”

Cash seizures can be made under state or federal civil law. One of the primary ways police departments are able to seize money and share in the proceeds at the federal level is through a long-standing Justice Department civil asset forfeiture program known as Equitable Sharing. Asset forfeiture is an extraordinarily powerful law enforcement tool that allows the government to take cash and property without pressing criminal charges and then requires the owners to prove their possessions were legally acquired.

The practice has been controversial since its inception at the height of the drug war more than three decades ago, and its abuses have been the subject of journalistic exposés and congressional hearings. But unexplored until now is the role of the federal government and the private police trainers in encouraging officers to target cash on the nation’s highways since 9/11.

“Those laws were meant to take a guy out for selling $1 million in cocaine or who was trying to launder large amounts of money,” said Mark Overton, the police chief in Bal Harbour, Fla., who once oversaw a federal drug task force in South Florida. “It was never meant for a street cop to take a few thousand dollars from a driver by the side of the road.”

To examine the scope of asset forfeiture since the terror attacks, The Post analyzed a database of hundreds of thousands of seizure records at the Justice Department, reviewed hundreds of federal court cases, obtained internal records from training firms and interviewed scores of police officers, prosecutors and motorists.

Civil forfeiture cash seizures
Under the federal Equitable Sharing Program, police have seized $2.5 billion since 2001 from people who were not charged with a crime and without a warrant being issued. Police reasoned that the money was crime-related. About $1.7 billion was sent back to law enforcement agencies for their use.

The Post found:

There have been 61,998 cash seizures made on highways and elsewhere since 9/11 without search warrants or indictments through the Equitable Sharing Program, totaling more than $2.5 billion. State and local authorities kept more than $1.7 billion of that while Justice, Homeland Security and other federal agencies received $800 million. Half of the seizures were below $8,800.
Only a sixth of the seizures were legally challenged, in part because of the costs of legal action against the government. But in 41 percent of cases — 4,455 — where there was a challenge, the government agreed to return money. The appeals process took more than a year in 40 percent of those cases and often required owners of the cash to sign agreements not to sue police over the seizures.
Hundreds of state and local departments and drug task forces appear to rely on seized cash, despite a federal ban on the money to pay salaries or otherwise support budgets. The Post found that 298 departments and 210 task forces have seized the equivalent of 20 percent or more of their annual budgets since 2008.
Agencies with police known to be participating in the Black Asphalt intelligence network have seen a 32 percent jump in seizures beginning in 2005, three times the rate of other police departments. Desert Snow-trained officers reported more than $427 million in cash seizures during highway stops in just one five-year period, according to company officials. More than 25,000 police have belonged to Black Asphalt, company officials said.
State law enforcement officials in Iowa and Kansas prohibited the use of the Black Asphalt network because of concerns that it might not be a legal law enforcement tool. A federal prosecutor in Nebraska warned that Black Asphalt reports could violate laws governing civil liberties, the handling of sensitive law enforcement information and the disclosure of pretrial information to defendants. But officials at Justice and Homeland Security continued to use it.
Justice spokesman Peter Carr said the department had no comment on The Post’s overall findings. But he said the department has a compliance review process in place for the Equitable Sharing Program and attorneys for federal agencies must review the seizures before they are “adopted” for inclusion in the program.

“Adoptions of state and local seizures — when a state and local law enforcement agency requests a federal seizing agency to adopt a state and local seizure for federal forfeiture — represent an average of only 3 percent of the total forfeiture amount since 2007,” Carr said.

The Justice Department data released to The Post does not contain information about race. Carr said the department prohibits racial profiling. But in 400 federal court cases examined by The Post where people who challenged seizures and received some money back, the majority were black, Hispanic or another minority.

A 55-year-old Chinese American restaurateur from Georgia was pulled over for minor speeding on Interstate 10 in Alabama and detained for nearly two hours. He was carrying $75,000 raised from relatives to buy a Chinese restaurant in Lake Charles, La. He got back his money 10 months later but only after spending thousands of dollars on a lawyer and losing out on the restaurant deal.

A 40-year-old Hispanic carpenter from New Jersey was stopped on Interstate 95 in Virginia for having tinted windows. Police said he appeared nervous and consented to a search. They took $18,000 that he said was meant to buy a used car. He had to hire a lawyer to get back his money.

Mandrel Stuart, a 35-year-old African American owner of a small barbecue restaurant in Staunton, Va., was stunned when police took $17,550 from him during a stop in 2012 for a minor traffic infraction on Interstate 66 in Fairfax. He rejected a settlement with the government for half of his money and demanded a jury trial. He eventually got his money back but lost his business because he didn’t have the cash to pay his overhead.

“I paid taxes on that money. I worked for that money,” Stuart said. “Why should I give them my money?”
Mandrel Stuart talks about being stopped by Fairfax County police last year and having $17,550 confiscated under a civil forfeiture law, while sitting in his former restaurant, now known as the Shack in Staunton, Va. Stuart was never charged with a crime and, as a result of having the money taken, lost his restaurant, the Smoking Roosters. Stuart recently won a court case giving him back the $17,550. (Norm Shafer for The Washington Post)
In defense of seizures
Steven Peterson, a former U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agent who arranged highway interdiction training through a company called the 4:20 Group, said that patrol officers used to try to make their names with large drug busts. He said he saw that change when agency leaders realized that cash seizures could help their departments during lean times.

“They saw this as a way to provide equipment and training for their guys,” Peterson said. “If you seized large amounts of cash, that’s the gift that keeps on giving.”

There is no question that state and federal forfeiture programs have crippled powerful drug-trafficking organizations, thwarted an assortment of criminals and brought millions of dollars to financially stressed police departments.

Advocates of highway interdiction say it plays an important role in protecting the public and that officers take care to respect the rights of citizens.

“We don’t go hunting for money in general,” said Sandy Springs, Ga., Officer Mike DeWald, who has served as a trainer for 4:20. “I never have been pressured to go after money. We are in pursuit of the criminal element.”

Police trainers said that their work has helped make the country safer by teaching police to be more vigilant in identifying drug smugglers and terrorists.

“9/11 caused a lot of officers to realize they should be out there looking for those kind of people,” said David Frye, a part-time Nebraska county deputy sheriff who serves as chief instructor at Desert Snow and was operations director of Black Asphalt. “When money is taken from an organization, it hurts them more than when they lose the drugs.”

These screen grabs were taken from a promotional video for Desert Snow posted on YouTube by user InRoadsBook. (YouTube)
Frye and Desert Snow’s founder, a former California highway patrolman named Joe David, defended Black Asphalt, which David started in 2004. They said they have taken steps in recent years to ensure that the informal police network complies with state and federal laws. David declined to speak to The Post.

“The Black Asphalt is not flawless, however the intent behind it is,” David and Frye wrote in a letter in 2012 sent to police and obtained by The Post. “The information being moved through the system has proven itself reliable on hundreds of occasions. Much more reliable than any criminal informant. The results have been staggering. It has proven itself an extremely valuable tool for law enforcement.”

Hain, Desert Snow’s marketing official, said “the operational and software platforms of the Desert Snow site and Black Asphalt site are completely separate.” He said Black Asphalt is “a secure system for intelligence sharing” and does not store information.

“No personal identifying information from seizure reports have ever been collected or stored by the Black Asphalt,” Hain said. “The Black Asphalt software is simply a pass-through system that allows the user to input data, which is then sent directly, via e-mail, to a select group of law enforcement (i.e. local investigators, ICE Bulk Cash Smuggling Center, DEA agents, etc.). Again, none of the personal information is held within the system, only the summary of the seizure. And then the seizure narratives are only maintained for 21 days before they get purged.”

The Post obtained hundreds of Black Asphalt records from law enforcement sources with access to the system.

Among Black Asphalt’s features is a section called BOLO, or “be on the lookout,” where police who join the network can post tips and hunches. In April, Aurora, Colo., police Officer James Waselkow pulled over a white Ford pickup for tinted windows. Waselkow said he thought the driver, a Mexican national, was suspicious in part because he wore a University of Wyoming cap.

“He had no idea where he was going, what hotel he was staying in or who with,” Waselkow wrote. The officer searched the vehicle with the driver’s consent but found no contraband. But he was still suspicious, so he posted the driver’s license plate on Black Asphalt. “Released so someone else can locate the contraband,” he wrote. “Happy hunting!”

Waselkow’s department did not respond to a request for an interview.
The Post’s review of 400 court cases, which encompassed seizures in 17 states, provided insights into stops and seizures.

In case after case, highway interdictors appeared to follow a similar script. Police set up what amounted to rolling checkpoints on busy highways and pulled over motorists for minor violations, such as following too closely or improper signaling. They quickly issued warnings or tickets. They studied drivers for signs of nervousness, including pulsing carotid arteries, clenched jaws and perspiration. They also looked for supposed “indicators” of criminal activity, which can include such things as trash on the floor of a vehicle, abundant energy drinks or air fresheners hanging from rearview mirrors.

One recent stop shows how the process can work in the field.

In December 2012, Frye was working in his capacity as a part-time deputy in Seward County, Neb. He pulled over John Anderson of San Clemente, Calif., who was driving a BMW on Interstate 80 near Lincoln. Frye issued a warning ticket within 13 minutes for failing to signal promptly when changing lanes.

“The results have been staggering. It has proven itself an extremely valuable tool for law enforcement.” —David Frye and Joe David, talking about the Black Asphalt network in a 2012 letter to police
He told Anderson he was finished with the stop. But Frye later noted in court papers that he found several indicators of possible suspicious activity: an air freshener, a radar detector and inconsistencies in the driver’s description of his travels.

The officer then asked whether the driver had any cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin or large amounts of cash and sought permission to search the BMW, according to a video of the stop. Anderson denied having drugs or large amounts of cash in his car. He declined to give permission for a search. Frye then radioed for a drug-sniffing dog, and the driver had to wait another 36 minutes for the dog to arrive.

“I’m just going to, basically, have you wait here,” Frye told Anderson.

The dog arrived and the handler said it indicated the presence of drugs. But when they searched the car, none was found. They did find money: $25,180.

Frye handcuffed Anderson and told him he was placing him under arrest.

“In Nebraska, drug currency is illegal,” Frye said. “Let me tell you something, I’ve seized millions out here. When I say that, I mean millions. . . . This is what I do.”

Frye suggested to Anderson that he might not have been aware of the money in his vehicle and began pressing him to sign a waiver relinquishing the cash, mentioning it at least five times over the next hour, the video shows.

“You’re going to be given an opportunity to disclaim the currency,” Frye told Anderson. “To sign a form that says, ‘That is not my money. I don’t know anything about it. I don’t want to know anything about it. I don’t want to come back to court.’ ”

Frye said that unless the driver agreed to give up the money, a prosecutor would “want to charge” him with a crime, “so that means you’ll go to jail.”

An hour and six minutes into the stop, Frye read Anderson his Miranda rights.

Shortlink

Avoiding a Driving While Intoxicated charge

Avoiding a Driving While Intoxicated charge

Obviously the answer is not to drink and drive.  But human beings are social animals and we like to share alcoholic beverages with our friends and family.  I just want to point out a few things that may help you should you be faced with the prospect of driving after having drunk alcohol.

First, of course: get a ride.  Call a friend, take a cab, walk, whatever you have to do.  If you are out driving after midnight, the police are just itching for you to give them a reason to pull you over.  They are thinking DWI the whole time and are ready and willing to arrest you.  Lots of people think that “I just live one block over” is going to set them free.  It’s not.  Cops get brownie points for making arrests, including of people like you.

If you have been drinking any quantity of alcohol, the first thing you need to remember is that you can say “No”.  Not just to the breath test, but to ALL tests.  When the cop asks you to follow the tip of his pen with your eyes and your eyes only, say, “With all due respect, officer, I am not going to participate in any of your tests.”  He will ask why and attempt to convince you that it’s only a formality, but you should remain firm.  He will ask you to walk a straight line and balance on one foot.  Politely refuse.  After he has asked you a half-dozen times and you have consistently refused, he will probably get mad.  You can’t help that.  He will say he is going to arrest  you anyway.  Let him.  Be polite and cooperative.  Yes, you may spend the night in jail, but your defense attorney will kiss you when he sees the video.  But be forewarned.  Refusing the breath or blood test will result in a drivers license suspension of 6 months if you have no priors and up to 2 years if you do have priors.  You have to weigh the consequences.   Take the 6-month suspension to deny the state the evidence they want, or give in and risk being successfully prosecuted.  If you are suspended, you can apply for an occupational drivers license.  I can do this for you.

The field sobriety tests, as these tests are called, were designed by cops and for cops.  They are designed to make you look bad so that the cop can justify his arrest.  They have no connection to driving whatsoever.  Balancing on one leg requires balancing skills that never come into play as you are seated in your car.  And it’s the cop who gets to “interpret” the result in order to make the arrest.  These tests are unfair and biased.

Strangely enough, the only test that is offered which is even remotely scientific is the breath test (or blood test).  The cop cannot skew the results of these tests in his favor.   Of course, if you have just refused all of the roadside tests because you have consumed more than a minimal amount of alcohol, you should refuse this test too.

On the other hand, if you have not been drinking or have, honest to Pete, only had one beer, then take all the tests, including the breath test.  The cops will hand you your keys and tell you to have a safe drive home.   Women who weigh at or under 100 pounds need to be even more careful.  They sometimes can be over the limit with one or two drinks.

If you find yourself in trouble for drinking and driving, I’m an experienced, qualified Criminal Defense Attorney who has been practicing Criminal Defense since 1993.  I’ve had my office in Williamson County since 2000.

I have represented hundreds of Driving While Intoxicated cases in my career and I will thoroughly defend you against these charges.  I hope you will call or text me at 512-218-7999, or go to my web site www.davehowardlaw.com to contact me.

The above is presented for informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice.  Each case is different and an attorney can explain the law to you and assist in defending you based on the particular facts of your case.