• Do we really believe in the presumption of innocence?  When we drive down the street and see a citizen pulled over by a police car, don’t we say to ourselves "I wonder what he did?"  Are we not prone to presume someone guilty before innocent?  In many of my cases, it feels like the case begins with the presumption of guilt.  The officer presumes guilt.  The judge makes rulings that presume guilt.  It seems natural to presume guilt.  Here is a story about one of my many clients that was presumed guilty by everyone except him and his lawyer.  After a long hard fought battle, it was finally recognized that this man was not under the influence of any drugs or alcohol.  It was finally determined that this man was having a panic attack and could not think straight.  The attack had such an effect on him that physically he may have seemed impaired to an officer that presumed his guilt.  Well, I’ll tell you the end of the story before you here the story.  The DUI was dismissed shortly before trial.  The man pled guilty to a much lesser charge of Driving Recklessly, which probably was the correct charge in the first place.

    DUI hard to swallow
    Wednesday, January 10, 2007

    By Jesse Fruhwirth
    Standard-Examiner Davis Bureau

    CLEARFIELD — Nearly half of all Americans take some form of prescription medication, and patients endanger themselves and others when they get behind the wheel while impaired, state officials say.

    Ignoring the prescription warning labels of possible drowsiness can mean a charge of driving under the influence of drugs, regardless of whether a patient is using the drug legally and with a prescription.

    Walter Wintle, bureau chief at the Driver’s License Division, said even use of over-the-counter drugs can and should be charged as a DUI if the drug impairs an individual’s ability to drive.

    "Medications are a real problem in connection with driving," he said. "A lot of people are under the misunderstanding that if they have a prescription, they are allowed to legally drive while using the drug, (but) the law doesn’t differentiate whether it’s an illegal drug or a prescription drug."

    The problem is, said Utah Highway Patrol Trooper Preston Raban, most drivers do not realize the severity of the crime they are committing.

    "I have a lot of people who are using their drugs almost as prescribed. The problem is, they don’t read the thing that says they should not operate a vehicle," Raban said. "They don’t realize they just skipped two lanes down the road."

    Proving impairment because of legal drug use, however, is not as easy as proving a driver is over the legal limit for alcohol consumption.

    Of the roughly 14,000 DUI arrests made by UHP in 2006, 297 involved either legal or illegal drugs, Raban said. The state does not track how many individuals are suspected of DUI for legal drug use.

    Jeff Cusick of Clearfield said he has been charged twice for driving under the influence of prescription drugs, most recently on July 27. He said he does not believe the drugs impaired his driving.

    Cusick, 54, takes medication to treat an anxiety disorder. Occasionally, he has anxiety attacks similar to seizures.

    With his recent arrest, he was pulled over for driving through an intersection too slowly. Cusick admits he was slurring his speech and performed horribly on field sobriety tests.

    He passed the Breathalyzer test with no alcohol indicated. His blood test came back positive for Xanax, an anti-anxiety medication with warning labels that say users may become drowsy or less alert.

    Cusick said he appeared unable to drive because getting pulled over prompted an anxiety attack.

    "I was coherent enough to get home, but as soon as he stopped me, there went my heart rate back up," he said, "and everything else."

    Davis County Attorney Troy Rawlings was one of the attorneys who filed charges against Cusick last summer in the Clinton city court. He said the field sobriety tests showed characteristics of drug impairment.

    "The prosecution will argue that anxiety doesn’t cause your eyes to drag like that," Rawlings said.

    Whether Cusick’s physical symptoms — slurred speech, lack of balance and slow eye movements — were caused by anxiety or Xanax will be for a jury to decide later this month.

    In 2005, Cusick was arrested and charged with DUI under similar circumstances. His no-contest plea was resolved with a plea in abeyance negotiation. The DUI charge was dismissed with good behavior.

    Cusick’s attorney, Glen Neeley, said what appeared to be the effects of a prescription drug was really the symptom of a panic attack. If drugs weren’t impairing Cusick, then Cusick shouldn’t be charged with DUI, he argues.

    "They can try to charge him with reckless driving. … If he’s going out of his lane, they can charge him with illegal lane-change violation … but a DUI has such a consequence, it’s worse than a felony," Neeley said.

    Drivers who take prescription drugs that may cause drowsiness or those who have health conditions — epilepsy and diabetes, for example — that may impair their ability to drive are required to report that information to the Driver’s License Division.

    Wintle — who has not been involved in Cusick’s case — said applicants who disclose their health conditions are subject to more red tape. The problem is that relying on self-disclosure from drivers leaves room for dishonest answers, he said, which can lead to licensed dangerous drivers.

    In 2005, 2,781 Utah drivers were reviewed for health conditions or prescription drug use. Most of those were self-disclosed, Wintle said, but some may have been referred by doctors.

    Utah law protects doctors and other health-care professionals from reprisal if they choose to disclose their patient’s health information because they believe it may affect their ability to drive. They are not required to do so, however.

    That should change, Wintle said.

    "When a medicine that may affect driving ability is prescribed, the medical side should be required to bring that information to us," he said.

    Michael Severance, a physician’s assistant at the South Ogden Center for Family Medicine, said he agrees that many drivers may not disclose health conditions or use of prescription drugs that may impair their driving.

    However, he said, mandatory reporting may cause patients to not seek treatment if they believe it would put their driving privileges in jeopardy.

    He said he has never disclosed his patients’ health information to the Driver’s License Division, but has taken different action when he knows a patient is about to drive unsafely.

    "I did call the police when a patient tried to leave here. They were supposed to wait for a ride. We’ve done that a couple of times," Severance said.

    Not all drugs affect everyone the same way, he said. Drowsiness is a possible side effect for lots of drugs, but many drivers will not be impaired by a medication that impairs somebody else.

  • In Utah, a citizen can be charged with DUI without being impaired and without being over a .08 blood/breath alcohol level. It’s called driving with any measurable amount of a controlled substance in the body. In fact, the controlled substance does not even have to be found in your body, it can be a metabolite of the controlled substance. A metabolite is defined many ways but basically means the “end product, or by-product of another compound.” A metabolite can hang around in your system for days or even weeks after consumption.  It is the remnant of a drug and the affects are not necessarily impairing.  It just says you consumed drugs at some time, not that you are on drugs right now.  For more information on drug abuse visit http://drugabuse.net.

    Prescriptions:  Here’s the problem. Many people get a headache and ask someone for a pill to help it out. Your friend gives you something stronger than your ibuprofen. The friend offers you something that she got with her last prescription. You can now be charged with DUI because you have a controlled substance in your body and you don’t have a prescription for it. It is a defense that the controlled substance was: (a) involuntarily ingested by the accused; (b) prescribed by a practitioner for use by the accused; or (c) otherwise legally ingested. See Utah Code Ann. 41-6a-517.  Therefore, if you do not have a prescription for whatever is in your body, you can be charged with a DUI.  Do not misunderstand me.  Even though you have a legal prescription, you still can be charged with DUI if the effects of the prescription are impairing you to the degree that you cannot drive safely.

    Illegal Drugs:  Another problem is that my clients come in and say “I haven’t smoked pot for weeks, how can they charge me with DUI. I wasn’t impaired in any way.” This is where the metabolite comes in. If the remnants of the drug stay in your body and the police find it through a blood or urine test, you can be charged with DUI.

    Legal Over-the-Counter Drugs:  Many people think that because they took a legal over-the-counter drug, they will not be charged with DUI.  Many clients tell the officer that they just took some cough syrup as an excuse for their drowsy driving.  Understand, if there is any drug, legal or non-legal, that is impairing you, you can be charged with DUI.  I have defended my share of NyQuil and Robitussin DUIs.

  • I was stopped by an attorney the other day that told me the Department of Public Safety (DMV) took action on his client’s driver’s license when he plead guilty to an Alcohol Related Reckless (ARR) Driving charge. This perplexed me because I watched the laws closely this last legislative session and did not see any law like this go into effect. So, I decided to research it and called a Hearing Officer and then the Bureau Chief for clarification. They told me they are not taking action on an ARR outright. However, just as it always has been, if a person has two reckless driving citations in one year (weather alcohol related or not) there will be a suspension.  If the person has too many points (ARR will give 80 points) on their driving record, that can cause a suspension.  Also, if a person pleads to an Alcohol Related Reckless and had a prior per se suspension within ten years, the Department will require an ignition interlock device pursuant to 41-6a-518.2.

    The high cost of going to an alcohol rehab center is an unexpected nightmare for parents who discover their son or daughter is an alcoholic that badly needs treatment.

    Here is where some confusion comes in. Pursuant to the new law that was effective in April 2007, the division will allow a reinstatement of the driver’s license after 60 days if the charge is reduced or dismissed. The statute is Utah Code §53-3-223(7)(b).

    (b) (i) Notwithstanding the provisions in Subsection (7)(a)(i), the division shall reinstate a person’s license prior to completion of the 90 day suspension period imposed under Subsection (7)(a)(i) if the person’s charge for a violation of Section 41-6a-502 or 41-6a-517 is reduced or dismissed prior to completion of the suspension period.
         (ii) The division shall immediately reinstate a person’s license upon receiving written verification of the person’s dismissal of a charge for a violation of Section 41-6a-502 or 41-6a-517.
         (iii) The division shall reinstate a person’s license no sooner than 60 days beginning on the 30th day after the date of arrest upon receiving written verification of the person’s reduction of a charge for a violation of Section 41-6a-502 or 41-6a-517.

       
                So the scenario is that you lose the driver’s license administrative hearing.  If you were to walk in and plead guilty to an Alcohol Related Reckless Driving charge, you would then be eligible to take written verification to the DMV and get reinstated after 60 days.  Of course the DMV still wants their reinstatement fee.

                If the scenario is that that you win the driver’s license administrative hearing and you plead to an Alcohol Related Reckless Driving, my understanding is that the only action on a driver’s license would be a “no alcohol restricted license.”  There would be no suspension.

     

  • After the informal administrative driver’s license hearing is held and the DMV mails out notice that the citizen’s driver’s license will be suspended, there are a couple of procedures that need to be followed in appealing the DMV’s decision. The following is an outline of the process and procedures that I follow to file an appeal. I appeal most of my driver’s license decisions and seem to be successful at most of them.

    1. File a letter with the DMV requesting reconsideration of the decision. Many times I do this the day the hearing is held. The DMV decisions have become such a rubber stamp and most decision are held against the citizen. The request of reconsideration letter will do no good and a form letter will come back from the DMV indicating “after careful consideration, the Department upholds the decision of the hearing officer.” However, this is an important step to take away the Attorney General’s argument that all administrative procedures and remedies have not been exhausted.
    2. File a Petition for Judicial Review of Suspension of Driver’s License and follow the guidelines Utah Code Ann. §63-46b-15.  Include procedural due process claims and allege that the Department is not following the Administrative Procedures Act as you see fit.

    (2) (a) The petition for judicial review of informal adjudicative proceedings shall be a complaint governed by the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure and shall include:      

          (i) the name and mailing address of the party seeking judicial review;

          (ii) the name and mailing address of the respondent agency;

          (iii) the title and date of the final agency action to be reviewed, together with a copy, summary, or brief description of the agency action;

          (iv) identification of the persons who were parties in the informal adjudicative proceedings that led to the agency action;

          (v) a copy of the written agency order from the informal proceeding;

          (vi) facts demonstrating that the party seeking judicial review is entitled to obtain judicial review;

          (vii) a request for relief, specifying the type and extent of relief requested; and

         (viii) a statement of the reasons why the petitioner is entitled to

    3.      The Filing Fee is $155.

    4.      Prepare a Motion for an Expedited Hearing. I allege the facts that my client will lose their job, the issue will be moot if not heard before 90 days, that the DMV did not follow their own rules in conducting a hearing that is supposed to substantially comply with fairness and due process, and I allege that my client will most likely prevail on the issues.

    5.      Send a form letter requesting the DMV to stay the suspension during the appeal period. You will get a form letter back saying “sorry, no dice.” However, the Attorney General cannot say that you did not exhaust all of your remedies.

    6.      Sometime you can contact the Attorney General and ask for a stay, but the current AG has stopped giving those out freely. However, if the AG requests a continuance, request a stay of the suspension and the AG will usually agree to it.

    7.      Prepare a Summons for the AG and an Acceptance of Service.

    8.      This appeal has to be filed within 30 days of the Department’s decision pursuant to rule 53-3-223(8)(b).

    9.      Once the appeal is filed, get on the phone with the clerk within a couple of days to get an expedited hearing scheduled. I have had good success with this in Weber, Davis, Box Elder, and Cache Counties. I have not had real good success with scheduling an expedited hearing in Salt Lake County because of the backlog of cases.

    10. The Venue is in the District Court County where the offense occurred. See Rule 53-3-224.

    11. The trial will be held by de novo review pursuant to rule 63-46b-15(1)(a).

    If the citizen refused to blow and has an 18 month suspension, the AG has somewhat of a consistent practice of reducing the 18 month suspension to a 90 day suspension if the citizen will walk in and plead guilty to the DUI. However, if it is determined that this is the best route for the citizen, get the arrangement in writing from the AG.

    I have had a lot of success in appealing my cases to the District Court where an attorney is allowed to cross examine the officer, present a full case, and is allowed to have all the evidence including the supplemental reports and videos. 

  • When a person is convicted of a DUI, generally, a Court will sentence a person.  The Court will address punishments, conditions of probation, and treatments.  For example, for a first time offense, a person normally and generally receives as sentence a fine of $1332, a Prime for Life alcohol treatment program, 48 hours community service or 2 days jail, and probation for 1 year.

    There are some things that the Court does not advise the person and many people get surprised later on down the road.

    No Concealed Weapons Permit

    First, a person convicted of a DUI or an Alcohol Related Reckless is not aloud to have a concealed weapons permit.  In fact, a person convicted of any crime involving alcohol is not aloud to have a concealed weapons permit.  Utah Code Ann. Section 53-5-704 denies a person a concealed weapons permit if a person does not have a "good moral character."  That statute states as follows:

    a) An applicant satisfactorily demonstrates good character if the applicant:
    (i) has not been convicted of a felony;
    (ii) has not been convicted of a crime of violence;
    (iii) has not been convicted of an offense involving the use of alcohol;
    (iv) has not been convicted of an offense involving the unlawful use of narcotics or other controlled substances;
    (v) has not been convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude;
    (vi) has not been convicted of an offense involving domestic violence;
    (vii) has not been adjudicated by a state or federal court as mentally incompetent, unless the adjudication has been withdrawn or reversed; and
    (viii) is qualified to purchase and possess a firearm pursuant to Section 76-10-503 and federal law.

    No Entrance into Canada

    Second, the Court does not tell you that your travel will be restricted.  Canada will not allow a person that has been convicted of anything that would be a felony in Canada.  A DUI is a felony in Canada.  Lawrence Taylor wrote about this issue involving President George W. Bush.  The Immigration Act lists ways around this but expect a big hassle.

    No Expungement for 10 Years

    Third, normally a class B misdemeanor is expungeable after 3 years.  A qualified felony is expungeable after 7 years.  A class B DUI or Alcohol Related offense is not expungeable for 10 years.  The Courts will tell a person that the charge is enhanceable for 10 years, but seldom tell the person it is not expungeable for 10 years.  The Bureau of Criminal Identification gives the criteria.  Don’t be surprised if the statute is soon changed that the charge will never be expungeable.  Under the expungement statute, a DUI is worse than being a drug dealer!

    Restricted Driver’s License

    Finally, the Court does not tell the person any consequences with the person’s driver’s license.  A person convicted of DUI or Alcohol Related Reckless will have a Driver’s License (when it is returned after a suspension) that is restricted to driving without any alcohol in the person’s system.  Many people say no problem, I’m never going to drink again.  I’m saying, do not have mouth wash, cough syrup, or alcohol based breath sprays.  If an officer thinks he smells alcohol, plan on another class B misdemeanor and more consequences to your license.

  • Lawrence Taylor out in California wrote an article about how Field Sobriety Tests are designed to make you fail.  I could not agree more.  For example, the other day I was doing a trial down in Salt Lake City on a DUI.  During the break, before I was going to begin to cross examine the officer, I looked out in the hall and noticed that the officer was performing and practicing the Nine Step walk and Turn Test.  When she took the stand, I asked her:

        Q:  I noticed you were out there practicing the nine-step walk and turn test.
        A:  Yes, I was afraid that you were going to ask me to perform the tests for the jury, I was nervous.
        Q:  Did you allow my client to practice this test?
        A:  No, if he practices, he might be able to pass.
        Q:  Do you think he was nervous standing out on the street as people drove by yelling and with an officer standing there waiting to take him to jail?
        A:  Probably.

    These tests are designed to make even an innocent person fail.  The tests are purely subjective.  The officer gives the citizen over thirteen detailed and very specific instructions to follow for the nine-step walk and turn test.  You are nervous, adrenalin is pumping through you just from the mere fact you were pulled over, and the officer wants you to walk on a tight rope.  Below is a video of a class room setting of how the Walk and Turn Test is conducted.  This is by no means how things work in the field.  Nothing is taken into consideration except alcohol.  If the person stumbles, the person may be tired, wearing thongs, or just plain uncoordinated.  If the person cannot remember even one of the thirteen instructions, the officer will consider him drunk.  The officer never tells the person the grading criteria.  If a person is truly drunk, it should be from obvious and specific clues, not small details that the person raised his arms more than 6 inches from his body or missed heel to toe by 1/2 an inch.  Notice in the video at least three clues of impairment that Utah officer’s would note as clues of impairment.  Watch for the gentlemen stepping to the side of the line (or off line), notice that his right hand comes away from his side, and notice the sway while he was standing in the instruction stage.  That is merely my opinion.  The officers can form that exact same opinion from these minor clues.  It happens all the time.

  • Many people come into my office and tell me about their field sobriety tests.  Often they say, "I know I passed the eye test, I did everything I was supposed to do on that test."  A person may have followed all of the instructions, but that is not the main purpose of the test.  The officer is looking for something that people don’t even know they have.   This is called Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN).  It is a central nervous system disorder that can be caused by alcohol or other central nervous system depressants.  Some points to remember about HGN:

    • HGN is an involuntary twitching of your eyeballs.
    • You do not know that your eyeballs are twitching and it does not cause your vision to be hindered.
    • You cannot practice this field sobriety test because it is involuntary movements of the eyeball.
    • HGN will only indicate to an officer that there is alcohol in your system, it will not tell an officer the level of your blood/breath alcohol 


  • Jamie Spencer from Austin Texas wrote about ALR hearings and discussed the issue of whether your attorney should do the hearing live in person or by telephone. For a Utah DUI driver’s license suspension hearing, we have the option of showing up in person or by telephone. However, the Utah Driver’s License Division has recently negated in Utah all of the valid reasons that Jamie mentions for a Texas ALR hearing. Jamie’s main point is that this is a wonderful opportunity to cross examine the officer and to get him on record. Beginning May 2007, the Utah Driver’s License Division has interpreted the DUI Driver’s License Hearing as being an informal hearing, which does not allow a person to cross examine anyone. The outline of the hearing has now turned to the following:

    • The Hearing Officer asks if all parties are present.
    • The Hearing Officer reads a brief statutory statement stating the rules of the hearing, the consequences, and the reason for the hearing.
    • The Hearing Officer will ask the arresting officer to tell his story. It is one sided and nobody can or will contest the officer’s version of the facts of a person’s arrest.
    • Then, the only way to rebut the officer’s testimony is to have the arrested person testify.
    • After the person testifies, the Hearing Officer will allow closing comments from the arrested person or his attorney. 
    • The hearing closes with the Hearing officer telling the person a decision will be mailed out within just a couple of weeks.

    The arresting officer is permitted to phone in his testimony. There is no cross examination. Believe it or not, I have won several of these hearing and they were done by telephone. If I lose these hearings, and I see problems with the Officer’s case, I will file an appeal to the District Court. I totally agree with Jamie’s article on ALR hearings because he has the right to cross examine the witness. In Utah’s jurisdiction, the right does not exist. That’s bad. We get a whole new trial on appeal with the District Court. That’s good. I encourage the attorney’s to use the appellate process. My success rate goes way up when I file an appeal on the DUI Driver’s License Hearing.