North Carolina DWI Law | Bumcombe County DWI Repeat Offender

So recently, I read an article about a driver in Buncombe County who was recently convicted of his 17th DWI and was sentenced to 7 years in prison.  Now, while many of you may expect it, this Raleigh DWI Attorney is not coming to the defense of the repeat offender and the harsh sentence he has received.  Given the number of times he has been convicted, I honestly don't believe 7 years is necessarily inappropriate. 

What bothered me more about this article was the quote from the District Attorney for that county, Ron Moore.  He stated "In North Carolina for a first offense you don't serve a minute in jail.  You generally get a 60-day suspended sentence.  You can get a limited driving privilege, and you have to do 24 hours of community service.  There is not a lot of deterrent value.  If you had to spend a week in jail, then maybe it would deter you from that behavior." 

This idea that North Carolina is somehow 'light' on DWI charges is ridiculous.  North Carolina has very serious sentences for DWI convictions, including first offenders.  Where before in North Carolina, as well as presently in other states, certain first offenders may be eligible for a reduction to a 'Careless and Reckless' charge, or to participate in some type of 'First-Offenders DWI' Program where the charges would be reduced upon successful completion.  But not in present day North Carolina.  No, if you are charged with a DWI, it has been the experience of this Wake County DUI Attorney that there are no opportunities for a reduction of the charge.  In fact, your only chance of avoiding a DWI conviction is by winning at trial. 

Also, the statements by District Attorney Moore over simplifies the reality of a DWI conviction.  First, he is describing a Level 5 Sentence, which is the lowest possible sentence a Driver can receive for a DWI conviction in North Carolina.  Depending on Aggravating and Grossly Aggravating Factors, a Driver can face a much more serious sentence then just 24 hours of community service.  Even at a Level 5, a Defendant can expect to pay between $500-$700 in court costs and fines at the time of conviction, which does not include the 400% increase to the insurance premium for the next three years and any costs you incurred immediately after the arrest, including the cost of hiring an attorney.  Additionally, all DWI convictions in North Carolina carry with it mandatory Substance Abuse Assessment and follow up treatment so Driver's are learning the risks of substance abuse. 

In addition, a Limited Driving Privilege is no small slap on the wrist.  The driver is limited to driving Monday - Friday from 6:00 am to 8:00 PM for 'work, school or household needs.'  Now, there is some debate about what constitutes 'household needs' but some Police Officers may feel that a Driver out during those times, who isn't specifically driving for the benefit of his or her household is in violation of the privilege, which could lead to a revocation.  Additionally, should a driver have a blood/alcohol concentration of .15 or above in North Carolina, they will not be eligible for a Limited Driving Privilege for the first 45 days after being convicted and are required to have an Interlock Device installed on the vehicle for one year, all at the cost to the Defendant.  Imagine your life if you were not able to drive for a week, let alone a month and a half?!

Now, I'm sure some people think that I am minimizing the risks of Driving While Impaired, I can assure you I am not.  Driving drunk is risky and endangers the lives of the Driver, their passengers, as well as the public in general.  However, DWI's have gotten so built up that we are sentencing people for the damage they could have done, not what they actually did!

Rest assured, if a Drunk Driver causes a wreck, it will be factored into their sentencing so they can receive a harsher sentence then if they hadn't gotten in a wreck.  Caused serious bodily injury?  That's a Grossly Aggravating Factor and would be a minimum, mandatory 7 days in jail.  Prior DWI in the last 7 years?  Same thing.  Passenger in the vehicle under the age of 18?  Level 1, minimum, mandatory 30 days in jail!  That means if you are a first time offender, with a BAC of .08 and a 17 year old in the car (think about high schoolers coming home from a party or prom) and they are convicted, 30 days in jail. 

It's craziness to me that DWI's are treated this way.  The fact that the Defendant is participating in a risky activity results in a sentence that would appear to address the potential  harm, instead of the actual harm caused.  Let's think of this in another way.  North Carolina has passed laws against texting while driving.  Some cities have even passed laws against using phones all together.  There are those who believe that the use of a cell phone while driving is as dangerous as driving while impaired.  Certainly there are plenty of stories out there about people who have been injured or killed because of someone texting or driving.  Should we treat those who were caught texting and driving as harshly as those who have killed while texting and driving?  Of course not, the punishment wouldn't fit the crime.

Here's another way to think of this.  I have a client who was associated with a fight in school.  One of the young boys broke the eye socket of another boy during the fight.  That young boy was charged with Assault and Battery.  Having never been in trouble before, will have his case dismissed after he participated in a First Offender's program, which includes community service and classes.  There will be no monetary costs that he will incur from the criminal charge.  However, most of my clients are first offenders, and many of those are low BAC DWI's who did not injure anyone at all and will have their life seriously disrupted, incur thousands of dollars in costs (once you add up court costs, legal fees, and insurance costs) and have their ability to drive restricted for the next year.  How is this fair?  If we take the DWI sentencing logic and apply it the fight, the boy should face a sentence that reflects the injury he could have cause as a result of the fight.  The boy could have suffered brain injury or even death, so let's treat this case the same as if it did occur?

Okay, I think I have been up on my Soapbox long enough.  Let me say again, I don't advocate Driving While Impaired or even think that people shouldn't face some of the consequences, but for a District Attorney to suggest that every single first-time offender of a Class 1 Misdemeanor should face a mandatory 7 day jail sentence is ludicrous.  I think common sense needs to prevail and be applied to these cases.  As it were, due to special interest groups (M.A.D.D. I'm looking at you), there is little chance that will ever happen.

Wake County Criminal Defense | DNA Swabs of Arrestees

Well, it happened.  The Supreme Court has ruled in the case of Maryland V. King where an individual was arrested for an assault charge when his DNA was taken from a swab of his mouth and was used to convict him of an unresolved rape case.  While convicting a rapist is certainly good for the public, the broader issue of personal security and Constitutional rights against unreasonable searches leaves this Raleigh DWI Attorney with a heavy heart.

The issue at hand in this case was whether the swabbing of the mouth of an arrestee could be taken without first establishing probable cause to procure this evidence through a 'search.'  Now, the State argued that this did not constitute a 'search' in the Constitutional sense but rather that it was more of a booking process like finger printing and photos being taken of arrestees.  However, booking procedures are used to ensure identity of the individual they have in front of them.  If the person arrested gave a false name at the time of the arrest, the Officers can cross reference the name with a DMV photo and physical description and the finger prints can be verified against any prior finger prints taken from the arrestee and/or the person who's name was given.  DNA evidence, on the contrary is very limited in it's ability to verify the identify of the arrestee in that there is no running database of individuals DNA make up in addition to the fact that the testing is expensive makes this argument flawed.

However, regardless of where you may fall on the State's argument, the intrusion involved in this case cannot be understated.  The Constitution provides all people in America the protection from unreasonable searches and seizures.  For various levels of actions performed by the State, they must meet a 'standard of proof' which will justify an action that would otherwise be deemed unconstitutional.  Many people are aware of 'reasonable suspicion' and 'probable cause.'  These two standards of proof dictate when a police officer can stop an individual and when they can search that individual, their car, home, etc.  These standards of proof are in place to try and prohibit the State from acting without restriction in their pursuit of criminals.  We, as the general public, should not live in fear that we will be stopped for no good reason or searched just because.  If the State is unable to prove they had reasonable suspicion to stop or probable cause to search, then any evidence acquired as a result of these stops and/or searches is deemed inadmissible.  The routine swabbing of an individuals mouth to collect their DNA information of an ARRESTEE is unconstitutional and performed without probable cause.

In our great nation, an individual arrested for a crime enjoys the right of being held innocent until proven guilty.  The sheer fact that an individual has been arrested does not, in any way, imply they are guilty of the crime as far as our justice system is concerned.  Unfortunately, in our society, the perception is to the contrary and people assume those arrested are in fact guilty, otherwise why were they arrested in the first place.  However, after handling hundreds of cases as a Raleigh Criminal Defense Lawyer, I can tell you that innocent people do, in fact, get arrested.

Individuals who are arrested, innocent or not, enjoy the same protection.  That protection includes the right which prohibits the State from performing a search without first determining there was probable cause to search.  The probable cause must be that it is more probable then not that the individual being searched or the items searched for, are related to the crime for which the individual is being charged or location being searched.  A routine swab of arrestees mouths is not with probable cause as the State, in most cases, will struggle in proving that the evidence of the individuals DNA makeup would futher assist them in their prosecution of the individual.

I'm certain that many proponents for this DNA swabbing are excited about the prospect of all the cold cases that may be solved as a result of this not, Supreme Court sanction actions.  However, convictions of crimes alone are not enough to justify the State exceeding their reach over our Constitutional Rights.  As Justice Scalia pointed out during arguments, a whole plethora of cases could be solved if we set aside standards of proof and allowed the State to proceed without limitations in their detaining and searching of individuals, but that end does not justify the mean.

As a Wake County DWI Attorney and Criminal Attorney, it has been my pleasure to serve as the defense attorney for individuals facing charges in the Raleigh Courthouse.  If you are in need of a criminal attorney, contact my office for a free consultation at 919-335-5291.  

Raleigh DWI Stops | Understanding the Checkpoints

So, today's Raleigh DWI Attorney Blog will discuss some aspects of the checkpoint and in what ways can they be challenged. Many people understand that, unfortunately, the Police have the ability to set up checkpoints. What many do not realize is the limited scope for which they can setup the checkpoint. As a Raleigh DUI Lawyer and Raleigh Traffic Lawyer, I have explored the various aspects of a check point and in what ways they can be challenged. This article will hopefully shed some light on this practice of law enforcement. First, in North Carolina certain case law has outlined the requirements of what constitutes a permissible North Carolina DWI Checkpoint. Under N.C. v. Rose, the courts found the Police in that particular case had improperly set up the checkpoint and therefore sent the case back to the lower courts to rule in accordance to their finding. Specifically, the court held that the Police did not set up the checkpoint for a specific reason, but rather set up it for 'general crime prevention.' This was in accordance with City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, where the U.S. Supreme Court held that for checkpoints to be Constitutional, the State must prove the primary purpose of the checkpoint was not for general crime prevention. From there, if the court finds the State proved the primary purpose of the DUI checkpoint was not for general crime prevention, then the court must determine the reasonableness of the checkpoint by applying the 'Lidster Analysis' which examines 1. The seriousness of the public concerns attended to by the seizure, 2. The degree to which the seizure assisted the public interest and 3. the gravity of the interference with individual liberty. The Police will normally set out a 'plan' which will outline the reason for the checkpoint and the means by which they conduct the checkpoint. In this plan, which must be authorized by some type of supervisor, there must be a set parameter by which the vehicles are stopped to ensure that no individuals are 'targeted.' Additionally, no one Police Officer may have authority to control or dictate the process by which the stops occur during the checkpoint. These restrictions are meant to ensure that the scope of these type of stops are very limited and very controlled. Remember, in America, we enjoy the right to Unlawful Search and Seizure, which normally requires a finding of Reasonable Suspicion to validate the temporary seizure. These checkpoints are a limited exception to this rule and therefore are strictly construed to very specific purposes. If you have received a North Carolina DUI Charge as a result of a Raleigh DUI Checkpoint or checkpoint anywhere else here in North Carolina, speak with a local DWI Attorney about your case. Disclaimer - Information and advice offered in this article is for informational and educational purposes only and is specific to North Carolina law. The viewing, receipt and/or exchange of information from this article does not constitute an Attorney-Client Relationship. For assistance regarding your particular legal question speak with an Attorney practicing in the field from which your questions derives.

Raleigh Criminal Defense | Difference Between 'What is Right' and 'What is Legal'

In my experience with North Carolina Criminal Defense I have the opportunity to meet with people from all walks of life and see cases that range from common to the very strange. One of the experiences I deal with often is trying to explain to someone how it is their conduct was considered to be in violation of some North Carolina Traffic Law or Criminal Law. While some people hope to just offer an explanation which could help them possibly avoid the conviction, some people are convinced that they should not be convicted because they were justified in their actions. In my talks with various DWI Defense Lawyers Raleigh and http://mathesonlawoffice.com/north-carolina-criminal-defense/, it would seem my experience is not unique (not that I necessarily expected it to be). It seems that, regardless of the laws, some people just believe their conduct should have been excused simply because they feel they were right in their actions. Now, let me distinguish this from situations where the Defendant has a valid defense. Where the law, whether by statute or case law, states that the Defendant has an applicable defense, then those Defendants are correct in their assertion that they conduct was excusable. However, for others, there is not valid defense for their action, or at least not one that they fall squarely within. Because, regardless of the Defendant's 'good intentions' or lack of knowledge, the court usually does not make exceptions to violations of the law. Perhaps some examples in this discussion would help clarify what I mean. An associate of mine is representing an individual who is facing a Raleigh DWI Charge. The Defendant in this case was one of two passengers in a vehicle. Though he was intoxicated, he was not driving. However, at some point, the driver of the vehicle stopped the car in the middle of the road and walked away. With approaching traffic, the Defendant hopped in the Driver's seat and pulled the vehicle over to the shoulder. Unfortunately for the Defendant, the approaching traffic was a Police Officer, who eventually cited him for violating North Carolina Driving While Intoxicated Law. There is a defense called "Necessity" whereby, if the Defendant can prove to the court that his actions, though unlawful, were necessary to preserve the health and/or life of themselves or another from immediate danger, they may have their violation of the law excused. In the contrary, I was fortunate to observe a speeding ticket trial where the Defendant was 'pro se' (meaning he was representing himself). In this case, among many other things, one of the things the Defendant was arguing to the Judge was that his speeding was excusable under the concept of Necessity. Though the Defendant was very passionate about the necessity for his speeding (I want to say it was 50+ in a 25 MPH zone) his argument was not very convincing. You see, his 'necessity' was that he needed to get to a doctor's office where a family member was being seen for a broken bone and there was a rambunctious 2 year old family member who was hard to control in the waiting room. This, the Judge determined, did not rise to the level required for a necessity defense. And it's not just 'Necessity' which some people argue. The most common one I hear is for those cases where I serve as their Raleigh DUI Lawyer. The Defendant was okay to drive, though their blood/alcohol level was a .08 or above: unfortunately, the law does not make a distinction between the two. In fact, in North Carolina, .08 is written right into the North Carolina DUI Statute, stating that a .08 blood/alcohol concentration is prima facia evidence of violating the NC DWI Law. So, even if the DWI Defendant was driving perfectly, never showing any signs of impaired driving, but happen upon a DWI Checkpoint and the Police Officer's decide the driver is potential impaired and therefore have them blow or give blood, they can be convicted, regardless of how well they were able to drive. I guess I am saying all of this to say that, though you may have the best intentions, you may not be able to avoid a conviction if your conduct was unlawful, so tread carefully. If you are facing traffic, dwi or criminal charges in North Carolina, contact a local attorney for best advice on your case (if it's in the Research Triangle Area, contact the Matheson Law Office). Disclaimer - Information and advice offered in this article is for informational and educational purposes only and is specific to North Carolina law. The viewing, receipt and/or exchange of information from this article does not constitute an Attorney-Client Relationship. For assistance regarding your particular legal question speak with an Attorney practicing in the field from which your questions derives.

North Carolina DWI Law | Finding the Right Lawyer

So, today in the world of this Raleigh DWI Attorney I witnessed something that had my interest. I watched as an attorney plead out a dwi charge for their client who had a prior DWI charge. Now, fortunately, for this North Carolina DUI Charge, the Defendant's Prior NC DUI Conviction was more then 7 years ago and therefore was not a Grossly Aggravating Factor, only an Aggravating Factor (side note: I find it silly that the legislation couldn't come up with different names for these two things so they aren't so close that they cause confusion to many clients as I try to explain the difference between them). However, this Defendant's license was revoked at the time of the current NC DWI and therefore had at least one Grossly Aggravating Factor. Now, aside from the fact that I thought the Defense Attorney could have argued better for sentencing, it wasn't what I found so interesting about this plea deal. What was interesting about this case was the fact that the Defendant was reported to the Police by an anonymous tip AND that the Defendant had refused to provide a breath sample to the Police Officer when they caught up with her. Now, let me preface what I am about to say, I do not know all the facts about this case. There may have been a very good reason to plea this case out; the Police Officer may have gotten reasonable suspicion before he stopped her, they may have drew blood, they may have other evidence that I am not privy to, or the Defendant may have just wanted to plea the case out and get it over with (almost had a client facing similar sentencing do this exact thing). But, given that the Defendant was facing a minimum jail sentence (they were actually sentenced above the minimum to 120 days active jail sentence) I find it difficult to understand why a trial was not had? First, for anonymous tips, there's extra steps the State must go through in order to justify the stop based on it, and even then there are certain challenges that can be made to try and prevent the testimony of what the tip was, which could prevent the State from entering any evidence as a result of the tip and possibly beating the case. Additionally, a case where the Defendant has refused to below is a very triable case. Understand, 'very triable' and 'very winnable' are two completely different things. But, at least with a refusal, the State has to either: 1. prove appreciable impairment, which is a subjective concept that a Raleigh Defense Attorney could cast doubt on or 2. it's a blood draw, in which case the Defense attorney could try and keep it out unless the State presents evidence of chain of custody as well as the presence of the person who drew the blood. Again, I say, I do not know all of the facts of the case, so I am not trying to be too critical of this particular case. But I am extremely curious as to why this was plead out and not tried. In my talks with other attorneys (given, only a handful when considering the large volume of attorneys doing Raleigh DWI Defense and Durham DWI Defense) it seems that many attorneys are quick to plea and avoid trial because they don't feel that there's much chance of winning. And while that is true (they can be hard to beat) there is little to no consequence to the Defendant if they decide on a trial and it is their only chance of beating the NC Driving While Intoxicated charge. I guess what I am trying to say is, when speaking with the Attorney you may potentially hire in this case, be sure you inquire as to whether they are prepared to try the case or are they just interested in a quick turn-around where they just plea out the case. Disclaimer - Information and advice offered in this article is for informational and educational purposes only and is specific to North Carolina law. The viewing, receipt and/or exchange of information from this article does not constitute an Attorney-Client Relationship. For assistance regarding your particular legal question speak with an Attorney practicing in the field from which your questions derives.

Raleigh DWI Trial | Why Not Go To Trial?

Recently, I was having lunch with another North Carolina DWI Attorney. Included in this Attorney's practice is Raleigh/Durham DWI Defense. I was explaining to him a case I had coming up the following day. As we went over the facts, I explained to him that I intended to call this matter for trial. He reiterated to me the facts of the case I had just explained and asked me what there was to have a trial on. I explained to him my strategy for trial and that was the end of the conversation. As it turned out, neither of us were proven correct as I didn't get to trial. Rather, the Prosecutor was forced to dismiss my client's North Carolina DWI Charge due to the fact that the Police Officer was in training the day of trial and would not be able to make it. Now, when this normally happens, the State would just ask for a continuance, the Judge would grant it, and the State would get another opportunity to get their Police Officer in for this Durham DWI Trial. In this particular case, I had already called it for trial before and at that time, the Officer wasn't available, so the State was forced to continue it, and the Judge explained that it would not be continued again. Fast-Forward to the new court date, Officer isn't available, and the Judge denied State's motion. Though the State has the option of re-charging my client (which I find totally unconstitutional, but unfortunately, presently acceptable due to case law) my client and me are hoping that this will be the end of the ordeal. I write about this today because it struck me as odd that my friend would think it shouldn't be tried. First, I felt that my arguments I planned to make in my Pre-trial motions to suppress had a decent change of being persuasive, in which case, had the Judge granted my Motion to Suppress, the case would have had to been dismissed or the motion appealed (the latter being the more common practice in this particular county). But, more importantly, I feel like most DWI charges should be taken to trial. I believe there are many reasons for this, but most importantly is, the trial is the unknown; you never know what will happen. You may have a good idea as to what will happen, but can't be sure. But, you may ask, what about pleading them out instead of trial? Well, funny you should (rhetorically) ask. In the counties that I practice (Wake, Durham and Harnett) as I assume in all other North Carolina Counties, the Prosecutor will not plead out a North Carolina DWI Charge to something other then a DWI charge. They will almost always dismiss the other associated charges (like if they originally pulled you for speeding) but not the DWI. So, a Defendant's only hope of avoiding the DWI charge is trial. In my conversations with other Raleigh DWI Attorneys, I am starting to get the impression that my theory is more in the minority then the majority. If true, I find this very upsetting. I charge a middle-of-the-road rate for representing someone facing a North Carolina DWI Charge. My fee is, what I believe to be, a fair representation of the time and effort I put into a case (well, technically, I think I should earn more, but the market being what it is, I do have to be competitive). Every client I get who is facing a North Carolina DWI Charge I spend a good amount of time investigating their case in order to determine whether their are any try-able facts. Even if there is nothing to hang a Defense on, my recommendation is almost always trial, just to see what happens. The North Carolina DWI Sentence the DWI Defendant faces is the same whether they plead guilty or are found guilty. So, unless there are other charges which could be dismissed that the Defendant wants to avoid, the best bet is almost always trial. Which brings me back to my conversation with the other Durham DWI Lawyer. Granted, my client had indication of impairment at the time of the arrest (though not enough, in my assessment) and he blew above the limit. For all intents and purposes, my client was likely guilty of Driving While Impaired. However, I felt there were problems with the stop and the arrest (see my blog post about defending these types of Constitutional issues and why it is important) and decided to have a trial. For my efforts, my client has avoided a DWI conviction (though not without punishment, when you consider multiple trips to court - time and money, my cost, losing his driving privilege for 30 days, $100 for the implied consent offense fee, and he completed a Substance Abuse Assessment in anticipation of a conviction). I guess my point is, this is an instance where due diligence and an eye on trial paid off for my client and should be the practice of all Raleigh DWI Attorneys.

North Carolina Criminal Law | YOUR Court Date!

Back again to posting about my experience as a Raleigh DWI Lawyer and Raleigh Criminal Attorney. Today I found myself in a familiar, if not uncomfortable position. I was in court this A.M. for a court-appointed client. I waited one and a half hours for him to arrive, which he never did. I made a motion to continue the case, however the Judge denied my motion and issued an Order for Arrest. The Judge may have been willing to grant my motion had my client gotten in touch with me before his court date to let me know WHY he was unable to attend today. As it was, I had to admit to the Judge that I have had no contact with this client and could offer no explanation for his absence. To add insult to injury (which I obviously didn't share with the Judge) this client was over an hour late to his previous court date.

I realize coming to court is a big inconvenience. It's schedule during the week, when most people are working. To take time out of your work/life and come sit in a boring courtroom is nobody's idea of fun. But, regardless of how inconvenient it may be, it is still a REQUIREMENT that you attend. This is your court date, and your appearance is mandatory for most North Carolina Criminal Charges.

If, for some reason, you are unable to attend, it is imperative that you contact your Attorney BEFORE your court date so they may have a chance of getting the case continued without you present. Otherwise, you need to be seated in court, on time.

Something to consider, other then having an Order for Arrest being issued against you, is what your Failure to Appear in court can mean for your case. Your Shuck (the envelope which contains all the paperwork about your case) will be marked that you missed your court date. This is something that District Attorneys AND Judge's look at. They pay particular attention to it when being asked for a lenient plea or sentence for that individual's case. The court's position is, everyone else who is required to be there for your case was present, so why weren't you?

So, as a recommendation, do not miss your court date, and if you have something come up, contact your Raleigh DUI Attorney or Raleigh Criminal Attorney as soon as possible!