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.

Raleigh Traffic Law | The 'Flashing Light' warning

So, I recently got to read an article about a Missouri Driver who was cited for flashing his headlight to warn oncoming of a speed trap down the road.  As is a common practice among motorist, this driver observed a Police Officer on the side of the road checking people's speed with a radar gun.  The Driver decided to flash his headlights to oncoming traffic so they would be aware of the Police Officer and ideally would slow down (which is what the police want in the first place, right?).  The same police officer ended up pulling this driver over and ticketed him under some obscure local law dealing with flashing lights on certain vehicles.

As is completely and totally appropriate, the Driver has filed suit against the city for violating his free speech rights.  As his attorney explained in the article, his conduct of flashing his lights would be no different then stopping into a truck stop and mentioning it to other drivers.  The Government is EXTREMELY limited in it's ability to infringe on an individuals' free speech.  From the perspective of this Wake County Traffic Attorney, flashing his lights was a form of communication that the State has no justifiable reason to try and deter. 

Apparently, this was not the first time an individual was ticketed for flashing his lights.  There was a driver in Florida who filed suit in to 2011 for the same reason.  Apparently, that case was dropped after that police force issued an order requiring their officers to not issue tickets for someone flashing their lights.

Certainly, it can be frustrating for the Police Officers, when they are attempting to conduct traffic safety patrols and their efforts are thwarted by the public communicating with each other; here's the problem with that position.  1. The Police have A LOT of advantages in their efforts of citing and apprehending individuals for traffic and/or criminal matters.  The sheer wealth of knowledge they have with regards to investigating and the requirements to meet standards of proof put the general public at an extreme disadvantage, let alone all of the technology, research, etc. they have at their disposal.  2. A driver flashing their lights hopefully has the effect of causing drivers to slow down, and isn't that really the reason for the police presence on the road in the first place (at least, one of the reasons).  Unless, of course, it could be to issue tickets and generate revenue, but certainly that's not the case.

Honestly, all joking aside, this action by the police is disturbing.  There was no good reason for the police officer to pull this driver over and issue a ticket.  Their conduct, in no way, jeopardized other drivers, and did no violate any laws.  The only logical conclusion was to punish this driver, and deter others from the same conduct. 

If you are in need of a Wake County Traffic Attorney, the Matheson Law Office would be happy to discuss your case with you and provide you with a Free Consultation.  Contact us at 919-335-5291 and we'll go over your case with you.

Raleigh DWI Defense Attorney | Limited Driving Privilege Article on WRAL News

So, today's blog is going to be more of a vent fest then informative due to my frustration over a recent article on WRAL News.  The article in question, which can be found here, is suppose to be an investigatory piece on people who are operating a vehicle under a Limited Driving Privilege who may or may not be adhering to the restrictions placed on these Privileges. 

Now, as a Wake County DUI Attorney, I have drafted hundreds of these privileges and explained them to my clients so that they understand the restrictions they must adhere to.  Where a problem may arise is the section which permits driving from 6:00 am until 8:00 pm for 'work, school, or household needs.'  This is a a bit of a subjective concept as what constitutes 'household needs' can differ.  In all honesty, I do not believe that most police officers expect these drivers to not drive for anything but work, school and maintaining a house.  Even if they did, could getting gas for your car constitute maintaining a house?  What about going to the post office?  Restaurant?  etc.  I would like to believe that so long as they aren't driving after hours or on the weekend when they aren't suppose to, that the police would give them a break.  That being said, I'm certain there are some police officers out there that would cite someone for going out, during the week, within the hours, for some reason that the officer does not believe qualifies under the Privilege.  So, it comes as no surprise to me that the WRAL article found that of the 216 people charged with violating the privilege last year, 142 of those cases were dismissed.  I would assume that in those instances a DA looked at the facts and decided that it didn't rise to the level of criminal and/or that a trial would be a waste of taxpayer money trying to prove that the Driver wasn't operating within the Privilege.

Now, that being said, those that are caught driving after hours, or weekends for reasons other then permitted is a different story.  Driving is only permitted during those days and times by written approval of the Judge for work or school needs, community service or to attend their Substance Abuse Assessment treatment as was court ordered.  I tell my clients that they better being coming to or from these locations otherwise they may get cited.

Anyways, back to the venting, what I first found frustrating was the way this article portrayed these individuals as flaunting their DWI judgment.  A DWI conviction is a serious matter from a serious mistake.  I will never make light of the act of Driving While Impaired, but North Carolina is already one of the more strict states when it comes to sentencing a DWI and they continue to push to make it harder.  The sentence a driver receives, even on a low BAC, first time offense is extremely serious and can be the same as someone with priors and a high BAC depending on circumstances.  Among the many things that comes with a conviction is a one year suspension of driving privileges.  In this day and age, the idea of not being able to drive for a year is a hard pill to swallow.  Fortunately North Carolina allows drivers to receive a Limited Driving Privilege under very specific circumstances, most important of which is to not have any alcohol in their system while operating a vehicle.  By limiting when these individuals can drive, the punishment continues without completely upending their lives completely.  The fact that these drivers are attempting to continue their lives, after being convicted of a DWI, within the presumed guidelines set out on the Privileges is not something that should be portrayed as snubbing their nose at their judgment.

However, my biggest issue with this piece was the fact that the reporter reached out to Mothers Against Drunk Driving for a quote.  In this quote, it was suggested by M.A.D.D. that, in order to try and prevent these types of 'violations' Drivers should have an 'ignition device' installed on their vehicle which controls when the vehicle can be driven.  Unfortunately, the only 'ignition device' this Raleigh DUI Defense Lawyer is aware of is an 'Interlock Device'.  The Interlock Device prohibits a driver from starting and/or operating their car should they have any alcohol on their breath.  Here's the problem, no where in the WRAL article was it alleged that these various examples they provided of individuals driving on their privilege where after having consumed alcohol.  No where did it say these investigative reporters saw an individual come out of a bar after having a drink then drive on their Privilege.  How in the world would installing an Interlock Device help prevent people from driving, STONE SOBER, outside the prescribed limits of their Privilege. 

No, what was suggested was to further punish those that are convicted of a DWI, utilizing a method that in no way addresses the issue at hand.  The reality is, if a Driver is convicted of a DWI in North Carolina, and it's proven they had a BAC of .15 or above, they'll have to get the Interlock Device regardless.  So, how does requiring a person who blew a .08 (or .07 or .06 - read this for further info) but was otherwise driving safely and did not demonstrate substantial impairment benefit from a device that won't let them drive after having taken cough medicine?

If you are facing a DWI in Wake County, please contact the Matheson Law Office for your free consultation at 919-335-5291.  We are happy to go over your case with you and discuss what options you have available.

Raleigh DWI Attorney | Cost of a DWI in North Carolina

So, recently I was having a discussion with my legal assistant about how much a DWI will cost a Driver and how I believe if more people realized the cost and hassle that comes from them, less people would be willing to risk catching one of these charges.

First, let me be very clear, as a Raleigh DUI Attorney, the more serious ramifications from driving while impaired are very well known to me.  The injuries, death, and property damage that can come from an auto accident is very serious and the likelihood of said accident is compounded when introducing alcohol.  That being said, most people do not think they will get in an accident ever, so arguing that point may not be as persuasive as what it will mean to their checkbook.  So, with that cleared up, let's discuss what can be expected if you are charged and convicted of a DWI.

So, for starters, if charged with a DWI, the headaches come fast and severe.  Even in a best case scenario, a Driver can expect they will lose their license for 30 days just for having been CHARGED with a DWI.  Now, most driver's are eligible to get a Limited Driving Privilege after 10 days, but that is still 10 days of not driving just for being charged.  Additionally, the Limited Driving Privilege requires the Driver to get a Substance Abuse Assessment ($100.00), a certified copy of their driving record ($11.00)  and the Privilege itself costs $100.00.  After 30 days, the Driver can get their license back, but that also costs $100.00.  So, just for starters, at a minimum, a DWI Charge will cost at least $100.00 to get back their license, and potentially another $111.00 for the ability to drive 19 of the 30 days of suspension period.

Now, setting aside the cost of a defense attorney (this particular Raleigh DWI Attorney charges $1,500 for representation of a DWI Charge) let's discuss the absolute best outcome a driver could expect if they were convicted of the DWI (this is working on the assumption they don't fight the charge, in which case, they will definitely want a DWI attorney in their corner).  The best possible outcome for a DWI charge in Wake County, and I would assume anywhere else in the other 99 counties of North Carolina, is a Level 5.  While a friends, brothers, former boss may have a story about having it reduced to Careless and Reckless, those days have passed.  Additionally, North Carolina does not offer a 'First-Offender' DWI or a 'Low Blood/Alcohol Concentration' DWI, all DWI's are subject to the same sentencing structure whether it's your first or fifth or you have a BAC of .08 or .28. 

So, a Level 5 DWI carried with a fine of up to $200.00 and normally 24 hours of community service of 24 hours in jail (the Judge can elect to give you more community service or jail, but not less).  Most people elect the community service as they don't want to spend the night in jail, however the community service program costs $250.00.  With the addition of court costs and various other fines and fees that come with a DWI conviction, a Driver can expect to pay approximately $650.00-$750.00 for a Level 5 Judgment with community service. 

In addition to the costs associated with the conviction, there are other costs that come from a DWI Sentence.  First, if not already completed, the Driver will be required to complete a Substance Abuse Assessment ($100.00) and follow any recommended treatment.  If you have already done the Assessment before for the Limited Driving Privilege, then you will not have to do it again so long as you started treatment within 6 months of the Assessment.   The minimum recommended treatment is the Alcohol and Drug Education Traffic School ($160.00) but more intensive treatment may be recommended and cost will go up accordingly.  Also with a DWI conviction, the Driver will have their license suspended for 1 year.  During that period, the Driver may be eligible for a Limited Driving Privilege, with the same requirements as mentioned before, including the $100.00 cost to the court.  Lastly, a DWI conviction in North Carolina allows insurance providers to increase premiums as much as 400% for the following three years.  Therefore, an individual that pays $400.00/year can expect to pay $1,600.00 a year for the next three years (or the additional total cost of $3,600.00 over that three years).

It is also worth mentioning that for individuals with a BAC of .15 or above there are added burdens and costs that I won't get into now.

So, needless to say, even without the cost of hiring a Wake County DWI Attorney or DWI Attorney in your area, you can expect an exuberant amount of costs as a result of a DWI charge and conviction.

If you are need of legal representation in Wake county for traffic or criminal charges, please feel free to contact my office for a free consultation at 919-335-5291.   

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.

Dangerous Conduct in the DUI News World

Though this didn't take place in North Carolina, and therefore does not involve a North Carolina DWI Charge, I find the following article 'blog-worthy.' The following article: DWI/DUI involves grandparents in Florida who decided, after knocking back a few, to tow their 7 year old behind their SUV, up and down an access road, in a hot wheels. The Driver was the young child's grandfather, and though the article did not mention what his blood/alcohol concentration was, it did indicate that this was his FOURTH DWI CHARGE! I have had clients before who have had previous been charged with North Carolina Driving While Intoxicated and it was not their first charge, but I have yet to have someone on their Fourth North Carolina DUI Charge. The grandmother in this case was seated in the cargo area of the vehicle with the hatch up, cheering on her young granddaughter as she was pulled behind the vehicle in a toy car. The grandmother was also impaired during this event (ideally, one would hope a sober person would not think a drunk driver pulling a child in a toy car behind a real car up and down the road was a good idea). The article mentions that the grandfather has been charged with Driving under the Influence, driving with a suspended license (similar to North Carolina Driving While License Revoked) and cruelty to a child. The Grandmother also faces cruelty to a child charge. From a Raleigh DWI Lawyers standpoint, I obviously do not condone this conduct. Driving While Impaired North Carolina is a serious charge and can be risky to yourself and those with you and/or around you. That being said, the DWI laws in North Carolina have become so strict that individuals who arguably were driving without signs of impairment (certainly less then those that insist on texting while driving or putting on make up as they drive) are catching serious charges with serious sentences. However, in this instance, I'm certain the grandfather will face very serious consequences for his actions. Not being familiar with Florida law, I can't say for sure, but certainly here in North Carolina he would be facing a jail sentence. It is never advisable to Driving Under the Influence North Carolina, but if you do, contact a local DWI attorney to best advice you on how to proceed. 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 Court | Missing Your Court Date

Recently, I was in a North Carolina District Court where I was having a discussion with a Judge regarding those Defendant's who have missed their court dates. As one of the Raleigh DWI Attorneys and Raleigh Criminal Lawyers, I handle this type of matter more then I would like. You see, when a Defendant misses their court date, a North Carolina Criminal Defense">North Carolina Failure to Appear will be marked on the 'shuck' (the envelope which contains the Defendant's paperwork) which carries with a $200 fine. After a few weeks, for most matters (the exceptions being minor traffic matters) an 'Order for Arrest' will be issued at which point the police can arrest the Defendant and bring them before a Magistrate where a bond may be set, which would have to be paid before the Defendant could get out of jail. Additionally, the court will notify the DMV of the Failure to Appear, and after notice is sent out to the Defendant, their license will eventually be revoked. Unfortunately, for clients of mine who have been charged with North Carolina Driving While License Revoked, it was a result of a missed court date and they were unaware that their license had been revoked. If they are convicted of the Driving While License Revoked, their license will be suspended for one-year. So, something as minor as a seatbelt ticket can result in court costs and fines from that ticket, costs and fines from the new Driving While License Revoked ticket, $200 FTA fee, and potentially having your license suspended for a year. As you can see, the judicial system takes very seriously a Defendant's court date. They take it seriously because it would be too detrimental to do otherwise. If they didn't take a hard line requiring the Defendant's attendance, then some individuals would abuse the system. That being said, I feel there could be more consideration taken to those who honestly couldn't make it to court. Though a Raleigh Traffic Ticket, Raleigh DWI Charge or Raleigh Criminal Charges are very serious, it is likely not the only thing in the Defendant's life for which requires their attendance. I believe the court tries to strike a balance by considering Motions for a new court date, but the court seems less receptive to most explanation short of a medical and/or family emergency. "But, what if I can't make it that day?" Well, in many cases, the court doesn't really care. If there are legitimate emergencies which prevent a Defendant from coming to court, then the court may continue the matter, but only with the representation of an Attorney to stand in for the Defendant. Additionally, if a Defendant does miss a court date, they have the option of filing a motion for a new court date, at which point, the Judge may or may not grant that motion. If not granted, the Defendant is left with little option but to turn themselves in. This can be a very serious matter and therefore a Defendant should do everything they can do appear in court and if not, speak with the Raleigh Criminal Defense Lawyers who represents them BEFORE THEIR COURT DATE! 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.