Raleigh Traffic Law | New News on Red Light Cameras

So, of interest to myself, the remainder of the Raleigh Criminal Defense community, and hopefully the general public is the news that the town of Cary has decided to remove their Red Light Cameras. For those who don't know, Red Light Cameras are cameras set up at certain intersections which are suppose to document driver's running a red light. These cameras are operated by a third party who issues tickets for the city costing the driver $50 for this infraction. There are several issues I have with the Cameras. As a Raleigh Traffic Lawyer (which is addition to being a Raleigh DWI Attorney and criminal attorney) I've become fairly familiar with these systems. In addition, while in law School and had an entire class that was devoted to me writing and advocating the a North Carolina State Supreme Court Justice a case regarding these programs. That class explored the case of Shavitz v. High Point where the plaintiff had received a red light camera ticket. He filed suit on several grounds but was ultimately successful in District Court (and was upheld in Appellate Court) by arguing that the N.C. State Constitution requires the 'clear proceeds' from these tickets is required to go to local public schools. The court determined 'clear proceeds' is everything but nominal costs associated with processing these tickets. It DID NOT include the over 70% the third party companies hired to install and enforce these programs retained from each $50 ticket. For that reason, High Point, along with other municipalities elected to end their programs. In fact, only Raleigh, Cary, Knightdale and Wilmington retained their programs, which was (arguably) permissible due to new legislation. Certainly the fact that these third parties were keeping so much money, with so little going to area public schools is disturbing. Another issue I (along with most other Raleigh Criminal Defense Attorneys) have an issue with is the fact that there is no Police oversight to these programs. The Camera catches the image and a ticket comes in the mail. The problem with this is the fact that we each enjoy a 6th Amendment Constitutional right to confront our accuser; in this case the camera. It's kind of hard to question the camera on the accuracy of it's data, or whether anything else could have impacted the results that were not the Defendant's driving. Now, there are those who would say that since the picture captures the offense, there's no need for Police oversight. But, recently it was determined that there were over 30 cases of individuals who were issued these tickets when making a legal left-hand turn at a blinking yellow light. If, instead of a camera, a Police Officer was stationed at the intersection to try and catch the same offense, he/she would have known that the Driver was not running a red light and would not have issued the ticket. Hence, the need for police oversight in these programs. Finally, I feel having a third party company issuing citations to enforce state/city law is unethical. A part of the job of local government is the enforcement of the laws. Those who are commissioned to enforce them have been trained and are held to certain standards that is necessary when dealing with accusing someone of violating a crime. Having a third party issuing these tickets, who are not government officials, and who have a financial incentive in the issuing of these tickets, is unethical. Hopefully the remaining three cities in our great State of North Carolina will follow suit and end their programs as well. Until then, should you get one of these tickets, or any other Raleigh Traffic Ticket, Raleigh DWI Charge, or Raleigh Criminal Charge, contact the Matheson Law Office today for your free consultation.

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 DWI Defense | License Restriction

In the world of Raleigh DWI Defense the span of consequences is long and exhausting. Many realize that being convicted of a Raleigh DWI Charge will result in loss of license, an increase in insurance premiums and plenty of costs and fines. Some even know that there are consequences with even being CHARGED with a DWI, including loss of license for 30 days and a $100 civil revocation fee, even if you are not convicted. What some do not realize are the after affects of a North Carolina DWI Conviction which are less heard of. For starters, anyone with a blood/alcohol concentration of .15 or above will have the added requirement of having an Interlock device installed on their vehicle for one year at the point that they start driving after being convicted of a North Carolina Driving While Intoxicated charge. This device cost approximately $100 to install, and $60/month maintenance; all costs that are the burden of the Defendant. In addition to this requirement, where those with a blood/alcohol concentration below .15 (or who were convicted under the Appreciable Impairment portion of the statute) can receive a Limited Driving Privilege the same day as their conviction, those with a .15 BAC will have to wait 45 days before they can receive it AND have completed their Substance Abuse Assessment as well as all recommended treatment and show proof of the Interlock installation. Another thing to consider is any license restrictions which will be applied to the Defendant's driver's license once they get it back. A five-year restriction of DWI Convictions whereby the Defendant cannot be found driving with a blood/alcohol concentration of .04 or more. Though one would think after having been previously convicted of Driving Under the Influence in North Carolina, most would avoid drinking and driving anything, many people believe they are probably safe to drive after only one drink. In reality, depending on the individual, one drink can lead to a blow of .04. Recently, I was successful in getting an acquittal for a client charged with violating their license restriction. My client refused to provide a breath sample and the State elected not to obtain a blood sample. Since the State had no scientific evidence as to what, exactly my client's Blood/Alcohol Concentration was, I argued that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that my client's BAC was at .04 or above. Lastly, and most importantly, in North Carolina, you DO NOT want to get a second DWI after having previously been convicted. If the prior DWI conviction was within the preceding 7 years prior to the new DWI, that is a Grossly Aggravating Factor. One North Carolina Grossly Aggravating Factor will result in a minimum mandatory jail sentence of 7 days. Obviously, there are other consequences, namely the fact that the conviction will show up on the Defendant's record. Obviously, it is recommended to never get charged with a DWI in North Carolina, but if you have been, seek legal counsel immediately. If you received a DWI, or any other Traffic or Criminal citation in the Research Triangle Area, contact the Matheson Law Office, Pllc for assistance.

Why I Love Being a Criminal Defense Attorney

I have a confession to make, I enjoy the practice of Criminal Defense. As a Raleigh Criminal Lawyer and Durham Criminal Lawyer in North Carolina, I represent those charged with a crime, whether it's North Carolina Traffic Cases, North Carolina DWI Defense, North Carolina Misdemeanor cases or North Carolina Felony cases. As per the explanation I have heard from many people, I defend the 'scum of the earth.' Since deciding this was my area of practice as an attorney, I have heard from friends, family and even total strangers that my chosen profession is 'wrong,' 'despicable,' I've even been told what I do is "what's wrong with America." I try to have a legitimate discussion with these individuals to explain my decision to practice criminal defense. Sometimes, these discussion go well, other times they do not. In either case, publishing an article which conveys the rational of this Criminal Defense Attorney might provide some insight to those who otherwise do not understand, and certainly do not approve of, defending the accused.

I have known that I wanted to be a Criminal Defense Attorney ever since I took criminal law and evidence in law school. However, I didn't know why this profession was so important until I studied Constitutional Law. It is the Constitution which provides every one of us the freedoms which we enjoy today. Most people take these freedoms for granted, mainly due to the fact that they are not faced with a situation where these rights would protect them. Nevertheless, these rights remain available should they be needed. Examples of these rights include the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and due process, the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

These Constitutional Rights were designed, and are upheld, in an attempt to ensure that innocent people are not convicted as a result of forced confessions, lack of legal representation or lack of due process. And though our system is imperfect, in that innocent people are still convicted, these Constitutional Rights are the best balance of providing protections to those accused while at the same time not overly limiting the Government's attempt to identify, arrest and ultimately prosecute those who are criminally responsible.

The beauty of these rights and how they are applied today is that not only are they the result of the brilliant minds of our forefathers who draft the Constitution, but they are applied as a result of centuries of caselaw precedent. What this means is, since their inception these rights have been argued in countless trials where a ruling was made as to exactly how they should be applied given certain facts. These rulings have been evaluated by higher appellate courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States. That means that an unimaginable number of legal scholars, from Defense Attorneys and government Prosecutors to Judges throughout the court system have come together to make a determination in exactly how they should be applied. And though occasionally precedents are overturned when given new facts, that should only provide greater comfort in knowing that, though not common, they can be overturned if circumstances have been changed since the precedent was set. As an example, think of how the internet has changed countless laws with regards to copyright, defamation, libel, Fifth Amendment, harassment, etc.

I mention these rights as they are what a Defense Attorney is truly defending. In my numerous discussions with those that have a problem with Criminal Defense, the other party normally falls into one of two categories: 1. they feel too many rights are given in our system and Criminal Defendants should have less protection or 2. they feel the rights are adequate and should be upheld, unless the Criminal Defendant is 'obviously guilty.'

As for the first category, these people normally hold this perception because they believe they would never face criminal prosecution and therefore the limitation of these rights would never apply to them. However, too many times innocent people are suspected of crimes and without these rights in place, they could face prosecution and ultimately conviction without these safeguards in place. A simple matter of 'wrong place, wrong time' can result in an innocent person being accused of crime. And as careful and lawful as one can attempt to live their life, there is ALWAYS the chance of a mistake identification or chance encounter which can turn a person's life upside down. As example, would you really feel comfortable if an Officer had the right to stop you on the highway solely because you look suspicious, search your car because he/she feels like it, and arrest you without first having established Probable Cause?

As for the second category, this idea of different standards for different people is a narrow, and more importantly incorrect view. These Constitutional Rights work only if EVERYONE is afforded the same protection. These rights are given to us by the Judicial Branch and limit the function of the Executive and Legislative Branches of our government in their handling of Americans. If the Government could all-of-a-sudden make their own determination of what rights are given to what Defendants, than the power of determining what limitations could potentially prohibit the prosecution of the Defendant is given to the same government entity who's job it is to prosecute the Defendant. In other words, the Prosecutors would be permitted to determine what Rights, and more specifically what potential problems with their case there are and whether they would permit the Defendant to utilize them. Though most people cannot imagine themselves in a place where they could potentially face criminal prosecution, in the oft chance that you are, would you really like that kind of power to be held by those entrusted with your prosecution?

As mentioned before, everyone sharing the exact same rights as everyone else is the only truly fair way to ensure our system is operating as effectively as possible. Do guilty Criminal Defendants get off as a result of these Constitutional Rights? Absolutely. But the second that our system overlooks a misstep by the Government (whether in the Police's attempt to gather evidence or with the Prosecutor's handling of the case) in order to convict an 'obvious' guilty Defendant, than forever will the same opportunity to 'overlook' these mistakes be available to those who are not so obviously guilty.

Though this discussion has many more facets and areas which can be debated, this was simply a taste of what justification I have, to do what I do with my head held high.