3 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 740a

Save this PDF as:
 WORD  PNG  TXT  JPG

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "3 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 740a"

Transcription

1 3 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 740a Criminal law -- Driving under influence -- Evidence -- Breath test results -- Claim that Florida Department of Law Enforcement procedures for validating reliability of breath testing machines are scientifically inadequate and unreliable is without merit -- Uncontroverted testimony established that procedures detailed by FDLE rules are stringently followed by FDLE, local breath test maintenance technicians, and breath test technicians who administer breath tests on daily basis -- Intoxilyzer 5000 series breath testing machine used by sheriff's office was approved machine, and results obtained from use of machine are approved for the purpose of determining alcoholic content -- Defendants who refused to submit to breath test may not seek to exclude evidence of their refusal on basis that the refused test lacked accuracy or precision STATE OF FLORIDA v. STEVEN REESE PHILLIPS, and ALFRED E. FONG, LAWRENCE J. FLYNN, ERIC E. FORD, JOHN K. WOOD, DARWIN T. WARREN, SANJIV G. HINGORANI, DARRYL WILLIAM ZWAK, BARBARA B. ZALA, MORRIS J. FONTE, JR., CATHLEEN M. ZUKOSKI, ROBERT J. HICKS, CATHY B. HALL, ELAINE F. FERNANDEZ, and KENNETH G. HOWLE, III. County Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County. Criminal Justice Division. Case Nos X, X, X; M, X, X, X; Q, X; Q, X; /90-P, X, X, X, X, X; Q, X, and X. April 1, Gregory P. Holder, Judge. Counsel: Barry K. Taracks and N. Christian Brown, for Defendant. ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS THIS CAUSE having come to be heard on the Defendants' 1 Motions to Suppress (the ``Motion''). This Court having reviewed the court file, heard argument of counsel, as well as having reviewed the research materials provided by counsel for the State as well as the Defendant, finds as follows: On May 13, 1994, Defendant, Steven R. Phillips, was stopped by law enforcement officers, for erratic driving. After subsequent investigation and arrest, the Defendant submitted to a breathalcohol analysis, conducted by the Central Breath Testing Unit of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office (``HCSO''). Based upon the results of this testing, the Defendant was charged with DUI in violation of , Florida Statutes (1993). The Defendant has stipulated within the Motion that the maintenance and verification of the Intoxilyzer 5000 breath testing machine, if conducted, was conducted in accordance with F.A.C. Chapter 11D-8. In his Motion to Suppress, the Defendant contends that the breath-testing protocol utilized by HCSO is unreliable, in that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (``FDLE'') procedures for validating reliability are scientifically inadequate and unreliable. Rule Fla.R.Cr.P. provides for only two types of Motions to Suppress: (1) Motion to Suppress Evidence in Unlawful Search [Rule 3.190(h) Fl.R.Cr.P.]; and, (2) Motion to Suppress a

2 Confession or Admission Illegally Obtained [Rule 3.190(i) Fla.R.Cr.P.]. Since the Defendant has failed to allege or present evidence to support such a Motion, this Court will treat the Defendant's Motion as a Motion in Limine. STATUTORY PROVISION, ADMINISTRATIVE RULES AND AGENCY PROCEDURES 2 Pursuant to (1)(b)(2), Florida Statutes (1993), FDLE is charged with the responsibility for promulgating rules governing breath testing in the State of Florida (1)(a), Florida Statutes (1993) provides in relevant part: Any person who accepts the privilege extended by the laws of this state of operating a motor vehicle within this state shall by so operating such vehicle, be deemed to have given consent to submit to an approved chemical test or physical test including but not limited to an infrared light test of his breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his blood or breath, and to a urine test for the purpose of detecting the presence of chemical substances as set forth in s or controlled substances, if he is lawfully arrested for any offense allegedly committed while the person was driving or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages, chemical substances, or controlled substances. Moreover, (1)(b)(2), Florida Statutes (1993) provides: An analysis of a person's breath, in order to be considered valid under this section, must have been performed substantially according to methods approved by the Department of Law Enforcement. For this purpose, the department is authorized to approve satisfactory techniques or methods. Any insubstantial differences between approved techniques and actual testing procedures in any individual case does not render the test or test results invalid. [emphasis added]. Further, (1)(f)(1), Florida Statutes (1993) provides in pertinent part: The tests determining the weight of alcohol in the defendant's blood or breath shall be administered at the request of a law enforcement officer substantially in accordance with the rules and regulations that have been adopted by the Department of Law Enforcement. Such rules and regulations shall be adopted after public hearing, shall specify precisely the test or tests that are approved by the Department of Law Enforcement for reliability of result and facility of administration, which shall be followed in all such tests given under this section. [emphasis added]. After the breath test results are obtained, (2), Florida Statutes (1993), provides in relevant part: Upon the trial of any civil or criminal action or proceeding arising out of acts alleged to have been committed by any person while driving, or in actual physical control of, a vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages or controlled substances, when affected the extent that his normal faculties were impaired or to the extent that he was deprived of full possession of his

3 normal faculties, the results of any test administered in accordance with s or s and this section shall be admissible into evidence when otherwise admissible,.... S (3) provides as follows: A chemical analysis of a person's blood to determine alcoholic content or a chemical or physical test of a person's breath, in order to be considered valid under this section, must have been performed substantially in accordance with methods approved by the Department of Law Enforcement and by an individual possessing a valid permit issued by the department for this purpose. Any insubstantial differences between approved techniques and actual testing procedures or any insubstantial defects concerning the permit issued by the department, in any individual case do not render the test or test results invalid. The Department of Law Enforcement may approve satisfactory techniques or methods, ascertain the qualifications and competence of individuals to conduct such analyses, and issue permits that are subject to termination or revocation in accordance with rules adopted by the department. [emphasis added]. Under the provisions of Chapter 316, Florida Statutes (1993), FDLE promulgated Florida Administrative Code (``F.A.C.'') Chapter 11D-8, Implied Consent Program (the ``Rule''). The Rule was effective October 31, This Court has taken judicial notice of the Rule for the purposes of this Motion. Under the provisions of F.A.C. Rule 11D-8.002(6), all breath test instruments utilized in Florida must be approved by FDLE. According to F.A.C. Rule 11D (2), the C.M.I., Inc. Intoxilyzer 5000 Series breath test instrument is an approved breath test instrument for evidential use. Moreover, under the provisions of F.A.C. Rule 11D-8.003(7): When conducting an evaluation for approval of breath test instruments in accordance with this rule, the Department shall make the following checks for accuracy, precision, and alcohol-free reading in accordance with the Department and Agency Inspection Procedures FDLE/ICP Form October, (a) Accuracy -- Simulator tests will be completed for each test instrument using vapor mixtures containing alcohol at concentrations of g/210l, g/210l, g/210l and g/210l. A minimum of 50 tests will be completed at each concentration. 1. The average error at each concentration is calculated for each test instrument. The average error is calculated by first calculating the average of the 50 measurements at each concentration. The difference between the average value at each concentration and the true value at each concentration is then calculated. This calculated difference is the average error. 2. The accuracy standard for each test instrument shall measure the alcohol content of vapor mixtures with an average error of no more than ± 5% or ±.005 g/210l, whichever is greater. (b) 1. Precision -- Using the same 50 tests completed for subsection (7)(a), the standard deviation at each concentration is calculated for each test instrument. The average standard deviation of the four concentrations is then calculated.

4 2. The precision standard for each test instrument shall measure the alcohol content of vapor mixtures with an average standard deviation of no more than g/210l. (c) Alcohol-Free Solution -- Simulator tests will be completed for each test instrument using an alcohol-free vapor mixture. A minimum of 25 tests will be completed. The alcohol-free solution standard for each test instrument requires that no reading be more than g/210l. F.A.C. Rule 11D requires that all breath test instruments, prior to being placed into evidentiary use, be inspected for accuracy, precision, and alcohol-free reading in accordance with the Department and Agency Inspection Procedures FDLE/ICP Form October, F.A.C. Rule 11D states in pertinent part: (1) Accuracy -- Simulator tests will be completed for each test instrument using vapor mixtures containing alcohol at concentrations of g/210l, g/210l, and g/210l. A minimum of 10 tests will be completed at each concentration. (a) The average error at each concentration is calculated for each test instrument. The average error is calculated by first calculating the average of the 10 measurements at each concentration. The difference between the average value at each concentration and the true value at each concentration is then calculated. This calculated difference is the average error. The accuracy standard for the instrument shall measure the alcohol content of vapor mixtures with an average error of no more than ± 5% or ±.005 g/210l, whichever is greater. (2)(a) Precision -- Using the same 10 tests completed for subsection (1)(a), the standard deviation at each concentration is calculated for the instrument. The average standard deviation of the three concentrations is then calculated. (b) The precision standard for the instrument shall measure the alcohol content of vapor mixtures with an average standard deviation of no more than g/210l. (3) Alcohol-Free Solution -- Simulator tests will be completed for each test instrument using an alcohol-free vapor mixture. A minimum of 10 tests will be completed. The alcohol-free solution standard for each test instrument requires that no reading be more than g/210l. F.A.C. Rule 11D requires that breath test instruments be inspected by the Department at least once each calendar year for accuracy and alcohol-free reading in accordance with the Department and Agency Inspection Procedures FDLE/ICP Form October F.A.C. Rule 11D8.005(1) states in pertinent part: (a) Accuracy -- Simulator tests will be completed for each test instrument using vapor mixtures containing alcohol at concentrations of g/210l, g/210l, and g/210l. A minimum of 5 tests will be completed at each concentration. The observed values must fall within the following ranges at each concentration: g/210l Acceptable range: g/210l, g/210l Acceptable range: g/210l, g/210l Acceptable range: g/210l.

5 (b) Alcohol-Free Solution -- Simulator tests will be completed for each test instrument using an alcohol-free vapor mixture. A minimum of 5 tests will be completed. The alcohol-free solution standard for each test instrument requires that no reading be more than g/210l.... Monthly inspection and testing of each breath test instrument is mandated by F.A.C. Rule 11D in order to confirm the accuracy and alcohol-free reading of each instrument. F.A.C. Rule 11D-8.006(1) states in pertinent part: (a) Accuracy -- Simulator tests will be completed for each test instrument using vapor mixtures containing alcohol at concentrations of g/210l, g/210l, and g/210l. A minimum of 3 tests will be completed at each concentration. The observed values must fall within the following ranges at each concentration: g/210l Acceptable range: g/210l, g/210l Acceptable range: g/210l, g/210l Acceptable range: g/210l. (b) Alcohol-Free Solution -- Simulator tests will be completed for each test instrument using an alcohol-free vapor mixture. A minimum of 3 tests will be completed. The alcohol-free solution standard for each test instrument requires that no reading be more than g/210l.... FDLE/ICP Form October, 1993, sets forth the Inspection Procedures for the Intoxilyzer 5000 Series. Step (2) requires that the Department or technician ``Mix simulator solution'' which is then tested at the various concentrations contained within the Rule. In December 1994, FDLE issued recommended guidelines for inspections pursuant to F.A.C. Rule 11D requiring the technician perform additional tests to identify the source of any out of range readings. Moreover, if the technician cannot identify the cause of the out of range reading, or if it is suspected that the instrument is the cause, the technician must indicate that the instrument fails to comply with the agency inspection standards and remove the instrument from service. CHALLENGING THE ADEQUACY AND RELIABILITY OF THE BREATH TEST INSTRUMENT MAINTENANCE AND CERTIFICATION PROTOCOLS The Defendant, within the Motion, contends that the maintenance protocol used for breath-test alcohol testing is unreliable, because the simulated tests are conducted without verifiable alcohol concentrations. The specific alleged weaknesses contained within the Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant's Motion to Suppress, are as follows: (1) The test solutions are diluted from a stock solution which is prepared at the FDLE labs. The stock solution is tested on a gas chromatograph to verify its concentration. However, this test is performed only one time, by a single operator. Thus, if an error in testing occurred, this error would not be detected under the current system. (2) The field technicians who perform the actual tests of Intoxilyzer machines do not know the actual concentration of the stock solution as determined by gas chromatography, because it is not printed on the bottle. Thus, the field technicians are preparing simulator solutions by diluting from a stock solution of unknown value.

6 (3) The field technicians prepare the simulator solutions by manually diluting the stock solution in distilled water. There is no requirement for another technician to monitor this process. Thus, if the field technician were to make an error, this error would not be detected under the current system. (4) The field technicians have no means by which to test the concentration of their simulator solutions. Thus, they must assume that the FDLE-provided stock sample is at the correct concentration, and that they made no mistakes in diluting it. (5) Finally, the technicians dispose of the simulator solutions after performing the tests. Thus, it is not possible for a defendant to conduct an independent analysis of those solutions, to determine whether their actual values matched their assumed values. DEFENSE TESTIMONY Dr. Richard Jensen, PhD., an analytical chemist and forensic toxicologist testified for the defense. Dr. Jensen testified that he has over 16 years experience with the science of evidential breath test devices both in academia and within the field of law enforcement. After receiving sworn testimony, Dr. Jensen was accepted by this Court as an expert in the fields of analytical chemistry, toxicology, and evidentiary breath testing devices. Dr. Jensen testified that the protocol setting forth the testing of breath test instruments as set forth within F.A.C. Chapter 11D-8 does not allow accuracy as required by applicable scientific principles. More specifically, he testified that, according to information he has received, he believes that FDLE (Mr. Thomas Wood) prepares approximately 24L of stock solution which is then homogeneously mixed and then divided into smaller bottles of approximately three ounces each. Mr. Wood then takes 10 of the smaller bottles which are then diluted and then analyzed by gas chromatography. Dr. Jensen stated that the stock solution received by the technician in the field is never measured [T-Jensen; P-32]. Once in the field, the field breath instrument test technician makes dilutions of the stock solution by taking aliquots or precisely measured portions of that and dilutes that to 500 milliliters to prepare concentrations of simulated breath alcohol in the areas of.05 to.10 to.20 [T-Jensen, P- 33]. Because the small bottle from which the aliquot portion is taken has not been analyzed, one must assume that the field technician is capable of conducting the ten milliliter dilution in exactly the same manner and form, with the same proficiency as Mr. Wood has done in his laboratory [T-Jensen, P-34, 35]. In Dr. Jensen's opinion, it is impossible to establish the concentration of the simulator vapor in order to apply the standards the state has set for the approval of the recertification process [T-Jensen, P-41]. Dr. Jensen recommended the use of pre-mix simulator solutions which would be analyzed by gas chromatograph by more than one FDLE laboratory prior to distribution to the field. It was Dr. Jensen's testimony that the Intoxilyzer 5000 was an acceptable evidential testing device when used properly [T-Jensen, P-54, 55]. WITNESSES FOR THE STATE

7 Mr. Thomas M. Wood, Senior Crime Laboratory Analyst for the Implied Consent Program, FDLE, testified for the state. Mr. Wood served as a drug chemist with the Tallahassee Crime Lab portion of FDLE until joining the Implied Consent Program in After being accepted as an expert in the field of analytical chemistry. Mr. Wood testified that he is the individual responsible for the preparation of the batch solutions of stock solution. After preparation of approximately 24 Liters of stock solution, he then dispenses the stock solution into between 200 and 300 three ounce medicine bottles (hereinafter referred to as the ``Small Bottles'') [T-Wood, P-10, 11]. Mr. Wood then takes the first bottle dispensed, the last bottle dispensed and 8 bottles at random, and prepares simulator solution for injection on to the gas chromatograph for testing. He then takes the results of each of those analyses, averages them, and reports that figure on the certificate of analysis along with standard deviation and other data [T-Wood, P-11]. Since 1993, Mr. Wood has tested approximately 400 bottles. To date, none of those tested have resulted in readings outside the permitted ranges allowed by F.A.C. Chapter 11D-8 [T-Wood, P- 13]. While the procedures utilized by Mr. Wood for the preparation of the Small Bottles are not contained within F.A.C. Chapter 11D-8, he opined that the procedures are scientifically valid. Mr. Wood testified that the field technicians are trained to follow a particular procedure designed to give specific results within a range determined to be scientifically adequate by both HRS and FDLE [T-Wood, P-34, 35]. There are over 500 Intoxilyzer 5000 units in operation throughout the State of Florida. According to Mr. Wood, he has experienced no problems with the use of his stock solution in the field. Mr. Bernard (``Buck'') B. Justice, FDLE Alcohol Breath testing Inspector, testified for the state. Mr. Justice is responsible for the registration, inspection, and certification of both breath testing instruments and breath test technicians. Mr. Justice has been intimately involved in the science and operation of evidential breath technicians in the State of Florida since After receiving testimony, Mr. Justice was accepted by this Court as an expert in the field of Evidentiary Breath Testing. Mr. Justice testified that there have been occasions where he has received ``bad batches'' of stock solution [T-Justice; P-19]. This has been confirmed by his results during the testing of the Intoxilyzer 5000 required by F.A.C. Chapter 11D-8. If the results obtained during this testing are outside the specific authorized ranges, the machine is taken out of service. Mr. Justice admitted that there are no written procedures ``in the field'' for the preparation of the simulator solution taken from the Small Bottles received from Mr. Wood [T-Justice, P-36]. However, the breath test maintenance technicians are taught the procedure during their training [T-Justice, P-38]. Moreover, Mr. Justice receives the printout cards from each maintenance technician's monthly and annual testing of the Intoxilyzer 5000 [T-Justice, P-40]. Ms. Beverly Gray, Licensed Breath Test Maintenance Technician for the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office (``HCSO''), testified for the State. Ms. Gray has been a licensed breath test technician for over 17 years and has been certified to perform the maintenance testing on the

8 breath test instruments for the past three years [T-Gray, P-4, 5]. Ms. Gray also functions as the records custodian for the Central Breath Testing Unit (``CBT'') of the HCSO. Ms. Gray uses the stock solution created and supplied by FDLE to create the known simulator solution needed to comply with F.A.C. Rule 11D Ms. Gray mixes ``known solutions'' to simulate a 0.050, 0.100, and g/210l breath test. Ms. Gray performs the maintenance testing of the 5 HCSO CBT units on a monthly basis [T-Gray, P-5] and performed the testing of Instrument on April 13, 1994 and May 30, 1994 (the unit used to test Defendant, Steven R. Phillips' breath). On both dates, Ms. Gray certified that Instrument complied with the FDLE inspection standards set forth within F.A.C. Rule 11D and all values were within the permitted ranges [T-Gray, P-7 and State Exhibits 3 and 4]. Moreover, the yearly Department Inspection of Instrument was performed by Mr. Bernard B. Justice on October 4, On that date, Mr. Justice certified that Instrument complied with the FDLE inspection standards set forth within F.A.C. Rule 11D and all values were within the permitted ranges [T-Gray, P-8 and Exhibit 5]. Ms. Gray also identified the Department Initial Inspection Checklist which certifies the test data as of April 11, 1994 for Instrument [T-Gray, P-9 and State Exhibit 6]. Ms. Gray testified to the specific procedures she utilizes in performing the testing required by F.A.C. Chapter 11D-8 [T-Gray, P-10-13] and also testified that she follows the specific procedures outlined within FDLE/ICP Form October, 1993 and her specific training with respect to the mixing of the simulator solution [T-Gray, P-19, 20 and State Exhibit 7]. DECISIONAL LAW STANDARDS REGARDING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF BREATH TEST RESULTS It is axiomatic that the purpose of those portions of the Rule which direct law enforcement to use only approved techniques is to ``ensure reliable scientific evidence for use in future court proceedings and to protect the health of those persons being tested.'' State v. Bender, 382 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1980). Since this Court has determined that the Motion before it is more properly a Motion in Limine, the Defendant has the burden of proving his allegations. Moreover, the Defendant faces a presumption of correctness that FDLE has correctly determined that no rules are necessary with respect to the mixing of the simulator solution. Florida East Coast Railway Company v. King, 158 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1963). ``Whether to admit test results is not a question of which rule of criminal procedure applies, but a question of applying the correct rule of evidence.'' Donaldson v. State, 561 So. 2d 648, 650 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), approved, 579 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 1991). Prior to the adoption of Florida's implied consent law, ``scientific tests of intoxication were admissible into evidence without any statutory authority if a proper predicate established that (1) the test was reliable, (2) the test was performed by a qualified operator with the proper equipment and (3) expert testimony was presented concerning the meaning of the test.'' Bender, 382 So. 2d at 699. If the state failed to establish this required predicate, the evidence was not admissible. With the adoption of Florida's Implied Consent Law, the State must show that the person conducting the breath test is properly licensed and substantially complied with the applicable rules and regulations, a presumption is created that the results of the breath test are admissible. Robertson v. State, 604 So. 2d 783, 789 (Fla.

9 1992). If the defendant objects to the admission of a breath test result and challenges compliance with the testing procedure, the State then has the burden of proving that the tests were conducted in substantial conformity with the applicable rules and regulations. Dept. of Hwy. Safety v. Farley, 633 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); State v. Reisner, 584 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. den., 591 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 1991); rev. denied, 591 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 1991); State v. Ingram et al., 3 Fla.L.Weekly Supp. 193 (Duval County Court 1995). The Court concludes that the Defendant's claim that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (``FDLE'') procedures for validating reliability are scientifically inadequate and unreliable, is without merit. The uncontroverted testimony presented was that the procedures detailed by F.A.C. Chapter 11D-8 are stringently followed by FDLE, the local breath test maintenance technicians, as well as the breath test technicians who administer the breath tests on a daily basis. Thus, when the stock solution, with a known and certified value, is mixed and introduced into an intoxilyzer, if the number corresponding to the ``known solution'' is obtained, the machine is operating properly and is left in service. If results outside the ranges specified within F.A.C. Chapter 11D-8 are obtained, the machine is taken out of service. The hypothetical situations raised by the Defense are ``far too speculative for this Court to encroach upon FDLE's discretionary authority pursuant to its obligation under (1)(b)(2).'' State v. Misterka, 3 Fla.L.Weekly Supp. 293 (Palm Beach County Court 1995). While this Court recognizes that science is a dynamic and not a static field, the fact remains that FDLE must approve and specify the technology and methods to insure accurate test results. This designation must be ``specific'' and the methods so specified shall be followed in ``all'' such testing. Mehl v. State, 532 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1993). All such methods and procedures are to be found in formally promulgated rules, following public hearing and input. State v. Reisner, 584 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); See also, (1)(f)(1), Florida Statutes (1993). FDLE can, if it chooses to do so, study the premix simulator solution and thereafter hold a public hearing and promulgate an appropriate rule if it chooses to do so. REFUSAL CASES There is a second group of Defendants who suggest that their Motions to Suppress and/or Motions in Limine be granted because of the specific challenges raised by the Defendant. The Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office uses the C.M.I., Inc. Intoxilyzer 5000 series breath testing machine. This machine has been approved for use by law enforcement (F.A.C. Rule 11D- 8/003(2)) in satisfying the provisions of and The machine and its results are an ``approved chemical or physical test'' of a driver's breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content. The Court notes that none of the Defendants presented any evidence to establish that an approved test was unavailable in Hillsborough County, Florida, at the time of his or her arrest or that because of their knowledge of the ``unknown value'' of the stock or simulator solution, they requested a blood or urine test as an alternative ``approved'' test.

10 A driver who refuses to submit to a breath test may not suppress or limit the admission of his or her ``refusal'' on the basis that the refused test lacked the specific accuracy or precision because those matters are irrelevant where the test has been refused. Based upon the foregoing, it is: ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion to Suppress is hereby Denied. 1 The term Defendant or Defendants shall hereinafter refer collectively to the Defendant, Steven R. Phillips, and all other Defendants who have adopted Phillips' motion or who have filed a similar motion within this Division of the Hillsborough County Court. 2 This Court wishes to gratefully acknowledge the superlative effort of Judge Linda F. McCallum and Judge Eleni E. Derke, Duval County Court Judges, in authoring their Order in the case of State v. Ingram, et al., 3 Fla. L. Weekly Supp Much of the framework for this Court's Order was taken from their research. * * *

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. : Case No. DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. : Case No. DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA JAMES C. BABER, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. : : : Case No. : : : 96,010 DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA FOURTH

More information

v. CASE NO.: 2008-CA-031152-O WRIT NO.: 08-69

v. CASE NO.: 2008-CA-031152-O WRIT NO.: 08-69 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA ARIEL ALAMO, Petitioner, v. CASE NO.: 2008-CA-031152-O WRIT NO.: 08-69 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY

More information

CASE NO. 1D11-1035. Eugene McCosky is petitioning this Court to grant a writ of certiorari, requiring

CASE NO. 1D11-1035. Eugene McCosky is petitioning this Court to grant a writ of certiorari, requiring IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA EUGENE MCCOSKEY, v. Petitioner, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D11-1035

More information

**************************************** I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND.

**************************************** I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND. STATE OF IDAHO County of KOOTENAI ss FILED AT O clock M CLERK, DISTRICT COURT Deputy IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, vs. STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY

More information

v. CASE NO.: 2006-CA-009772-O Writ No.: 06-84 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY & MOTOR VEHICLES, DIVISION OF DRIVER LICENSES,

v. CASE NO.: 2006-CA-009772-O Writ No.: 06-84 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY & MOTOR VEHICLES, DIVISION OF DRIVER LICENSES, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA GARY BERNE, Petitioner, v. CASE NO.: 2006-CA-009772-O Writ No.: 06-84 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC11-1512

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC11-1512 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO.: SC11-1512 GREGORY G. GEISS, Respondent. / AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF BY FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS (FACDL) ON BEHALF

More information

Chapter 813. Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants 2013 EDITION. Title 59 Page 307 (2013 Edition)

Chapter 813. Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants 2013 EDITION. Title 59 Page 307 (2013 Edition) Chapter 813 2013 EDITION Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants GENERAL PROVISIONS 813.010 Driving under the influence of intoxicants; penalty 813.011 Felony driving under the influence of intoxicants;

More information

v. CASE NO.: 2007-CA-13354-O Writ No.: 07-60 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY & MOTOR VEHICLES, DIVISION OF DRIVER LICENSES,

v. CASE NO.: 2007-CA-13354-O Writ No.: 07-60 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY & MOTOR VEHICLES, DIVISION OF DRIVER LICENSES, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA STEPHEN SMITH, Petitioner, v. CASE NO.: 2007-CA-13354-O Writ No.: 07-60 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY

More information

2015 VT 104. No. 2014-419. On Appeal from v. Superior Court, Caledonia Unit, Criminal Division. Kelly M. Taylor April Term, 2015

2015 VT 104. No. 2014-419. On Appeal from v. Superior Court, Caledonia Unit, Criminal Division. Kelly M. Taylor April Term, 2015 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions

More information

--------------------------~/

--------------------------~/ IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION ERIC BICHACHI, Petitioner, vs. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, Respondents.

More information

Manchester, New Hampshire

Manchester, New Hampshire DRUG EVALUATION AND CLASSIFICATION (DRE) & BREATH ALCOHOL TESTING TRAINING FOR LEGAL PROFESSIONALS Manchester, New Hampshire November 13 th 14 th, 2015 HILTON GARDEN INN MANCHESTER DOWNTOWN HOTEL ADDRESS:

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff, CASE NO: JUDGE: , Defendant.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff, CASE NO: JUDGE: , Defendant. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff, v., Defendant. / CASE NO: JUDGE: MOTION TO SUPPRESS COMES NOW, the Defendant by and

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. SUSAN NADER, Petitioner, SUPREME COURT CASE No: SC09-1533 vs. LOWER CASE No: 2D08-1047

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. SUSAN NADER, Petitioner, SUPREME COURT CASE No: SC09-1533 vs. LOWER CASE No: 2D08-1047 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA SUSAN NADER, Petitioner, SUPREME COURT CASE No: SC09-1533 vs. LOWER CASE No: 2D08-1047 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, Respondent. / AMICUS

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE KEVIN D. TALLEY, Defendant-Below No. 172, 2003 Appellant, v. Cr. ID No. 0108005719 STATE OF DELAWARE, Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware,

More information

Driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or other intoxicating substances;

Driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or other intoxicating substances; OCGA 40-6-391 Brief Description Driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or other intoxicating substances; Statutory Language (a) A person shall not drive or be in actual physical control of any

More information

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY Third Judicial District Of Kansas Chadwick J. Taylor, District Attorney

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY Third Judicial District Of Kansas Chadwick J. Taylor, District Attorney OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY Third Judicial District Of Kansas Chadwick J. Taylor, District Attorney Shawnee County Courthouse Fax: (785) 251-4909 200 SE 7th Street, Suite 214 Family Law Fax: (785)

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA CAITLIN MICHELE SCHAEFFER, CASE NO.: 2014-CA-001818-O v. Petitioner, STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA EDWARD B. ANDRADE, CASE NO.: 2014-CA-002431-O v. Petitioner, STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. Docket No. 40135 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. Docket No. 40135 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 40135 STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JUAN L. JUAREZ, Defendant-Appellant. 2013 Opinion No. 60 Filed: November 12, 2013 Stephen W. Kenyon,

More information

DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE PENALTIES AND PROCESS INFORMATION

DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE PENALTIES AND PROCESS INFORMATION DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE PENALTIES AND PROCESS INFORMATION prepared by: LAW OFFICES OF MARK L. HORWITZ A Professional Association 17 East Pine Street Orlando, Florida 32801 (407) 843-7733 CRIMINAL CHARGE

More information

42 4 1301. Driving under the influence driving while impaired driving with excessive alcoholic content definitions penalties.

42 4 1301. Driving under the influence driving while impaired driving with excessive alcoholic content definitions penalties. 42 4 1301. Driving under the influence driving while impaired driving with excessive alcoholic content definitions penalties. (1) (a) It is a misdemeanor for any person who is under the influence of alcohol

More information

Sec. 90-27. Certificates of use.

Sec. 90-27. Certificates of use. Sec. 90-27. Certificates of use. (1) It is hereby deemed unlawful for any person to open or operate any business and/or occupy any structure within the town limits for the privilege of engaging in any

More information

DURHAM DWI LAWYER - PIERCE LAW OFFICES - www.piercelaw.com Civil Revocation Statutes - Durham DWI or Drunk Driving

DURHAM DWI LAWYER - PIERCE LAW OFFICES - www.piercelaw.com Civil Revocation Statutes - Durham DWI or Drunk Driving DURHAM DWI LAWYER - PIERCE LAW OFFICES - www.piercelaw.com Civil Revocation Statutes - Durham DWI or Drunk Driving 20-16.5. Immediate civil license revocation for certain persons charged with implied-

More information

competent substantial evidence. Florida Dept. of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Luttrell,

competent substantial evidence. Florida Dept. of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Luttrell, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA MICHAEL SASSO, CASE NO. 2014-CA-1853-O v. Petitioner, STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY & MOTOR VEHICLES,

More information

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS THE TRIAL COURT STANDING ORDER NO. 2-86 (AMENDED)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS THE TRIAL COURT STANDING ORDER NO. 2-86 (AMENDED) COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS THE TRIAL COURT SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT STANDING ORDER NO. 2-86 (AMENDED) Applicable to All Counties to cases initiated by indictment on or after September

More information

Chapter 153. Violations and Fines 2013 EDITION. Related Laws Page 571 (2013 Edition)

Chapter 153. Violations and Fines 2013 EDITION. Related Laws Page 571 (2013 Edition) Chapter 153 2013 EDITION Violations and Fines VIOLATIONS (Generally) 153.005 Definitions 153.008 Violations described 153.012 Violation categories 153.015 Unclassified and specific fine violations 153.018

More information

VIRGINIA DUI FACTSHEET

VIRGINIA DUI FACTSHEET VIRGINIA DUI FACTSHEET BOSE LAW FIRM, PLLC Former Police & Investigators Springfield Offices: 6354 Rolling Mill Place, Suite 102 Springfield, Virginia 22152 Telephone: 703.926.3900 Facsimile: 800.927.6038

More information

Thomas M. Petersen Omaha DUI Attorney

Thomas M. Petersen Omaha DUI Attorney CHEMICAL TESTS FOR DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE IN NEBRASKA In the Event You Are Ever Stopped for DUI in Nebraska It May Help to Have a Basic Understanding of Why Chemical Tests are Used, How they Work,

More information

Wisconsin Operating While Intoxicated Law A Client's Guide to the Language and Procedure

Wisconsin Operating While Intoxicated Law A Client's Guide to the Language and Procedure Wisconsin Operating While Intoxicated Law A Client's Guide to the Language and Procedure BAKKE NORMAN L A W O F F I C E S Welcome Thank you for considering Bakke Norman, S.C. to represent your interests.

More information

No. 82,631 STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. JAMES E. TAYLOR, Respondent. CORRECTED OPINION. [January 5, 19951 SHAW, J.

No. 82,631 STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. JAMES E. TAYLOR, Respondent. CORRECTED OPINION. [January 5, 19951 SHAW, J. . No. 82,631 STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, 1 vs. JAMES E. TAYLOR, Respondent. CORRECTED OPINION [January 5, 19951 SHAW, J. We have for review a decision presenting the following certified question of great

More information

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR WOODBURY COUNTY. WRITTEN PLEA OF GUILTY AND WAIVER OF RIGHTS (OWI First Offense)

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR WOODBURY COUNTY. WRITTEN PLEA OF GUILTY AND WAIVER OF RIGHTS (OWI First Offense) IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR WOODBURY COUNTY THE STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff, vs. Defendant. CRIMINAL NO. WRITTEN PLEA OF GUILTY AND WAIVER OF RIGHTS (OWI First Offense) COMES NOW the above-named Defendant

More information

2014 Changes in DUI Law

2014 Changes in DUI Law 2014 Changes in DUI Law Mississippi Code 63-11-30: All the following changes take effect on October 1, 2014. Driving under the influence as provided by 63-11-30: (1) It is unlawful for a person to drive

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals RENDERED: AUGUST 7, 2009; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2008-CA-001465-MR LAMONT ROBERTS APPELLANT APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE MARTIN

More information

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT MICHELLE BOWERS, Petitioner, v. Case No. 2D08-3251 STATE OF FLORIDA,

More information

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012). This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A13-1698 Brian Jeffrey Serber, petitioner, Respondent,

More information

STATE OF NEW YORK : : ALLEGANY COUNTY DRUG COUNTY OF ALLEGANY : : TREATMENT COURT. Defendant.

STATE OF NEW YORK : : ALLEGANY COUNTY DRUG COUNTY OF ALLEGANY : : TREATMENT COURT. Defendant. STATE OF NEW YORK : : ALLEGANY COUNTY DRUG COUNTY OF ALLEGANY : : TREATMENT COURT THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK against CONTRACT JOHN DOE., Defendant. I, JOHN DOE, agree to enter the Allegany County

More information

HOUSE BILL NO. HB0058. Driving under the influence-blood alcohol content.

HOUSE BILL NO. HB0058. Driving under the influence-blood alcohol content. 00 STATE OF WYOMING 0LSO-000 HOUSE BILL NO. HB00 Driving under the influence-blood alcohol content. Sponsored by: Representative(s) Warren, Iekel, Johnson, W., McOmie and Watt and Senator(s) Erb, Geis,

More information

28.1 DRIVING WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE 316.193, Fla.Stat.

28.1 DRIVING WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE 316.193, Fla.Stat. 28.1 DRIVING WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE 316.193, Fla.Stat. To prove the crime of Driving Under the Influence, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. (Defendant) drove

More information

No. 76. An act relating to civil penalties for possession of marijuana. (H.200) It is hereby enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Vermont:

No. 76. An act relating to civil penalties for possession of marijuana. (H.200) It is hereby enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Vermont: No. 76. An act relating to civil penalties for possession of marijuana. (H.200) It is hereby enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Vermont: * * * Criminal Penalties and Civil Penalties for Marijuana

More information

Mike Bailey Sr. Hearing Officer Driver Compliance / Legal Division

Mike Bailey Sr. Hearing Officer Driver Compliance / Legal Division Mike Bailey Sr. Hearing Officer Driver Compliance / Legal Division Topic I : DUI Laws the effect and result Topic II : Drug Court Laws and recent amendments w/ Q&A ALCOHOL / DRUG Revocation(s) DUI / DWI

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs June 19, 2002

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs June 19, 2002 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs June 19, 2002 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DERRICK S. CHANEY Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Williamson County No. II-22-201

More information

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2011 SESSION LAW 2011-19 HOUSE BILL 27

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2011 SESSION LAW 2011-19 HOUSE BILL 27 GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2011 SESSION LAW 2011-19 HOUSE BILL 27 AN ACT TO (1) CREATE THE NORTH CAROLINA FORENSIC SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD, (2) ENCOURAGE EFFORTS TO ELIMINATE SOURCES OF

More information

Illinois Compiled Statutes. HIGHER EDUCATION (110 ILCS 1005/) Private College Act.

Illinois Compiled Statutes. HIGHER EDUCATION (110 ILCS 1005/) Private College Act. Illinois Compiled Statutes HIGHER EDUCATION (110 ILCS 1005/) Private College Act. (110 ILCS 1005/0.01) (from Ch. 144, par. 120) Sec. 0.01. Short title. This Act may be cited as the Private College Act.

More information

IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF IOLA, KANSAS. CITY OF IOLA, KANSAS, ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) 10 ), ) Defendant. DIVERSION AGREEMENT

IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF IOLA, KANSAS. CITY OF IOLA, KANSAS, ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) 10 ), ) Defendant. DIVERSION AGREEMENT IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF IOLA, KANSAS CITY OF IOLA, KANSAS, Plaintiff, vs. 10, Defendant. DIVERSION AGREEMENT This Diversion Agreement, made and entered into this day of, 20, by and between, hereinafter

More information

514.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

514.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE Policy 514 Peoria Police Department 514.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE This policy provides guidance to those department members who play a role in the detection and investigation of driving under the influence (DUI).

More information

No. 100,992 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, RAUL J. AGUILAR, JR., Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

No. 100,992 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, RAUL J. AGUILAR, JR., Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT No. 100,992 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. RAUL J. AGUILAR, JR., Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. The plain language of K.S.A. 2008 Supp. 28-176(a) permits

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appellant, Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appellant, Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO FILED BY CLERK JAN 31 2013 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, v. SCOTT ALAN COLVIN, Appellant, Appellee. 2 CA-CR 2012-0099 DEPARTMENT

More information

SAMPLE DRUG AND ALCOHOL POLICY

SAMPLE DRUG AND ALCOHOL POLICY SAMPLE DRUG AND ALCOHOL POLICY (MISSISSIPPI) DRUG AND ALCOHOL POLICY DISCLAIMER WARNING!!! The attached Drug and Alcohol Policy is being furnished to you as a courtesy. Stonetrust Management Services highly

More information

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND & PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS. Brendan Bieber : : v. : A.A. No. 10-243 : State of Rhode Island, : (RITT Appellate Panel) : JUDGMENT

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND & PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS. Brendan Bieber : : v. : A.A. No. 10-243 : State of Rhode Island, : (RITT Appellate Panel) : JUDGMENT STATE OF RHODE ISLAND & PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PROVIDENCE, Sc. DISTRICT COURT SIXTH DIVISION Brendan Bieber : : v. : A.A. No. 10-243 : State of Rhode Island, : (RITT Appellate Panel) : JUDGMENT This cause

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA BARBRA R. JOYNER, Appellant, CASE NO.: 2012-CV-000003-A-O Lower Case No.: 2010-CC-010676-O v. ONE THOUSAND OAKS, INC.,

More information

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA KRISTINA R. DOBSON, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE CRANE MCCLENNEN, JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA, Respondent

More information

ISBA CLE PRESENTATION ON DUI POINTS OF INTEREST March 8, 2013 Judge Chet Vahle, Betsy Bier & Jennifer Cifaldi FACT SCENARIOS AND QUESTIONS

ISBA CLE PRESENTATION ON DUI POINTS OF INTEREST March 8, 2013 Judge Chet Vahle, Betsy Bier & Jennifer Cifaldi FACT SCENARIOS AND QUESTIONS ISBA CLE PRESENTATION ON DUI POINTS OF INTEREST March 8, 2013 Judge Chet Vahle, Betsy Bier & Jennifer Cifaldi I. DUI Cannabis or Drugs FACT SCENARIOS AND QUESTIONS A. Causal connection when unlawful substances

More information

Pennsylvania DUI Handbook

Pennsylvania DUI Handbook Pennsylvania DUI Handbook Published by: The Martin Law Firm, P.C. The Martin Law Firm, P.C. 725 Skippack Pike, Suite 337 Blue Bell, PA 19422 215.646.3980 www.jbmartinlaw.com Although DUI drunk driving

More information

IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS WESTERN DISTRICT

IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS WESTERN DISTRICT IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS WESTERN DISTRICT STATE OF MISSOURI, v. ROBERT E. WHEELER, Respondent, Appellant. WD76448 OPINION FILED: August 19, 2014 Appeal from the Circuit Court of Caldwell County,

More information

You need legal help to protect your livelihood, which requires you to drive every day. Call Mr. Singh right away at 916-939-5151.

You need legal help to protect your livelihood, which requires you to drive every day. Call Mr. Singh right away at 916-939-5151. What is Driving Under the Influence (DUI)? Vehicle Code Sections 23151 and 23152 are the drunk driving laws. VC 23152(a) makes it unlawful to drive a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

More information

1 VERGERONT, J. 1 Daniel Stormer was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, third offense, contrary to WIS. STAT.

1 VERGERONT, J. 1 Daniel Stormer was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, third offense, contrary to WIS. STAT. COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED May 31, 2001 Cornelia G. Clark Clerk, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION September 13, 2012 9:00 a.m. v No. 304708 Oakland Circuit Court CONNIE LEE PENNEBAKER, LC No. 2011-235701-FH

More information

United States vs. McNeely: Analysis and Implications for DWI Enforcement in Minnesota 1

United States vs. McNeely: Analysis and Implications for DWI Enforcement in Minnesota 1 United States vs. McNeely: Analysis and Implications for DWI Enforcement in Minnesota 1 By Peter Ivy and Peter Orput, MCPA Co-Counsel 2 1) McNeely Background and Supreme Court Holding On April 17, 2013,

More information

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Lafayette County. Harlow H. Land, Jr., Judge.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Lafayette County. Harlow H. Land, Jr., Judge. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA QUENTIN SULLIVAN, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D06-4634

More information

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES FOR REHEARING AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES FOR REHEARING AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED Petition for Writ of Certiorari to Review Quasi-Judicial Action, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles: DRIVER S LICENSES Due Process -- Suspension Petitioner's due process rights not violated

More information

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SEALING/EXPUNGING AN ADULT CRIMINAL COURT RECORD

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SEALING/EXPUNGING AN ADULT CRIMINAL COURT RECORD INSTRUCTIONS FOR SEALING/EXPUNGING AN ADULT CRIMINAL COURT RECORD Complete the following paperwork for this process: Step 1. Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) Certificate of Eligibility packet

More information

ELAINE MORRIS, TRUSTEE, CASE NO.: 2014-CV-52-A-O TRULIET INVESTMENTS, LLC

ELAINE MORRIS, TRUSTEE, CASE NO.: 2014-CV-52-A-O TRULIET INVESTMENTS, LLC IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA ELAINE MORRIS, TRUSTEE, CASE NO.: 2014-CV-52-A-O TRULIET INVESTMENTS, LLC v. Appellant, CITY OF ORLANDO, FLORIDA Appellee.

More information

VOIR DIRE 2/11/2015 STATE OF TEXAS VS JANE DOE 1. CONVERSATION - ONLY TIME YOU CAN ASK THE LAWYERS QUESTIONS 2. NO RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWER

VOIR DIRE 2/11/2015 STATE OF TEXAS VS JANE DOE 1. CONVERSATION - ONLY TIME YOU CAN ASK THE LAWYERS QUESTIONS 2. NO RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWER STATE OF TEXAS VS JANE DOE VOIR DIRE 1. CONVERSATION - ONLY TIME YOU CAN ASK THE LAWYERS QUESTIONS 2. NO RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWER 3. DESELECTION (TO MAKE THE JURY = SIT THERE & BE QUIET) 4. SOME QUESTIONS

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Lower Court Case No.: 4D05-746) CASE NO. SC05-1395 STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. JEFFREY LOVELACE, Respondent.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Lower Court Case No.: 4D05-746) CASE NO. SC05-1395 STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. JEFFREY LOVELACE, Respondent. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Lower Court Case No.: 4D05-746) CASE NO. SC05-1395 STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. JEFFREY LOVELACE, Respondent. ****************************************** PETITIONER=S

More information

State of Delaware P.O. Box 188 820 North French Street Wilmington, DE 19899-0188. Attorney for State DECISION AFTER TRIAL

State of Delaware P.O. Box 188 820 North French Street Wilmington, DE 19899-0188. Attorney for State DECISION AFTER TRIAL IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY STATE OF DELAWARE ) ) v. ) Case No. 0003001330 ) WESLEY Z. BUMPERS ) David R. Favata, Esquire Louis B. Ferrara, Esquire

More information

TREGO COUNTY DIVERSION PROGRAM GUIDELINES

TREGO COUNTY DIVERSION PROGRAM GUIDELINES TREGO COUNTY DIVERSION PROGRAM GUIDELINES The Trego County Attorney has established the following guidelines for a pretrial diversion program for adult offenders. The diversion program is intended to give

More information

NC General Statutes - Chapter 15A Article 17 1

NC General Statutes - Chapter 15A Article 17 1 SUBCHAPTER III. CRIMINAL PROCESS. Article 17. Criminal Process. 15A-301. Criminal process generally. (a) Formal Requirements. (1) A record of each criminal process issued in the trial division of the General

More information

CONCERNED CITIZEN S CALL LEADS TO DUI AND CHILD NEGLECT CHARGES

CONCERNED CITIZEN S CALL LEADS TO DUI AND CHILD NEGLECT CHARGES November 18, 2013 CONCERNED CITIZEN S CALL LEADS TO DUI AND CHILD NEGLECT CHARGES A concerned citizen called the Okaloosa County Sheriff s Office after spotting a woman speeding and driving erratically

More information

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 4.06 BAIL BOND ACTIONS

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 4.06 BAIL BOND ACTIONS THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 4.06 BAIL BOND ACTIONS In order to provide guidelines concerning bond forfeitures in accordance with Chapter 903, Florida Statutes, IT IS

More information

SEALING OF RECORDS. Conviction / Acquittal / Dismissal CLARK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY S OFFICE. DAVID ROGER District Attorney

SEALING OF RECORDS. Conviction / Acquittal / Dismissal CLARK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY S OFFICE. DAVID ROGER District Attorney SEALING OF RECORDS Conviction / Acquittal / Dismissal CLARK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY S OFFICE DAVID ROGER District Attorney NOTICE: This Website contains instructions for using the Clark County District

More information

FILED December 20, 2012 Carla Bender th

FILED December 20, 2012 Carla Bender th NOTICE This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e(1. 2012 IL App (4th 110482-U NO. 4-11-0482

More information

OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR. The defendant is charged with operating a motor vehicle while under

OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR. The defendant is charged with operating a motor vehicle while under Page 1 Instruction 5.310 The defendant is charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (in the same complaint which charges the defendant with operating a motor

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA MEDICAL THERAPIES, LLC, f/k/a MEDICAL THERAPIES, INC., d/b/a ORLANDO PAIN CLINIC, as assignee of SONJA M. RICKS, CASE

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 92-CA-00512-SCT STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, JIM INGRAM, COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC SAFETY

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 92-CA-00512-SCT STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, JIM INGRAM, COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC SAFETY IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 92-CA-00512-SCT STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, JIM INGRAM, COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC SAFETY v. BERNA JEAN PRINE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 4/21/92 TRIAL

More information

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012). This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A13-2263 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Greer

More information

The count is Driving While Intoxicated. Under our law, no person shall operate a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition.

The count is Driving While Intoxicated. Under our law, no person shall operate a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition. DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED (Misdemeanor/Felony 1 ) (Common Law) VEHICLE & TRAFFIC LAW 1192 (3) (Committed on or after July 1, 2003) (Revised January 2008 and December 2014) 2 The count is Driving While

More information

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES FOR REHEARING AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES FOR REHEARING AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED Petition for Writ of Certiorari to Review Quasi-Judicial Action, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles: DRIVER S LICENSES Early Reinstatement Suncoast Safety Council observed the essential requirements

More information

REGULATIONS. Copyright and Disclaimer

REGULATIONS. Copyright and Disclaimer REGULATIONS Copyright and Disclaimer The State of South Carolina owns the copyright to the Code of Regulations which are contained in the Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976, as contained herein. Any

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON April 1, 2014 Session

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON April 1, 2014 Session IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON April 1, 2014 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. KEVIN CORTEZ CHRYSTAK Appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County No. 12-550 Nathan B. Pride, Judge

More information

20 TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF COLORADO ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER (Updated9/7/05) SUBJECT: Criminal Bonding Procedures and Appointment of Counsel

20 TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF COLORADO ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER (Updated9/7/05) SUBJECT: Criminal Bonding Procedures and Appointment of Counsel 20 TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF COLORADO ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER 03-103 (Updated9/7/05) SUBJECT: Criminal Bonding Procedures and Appointment of Counsel To: Judicial Officers, District Administrator, Clerk of Court,

More information

CITY OF SALINA MUNICIPAL COURT DIVERSION INFORMATION AND APPLICATION

CITY OF SALINA MUNICIPAL COURT DIVERSION INFORMATION AND APPLICATION CITY OF SALINA MUNICIPAL COURT DIVERSION INFORMATION AND APPLICATION A diversion is a written agreement between the City Prosecutor and the defendant. During the diversion period, the prosecutor agrees

More information

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT COMMONWEALTH. vs. KRISTOPHER M. CORMIER. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT COMMONWEALTH. vs. KRISTOPHER M. CORMIER. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28 NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 (2009), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address

More information

CHAPTER 7 UNIFORM COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE RULES

CHAPTER 7 UNIFORM COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE RULES CHAPTER 7 UNIFORM COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE RULES Section 1. Authority. These Uniform County Board of Equalization Practice and Procedure Rules are promulgated by authority of

More information

Vermont Legislative Council

Vermont Legislative Council Vermont Legislative Council 115 State Street Montpelier, VT 05633-5301 (802) 828-2231 Fax: (802) 828-2424 MEMORANDUM To: From: House Judiciary Committee Erik FitzPatrick Date: February 19, 2015 Subject:

More information

-410 St John s Avenue, Palatka, FL or from the following website http://.putnam-fl.com/coc/

-410 St John s Avenue, Palatka, FL or from the following website http://.putnam-fl.com/coc/ INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING A PETITION TO SEAL OR EXPUNGE CRIMINAL RECORDS 1. Before you can file your petition to expunge or seal your criminal history record with the court, you must apply to the Florida

More information

N.W.2d. Petition for further review from the Court of Appeals,

N.W.2d. Petition for further review from the Court of Appeals, 88 285 NEBRASKA REPORTS Neb. Ct. R. 3-310(P) and 3-323(B) of the disciplinary rules within 60 days after an order imposing costs and expenses, if any, is entered by this court. Judgment of suspension.

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA. Petitioner,

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA. Petitioner, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, CASE NO.: 2015-CA-1304-O Petitioner, v. DOUGLAS ANDERSON AKSHA BEDI ORLANDO S. CARTER JORGE H. CERVANTES

More information

SMALL CLAIMS RULES. (d) Record of Proceedings. A record shall be made of all small claims court proceedings.

SMALL CLAIMS RULES. (d) Record of Proceedings. A record shall be made of all small claims court proceedings. SMALL CLAIMS RULES Rule 501. Scope and Purpose (a) How Known and Cited. These rules for the small claims division for the county court are additions to C.R.C.P. and shall be known and cited as the Colorado

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA FRANK GAY PLUMBING, INC. Appellant, CASE NO.: 2012-CV-19 Lower Case No.: 2011-SC-6767-A- O v. MCO ENTERPRISES, INC.,

More information

STANDING DISCOVERY ORDER ON COPYING AND PRODUCTION OF BLOOD TESTING RECORDS

STANDING DISCOVERY ORDER ON COPYING AND PRODUCTION OF BLOOD TESTING RECORDS CAUSE NO. THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE COUNTY CRIMINAL V. COURT AT LAW NO. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS STANDING DISCOVERY ORDER ON COPYING AND PRODUCTION OF BLOOD TESTING RECORDS THE COURT ORDERS the District Attorney

More information

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) v. ) Case No.: 1009015961 ) GIOVANNI FERRANTE, ) Defendant. ) Submitted: June 25, 2012 Decided:

More information

FINAL ORDER REVERSING TRIAL COURT. Appellant, Joseph Pabon (herein Appellant ), appeals the Orange County Court s

FINAL ORDER REVERSING TRIAL COURT. Appellant, Joseph Pabon (herein Appellant ), appeals the Orange County Court s IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA APPELLATE CASE NO: 2011-AP-32 LOWER COURT CASE NO: 48-2010-MM-12557 JOSEPH PABON, vs. Appellant, STATE OF FLORIDA,

More information

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY Third Judicial District Of Kansas Chadwick J. Taylor, District Attorney

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY Third Judicial District Of Kansas Chadwick J. Taylor, District Attorney OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY Third Judicial District Of Kansas Chadwick J. Taylor, District Attorney Shawnee County Courthouse Fax: (785) 251-4909 200 SE 7th Street, Suite 214 Family Law Fax: (785)

More information

Title 17 California Code of Regulations

Title 17 California Code of Regulations Title 17 California Code of Regulations s 1215. Authority. Chapter 5 Sections 436.50-436.63 of Part 1 of Division 1 of the Health and Safety Code. Note: Authority cited: Sections 102 and 208, Health and

More information

DRINKING AND DRIVING OFFENCE

DRINKING AND DRIVING OFFENCE What to do if you are charged with a DRINKING AND DRIVING OFFENCE This booklet is not about provincial Motor Vehicle Act penalties for drinking and driving. This guide explains what normally happens when

More information

DRUG-IMPAIRED DRIVING: CONSULTATION DOCUMENT

DRUG-IMPAIRED DRIVING: CONSULTATION DOCUMENT DRUG-IMPAIRED DRIVING: CONSULTATION DOCUMENT DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CANADA BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS TO ENHANCE CRIMINAL CODE DRUG-IMPAIRED DRIVING INVESTIGATIONS This document was

More information

A History of Alabama s Driving Under the Influence Statutes: Over 90 Years of Evolution

A History of Alabama s Driving Under the Influence Statutes: Over 90 Years of Evolution A History of Alabama s Driving Under the Influence Statutes: Over 90 Years of Evolution By Patrick Mahaney Alabama s DWI laws, 1911-1980: Alabama s first traffic laws originated in 1911, shortly after

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-CP-00221-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-CP-00221-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-CP-00221-COA FREDDIE LEE MARTIN A/K/A FREDDIE L. MARTIN APPELLANT v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/08/2013 TRIAL JUDGE:

More information

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, VI ANN SPENCER, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 13-0804

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, VI ANN SPENCER, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 13-0804 IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. VI ANN SPENCER, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 13-0804 Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County No. V1300CR201280372 The Honorable

More information

I just got arrested for a State of South Carolina DUI charge. What happens now?

I just got arrested for a State of South Carolina DUI charge. What happens now? I just got arrested for a State of South Carolina DUI charge. What happens now? ISSUE ONE: The South Carolina Implied Consent Proceeding: Under South Carolina's implied consent law, a person who drives

More information