mt:Include module="Global Settings" /> DUI Law and Issues Archives: Colorado Criminal Lawyer Blog

Recently in DUI Law and Issues Category

December 26, 2011

Dismissed DUIs in Colorado Underscore Need to Investigate Lead Police Officer's Credibility


Recently in Mesa County Colorado on the Western slope of Colorado, the District Attorney's office was forced to dismiss eight criminal cases in light of credibility questions surrounding a former Colorado State Trooper.

Because of the impact of the lead officer's testimony in a DUI caae, the District Attorney's officer is reviewing hundreds more cases that are expected to be dropped in the coming weeks.

The tropper - Donald Moseman, stepped down from the State Troopers Office in December after a departmental investigation.

The cases that have been dismissed are all drunk driving misdemeanor cases that had Moseman as the sole witness for the prosecution but additional cases in additional areas are also subject to the same scrutin .

The result of this action has led to a demand by Colorado Defense Lawyers in the area to turn over the contents of Moseman's internal affairs investigation, and it is expected that a judge will compel the department to turn over those records so that the judge could perform a private review to determine if there was material in that file that is relevant to these cases

This kind of material is called Brady Material and is considered directly exculpatory or potentially exculpatory evidence therefore the District Attorney is required by Colorado Law to turn over material bearing on the credibility of their primary witness.

The Grand Junction Sentinel reproted that:

"A letter dated Dec. 5 that was sent to Hautzinger by State Patrol Major Barry Bratt said an internal investigation found Moseman "displayed bias" in cases involving drivers suspected of being impaired by drugs or alcohol. The letter said Moseman submitted reports that "were a combination of reports from prior arrests and the current arrest, resulting in reports which contained wrong or conflicting information." "

September 3, 2011

2011 Colorado Law Requires New Bail Conditions on Third or More DUI


A new law effective in 2011 - mandates that judges now order certain conditions of releasing an individual on bond on a third case of DUI - DWAI.

Here is the New Legislation:

Summary of Legislation

The bill requires that a court set specific bond conditions when an individual is arrested for
an alcohol or drug driving offense (e.g., DUI or DWAI) after two prior convictions for an alcohol or drug driving offense.

The defendant's bail bond must include conditions requiring:

• enrollment in a substance abuse treatment program;

• electronic monitoring;

• drug and alcohol testing; and

• an engine interlock device on the defendant's vehicle, if authorized to drive.

However - it should ne NOTED that:

A defendant may move the court for relief from any of these conditions.

Following a hearing on the motion the court may deny or grant the motion based on the interest of justice and the potential endangerment of public safety.

If the court grants a motion, written findings must support the grant of relief.

August 13, 2011

Colorado Toughens Pre-Trial Conditions on DUI Cases - Compels Alcohol Treatment

Under the heading -- FYI ..... A New Law in Colorado passed in 2011 - compels - that is - forces a judge - IN THE ABSENCE OF A CONVICTION - as a matter of the judge's pretrial authority - to order - as a condition of release on bond - that the individual accused of a second or seubsequent Colorado Alcohol or Drug related driving offense such as DWAI, DUI or DUID, to obstain from the use of alcohol or illegal drugs and to undergo alcohol and drug monitoring.

The law does provide for an "escape hatch" that would permit such an accused to object to the court's order - and requires the judge to conduct a hearing to make a determination as to whether the person aggrieved by the law - be excepted from the requirements of the new DUI law.

Here is the (the law) statute:

HOUSE BILL 11-1189

CONCERNING BAIL BOND CONDITIONS FOR THOSE ARRESTED FOR
SUBSEQUENT SUBSTANCE ABUSE DRIVING OFFENSES.

SECTION 1. 16-4-103 (1), Colorado Revised Statutes, is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW PARAGRAPH to read:

16-4-103. Fixing of bail and conditions of bail bond.

(1) (e) (i) if a person is arrested for driving under the influence or driving while ability impaired, pursuant to section 42-4-1301, CRS and The person has one or more previous convictions for an offense in Section 42-4-1301, CRS., or one or more convictions in any other Jurisdiction that would constitute a violation of section 42-4-1301, CRS., as a condition of any bail bond, ...

... the court Shall Order that the defendant abstain from the use of alcohol or the Illegal use of drugs and such abstinence shall be monitored.

(Ii) a defendant seeking relief from any of the conditions imposed pursuant to subparagraph (i) of this paragraph (e) shall file a motion with the court and the court shall conduct a hearing upon the motion.

The court shall consider whether the condition from which the defendant is seeking relief is in the Interest of justice and whether public safety would be endangered If the condition were not enforced.

When determining whether to grant relief pursuant to this subparagraph (ii), the court shall
consider whether the defendant has voluntarily enrolled in and Is participating in an appropriate substance abuse treatment program.


June 16, 2011

Colorado Hit and Run Laws Providing Incentive to Flee the Scene - May Change

A Recent Denver Post article points out an anomaly in the law

" End incentive for fleeing scene of a bad accident"

The scenario is this. Intoxicated driver gets into an accident. Realizes that if he or she stays at the scene and calls the police as the law requires - they will be charged with DUI.

They make the decision to leave the scene

This is the rub. Without reaching the moral aspect of this decision - the police are put in a very difficult position as the evidence of what occurred most often leaves with the suspect.

The article in the post lists several incidents involving injuries in hit and run accidents.

"
A 31-year-old man was arrested in Pueblo after fleeing the scene of an accident that injured three people. Police suspect he was driving under the influence of alcohol. And a 10-year-old in west Denver miraculously escaped injury this month when he was hit by a car that was speeding down South Irving Street. The driver never stopped. Those are just a few of the most recent high-profile hit and runs."
At present -- the Colorado law can charge the individual - if they can identify that person as the driver of the suspect car - with what is commonly referred to as "Hit and Run."

It is true. A "hitch" in the laws "actually creates an incentive to flee an accident if the driver is drunk"

If an idividual stays at the scene and there are injuries to the victims of the accident... the charge will be Vehicular Assault - a Class 4 felony.

Not only is that charge much more significant than the misdemeanor Hit and Run charge -(if that charge can be proven) - it is a crime that is identified under the law as a "strict liability" cirme - meaning that other than identifying the driver as intoxicated - there is no legal defense to the crime.


H. Michael's Take

Prosecutors often take a very hard line in these cases... seeking prison if they can prove their case. This "no prisoners" approach to prosecuting these cases in the already impossibly harsh political environment for DUI prosecutions has actually made fleeing the scene of a serious DUI accident a "logical alternative" to accepting responsibility for one's actions.

If the public perceived more compassion in these unintended accidents - the fear driven decision to leave the scene would no longer seem to be the "only way out."

To Read more: see the Editorial: End incentive for fleeing scene of a bad accident - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_18131397#ixzz1OmZC7c69

July 14, 2010

New Jersey Requires DUI Express Consent Advisements Be Translated

Drivers in New Jersey who don't speak English must be informed of the
consequences of refusing to take an alcohol breath test in a language they understand, the state Supreme Court ruled Monday.

For the first time, as a result of the good work of the New jersey Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers the state's position that the all important advisement regarding the requirement that a person be advised of their obligation to take a blood or breath test (known here in Colorado as the Express Consent Law) not necessarily be understood - "just that it be read," was overturned as unreasonable by the Court. The decision gives immunity to any drunken driver who speaks a language that the officer is unable to identify or translate.

Since April, New Jersey has provided police with a website with the statement in audio and written form in 10 languages widely spoken in the state. State police have used the website at headquarters before administering the breath test, said a spokesman, Detective Brian Polite, but there are no statistics available as to how often.

Martin Perez, president of the Latino Leadership Alliance of New Jersey, called the ruling "a step forward" to dealing effectively with the states' population. More than 1.5 million immigrants live in New Jersey, and a quarter speak a language other than English.

The language issue is one states have grappled with on similar cases for years, with none requiring translations of these statements for non-English speakers, says Jeffrey Mandel, who filed a brief in support of the Marquez case for the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey.

In most states, drivers are deemed as having given implied consent to a breath test as a condition of being on the road and are reminded when stopped by police that refusing to do so can result in penalties as severe as those for impaired driving.

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey says a lack of a translation policy holds non-English speakers to a "higher standard" of remembering what's in the driver's manual. The ACLU, in a statement, likens it to the importance of translating Miranda rights and court proceedings, which the state's courts do provide.

State approaches to the breath-test consent typically fall into one of two categories:

• At least seven states call for "reasonable" efforts to be made by police to have those facing prosecution understand the consequences of refusing the test: Alaska, Iowa, Nebraska, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin. Definitions of "reasonable" have varied depending on the judge and the facts of each case, but several rulings have focused on an officer making a good faith attempt to convey the warning.

• Five other states -- Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, Ohio and Oregon -- follow the view of New Jersey's Democratic Attorney General Paula Dow that the law requires the statement be read, not that drivers must understand it.

Two other states also provide opportunities for translation. In New York, translators are on-call 24/7 to address any translation issues that may arise, according to the New York State Police. They also use cards with the warnings written in Spanish.

Washington state has the statement written in English and Spanish, as well as a telephone language service available to translate it into other languages. The Washington State Patrol reports the language line was used 49 times in 2009 and 29 times so far in 2010.

H. Michael's Take

Colorado's Express Consent Law:

By operating a motor vehicle in the state of Colorado you are automatically giving "express consent" or granting permission to be administered a chemical test by breath, blood, or urine to measure your blood alcohol content. If a law enforcement officer requires you to take a test because of suspected drinking and driving and you refuse, your license will be revoked at that point for one year.

Colorado Law does not now require Colorado's Express Consent Advisement be translated into the suspects native language... it should.

July 1, 2010

DUI Court: New Approach to Colorado DUI Sentencing Shows Promise in Larimer County

Ft Collins (Larimer County) to Launch DUi Court

First case is docketed for July 2, 2010

The 8th Judicial District (Larimer and Jackson counties) recently announced the launch of a problem-solving DUI court . This new, specialized court, to " bring solutions" to the challenges of repeat DUI offenders. The DUI court will hear cases of offenders with a history of repeat DUI related behaviors and offenses.

The court developed its treatment model from the Ten Guiding Principles of DWI Courts, produced by the National Center for DWI Courts, which places an emphasis on rehabilitating offenders through customized treatment programs, intensive supervision and regular, in-person court review hearings.

The court-adopted treatment model monitors participants in a variety of ways for program compliance. Participants must undergo treatment and counseling, submit to random and frequent drug and alcohol testing, and appear frequently before the judge. Sanctions, including jail time, are imposed for noncompliance, while positive incentives, such as public transportation vouchers, are awarded to successful participants as encouragement to continue advancing in the program.

The District Attorney's Office will screen DUI offenders and make a determination regarding an individual's eligibility to participate in the DUI court program. If the District Attorney's Office presents an initial invitation to participate in the program, the DUI Court Team will then further review the candidate's DUI-related history and, assuming the team believes the offender has the potential to be successful in the program, formally adopt him or her into the treatment model.

The Larimer County DUI court is a collaborative effort among local and state agencies including local substance abuse treatment providers and law enforcement agencies, the District Attorney's Office, the Public Defender's Office, the Alternative Sentencing Department, the Probation Department, the Larimer Center for Mental Health, and the Colorado Judicial Branch.


H. Michael's Take:

Rather than long term incarceration -- the knee jerk "voter's" and politician's response to repeat DUI offenders -- the 8th Judicial District has taken a well researched and reasoned approach to the problem and should be commended on a creative method to help rehabilitate and reform repeat offenders.

Long term incarcertation has been proven NOT to work -- it ignores and rarely addresses the underlying problems of repeat offenders. It cedes the truly tough issues udnerlying DUI's - such as alcoholism and depression to some antiquated belief that punishment (which ultimately leads to the destruction of families, jobs and relationhsips) will solve all problems.

I support this "team approach" to treating repeat DUi Offenders and will do all that I can to strengthen and help this idea to take hold in our state.