“You have the right to remain silent. If you give up the right to remain silent, anything you say can be used against you in court. You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost and before any questioning. You have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview.”

The problem with this warning is that the defendant was not explicitly advised that he had the right to have counsel present during questioning. While the Court found that the language of this warning was sufficient to convey to the defendant that he had this right and that it could be exercised at any time, the plain language of the warning suggests a different interpretation. While the warning suggests that the defendant can invoke any of his rights at any time during the interview, the right to talk to a lawyer is specifically limited by the phrase “before answering any of our questions.” Such phrasing could easily have suggested to the defendant that he had the right to consult to his attorney prior to questioning but no such right during or after questioning given the way that right was described in the above warning. This may not, and probably was not, how the phrase was intended by the law enforcement official who gave the warning, but it was nevertheless ambiguous and arguably did not clearly convey that the defendant had the right to have his criminal defense attorney present before, during, and after questioning.

Given that what was at stake here was basically the right of law enforcement officials to ad lib Miranda warnings with impunity versus the constitutional rights of the defendant, the Court should have been much stricter in applying the requirements of Miranda to the instant case. The decision in this case threatens to engender situations in which defendants are clearly not advised of their rights in accordance with Miranda but courts decide the warning given was effectively “good enough.” This is a dangerous situation that may serve to severely jeopardize defendants with regard to confessions and other evidence gathered during the interrogation process.

Source: http://onthedocket.org/articles/2010/02/23/court-approves-floridas-miranda-warning-feb-23-2010-0

Dave Ramsey describes bankruptcy as a “gut-wrenching, life-changing event that causes lifelong damage.”  He also goes on to claim that bankruptcy “can devastate your job, destroy your marriage and steal your peace of mind.”  This type of Chicken Little mentality is unwarranted and may scare consumers away from becoming fully informed about all of their debt relief options.

Mr. Ramsey’s message resonates particularly well with conservative and evangelical Christians.  In my practice, I’ve come across far to many Christians who feel like they have failed in the eyes of God if they do not repay their debts.  I devoted an entire blog entry to the topic to help those clients understand what the Bible really says about bankruptcy.

Mr. Ramsey’s negative experience with bankruptcy is atypical.  In my entire career, I have not had a single client express regret about filing for bankruptcy.  I have seen marriages healed as a result of the stress relief achieved in bankruptcy.  I have seen some clients improve their credit scores by as much 150 points because the individual no longer has any debt and their bad payment history will disappear over time.

Mr. Ramsey is correct that bankruptcy is not to be taken lightly.  But for many people, it is the only away to get out from under crushing debt loads, lawsuits and creditor harassment.  That is not say say that bankruptcy is without consequences.  Yes, it will stay on your credit report for 10 years and it is only a temporary fix unless the debtor is willing to make the necessary life changes to avoid future debt problems.  But for the vast majority of people who contact me, bankruptcy is truly the only option available.

The reality for my practice is that most of the people who come to see me have already done away with the toys and the frivolous spending. I’ve seen too many clients suffering heart problems, insomnia, depression and other stress related health issues by trying to avoid the inevitable for too long.

Sure, you can get a second job if you are $40,000 in the hole and you might have that  debt paid off in a few years. But what do you have? You filled a $40,000 hole and several years of time spent at a second job, which means lost evenings with your family and weekends of kids events.

Or you might consider a Chapter 7, which would be over in about 4 months in most cases, learn to live without credit cards and get the fresh start now. For every Dave Ramsey who had a bad experience in bankruptcy, I can point you to dozens of satisfied clients who have benefited greatly from the fresh start provided by a bankruptcy discharge.

Dave Ramsey does offer value assistance in pointing people down a path of financial responsbility and I do not question those services.  In fact, debtors who wish to avoid bankruptcy in the future could learn a few things from Mr. Ramsey.  However, nobody should decide simply on my word or Mr. Ramsey’s word alone.  Cut through the hype and scare tactics and explore for yourself what is the best option for you and your family.  After all, no decision feels better after you prayer, learn and investigate your options.

About the Author: Carl H. Starrett II has been a licensed attorney since 1993 and is a member in good standing with the California State Bar, the San Diego County Bar Association and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys. Mr. Starrett practices in the areas of bankruptcy, business litigation, construction, corporate planning and debt collection.

***
The New York Times

January 10, 2010
Prisoners of Parole
By JEFFREY ROSEN

IN 2004, STEVEN ALM, a state trial judge in Hawaii, was frustrated with the cases on his docket. Nearly half of the people appearing before him were convicted offenders with drug problems who had been sentenced to probation rather than prison and then repeatedly violated the terms of that probation by missing appointments or testing positive for drugs. Whether out of neglect or leniency, probation officers would tend to overlook a probationer’s first 5 or 10 violations, giving the offender the impression that he could ignore the rules. But eventually, the officers would get fed up and recommend that Alm revoke probation and send the offender to jail to serve out his sentence. That struck Alm as too harsh, but the alternative — winking at probation violations — struck him as too soft. “I thought, This is crazy, this is a crazy way to change people’s behavior,” he told me recently.

So Alm decided to try something different. He reasoned that if the offenders knew that a probation violation would lead immediately to some certain punishment, they might shape up. “I thought, What did I do when my son was young?” he recalled. “If he misbehaved, I talked to him and warned him, and if he disregarded the warning, I gave him some kind of consequence right away.” Working with U.S. marshals and local police, Alm arranged for a new procedure: if offenders tested positive for drugs or missed an appointment, they would be arrested within hours and most would have a hearing within 72 hours. Those who were found to have violated probation would be quickly sentenced to a short jail term proportionate to the severity of the violation — typically a few days.

Alm mentioned his plan to the public defender, who suggested that it was only fair to warn probationers that the rules were going to be strictly enforced for the first time. Alm agreed, and on Oct. 1, 2004, he held a hearing for 18 sex offenders, followed by another one for 16 drug offenders. Brandishing a laminated “Wanted” poster, he told them: “I can guarantee that everyone in this courtroom wants you to succeed on probation, but you have not been cutting it. From now on, you’re going to follow all the rules of probation, and if you don’t, you’re going to be arrested on the spot and spend some time in jail right away.” He called the program HOPE, for Hawaii’s Opportunity Probation With Enforcement, and prepared himself for a flood of violation hearings.

But they never materialized. There were only three hearings in the first week, two in the second week and none in the third. The HOPE program was so successful that it inspired scholars to evaluate its methods. Within a six-month period, the rate of positive drug tests fell by 93 percent for HOPE probationers, compared with a fall of 14 percent for probationers in a comparison group.

Alm had stumbled onto an effective strategy for keeping people out of prison, one that puts a fresh twist on some venerable ideas about deterrence. Classical deterrence theory has long held that the threat of a mild punishment imposed reliably and immediately has a much greater deterrent effect than the threat of a severe punishment that is delayed and uncertain. Recent work in behavioral economics has helped to explain this phenomenon: people are more sensitive to the immediate than the slightly deferred future and focus more on how likely an outcome is than how bad it is. In the course of implementing HOPE, Alm discovered another reason why the strategy works: people are most likely to obey the law when they’re subject to punishments they perceive as legitimate, fair and consistent, rather than arbitrary and capricious. “When the system isn’t consistent and predictable, when people are punished randomly, they think, My probation officer doesn’t like me, or, Someone’s prejudiced against me,” Alm told me, “rather than seeing that everyone who breaks a rule is treated equally, in precisely the same way.”

Judge Alm’s story is an example of a new approach to keeping people out of prison that is being championed by some of the most innovative scholars studying deterrence today. At its core, the approach focuses on establishing the legitimacy of the criminal-justice system in the eyes of those who have run afoul of it or are likely to. Promising less crime and less punishment, this approach includes elements that should appeal to liberals (it doesn’t rely on draconian prison sentences) and to conservatives (it stresses individual choice and moral accountability). But at a time when the size of the U.S. prison population is increasingly seen as unsustainable for both budgetary and moral reasons — the United States represents 5 percent of the world’s population and nearly 25 percent of the world’s prison population — the fact that this approach seems to work may be its biggest draw.

The HOPE program, if widely adopted as a model for probation and parole reform, could make a surprisingly large contribution to reducing the prison population. In many states, the majority of prison admissions come not from arrests for new crimes, as you might think, but from probation and parole violations. Nationwide, roughly two-thirds of parolees fail to complete parole successfully. Todd Clear, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, estimates that by eliminating imprisonment across the nation for technical parole violations, reducing the length of parole supervision and ratcheting back prison sentences to their 1988 levels, the United States could reduce its prison population by 50 percent.

Some in government are beginning to take notice. In November, invoking the HOPE program as a model, the Democratic congressman Adam Schiff of California and his Republican colleague Ted Poe of Texas introduced legislation in the House that would create federal grants for states to experiment with courts that deliver swift, predictable and moderate punishment for those who violate probation.

There also appears to be a national audience for a broader conversation about new ways to shrink the prison population. Last year, a three-judge panel in California ordered the overcrowded state prison system — the largest in the country, with more than 170,000 prisoners at its peak — to reduce the inmate population by tens of thousands of prisoners within two years in order to comply with constitutional standards for medical and mental health care. Facing a tightening budget crisis in September, California legislators added to the pressure by demanding a reduction in the prison budget of $1.2 billion. In the U.S. Senate, Jim Webb of Virginia is leading a crusade for prison reform, insisting that fewer jail terms for nonviolent offenders can make America safer and more humane, while also saving money. And in the Obama administration, Attorney General Eric Holder is questioning the value of relentlessly expanding prisons. In July, he declared that “high rates of incarceration have tremendous social costs” and “diminishing marginal returns.”

The most effective way to shrink the prison population, of course, is not just to reform probation and parole but also to deter groups of potential lawbreakers from committing crimes in the first place. If, in addition to bringing down the numbers of probation and parole revocations, police officers and judges could also address the core problems of drug arrests and street violence, the United States might even be said to have solved its notorious prison problem. Is such an ambitious goal possible? While it might sound too good to be true, the HOPE-style thinking about deterrence offers a promising road map for addressing all these challenges.

ALTHOUGH HE ACTED on his own, Judge Alm did not design the HOPE program without inspiration. In the mid-1990s, when he was a U.S. attorney in Hawaii, Alm heard a presentation by David M. Kennedy, who is considered the patron saint of the new thinking about deterrence. Kennedy, who now teaches at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, spoke about Operation Ceasefire, a program he was designing to reduce youth violence in Boston. Along with his colleagues Anne M. Piehl and Anthony Braga, Kennedy worked with the head of the Youth Violence Strike Force, a division of the Boston Police Department. The police officer explained that while conventional deterrence hadn’t worked, he had begun to persuade gangs to behave by issuing a credible threat: namely, that when a gang attracted attention with notorious acts of violence, the entire gang — all of whose members likely had outstanding warrants or probation, parole or traffic violations — would be rounded up.

Kennedy recalls this today as a breakthrough moment in his thinking. Ever since the days of Cesare Beccaria, the 18th-century philosopher and death-penalty opponent, classical deterrence theorists had focused on credibly threatening individuals; Kennedy’s first innovation was to focus on increasing the legitimacy of law enforcement in the eyes of groups. “The legitimacy element has risen in my mind from being an important element of the strategy to the most important element,” Kennedy told me. Convinced that the best way to increase legitimacy was to enlist what he calls the “community’s moral voice,” Kennedy set out to deter the most dangerous young gang members by persuading their friends and neighbors to pressure them into obeying the law.

In May 1996, Kennedy, Piehl and Braga helped to design the first of what came to be known as “call-in” sessions, intended to put gangs on notice that they would face swift and certain punishments. Working with Kennedy, probation and parole officers ordered gang members to attend face-to-face meetings with the police. The gang members were given three warnings. First, they were told that if anyone in their group killed someone, the entire group would suffer consequences. Second, the gang members were told that if they want to escape from street life, they could get help and job training from social service agencies and churches. And finally, they heard from members of their community that violence was wrong and it had to stop. The results of the forums were striking and immediate. Within two years, youth violence in Boston fell by two-thirds and city homicide rates by about half.

Why was Operation Ceasefire so effective? One reason was that the warning hearings gave the gang members a sense of what to expect. Increasingly draconian sentences don’t always reduce crime, and sometimes increase it. (After increasing in the 1980s, crime fell by 25 percent in the 1990s, but states that put more people in jail had a smaller decline than states that imprisoned fewer.) In part, this is because many people actually don’t know the punishments they face.

In addition to offering knowledge, Operation Ceasefire provided certainty. The small numbers of gang members singled out meant they could trust that the police would be able to follow through on their threats. “If you can get people to behave by threatening them credibly, you’ll need less actual punishment than if you let them run wild and punish only occasionally,” says Mark A. R. Kleiman, author of the new book “When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment.” Kleiman, whom Alm consulted soon after initiating the HOPE program, became interested in swift, certain and moderate punishment when he was a colleague of Kennedy’s years before. Lastly, Operation Ceasefire gave gang members an incentive to obey the law by promising that they would get positive reinforcement from their families and neighbors for changing their behavior.

In all of this, Kennedy’s insights were supported by a variety of recent research suggesting that people are more likely to obey the law when they view law enforcement as fair and legitimate. Tom Tyler, a psychology professor at New York University, has found that compliance with court orders is highest for offenders who perceive that they have experienced a fair process. And in a recent book, “American Homicide,” the Ohio State University historian Randolph Roth argues that throughout American history, the homicide rate has decreased when people trust that the government is stable and unbiased and believe in the legitimacy of the officials who run it. Similarly, the legal scholar Paul Butler argues in his new book, “Let’s Get Free: A Hip-Hop Theory of Justice,” that widespread incarceration in the 1980s and ’90s undermined the legitimacy of law enforcement in the eyes of the affected communities by converting a prison term into something heroic rather than stigmatic.

After Operation Ceasefire, Kennedy turned his attention from gangs to open-air drug markets. He set out to change how the criminal-justice system was viewed from the perspective of the offenders and their communities — and how the offenders and their communities were viewed by the police. As Kennedy told me, “I saw law enforcement believing plausible but untrue things about the communities they police” — namely, that the communities were corrupt and didn’t care about the violence that was destroying them — “and the communities believing untrue things about the police” — namely, that the cops were part of a racist conspiracy to lock up black offenders while overlooking white ones.

To correct what he calls a “corrosive and tragic mistake,” Kennedy came up with the idea of a kind of truth-and-reconciliation commission in which offenders would talk to the police accompanied by the people they trusted the most: their mothers. In 2003, working with James Fealy, the police chief in High Point, N.C., Kennedy arranged some preliminary meetings. Although Fealy had been shocked to learn that the community thought he and his officers were almost as bad as the drug dealers, Fealy, in turn, surprised community members by declaring that no one in law enforcement thought the drug war could be won.

These meetings prepared the groundwork for the strategy that followed. After identifying 16 active drug dealers, Fealy arrested four and then prepared warrants for the other 12 that could be signed whenever the police chose. He then called in the other dealers, nine of whom arrived accompanied by their mothers and other “influentials” like grandmothers, and delivered the following message to them as a group: “You could be in jail tonight. We don’t want to do that, we want to help you succeed, but you are out of the drug business.” The mothers and grandmothers, seemingly impressed by the decision not to arrest, cheered on the police. In subsequent meetings, the “influentials” shouted down naysayers, including a conspiracymonger who accused the C.I.A. of having created the crack epidemic to oppress black people. The drug market in the area dried up.

IN ADDITION TO influencing Judge Alm’s probation reform, Kennedy’s efforts to rethink deterrence have also inspired one of the most powerful recent models for national parole reform, which comes from Tracey Meares, a law professor at Yale. (Unlike probation, which involves a sentence instead of prison, parole involves supervision after part of the prison sentence has been served.) In 2002, Meares, who was then a law professor at the University of Chicago, was asked by the U.S. attorney in Chicago, Patrick Fitzgerald, to analyze how best to address crime in the city. She concluded that they should begin on the West Side, in West Garfield Park and the surrounding area, where rates of murder and gun violence were more than four times the city average. Fitzgerald suggested that they might implement a version of Project Exile, a controversial program in Virginia that sought to deter gun violence by threatening federal prosecutions — and a five-year mandatory minimum sentence — for repeat offenders convicted of illegal gun possession. But Project Exile had experienced only mixed success: federal prosecutors could prosecute only a small proportion of the gun cases submitted by the Richmond police. The threat of a severe sentence was, in effect, something of a bluff.

Meares told Fitzgerald that threats of zero tolerance wouldn’t work because they simply weren’t credible. Instead, Meares argued that law-enforcement officials should concentrate on specific groups of wrongdoers in ways they could accept as both reasonable and fair. Using Operation Ceasefire in Boston as a model, Meares identified everyone who had committed violent or gun-related crimes and had been released from prison and recently assigned to parole. She gathered them in random groups of no more than 20 for call-in sessions in what Meares calls “places of civic importance” — park buildings, local schools and libraries — where they sat at the same table as the police in order to create an egalitarian, nonconfrontational atmosphere. They then heard a version of Kennedy’s three-part presentation. The results of the program were drastic: there was a 37 percent drop in the average monthly homicide rate — the largest drop of any neighborhood in the city. Violent crime in Chicago today is at a 30 year low. “All these strategies are a way of signaling to groups of people that government agents view them with dignity, neutrality and trust, which is the best way of convincing them that the government has the right to hold them accountable for their behavior,” Meares told me.

From Kennedy and Kleiman to Alm and Meares, the judges and scholars developing new deterrence strategies are changing the way we think about parole, probation, gang violence and drug markets. But the strategies also present a rare opportunity to persuade the nation’s policymakers that the most urgent case for prison reform is not only economic but also moral and practical. Yes, it’s an outrage that the United States locks up citizens for so long with such uncertain effect; but it’s also self-defeating, because long sentences give rise to a crisis of legitimacy that can lead to more crime, not less.

A crisis of legitimacy may sound like a huge, perhaps intractable problem, but the tantalizing promise of the new deterrence thinking is that the crisis can actually be solved, practical step by practical step. The relative simplicity of the solutions, it turns out, is at the core of their radical potential.

Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor at George Washington University, is a frequent contributor to the magazine. He is at work on a book about Louis Brandeis.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company
__._,_.___

Some are tragic, changing the lives of those involved, while others, like a recent story out of Minnesota, simply boggle the mind.

In the town of Proctor, Minn., a man was stopped for driving drunk after he collided with a parked car, according to the Duluth News Tribune.

The suspect was returning home from the Keyboard Lounge, a bar where he had consumed eight to nine beers.
Unlike many involved in accidents while driving automobiles, Dennis LeRoy Anderson’s vehicle of choice was a supercharged La-Z-Boy reclining armchair.

Nobody was injured in the accident.

Anderson pleaded guilty to DWI in the incident. His blood alcohol content was measured at 0.29 percent. He has a prior DWI conviction on his record. He received a sentence of 180 days in the St. Louis County Jail or at the Northeast Regional Corrections Center, and must pay a $2,000 fine.

As a part of his probation, according to the News Tribune, “Anderson must submit to a chemical dependency assessment, follow all recommendations, abstain from alcohol and not-prescribed drugs, be subject to random testing and undergo 30 days of electronic monitoring.”

The recliner was customized to travel with a lawn mower engine controlled by a small steering wheel, a stereo, cup holders, and even headlights. To complete the décor, Anderson placed a National Hot Rod Racing Association sticker on the recliner’s headrest.

The chair can reach speeds up to twenty miles per hour, with some help, presumably, from the included nitrous booster.

Anderson’s La-Z-Boy was seized following the incident, as is common. It is now up for auction. The story itself has gained international coverage.

The Proctor Deputy Police Chief, Troy Foucault, was unprepared for the attention. According to the News Tribune, Foucault said, “Our secretary wasn’t too happy. She said, ‘What have you created?’ I said, ‘I talked to the News Tribune, and all of a sudden it’s a whirlwind.’ ’’

According to Minnesota law, it is a crime to operate a self-propelled motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol or drugs. Clearly the interpretation of this law extends to even the most unusual vehicles.

Anderson stated that his trip home in the La-Z-Boy was proceeding as he’d planned it until, “a woman jumped on it and knocked the chair off course.” It was at that point that he struck the parked car. Standers-by probably could have told the wannabe passenger that it was only a one-seater.

By Morgan Brickley

Richard Niemczyk, a resident of Hanover Park, Ill., was recently arrested for and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, according to The Courier-News.

The DUI charge was Niemczyk’s tenth such charge since 1991.

Niemczyk was arrested following an Oct. 21 incident at a local business, where a store employee reported to police that Niemczyk was acting belligerently while attempting to return merchandise to the store.

Police arrived on the scene, and told Niemczyk not to drive out of the business’ parking lot, determining after some investigation that his license had been revoked.

Niemczyk chose to disobey this directive, which proved to be a bad decision.

Police officers saw Niemczyk drive past them at a nearby intersection, a mere fifteen minutes after leaving the store. Driving a 1994 Ford Econoline van, he was arrested not only for driving with a revoked license, but he was also later charged with driving under the influence of alcohol.

A DuPage County Grand Jury recently indicted Niemczyk for aggravated driving while under the influence of alcohol.
Because it was his tenth DUI arrest since March of 1991, the charge was upgraded to a Class X felony, which can mean six to thirty years in a state penitentiary, and/or a fine of up to $25,000.

The local police department and the DuPage County State’s Attorney’s Office have, according to The Courier-News, “charged Niemczyk with a Class 1 Felony for aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol, a Class 4 Felony for aggravated driving with a revoked license, a Class A Misdemeanor for driving under the Influence of Alcohol and a Class A Misdemeanor for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol with a blood alcohol content of .08 or more.”

They need to make cutbacks just like the rest of us. In order to save money they have begun using advanced technologies to monitor people with DUI convictions.

Many states closed down prisons in the past couple years making it expensive and uneconomical to fill them especially for lesser crimes such as drunk drivers. So some states have adopted electrical monitoring devices for people convicted of DUI.

Included in this development of technology is Virginia. It only costs $12 for offenders to wear this ankle monitor 24 hours a day. This is the cheaper option compared to the $150.00 it costs to keep a minor offender in the Loudon County Jail. Plus the convicted driver is the one who pays the cost to wear the anklet.

Bari Lynn Williams is learning the hard way that this ankle bracelet can cause you to think twice about drinking and driving.

Back in April 2007, Williams was pulled over by the Loudon sheriff’s deputies. She had been at a golf outing earlier that day and had partaken in a few adult beverages.

The deputies pulled her over on suspicion of drinking and driving when they found baggies with drug residue.

She pleaded guilty to drunken driving and drug possession. She got two years probation. The judge told Williams he would dismiss the charges if she followed a court program of probation, therapy, attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous and periodic checks for substance abuse.

She had no problems until recently when a deputy stopped by her house for a check and her BAC content was a 0.09, a smidge over the legal limit in Virginia which is 0.08.

Williams faced up to 6 months in jail for violating the terms of her agreement- or she could wear the SCRAM (Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor) anklet. This device has a small fuel cell located in the bracelet that’s sensitive enough to detect even the tiniest amount of alcohol that emerges from a person’s skin after drinking.

SCRAM samples perspiration every 30 minutes thus being able to detect the slightest amount of alcohol on the body. So every time an offender sweats it can sense the alcohol and alert the police.

There are about 15,000 SCRAM anklets being used throughout 46 states.

Williams states she’s thankful to be wearing the bracelet because it keeps her out of jail. Sure there is the slight embarrassment she suffers with her new fashion anklet, but to her it’s worth wearing. It keeps her from drinking and will prevent her from any future charges of drinking under the influence.

Although most people start out with good intentions, one drink leads to another. Before you know it, you hit the brick wall and attempt to figure out how the night took a turn for the worse.

You go back and forth questioning your ability to drive and many times, unfortunately, the wrong choice is made. You start the car increasing your chances of committing a DUI offense and worse endangering yourself or others on the road.

But what if there was technology that could decide for you? What if it could tell that your blood alcohol level was over the limit? What if it would not let you start your vehicle to drive home?

For example, if a driver drinks way too much past the predetermined limit, then an ignition interlock will not start the vehicle.

These are usually placed in the vehicles of convicted impaired drivers and commercial vehicles to promote safe driving.

But we are jumping into the future and the realizations that the dangers of drinking and driving affect everyone on the roads. We live in a world where alcohol is a part of everyday life and when mixed with driving can be a deadly and costly combination.

A company in Canada called Alcohol Countermeasure System Corp is investing $18 million in the “next generation” of alcohol-sensing technology. They hope to commercialize this product to combat future drinking and driving.

Some countries have started putting these devises in public buses, school buses and taxis to prevent anyone caring passengers from getting behind the wheel while intoxicated.

Volvos are being built with alcohol sensors and will be sold throughout North America. This way if you decide to get into your car and you’ve had one too many, then your car won’t start – saving you from making the wrong decision.

These devices will no longer be just a form of punishment but of method of teaching drivers to not drink and drive.

Unfortunately in some situations we can’t judge for ourselves. Hopefully modern technology can help stop not only our generation but future ones from getting a DUI offense and worse.

Sure there are cases where a woman may flirt to get out of a ticket or bat her doe eyes innocently at the officer in the hopes of avoiding a ticket, but now there maybe concrete evidence to prove that woman are more at a loss when it comes to the standard DUI laws than ever before.

According to an article provided by the Law Offices of Lawrence Taylor, who is Los Angeles area DUI attorney and nationally-known author of the book Drunk Driving Defense, a study out of Italy shows there is a component to a female’s bio-chemical make-up which could make women more predisposed to fail a DUI road test. The study may prove that woman may be unfairly arrested for DUI in some cases and should be given more gender specific tests.

Taylor cites researchers at the University School of Medicine in Trieste, Italy, who found that women have less alcohol dehydrogenase than men. The study asserts that with less of the enzyme that breaks down alcohol in the stomach, women reach the same blood alcohol concentration as men after drinking only half as much.

The study goes on to state that women reached blood alcohol levels illegal in a DUI case after drinking 20 to 30% less alcohol than men of equal weight.

This could be a sturdy claim that could be asserted by many women when they find themselves eye to eye with a Trooper, but one that seems to only find merit in Italy at the moment.

In Canada, a study has shown that women taking oral contraceptives may reach peak BAC levels more quickly. This is a supposition that other attorneys have used when claiming their female clients failed a breathalyzer test due to the fact that they were taking oral contraceptives at the time of the test.

Both studies may eventually be a foundation for a compelling argument in the court room.

The underlying problem in this is that many women may not choose to argue against the validity of their failed test based on their sex. In fact, in the majority of the cases where birth control was a deciding factor for failure, it was a male attorney who plead the case.

In Brownsville, Texas a man ran a vehicle off the road at 2 a.m. on a Tuesday. He was arrested, charged with his first DUI and released about 11:20 a.m. on $3,000 bond.

A mere six hours later he was picked up again after he hit another vehicle. He was charged, once again, with DUI – and a host of other vehicular charges – and placed in prison under $40,000 bond.

Two days, two DUIs.

But in Wisconsin, a woman topped the Texas mark, picking up three DUI arrests in three days. Her first arrest came as she tried to drive out of a ditch near a state park. She was wearing only one shoe and registered a BAC of .21.

Not 24-hours later her car was stuck in a snow bank and she was arrested for DUI again.

“I am still finishing up the box of wine in my car from yesterday,” authorities reported she told the officer.

She spent 12 hours in jail, but was picked up not long after her release. She was reported to be driving erratically and was found, once again, with a box of wine in her car. She will now spend 30 days in jail.