Friday, April 29, 2011
A person under the age of 21 shall not drive or be in actual physical control of any moving vehicle while the person alcohol concentration was .02 g or more at any time within 3 hours after such driving or being in physical control from alcohol before such driving or being in actual physical control after the driving ended. Every person convicted of violating this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor for the first and 2nd convictions and upon a 3rd or subsequent conviction thereof be guilty of a high an aggravated misdemeanor and shall be punished and fined as provided in subsection C of this code section, provided that any term of imprisonment served shall be subject to the provisions of code section 17-10-3.1 and any Community service imposed on such person shall be required to be completed within 60 days of the date of sentencing.No plea of nolo contendere shall be excepted for any person under the age of 21 charged with a violation of this code section. The driver's license of any person convicted of violating this subsection shall be revoked as provided by code section 40-5-57.1. Douglasville lawyers know that the requirement that all community service be completed in 60 days may pose problems to the client if the trial judge orders that 60 or 480 hours of community service be performed.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
OCGA 40-6-391(a)(4) provides that a person shall not drive or being in actual physical control of moving vehicle while: under the combined influence of any 2 or more of the substances specified in paragraphs 1 through 3 of this subsection to the extent that is less safe for the person to drive. The section again requires a finding that defendant was a less safe driver due to the combined effects of 2 or more intoxicants, alcohol and prescribe drugs in his system. Without doubt, jurors are more likely to convict when the evidence seems to support voluntary consumption or use of multiple substances. A Douglasville attorney should realize the inherent risks of going to trial in situations where OCGA 40-6-391(a)(4), come into play.Douglasville lawyer
Dviving under the influence of other substances pursuant to OCGA 40-6-391 (a) (3) | DUI -toxic vapor less safe
At the 1996 session of the Gen. Assembly, legislatures passed Senate Bill 560 which is codified as OCGA 40-6-391 (a) (3) which expanded 40-6-391 to include in the crime of DUI driving under the influence of any glue, aerosol, or other toxic vapo to the extent that is less safe for the person to drive. To prove such cases, the State will meet expert testimony to establish quantitative levels of such chemicals in sufficient quantities to cause less safe driving,not the mere presence of toxic vapors in the suspect's blood. No charts or per se limits exist for toxic vapors, so a good Douglasville criminal defense lawyer will not allow a conviction based on the pseudoscience that the State will try and bring forth at trial. Once again, defense counsel was bring an expert witness for the defense to refute any wildcat claims by GBI that only a certain level of such chemicals of the blood test would cause impairment. No charts or per se limits exist for toxic vapors so Douglasville attorney should not allow scientifically unreliable evidence to convict the client. A Douglasville attorney should challenge these claims based upon correlation to the time of driving, the experience level and actual expertise of the GBI witness,or possibly based upon client incidental exposure to these vapors during work or at home.
A Douglasville lawyer knows that driving under the influence of the contraband substance pursuant to OCGA 40-6-391(a)(6) has several different elements. Subsec. 6 provides that any person driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle is any amount of marijuana or controlled substance or derivative or metabolite, i.e. a byproduct created by the bodies elimination the contraband substance in the blood is guilty of DUI drugs per se. It seems clear that the mere presence of a prescription drug in the driver's bloodstream where the person does not have a prescription in his or her name will constitute a violation of this provision. Love v. State 271 Ga. 398 as put OCGA 40-6-391(a)(6) on hold. Love held that OCGA 40-6-391(a)(6) (DUI by driving with the mere presence of a drug, without need of proof of impairment) was too broadly drawn, so as to proscribe both legal users and illegal users of marijuana. Love v. State 271 Ga. 398 1999, does not defeat a conviction for reckless driving or for vehicular homicide with the predicate series driving offense being reckless driving. This is despite the reckless conduct being that the driver operated the car after having ingested marijuana. Ayres v. State, 272 Ga. 733 (2000). Hence no inferences presently exist whereby the prosecutor can convict with expert testimony to interpret how a certain quality of nanograms of a drug equal impairment. Kerr v. State 205 Ga. App. 624, 1992. If you are charged with driving under the influence of marijuana contact a Douglasville Georgia DUI lawyer.
In State v. Kachwalla, 274 Ga. 886 (2002) the Supreme Court Georgia found decision in love v. State 271 Ga. App. 98 was concerned only with the disparate treatment afforded those drivers that were charged under the per se violation of OCGA 40-6-391(a)(6) And the Court upheld the constitutionality OCGA 40-6-391(a)(2) against the charge it violated equal protection. The cost while a court was faced with an equal protection challenge based on the fact DUI prescription drugs called for a higher standard under subsection B than the other subsections. The Supreme Court Georgia avoided equal protection challenge altogether by concluding that less safe to drive and rendered incapable of driving safely were equivalent standards,legally, historically, and semantically. Therefore, a defendant accused of violating the statute which prohibited a person from driving while under the influence of any drug to the extent it was less safe for defendant to drive did not suffer disparate treatment in violation of equal protection, even though another statute set forth that a person charged with DUI and was legally entitled to use a drug other than alcohol did not commit DUI unless such person was rendered incapable of driving safely. A criminal defense attorney in Douglasville will argue all the points to show that the Defendant in teir case was capable of driving safely.Douglasville lawyer
It is imperative that if you are charged with DUI you retain a qualified DUI attorney immediately. OCGA 40-6-391 (a)(2)provides that a person shall not drive or being in physical control of any moving vehicle while under the influence of any drug to DUI statute to the extent that it is less safe for that person to drive.Prior to the Supreme Court's ruling in love v. State 271 Ga. 398 this was probably the least used DUI code section. Most reported cases involving prescribed medication arise as a result of impairmen from both alcohol and drugs. A DUI drug shall OCGA 40-6-391(a)(2)requires proof that the quantity or amount of the prescribed for contraband or over-the-counter drug caused impairment or caused the person to be a less safe driver. With more and more police officers requesting blood tests from DUI suspects, an increase in the number of combined effect cases can be expected. Additionally added January 1, 2008 changes in Georgia law under OCGA 40-5-75, pertained law driving privileges for certain drug-related convictions have raised the stakes for aggressively fighting cases with multiple criminal counts that may carry mandatory Consecutive driver's license suspensions.As of January 1, 2008 any drug convictions will be tacked onto the end of any other license suspensions. See OCGA 40-5-75-(i). 75-(i). While any evidence of driving with contraband substance in a driver's system constitutes driving under the influence of a drug, OCGA 40-6-391(a)(2) requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is less safe because of the quantity or concentration of the drug in his system at the time of driving. Aggressive Douglasville Dui lawyers make sure to argue this point to the judge and jury.