Driving under the influence is a serious matter and can have serious consequences. Most often, DUIs involve the consumption of alcohol. However, contrary to previous thinking, a DUI is not strictly alcohol specific. In Georgia, it is a criminal offense to operate a car, truck, or motorcycle when a driver’s ability has been compromised by the use of either alcohol or drugs, whether legal or illegal. Legal drugs include over-the-counter medications, such as antihistamines, and prescription medicines, such as Class A, B or C painkillers. Illegal drugs often include, but not limited to, marijuana and cocaine.
The state of Georgia has enacted strict penalties for those individuals 
arrested of DUI. While criminal laws are designed to serve as a deterrent factor, there will be some individuals who are willing to gamble against the odds of being charged and later convicted. For those individuals who are first-time DUI offenders, the below serves as an outline of punishments and/or consequences to be expected. Noted below are the possible sentences and/or fines for first-time DUI offenders. These punishments do not take into consideration any aggravating factors such as a prior conviction, destruction of personal property other than their own, and loss of life.
Consequences for first-time DUI offenders with no aggravating circumstances
- Suspension of driver’s license for a period of one year.
- Minimum jail sentence of one day. Normal length of incarceration is ten days to one year. If sentence is less than 12 months, the defendant will be sentenced to serve probation for a period of 12 months.
- 40 hours of community service for those individuals 21 years of age and older. Defendants below the age of 21 will be required to complete 20 hours of community service.
- Monetary fines between $300.00 to $1,000.00
- Defendant will be required to pay all court ordered costs to include filing fees and court appointed attorney fees.
- Defendant will be required to complete a certified DUI course at the expense of the Defendant.
- Completion of a Risk Reduction Program
- A lifetime record of a DUI conviction.
A DUI charge of any magnitude is an important matter and should be taken seriously. Any individual charged with driving under the influence should immediately seek the advice of an attorney specializing in criminal law.
Filed under DUI laws, Fines and Fees, Punishment issues by on Feb 4th, 2010. Comment. 
If you are charged with a felony in Georgia, you may be required to give a DNA sample if new legislation is passed. As of now, DNA can only be collected from people convicted of a felony or through a search warrant. The goal of the bill is to expand Georgia’s DNA database.
The bill, introduced by State Representative Rob Teihet, a democrat who is also running for Attorney General, would require anyone arrested for a felony to provide a DNA sample at the same time that fingerprints and mug shots are taken.
The bill is being pushed by the Surviving Parents Coalition, a group of parents 
whose daughters were killed in violent crimes. 3 years ago, Joan Berry, whose daughter Johnia was killed while a student at the University of Tennessee, pushed the law in Tennessee. “The Johnia Berry Act was passed in Tennessee and that same year an arrest was made due to a DNA match, so Jonia’s murderer was finally found,” she says.
The Surviving Parents Coalition says that mandatory DNA sampling for those arrested on felony charges in Georgia would solve murders and keep people safe. At a news conference, Teihet presented data showing that almost 130 crimes could have been prevented in 3 states if DNA had been collected.
Teilhet says he knows that the state budget is lean and the GBI already has trouble keeping up with current DNA tests. “There is a backlog now,” he says. “One of the things we as a state have to do is simply decide that, consistent with our values, this is a priority.” Officials have said that while the biggest downside of the bill would be the cost, in the long run, it would create more criminal justice jobs.
21 states already have laws requiring DNA samples from anyone arrested for a felony, and Georgia may be the next when Teilhet introduces the legislation. Teilhet says he’s aware that privacy advocates may have problems with mandatory testing, but he has law enforcement backing it as an additional crime fighting tool.
Filed under Blog, DNA evidence by on Feb 2nd, 2010. Comment.
Anti-racial profiling legislation has been introduced in Georgia to curb the practice of law enforcement officers stopping people based on their race or ethnicity.
The legislation, SB-325, was introduced by Senator Gloria Butler. Representative Pedro Marin plans to introduce a similar bill in the House. The issue came to light when Cobb County resident Mark Bell, an African American, left his home after 10 pm a few months ago to go to the grocery store. A police car pulled up behind Bell, checked his license plate, and followed him all the way to the store. Bell said while the officer never stopped him, the message was clear. “It was racial profiling,” Bell said. “Here in 2010, that is unacceptable in Georgia. A black man can’t leave his house after 10 pm without being profiled. You become fearful. It is mentally nerve-racking.”
Under Butler’s bill, police officers would be required to record the age, gender, race and ethnicity of every person they pull over. That data would be analyzed to detect trends that could show whether racial profiling is happening. The bill also calls for annual officer training. Butler said it would not add to the budget.
“We think this bill is necessary, because racial profiling is a pervasive and serious problem,” Butler said. “People of color are more likely to be stopped and searched by police. Racial profiling is ineffective and based on false assumptions.”
According to an attorney for the ACLU of Georgia, Azadeh N. Shahshahani, 26 states prevent racial profiling of motorists. Florida, Tennessee, North Carolina and Louisiana are the only states in the Southeast that ban the practice. Shahshahani added that 14 states have laws that mandate collection of stop and search data.
“We know that if your skin color is darker than mine or your religion is not Christian, you are likely to be racial profiled,” said the Rev. Tracy Blagec, the vice president of Atlantans Building Leadership of Empowerment, which has joined lawmakers, along with the ACLU, to get the legislation passed. “People like me don’t get pulled over.”
Sen. Donzella James (D-College Park) said her son was stopped and questioned about why he was driving a nice car and dressed up. Nan Orrock (D-Atlanta), who is white, recalled stories of how her son would get stopped when he was riding in cars with young black men.
Representative Marin, who is Hispanic, said it is good timing for this bill. In 2004, 117 members of the House voted yes on a racial profiling bill, but it later died in conference committee. “It has been a long struggle to get this bill before the governor,” Marin said. “But I truly believe it is the right time to get the bill signed, enacted and placed into law.
Filed under Police conduct issues, Racial Profiling by on Feb 1st, 2010. Comment.
Many teenagers are not aware of what laws affect them, or are ignorant that the consequences of committing a crime will actually happen to them. It is important for teenagers to understand their rights, and that is why attorney J. Tom Morgan will be presenting a program titled, “A Teenagers Guide to Georgia Law.” Georgia teenagers will be given advice about teen-specific laws and consequences that is important for them to understand, specifically regarding alcohol, drugs and sex.
For example, if a 17-year-old boy takes a pornographic photo of his 17-year-old girlfriend and sends it to his friend; both boys are guilty of a 20-year felony. In Georgia, sending a pornographic photo via text message of someone under the age of 18 is a felony, even if the sender is a minor.
One aspect of Georgia law that is often misunderstood by teenagers has to do with underage drinking and driving. While many teenagers think they can have a few drinks and drive without getting a DUI, this is not true. The blood alcohol level in Georgia must be .02 or higher for an underage person to get a DUI, and many teens don’t realize that only one drink will often put them over this limit. For anyone under the age of 21 to get behind the wheel of a vehicle with any alcohol on their breath, they are absolutely risking, and probably will get, a DUI.
Another common question teens often ask is if an underage person is at a party that has alcohol, but is not drinking, can they be arrested? The answer is no. It is not against the law to be at a party where kids are drinking alcohol; it’s just against the law to be drinking as well. If police do come and you have not been drinking, Morgan recommends asking for a Breathalyzer to prove your innocence.
Morgan, the author of “Ignorance is No Defense,” a guide for teenagers and their parents on Georgia law, wants to provide teens and their parents with information meant to deter the act of crimes, as well as to help teens avoid becoming the victims of crimes. He believes most young people will make wiser decisions if they have given it some thought ahead of time and have the legal knowledge.
Kathy Hodges, a counselor at Savannah Country Day School where the program will be held, said the program will help students to make good decisions. “We’re concerned that kids can make decisions without really understanding the full ramifications of them,” said Hodges. “We feel that part of our obligation in educating kids is to help them understand the consequences of decisions.”
Filed under Blog, DUI laws by on Jan 30th, 2010. Comment.
Georgia may become the next state to ban texting while driving. Last Tuesday State Republicans Allen Peake and Amos Amerson introduced House Bill 938, which would outlaw texting while driving and charge drivers with a fine and driver’s license penalties for doing so.
If the bill passes, it would go into effect July 1 and make Georgia the 20th state to make texting while driving illegal. Nine states ban text messaging for teen drivers.
According to Rep. Peter Barca, a bill author, texting while driving “is more serious than driving drunk because your eyes are off the road for just too long. Make no mistake about it: People are killed by people texting messages.”
The bill has the support of AAA Auto Club, which wants to see similar laws passed in every state by the year 2013. Kevin W. Bakewell, senior vice president of the AAA Auto Club South, said the ban on texting is AAA’s top legislative priority, as multiple studies have shown the practice to be an extremely dangerous distraction for drivers due to the extended time drivers’ eyes are off the road.
Peake says the bill is a step in the right direction for Georgia. He stopped short of a total ban on cell phone use and says the legislation addresses the “more dangerous” practice of texting. “I used to text like crazy while driving, I had no idea what was going on around me, and that’s scary. I knew I needed to make some changes before I hurt myself or someone else.”
Peake said the law may also be difficult to enforce, but hopes that having a law on the books which could cost drivers who get caught at least a $50 fine and two penalty points on their driver’s licenses would be a deterrent. A study in California shows that a ban in the state reduced texting while driving by 70 percent.
Filed under Blog by on Jan 25th, 2010. Comment.
An ignition interlock device (IID) is a tool that is used to prevent people from driving under the influence of alcohol. An IID is a mechanism that is installed to a motor vehicle’s dashboard and will act as a breathalyzer to determine if the driver is capable of getting behind the wheel based on their BAC (Breath Alcohol Content). While some states order drivers to get an ignition interlock device if they have previous DUI convictions, having one installed could be helpful just to make sure you are safe to drive and don’t make any unsafe decisions.
Here’s how the IID works: Before a person can start their vehicle, they must breathe into the device as if they are using a breathalyzer. The IID measures their BAC, and if it is over the allowed amount, which varies between states but is commonly .02% to .04%, than the engine cannot be started.
As of 2009, almost all 50 states have laws that permit the use of IID’s as a sentencing alternative for drunk drivers, or as a condition of driving again after a suspended license resulting from a DUI.
In Georgia, upon conviction of a second DUI the violator’s license is suspended for at least 18 months. For the final six months of the license suspension the driver is required to have an IID installed in any vehicle that they intend to use once they are re-licensed.
It is almost impossible to fool the IID, and I’m sure many have tried. The engine will not start if a person attempts to use a mechanical tool in place of their breath or if the device is tampered with in any way. Having a sober friend blow into the device before you drive will also fail; at random times once the engine has been started the device will ask for additional breath samples.
If you are ordered to have an IID installed, you will have to pay for all the fees, which include installation, renting, maintenance, and calibrations. The installation typically costs from $100-$200. The monthly rental fee typically costs from $70 to $100. Thus, here is yet another expense that can be associated with DUI. For more on the sobering costs of driving under the influence, which was the topic of my last blog post, please click on the link.
The IID has proven effective in California, where data shows that with repeat DUI offenders, the use of IID is associated with reductions in succeeding DUI incidents. However, with first time DUI offenders that had high blood alcohol levels the IID has not shown as much success.
Filed under DUI Prevention by on Jan 23rd, 2010. Comment.
On Tuesday the unusual practices in Georgia trial courts, including disrespectful gifts to court personnel and the ejection of a defendant’s uncle, were the subjects of a pair of unsigned Supreme Court decisions.
In one of the Georgia cases, Presley v. Georgia, the Supreme Court came to a conclusion on two open issues concerning closed courtrooms.
The trial judge had kicked out an uncle of the defendant during jury selection and said her courtroom was too small to accommodate both potential jurors and the public. The defendant, Eric Presley, who had been convicted of trafficking in cocaine, appealed the conviction and claimed his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial had been violated.
In 1984, the Supreme Court had ruled that the press and the public have a First Amendment right of access to jury selection. Tuesday the court extended that right to criminal defendants under the Sixth Amendment for Presley’s case. “There is no legitimate reason, at least in the context of jury selection proceedings, to give one who asserts a First Amendment privilege greater rights to insist on public proceedings than the accused has,” said the opinion.
The Supreme Court also concluded that a defendant seeking to open a courtroom does not need to present alternatives to the trial judge. Whether trial judges are given alternatives or not, the majority opinion said, they “are obligated to take every reasonable measure to accommodate public attendance at criminal trials.”
Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia disagreed, saying the majority should not have decided the two questions in summary fashion without a full briefing and argument.
The second Georgia case, Wellons v. Hall, ordered the federal appeals court in Atlanta to reconsider its decision that there was nothing legally wrong with two gifts that had been given to court personnel by the jurors in a capital trial. The two gifts were a chocolate penis for the trial judge and chocolate breast for the bailiff.
“Judicial proceedings conducted for the purpose of deciding whether a defendant shall be put to death must be conducted with dignity and respect,” the unsigned majority opinion said.
The decision instructed the appeals court to reconsider the case in light of Cone v. Bell, a Supreme Court decision from last April clarifying how federal courts may take account of state court rulings in habeas corpus cases. Four justices dissented. Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas, said that the majority had treated the appeals court with disrespect, “as though we were schoolmasters grading their homework,” and that “an appropriately self-respecting response” from the appeals court “would be summary reissuance of the same opinion.”
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. also disagreed saying the gifts were “strange and tasteless” as well as “facially troubling,” Justice Alito added that the Supreme Court should either have agreed to hear the case or denied review, but sending the case back for reconsideration was inappropriate.
Filed under Blog, Georgia Courts by on Jan 20th, 2010. Comment.
Celebrators toasting in 2010 apparently refrained from getting behind the wheel this past New Year’s Eve. According to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the number of alcohol-related motor vehicle accidents on New Year’s Eve is decreasing every year.
In Georgia, the number of alcohol-related fatal accidents has decreased 5 percent from the previous year. According to Hall County Sheriff’s Sgt. Kiley Sargent, the public is finally starting to get the message to make safe decisions and not to drink and drive. It could also be the $10,000 price tag for a DUI in Georgia that deters drivers from drinking and driving.
Each year, Georgia has over 200,000 DUI arrests. According to Century Council, approximately 11,773 people were killed in crashes involving a drunk driver last year. This year, law enforcement officials are cracking down even more on drunk drivers, and with the high-cost of a DUI, drivers are starting to listen.
If you are caught with a Blood Alcohol Content of 0.08 grams or more in Georgia, these are just some of the fees associated with a DUI arrest you need to worry about:
- Bail Cost: $150 – $2,500, depends on how many offenses you’ve had and your blood alcohol level.
- Towing: Cost: $50 – $200, this cost can add up daily. Some cities
may auction your car if you can not afford to get your car after 30 days. - Insurance Cost: $4,500+, one of the biggest hits a drunken driver takes is in insurance premiums, which may affect insurance rates for three to five years. Your policy will be classified as “high-risk” and rates can likely double, triple or even quadruple.
- Legal Fees: $2,000- $25,000
- Other Fines: $300 – $5,000, depends on your offense and if there have been any previous arrests.
- Alcohol Evaluation Cost: $95 – $300.
- Alcohol Education and Treatment Cost: $500 – $4,000
- License Reinstatement Fees: $210 – $410. Once you have completed a state-certified risk reduction program, which costs $287, you can reinstate your Georgia driver’s license for a fee of $210 – $410.
The fees are sobering! Fortunately, data shows that drivers are finding alternative modes of transportation to avoid the high-cost, and potentially deadly, consequences of driving under the influence.
Filed under Fines and Fees by on Jan 19th, 2010. Comment.
Hello everyone and happy 2010. As you may have already heard, the state of Georgia implemented the new “Super Speeder Law” at the start of this new year. Under the law, titled HB160, speeding drivers are considered “high-risk” and are targeted in an effort to reduce the number of speed-related deaths in the state.
In Georgia, there is one speed-related death every day on average, and over 20% of all the motor vehicle fatalities last year were due to speeding drivers. With every ten miles per hour that a driver travels above 50 mph, crash forces double on impact. It has even been said that speed can be much more dangerous than DUI-related accidents on roadways.
The new Super Speeder Law, which took effect January 1, 2010, fines an
additional $200 state fee to any driver convicted of traveling over 75 mph on a two-lane road, or traveling over 85 mph anywhere in the state. Failure to pay the fee will result in a license suspension and an additional $50 fee. These fees are tacked on to bulky fines already imposed by local jurisdictions for speeding violations.
Not only is the law intended to lower the amount of speeders and speed-related accidents, but fees collected under the law will go strait to Georgia’s trauma care hospital system, where over half of the patients are typically victims of motor vehicle accidents.
I encourage Georgia drivers to learn more about the new law and other safety regulations by visiting the official Georgia Super Speeder Law website which can be accessed by clicking on the link.
Filed under Speeding Violations by on Jan 15th, 2010. Comment.
Sure, Georgia doesn’t have a “hands-free” law like many states (a law which says you cannot talk or text on the cell phone unless you have a hands-free device), but there is still the issue of whether the police can search the contents of your cell phone if you are pulled over or arrested. Let’s see what the courts have to say on this matter…
The Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, has received a new lease on life in the form of recent rulings from various Federal District Courts and state courts. The rulings tackle the controversial issue of police officers searching the cell phones of individuals without first obtaining a search warrant. Many of these cases arise after people have been pulled over during a traffic stop, are seen violating ‘hands-free’ laws, or if a person has been seen using the phone during the commission of a crime, such as drug dealing. With the increase in “no texting while driving” laws and the proliferation of cell phone hands free devices, this is an issue sure to be argued over for some time to come.
One of the most recent cases to address this situation was the Supreme Court of Ohio’s ruling in State v. Smith. In this particular case, Smith was arrested on drug charges and during this arrest, the police found a cell phone on him, which was thought to have been used in the alleged drug transaction. Subsequently, the police searched Mr. Smith’s phone without a warrant or his consent. During this search, they found calls and phone numbers of 
individuals that Smith conducted drug sales with. He was charged with various offenses, including drug possession and possession of criminal tools. Mr. Smith attempted to suppress the evidence gleaned from the cell phone, arguing that his constitutional rights had been violated when the officers searched his phone without a warrant. The trial court denied this suppression, citing a 2007 federal court decision, United States v. Finley.
The Finley case is one of two conflicting federal court cases regarding the search and seizure of cell phones. The court in Finely ruled that a cell phone was akin to a closed container, and as such, is subject to a search without a warrant upon arrest. In the current case, Mr. Smith appealed, claiming that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence obtained through a warrantless cell phone search. Although the second district court of appeals upheld the decision, the dissent cited the other federal case on this issue, United States v. Park. In this case, the court held that a cell phone is not in fact a “closed container” and that a warrantless search of cell phone data is unconstitutional per the Fourth Amendment.
Upon reviewing Mr. Smith’s case and the constitutionality issue of the cell phone search, the Supreme Court of Ohio noted the unique nature of the circumstances. Specifically, the court recognized that neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor another state supreme court had ruled on this particular Fourth Amendment problem. Using the two conflicting Federal cases as precedent, the Ohio Supreme Court sided with the court in Park. The Court addressed the idea of a cell phone as a closed container, noting that the U.S. Supreme Court had defined a container as ‘an object capable of holding another object.’
Here’s the kicker, though: The court, however, found that this definition extended only to objects capable of holding physical objects, not data and information contained in a cell phone. As such, the Ohio Court found that a cell phone was not a closed container in the same sense as considered in Finley, and therefore not subject to a warrantless search. Additionally, the Court noted that there was a particular expectation of privacy associated with cell phones, which further encouraged the need for a warrant to inspect its contents.
Therefore, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that the warrantless search of a cell phone obtained during a lawful arrest is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment when said search is unnecessary for the safety of the officers or other extenuating circumstances.
This landmark case is sure to provide great precedent for future cases addressing this same issue. It is likely that other state courts will validate the search based on the Finley decision. The conflicting Federal cases are also likely to eventually lead to this Fourth Amendment issue being heard in the U.S. Supreme Court. Until then, it is always best to obey the hands free laws of your state, as well as know your rights to search and seizure under the Constitution.
For more on this topic of the constitutionality of cell phone searches by law enforcement officers, I recommend you check out Bow Tie Law’s Blog, where you will find a blog post discussing some other rulings involving cell phone search and privacy issues. This particular blog does a great job highlighting some of the legal issues we face in the 21st century with the onset of new technologies like cell phones and hands free devices.
Filed under Blog, Police conduct issues, Search misconduct issues by on Dec 30th, 2009. Comment.
