Published on:

3679948327_aec5c6edcd_bColorado law mandates that ignition interlock drivers are required to extend their ignition interlock lease agreements by a period of 12 months when it is reported by their ignition interlock provider that the ignition interlock device has prevented the operation of a motor vehicle in 3 of 12 consecutive reporting periods due to excessive alcohol.  This information is downloaded by the ignition interlock provider and submitted to DMV when it appears that the threshold for a suspension has been met.  Thus, it is critically important to always request a hearing regarding alleged ignition interlock violations.

The suspension process is initiated when DMV sends out a violation notice letter to a respondent indicating that the respondent is alleged to have violated the terms and conditions of the interlock device.  A respondent must then either submit a new igntiion interlock lease agreement (with a 12 month extension) by the deadline indicated in the letter.  Or, the respondent must request a hearing on the matter.  A respondent should never simply agree to the ignition interlock extension.  A hearing should always be requested.  At the hearing, the extension may be either rescinded, reduced, or sustained.

For example, an ignition interlock violation suspension hearing will be initiated if a driver has 5 violations in August 2015 and then 8 violations in November 2015 and 1 violation in December 2015.   On the other hand, a suspension will not be initiated if a driver has 5 reported violations in August 2015 and 15 reported violations in November 2015.  Why?  Because violations in 3 reporting periods must be shown.  In the latter example, fails from only 2 violation periods have been shown.  In other words, the sheer number of violations alone does not trigger an action from the Division of Motor Vehicles.  The action is only triggered if failures of the device prevent the operation of a motor vehicle in 3 separate reporting periods out of 12 consecutive periods.

And another thing, rolling retests don’t count.  Although an action may be triggered due to rolling retests, theses “fails” should not be upheld at an ignition interlock violation hearing.  Why?  Because they don’t fit the textbook definition of a fail.

The threshold alcohol detection level which triggers a fail is .025 BAC.  This figure is set by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment in 5 CCR 1005-3 and is defined as the “setpoint value”.

Many interferents may cause this setpoint value to trigger a “fail” aside from a driver drinking alcohol.  This is a false positive.  Some known causes include mouthwash, windshield washer fluid, contaminants from orthodontics/oral appliances, spicy foods, energy drinks, sweets such as cookies and donuts, mouthspray, chewing tobacco, and many other reported interferents.

Continue reading

Published on:

indexThe burden of proof at an Express Consent Revocation Hearing in a Colorado DUI case is a preponderance of the evidence.  In order to sustain a refusal revocation, the police must show that the respondent was driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle (a commercial vehicle also applies) in Colorado on the date alleged.  Secondly, the police must show that they had probable cause to believe that the respondent’s ability to drive was impaired even to this slightest degree and that they requested that the respondent complete a chemical test.  Finally, the police must show that respondent refused to take, complete, or cooperate in the completion of a chemical test of respondent’s blood, breath, saliva, or urine such that the test could be obtained within two (2) hours of driving.

According to the case law a respondent may not refuse a chemical test simply because the police officer requested the test more than two (2) hours after driving.  A reasonable time after driving is sufficient as long as the time is not so remote that it diminishes the evidentiary value of the test.

An Express Consent Revocation Hearing is independent from the DUI criminal case.  As such, often times when a driver is arrested for DUI, he will have two (2) cases pending.  The first is the Express Consent Revocation Hearing (administrative hearing) regarding his driver’s license through the Department of Revenue.  The second case is a criminal DUI case in the county where the action occurred.

Many people are familiar with the Miranda warnings of the police from watching crime television shows or movies.  The warnings encompass the following rights of a defendant: 1) the right to remain silent; 2) anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law; 3) you have the right to an attorney;  4) if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.  Police officers often advise a defendant of these rights upon arrest.

A problem can arise for the police when they advise a defendant of his Miranda rights before a request to take a blood or breath test.

Specifically, if a defendant is 1) read his Miranda rights; 2) chooses to remain silent and requests a lawyer; 3) the police give the defendant an Express Consent Advisement; 4) the defendant refuses the test because he wants a lawyer; and 5) the police do nothing to alleviate the confusion that they caused.

This scenario appeared in the Calvert case.  In Calvert, a Denver Police Officer observed Mr. Calvert drive his car in an erratic fashion.  Thereafter, the officer observed a strong odor of alcohol and staggering while Mr. Calvert walked.  He was arrested for DUI.  Calvert was subsequently read his Miranda rights and he requested to call his lawyer.  However, the officer refused to let him call his lawyer.

The Denver officer then handed Calvert a form regarding Colorado Express Consent (previously “implied consent”) and asked him to sign it.  Calvert refused to sign until he consulted with his lawyer (as you will recall the officer previously told him that he was entitled to a lawyer).  The police officer alleged that he refused a chemical test and the hearing officer at his driver’s license revocation hearing agreed.

Calvert appealed and won.  The Court found that Calvert was advised of Miranda, requested to speak with his lawyer, and was not advised that he didn’t have a right to speak with his lawyer regarding completing a chemical test.  Therefore Calvert was not held responsible for the refusal because the police failed to advise him that the right to remain silent did not include the right to refuse to submit to the test or the right to consult with a lawyer.

Thus the essential elements for a respondent to potentially avoid a driver’s license revocation sanction after Miranda are the following: a Miranda advisement, request to speak to a lawyer, confusion caused by the police about the right to a lawyer, and a failure of the police to clear up the confusion.

If your alleged refusal contains those elements mentioned above you may have a shot at keeping your driver’s license.

Continue reading

Published on:

240_F_79026058_TianVzKmNvqWEO0F5s94kGq7OleUmxb6Colorado statute 18-1.3-204 provides that medical Marijuana users shall not be prohibited from possessing or using medical Marijuana while on probation.  It appears that this is welcome news for medical Marijuana users.  However, a closer look at the statute reflects two major exceptions to this groundbreaking law.  One of the exceptions provides enormous discretion to the Court to rule against a probationer’s use of medical Marijuana on probation.

The first exception to the law that permits medical Marijuana use on probation applies to those who are sentenced to probation for a conviction under article 43.3 of title 12, also known as the Medical Marijuana Code.

The second exception to the law that permits medical Marijuana use on probation applies to probationers when the Court determines that based on the assessment in Colorado statute 18-1.3-209 a prohibition against the possession or use of marijuana is “necessary and appropriate to accomplish the goals of sentencing” as stated in Colorado statue 18-1-102.5.  This exception grants wide latitude to the Court (and the probation department through their assessment) in determining who ultimately can and cannot use Marijuana on probation.

The assessment referenced above (18-1.3.209) is a substance abuse assessment.  Persons convicted of a petty offense or misdemeanor on or after July 1, 2008 or a felony on or after July 1, 1992 that are sentenced to supervised probation (or a deferred judgment) are required to complete a substance abuse evaluation for alcohol or drugs.

The Court shall order probationers to comply with the recommendations outlined in the alcohol and drug assessment.  If the person is sentenced to supervised probation (or a deferred judgment and sentence), or any other sentence (except straight jail time without probation), the probationer shall be required to comply with the treatment plan as a condition of the sentence.  The probationer is required to pay for the evaluation and treatment recommended unless he or she is indigent.

The goals of sentencing as referenced above include those as outlined in Colorado statute 18-1-102.5.  The first goal of sentencing is to punish the defendant for his/her offense based upon the seriousness of the offense.  Fair and consistent treatment of all offenders is to be considered with the goal of eliminating unjustified disparity in sentences.  Fair warning of the nature of the sentence to be imposed and fair procedures for the imposition of the sentence are also to be considered.

Further goals of sentencing in light of Colorado statute 18-1-102.5 also include deterrence and rehabilitation of offenders through cooperation and participation in correctional programs.  The Court should also consider a sentence, sentence length, and level of supervision in light of the person’s individual characteristics that will reduce the probability that the person will re-offend.

Promotion of acceptance of responsibility and accountability, restoration and healing of victims and the community, and reducing recidivism and costs to society through restorative justice practices are also factors for the Court to consider.

Thus, the bottom line of this fairly new legislation that permits medical Marijuana use on probation appears to be that medical Marijuana patients may be permitted continued use, but only if the Court and probation agree and the probationer is not sentenced for committing an offense defined under the Medical Marijuana Code.

Continue reading

Published on:

vodka-2-1328211Colorado’s Felony DUI law is relatively new and went into effect on August 5, 2015.  In Colorado, driving under the influence (DUI), driving under the influence per se (DUI per se) and driving while ability impaired (DWAI) offenses are misdemeanors.  However, under the new law, a fourth offense (of DUI, DUI per se, or DWAI) is now a Class 4 Felony if the current offense occurred after three or more prior convictions arising out of separate cases for DUI, DUI per se, vehicular homicide, DWAI, or vehicular assault.  These five offenses are considered “priors” if they are convictions under the laws of Colorado, the U.S., any state in the U.S., and any territory under the jurisdiction of the U.S.

Some previous offenses do not result in convictions.  Thus if a person is facing a potential Felony DUI, it’s critical to determine whether or not a previous offense actually resulted in a “conviction”.  An example of a DUI charge not resulting in a conviction would be a case that was dismissed.  Another example of a DUI charge that does not result in a conviction would be a successfully completed deferred judgment and sentence.  Under a deferred judgment and sentence a guilty plea to a charge enters, however if the defendant complies 100% with the terms and conditions of the deferred and successfully completes it then the plea is withdrawn and the case is dismissed.  An additional example of a DUI charge not resulting in a conviction is through the trial process whereby a defendant is found not guilty.  Thus, every case that is charged as a DUI or DWAI under Colorado law or the laws of another state does not necessarily result in a conviction.

The punishment for a Class 4 Felony DUI is 2-6 years in prison (exceptional circumstances may lower this presumptive range to 1 year or increase the range to 12 years) if incarceration is the most suitable option in light of the facts of the case.  A fine of $2000 to $500,000 may also be imposed.  A defendant will also be subject to 3 years of mandatory parole.  By law, the Court  must consider the defendant’s willingness to participate in treatment, whether all reasonable and appropriate sanctions have been exhausted, do not appear likely to be successful, or there is an unacceptable risk to public safety.  Thus, in light of the provisions of the new law a defendant may avoid prison time, however the discretion is left in the hands of the Court.

Clearly multiple offense DUIs in Colorado are extremely serious.

Continue reading

Published on:

1409262_39765484.jpgAs the holidays are quickly approaching, police agencies are out in full force looking for impaired drivers. Colorado law enforcement agencies typically expect more motorists to be on the road traveling to grandma’s house, meeting up with friends, or perhaps attending an office party or other holiday party. It’s important that drivers in Colorado take precautionary measures to avoid driving under the influence. The following is a list of tips that I have gathered during my experience defending many drivers in Colorado accused of driving under the influence.

Tip 1. Don’t drink and drive. In fact, don’t drink any alcohol and then drive. Don’t rely upon the “system” to avoid a DUI. The DUI prosecution system is not designed to protect you. Officers can come to the wrong conclusion about who is DUI and who is not. Portable breath tests, Intoxilyzer machines, and Blood tests can give erroneous results. Often times the people conducting these tests don’t conduct the tests correctly. People make mistakes and machines are not infallible. In Colorado, you can be charged with a DUI with any trace amount of alcohol in your system. Thus, it’s best not to put yourself in that position.

Tip 2. If you decide to sleep it off and spend the night in your car on the side of the road, think again. You’re better off spending a few bucks and staying at a motel. A DUI will cost you much more than one night’s stay at a motel. In Colorado, you can be charged with a DUI if you’re sleeping it off in your car, thus it’s not worth the risk.

Tip 3. Take a cab. A cab ride is cheaper than a DUI. Store taxi cab numbers in your cell phone or information for RTD routes and times from your location.

Tip 4. Have a designated driver that doesn’t drink any alcohol. A designated driver doesn’t do anyone any good if he or she starts drinking. If a designated driver starts drinking as well, it’s best to have a back-up plan such as taking a cab or calling a sober friend.

Tip 5. Call a sober friend for a ride.

Tip 6. If you insist on drinking and then driving, know that you’re playing Russian Roulette regardless of how much you’ve had to drink. Eat enough food and hearty food to have a full stomach. These foods slow down the absorption rate in your stomach.

Tip 7. Avoid carbonated mixers and sparkling wines. These drinks speed the absorption of alcohol.

Tip 8. Check your car to make sure everything is in working order. Especially check all lights including license plate light bulbs and brake lights. Headlamp, tail lamp, valid registration stickers, and turn signal functions should also be checked. Take the plastic clear or smoke covers off your license plates! Many DUI cases start with something simple as a “license plate bulb out”.

Tip 9. If you drive, pay attention to all highway regulation signs. Drive the speed limit. Not over, not under. Use your turn signal. Dim your high beams. Stop at stop signs. Don’t weave between the lines.

Tip 10.Have your driver’s license, registration, and insurance documents readily available and current. Don’t fumble around in your car to find them. Know where they are and be able to confidently access them in the event you get stopped. Fumbling around trying to find documents can be an indicia of impairment.

Tip 11.Avoid DUI checkpoints. Search online and in the newspaper to find out where the DUI checkpoints will be before you go out.

Tip 12.Stay off your cell phone when driving. It’s a distraction. Leave the radio tuned where it is.

Tip 13. Wear your seatbelt for obvious reasons.

Tip 14. Don’t rely upon “one drink per hour and I’m ok” rule. Unfortunately, I’ve had many clients who have relied upon this rule and have ended up with a DUI. How the body processes alcohol is a little more complex than just one drink per hour. It depends upon a number of factors including, food in the stomach, body weight, hydration, gender, the strength of the drink, etc.

Tip 15. Driving to locations close to your home doesn’t ensure that you’ll escape a DUI. Here again, I’ve had many clients who have been stopped close to their home and some even as they are turning into their driveway and charged with DUI. Law enforcement in Colorado won’t give you a “pass” simply because you are “almost home” or your house is “right around the corner”.

Tip 16. If you get a DUI, get a lawyer to represent you that has experience defending clients accused of DUI. Shy away from lawyers who handle every type of case under the sun such as “divorces, wills, personal injury, workers comp….and DUI cases”. Look for lawyers who dedicate a significant portion of their practice to DUI defense. DUI defense is a complicated area. Make sure the lawyer answers all your questions, that you are comfortable with the lawyer, and can effectively communicate with him about your goals regarding the case.

It’s important to remember that the penalties in Colorado for drinking and driving are severe. DUI drivers face jail time, loss of driver’s license, and many collateral consequences as a result of a DUI charge. A little common sense and planning can go a long way towards a safe and happy holiday season.
Continue reading

Published on:

interrogation-techniques.jpgIn a recent Colorado Supreme Court case, Davis v. People, Supreme Court Case No. 10SC460, the Court held that:

“[L]aw enforcement officials may testify about their perception of a witness’s credibility during an investigative interview. We hold that such testimony is admissible when it is offered to provide context for the detectives’ interrogation tactics and investigative decisions.”

A witness typically cannot comment on the credibility of another witness. And it is up to the jury to decide which witnesses should or should not be believed. In other words, credibility issues are for the jury.

In Davis v. People, a detective had commented in trial that he didn’t believe a witness he was interviewing and that the “interview” started out conversational and then transitioned into confrontational. The defense attorney objected on the basis that a witness can’t comment on the credibility of another witness. This objection was overruled by the court. The detective witness was essentially given permission to comment on the credibility of another witness to show how and why the “interview” proceeded as it did. The court found this evidence was admissible to show the context for the detectives interrogation tactics and investigative decisions.

Some of the line of questioning objected to by the defense at trial was as follows:

“Q: Now in the early part of that interview when it was less confrontational . . . . was [she] giving you information about the shooting?
A: Not really, no.
Q: All right, and is that one of the reasons why the interview got confrontational?
A: It did.
Q: Can you explain to the jury why it happened that way?
A: Well, I know I didn’t believe and I guess I can–”

The trial court further allowed the following line of questioning:

“Q: Is that one of the techniques you used with [E.W.] as well?
A: It is.
Q: To be candid, in your opinion at the time was it your assessment that she did perhaps have some level of involvement?
A: Yes.
Q: All right, and so after – did you let it be known to [E.W.] that you asked whether she was telling the truth?
A: Yes.
Q: And did you let [E.W] know that you still suspected her of having greater involvement in the crime than she was admitting to?
A: Yes.
Q: All right, and is that sort of at the point where the interview got more confrontational?
A: Yes.
Q: And after the interview got more confrontational, did the information that [E.W.] gave you change?
A: Yes.
Q: And did she give you some information that you were able to subsequently use in the investigation of this case?
A: Yes, she did.”

It’s important to note that under the Colorado Rules of Evidence, CRE404(a), “[e]vidence of a person’s character or a trait of his character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that he acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion.” And CRE 608(a) permits evidence of a witness’s character for truthfulness or untruthfulness to be admitted after that character has been attacked. However, the Court clearly found the evidence admissible in this case limited context of an investigative interview.

The Colorado Supreme Court seems to draw a distinction in the Davis v. People case in finding that the detective testifying in the case was not commenting on the veracity of the testimony of the witness at trial. Instead, the detective was commenting on the veracity of the witness during the interviews prior to trial:

“The detectives’ answers referred not to the credibility of the witnesses’ in-court testimony, which determination undoubtedly falls within the jury’s purview, but rather to the detectives’ assessments of the interviewees’ credibility during the interviews conducted prior to trial…[f]or these reasons, we conclude that the detectives’ testimony did not constitute an improper credibility opinion under these circumstances.”
Continue reading

Published on:

intal-slams-the-ball-332320-m.jpgCBS News reports that NBA Star Lamar Odom was recently arrested for DUI in California:

“The former Los Angeles Laker and Clipper was arrested by the California Highway Patrol (CHP) in the early morning hours of Aug. 30 after officers noticed him driving slowly and weaving in and out of lanes.”

Driving slowly in the early morning hours combined with weaving is a sure-fire way to get pulled over in California or any other state. Police officers know that people who have been drinking and later decide to drive are often out at night and in the early hours of the morning. Police officers actively target minor traffic violations with an eye towards a possible DUI investigation especially during these prime times and often have designated “DUI cars” to focus on DUI arrests.

Colorado is no exception to this strategy. Colorado officers specifically train to look for these minor traffic infractions. Many jurisdictions in Colorado have designated “DUI officers” and “DUI cars”. The State of Colorado, Alcohol and Drug Impaired Driver Enforcement Manual, 2008 [Enforcement Manual], prepared by the Colorado Office of Transportation Safety, indicates that both “weaving” and “slow speed” are cues which “predict a driver is DWI at least 35 percent of the time”. The Enforcement Manual goes on to read that “the probability of DWI increases substantially when a driver exhibits more than one of the cues”.

According to the New York Daily News, “[t]he police report filed after his arrest described Odom as showing ‘objective signs of intoxication and was unable to perform field sobriety tests as explained and demonstrated.'”

In Colorado, roadside sobriety tests are a “search”, thus probable cause with exigent circumstances must exist or consent given from the motorist. However, because the maneuvers can’t be administered without the cooperation of the driver, consent is the typical focus of the investigating officer.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] indicates that three (3) roadside tests are the most reliable: the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN), the One Leg Stand, and the Walk and Turn. NHTSA claims that all three tests combined can predict a driver’s BAC of .08 or greater in 91 percent of the cases. However, many officers don’t do the roadsides correctly and a properly prepared cross-examination can reveal this.

The Colorado DUI Enforcement Manual adds the alphabet or counting, the finger-to-nose test, and the Rhomberg test to the 3 tests validated by NHTSA.

According to ESPN, “Odom refused all chemical tests and was booked for investigation of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs at 5:01 a.m., CHP officials said.”

Refusals in Colorado are similar to that in California. In Colorado, if a driver refuses a chemical test of his blood, breath, urine, or saliva at the direction of a law enforcement officer in a DUI stop, he can potentially lose his privilege to drive for one (1) year. A driver is entitled to a hearing at the Department of Revenue to contest the refusal. The hearing must be requested within 7 days of the stop. A new law is set to take effect in Colorado in January, 2014 which will permit a driver with a refusal revocation to apply for an ignition interlock restricted license after 2 months of no driving.
Continue reading

Published on:

martini-846753-m.jpgAn Upper Darby Pennsylvania man was recently arrested for his 11th DUI in Delaware after being released on another DUI two days previously. Cindy Scharr of the Delaware County News Network writes that:

“James John Duggan, 54, posted $1,000 bail on July 9 and walked out of Delaware County prison, where he had been incarcerated since March on charges stemming from a DUI arrest in Tinicum, according to court records.”

Under Delaware law, a third offense is a Felony according to Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

In comparison, a second offense within 5 years is a Felony in Indiana. A second offense depending upon the circumstances is a Felony in Minnesota. Both New York and Oklahoma classify a second offense as a Felony if the prior was within 10 years.

If the driver has a previous offense within the past 10 years, a third offense is a Felony in the following states: Alaska, Connecticut, Florida, Michigan, South Dakota, Utah, and Virginia.

Arizona, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Texas, Vermont, and West Virgina classify a third offense as a Felony, regardless of when the prior offenses occurred.

A fourth offense is a Felony in the following states if a prior offense occurred within the previous five years: Alabama, Arkansas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Ohio utilizes a six year look back period for a fourth offense Felony determination.

A fourth offense is a Felony in the following states regardless of when the prior offense occurred: California, Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Oregon. Georgia and Tennessee look back ten years to determine if the fourth offense charged will be a Felony. North Dakota looks back seven years and Nebraska twelve years.

A fifth offense is a Felony in Washington state. The District of Columbia, Colorado, Maryland, Maine, and Rhode Island do not have a Felony DUI offense based upon the number of priors a driver has.

In Colorado, prior offenses unfortunately are a common occurrence and the penalties rapidly increase for drivers who have a prior conviction anywhere in the United States. However in Colorado, the prior offense has to be a conviction to be a “prior”. Sometimes a prosecutor will try to argue that a prior offense should be treated as a conviction, even when it is not. Thus, it’s important to secure the court records for any prior offense that is not actually a conviction.

A study by the Denver Post found that one in three drivers arrested for DUI in Colorado had a prior offense. Kevin Vaughan and David Olinger of the Post report:

“From 2005 to 2007, an average of 31,011 alleged drunken drivers were arrested each year in Colorado, according to statistics compiled by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. During that same three-year span, an average of 10,835 drunken drivers each year had at least one prior DUI arrest, according to Division of Behavioral Health data from probation-department evaluations of drivers facing DUI charges.”

The penalty for a first offense DUI is 5 days to one year in jail. The jail can be suspended. A second offense brings a minimum of 10 days to one year in jail. A third or more offense calls for a sentence of 60 days to one year in jail. Actual sentences vary greatly depending upon the facts of the case, the jurisdiction, the position of the district attorney, and how the driver is presented to the Court by experienced counsel.
Continue reading

Published on:

James_Johnson_(football_player).jpgAn article in the Denver Post by Mike Klis and Ryan Parker reports that Denver Broncos player Von Miller has an unpaid traffic ticket and warrant out of California:

“Denver Broncos star linebacker Von Miller has an open warrant for his arrest in California. Susan Schroeder, spokeswoman for the Orange County District Attorney’s Office confirmed to The Denver Post that Miller has a warrant for failure to appear on a traffic ticket issued last year. It is unclear what effect this will have if Miller travels to California when the team plays either the Raiders or Chargers, as Schroeder said the warrant pertains to the entire state.”

In Colorado, most traffic warrants are statewide. When a person fails to appear for a traffic ticket in Colorado, the judge will typically issue a bench warrant for the person’s arrest. Thereafter, the Court will send a notice in the form of an Outstanding Judgment Warrant (OJW) to the Colorado Department of Revenue Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Once the DMV received notice of the OJW, they will send a firm letter (some might call it “nasty”) to the driver informing them that they have a few days to clear up the OJW before their license is suspended.

If the driver does not act within the set time period (typically 30 days), his driver’s license will be suspended. Thereafter, if the person drives and is stopped, he will likely be charged with driving under suspension which could lead to jail time, fines, and possible the further suspension of the person’s driver’s license for an additional year. Thus, it is critical to clear up any OJWs on a driver’s record immediately.

Out of state warrants, like the warrant in the Von Miller case can lead to the suspension of a Colorado driver’s license as well. Most states communicate with each other through the interstate compact and will put a driver’s privilege to drive on hold through the National Driver Registry. Thus, traffic warrants and tickets usually catch up with a person eventually whether they are in-state or out-of-state.

Multiple unpaid tickets and warrants cause even further trouble. In Colorado, if a person is convicted of three or more major offenses in a 7 year period, his license will be suspended for 5 years. Driving under suspension is a habitual traffic offender offense.

CBS 4 Denver, Brian Maass, reports that Von Miller has additional charges pending in Colorado for driving under suspension:

“Denver Broncos linebacker Von Miller, already suspended for the first six games of the season, now faces more legal problems according to a CBS4 investigation. CBS4 has learned the star linebacker was stopped again by law enforcement last week and cited for driving while his license was suspended and speeding, adding to a multitude of legal woes. Arapahoe County officials confirm that late last week an Arapahoe County deputy stopped Miller for speeding in the vicinity of his home in Arapahoe County. A routine computer check showed that Miller’s license had already been suspended. Arapahoe County Sheriff Grayson Robinson told CBS4 that Miller was not jailed but was cited for the license violation and speeding. He said Miller was with his father, who was then allowed to drive the car.”

Adding to Miller’s woes appears to be a third case stemming from 2012 for failure to appear in Arapahoe County. The Denver Post, Mike Klis and Ryan Parker write:

“When Miller was arrested by the Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Department in August on a warrant for failing to appear in court stemming from traffic violations in October 2012, he didn’t know about the warrant or court appearance. “That was on me,” Miller told Denver reporters Aug. 20. “I’ve just got to be more responsible. It was a ticket from back in (October). I’m not making any excuses, like I said before. I’ve just got to grow up, be more mature and take care of business.”

The best avenue for anyone who has one or more driving under suspension cases is to immediately stop driving and sort out the legal issues and driver’s license reinstatement issues before getting behind the wheel. There are many approaches to these types of cases. Often times jail and further driver’s license suspensions can be avoided with a very careful and meticulous handling of the cases. I’ve personally represented clients who have had upwards of 7 driving under suspension cases pending in various Colorado courts all at the same time with winning results. Although each case is unique, an experienced traffic attorney can make a world of difference in these cases.
Continue reading

Published on:

ready-to-roll-542939-m.jpgAccording to a recent article by the Denver Channel, 1342 people were arrested in Colorado and charged with DUI during the period August 16, 2013 through September 3, 2013. Most of the arrests were conducted by the Denver and Aurora Police Departments.

This figure is down approximately 100 arrests from the similar period in 2012 from August 17, 2012 through September 4, 2012, according to an article by Andy Koen of KOAA News.

1442 was the estimated number of DUI arrests over the similar period in 2011 according to an article by Michael Roberts of Westword.

By comparison, California reported 2313 arrests during the similar time period this year according to an article by the Antelope Valley Times: “During the 18-day campaign, 100 county law enforcement agencies conducted sobriety checkpoints, special saturation patrols and routine patrols, which resulted in 2,313 arrests countywide for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.”

However, California’s population in 2012 is reported at 38.04 million people. Whereas Colorado’s population in 2012 is reported at 5.188 million people. Thus, Colorado’s DUI arrest rate over the same time period is about 7.5 times that of California’s.

A DUI arrest can be a startling event in a person’s life. There are many consequences beyond the court case which should be considered while the case is still pending in the courts. A DUI conviction in Colorado will stay on a person’s criminal and motor vehicle record forever. A DUI conviction can have a severe impact upon a person’s driver’s license, insurance rates, schooling, social consequences, employment, future employment, and a host of other issues.
Continue reading