As a result of corruption, incompetence and scientific fraud, the National Research Council of the National Academies have issued a report urging reform in the forensic science field for crime labs across the United States. Crime labs are routinely relied on in DUI / Drunk Driving prosecutions across the country. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers also supports the creation of an “independent science-based” federal agency. Crime lab “witnesses” are notoriously known for testifying in DUI / Drunk Driving cases favorably for the state with opinions that are at odds with numerous scientific studies and voluminous research. Taking crime labs away from police agencies and creating independent agencies may help innocent people from being convicted of crimes, including DUI / Drunk Driving.

Police in East Lampeter Township, Pennsylvania, arrested a 22 year old man this past weekend for DUI / Drunk Driving after he was found asleep in his moving buggy. The horse drawn buggy was moving slowly, at a walking pace, as it was straddling the center line. The sleeping driver/rider was given a breath test with the results being 0.18%, more than twice the legal limit of 0.08% in Pennsylvania. I can see the defense now-the horse was driving the buggy! The alleged sleeping driver was just along for the ride. I wonder if the horse was tested for alcohol and/or drugs. Apparently, the horse was driving the buggy and sleeping passenger straight down the road.

Many states are now requiring all drivers convicted of DUI / DWI / Drunk Driving to install ignition interlock devices.  In 2005, New Mexico was the first state to require installation of ignition interlock devices for all drivers convicted of DUI / DWI / Drunk Driving.  Currently, there is a bill pending in the California legislature to fund a pilot program to require installation of ignition interlock devices for convicted drunk drivers in Los Angeles, Alameda and Sacramento counties. One of the difficulties of requiring convicted drunk drivers to install ignition interlock devices is that often times more than one person drives a vehicle belonging to a person convicted of  DUI / DWI / Drunk Driving.

The United States Supreme Court recently held that a defendant in a criminal case has the constitutional right to cross exam government chemists who analyze chemical substances when the government seeks to introduce into evidence the lab reports prepared by government crime labs to prove the substance is what the government says it is. Prior to this ruling and as it relates to DUI / Drunk Driving prosecutions, some states allowed government lab analysis reports into evidence without the need to call the analyst to testify as to the lab report contents. However, in California, this ruling doesn’t change the admissibility of crime lab reports in DUI / Drunk Driving prosecutions because courts in California have required experts from crime labs to testify as to the preparation, contents and conclusions contained in the reports. The recent ruling clearly is an acknowledgement by the U.S.  Supreme Court that through cross-examination by defense counsel in criminal cases, a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights are protected.  Errors in crime labs have been widely reported as well as discussed in my DUI / Drunk Driving blogs in the past.

According to the LA Times, an Ohio man was charged with operating a vehicle while intoxicated after he crashed his bar stool which was powered by a lawn mower engine. Not much else to say about this one!

The Kentucky State Senate is debating whether or not to require repeat convicted drunk drivers as well as DUI / Drunk Drivers with a conviction that has aggravating circumstances to install an ignition interlock device as part of a DUI / Drunk Driving sentence. However, some state senators want to look into the issue further to determine the financial benefit private companies who provide the devices would receive if the law goes through. The state senators also want to determine if this bill would create “a cottage industry with one cottage.”

In Illinois, starting in 2009, people arrested for DUI / Drunk Driving can now apply for a Monitoring Device Driving Permit (MDDP) which will allow a first time offender to drive 30 days after a DUI / Drunk Driving arrest for work, school, family reasons, and under a limited number of other circumstances. In order to receive an MDDP, the driver must pay for and install a Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device in a vehicle they with to drive during the period of the MDDP. There is an exception for an employee owned vehicle. If the driver allows someone else to “trick” the device by having someone else blow into it, the driver can face a felony prosecution which carries a state prison sentence of up to 3 years and a substantial fine.

A recent U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeal held that an immigrant who is convicted of DUI / Drunk Driving while their license was supended or otherwise restricted is a crime involving moral turpitude and is a deportable offense. This case may also set a precedent for U.S. citizens when courts interpret a convicted person’s background when sentencing someone for any type of new offense committed in the U.S.

According to the LA Times, a National Academy of Sciences report concludes that evidence about fingerprints, ballistics, bite marks and other forensic evidence often have little or no bais in science. Of course in DUI / Drunk Driving cases, breath, blood and urine testing methods and results come with the field of forensic science. A highly skilled DUI / Drunk Driving defense attorney is aware of these scientific shortcomings and uses this information to make sure people arrested for DUI / Drunk Driving are treating fairly. One of the recommendations made in the report requires crime labs become independent of law enforcement. This recommendation would significantly reduce the bias testimony elicited by the government, especially in DUI / Drunk Driving prosecutions.

According to a study by the New Mexico Center of Alcoholism, Substance Abuse and Addictions for 2006-2007, 52 per cent of convicted second and third offenders court files lacked orders for substance abuse treatment contrary to a 2004 New Mexico law mandating the treatment orders. I guess the treatment centers weren’t too happy with this study since this may take away a big source of revenue for them.