DUI is one of the most politically charged crimes in the United States. There are powerful lobbies that influence our lawmakers to enact laws they feel will work. This is often based on emotions and sentiment rather than science and facts. Sometimes it is based upon profit such as Ignition Interlock companies, house arrest/electronic monitoring companies, the SCRAM device and jail alternative folks. Recently, President Obama announced that December will be National Impaired Driving Prevention Month. I recently blogged about what that really means, which is more DUI checkpoints and roving patrols on the roadways of PA over the holidays. The most recent measure the government is pushing is No DUI Refusals:
Forcible Blood Draws for DUI Endanger All of Us
Gov’t urges ‘no refusal’ policy on drunken driving
About one in four drunken driving suspects refuse to take breath tests
WASHINGTON — When 18 people died in alcohol-related crashes in his Louisiana parish two years ago, Sheriff Craig Webre looked for new ways to combat drunken driving. Using laws already on the books, the sheriff found a simple answer.
Webre’s department west of New Orleans started using a “no refusal” policy for suspected drunken drivers who declined breath tests. When someone pulled over for drunken driving refused to take a Breathalyzer, Webre’s deputies sought prompt search warrants from judges to take blood samples and charge suspects if their blood-alcohol levels exceeded the legal limit of 0.08.
When I read this article I was once again disappointed at its one-sidedness. First of all the article does not mention how these blood sample are attained. In reality, police will literally pinned down the DUI suspect using all force they feel is necessary and stick a needle in them against their will. Secondly, it does not mention the issue of abuse of power that has plagued these “No DUI Refusal” measures. In one instance police stomped and beat a Texas man to the point where they broke his leg to draw his blood for a DUI test. And what about the issue of the integrity of our bodies? What about the original intent of the Framer’s of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? I think that they would start a second Revolution if they were around now. They only revolted about taxation without representation. Imagine what they would have done about invading our bodies and poking them with needles against our will!
DUI enforcement is quickly spiraling out of control and endangers the lives and liberties of all of us. We in Pennsylvania can be thankful that forcible blood draws are not part of the DUI law in PA but be aware that politicians are being lobbied to enact this as we speak.
Pennsylvania DUI Law Review: DUI Refusals Because of Confusion
Under Pennsylvania DUI Law, when you are arrested you are given the Implied Consent Warnings commonly called the O’Connell warnings, which is in PennDOT DL26 form. It is read word-for-word and often with no explanation of what the legal terms mean or explanation of what the sections of the vehicle code are as they are simply presented by their statute number.
So, I thought about this and how it effects DUI cases. As a Pennsylvania DUI Lawyers who has dealt with numerous refusal cases, I have found that a lot of DUI refusals come about as a result of the totally ridiculous language in these warnings that causes a great deal of confusion. People don’t understand and they refuse. The prosecution argues consciousness of guilt (meaning that only a drunk person would refuse to take the test) which is not fair if it was truly due to confusion and unclear language.
The Wording of the Implied Consent Warning for Pennsylvania
Please be advised that you are under arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance in violation of Section 3802 of the Vehicle Code. I am requesting that you submit to a chemical test of blood, breath or urine. It is my duty as a police officer to inform you that if you refuse to submit to the chemical test, your operating privilege will be suspended for at least 12 months, and up to 18 months, if you have prior refusals or have been previously sentenced for driving under the influence. In addition, if you refuse to submit to the chemical test, and you are convicted of or plead to violating Section 3802(a)(1) (relating to impaired driving) of the Vehicle Code, because of your refusal, you will be subject to more severe penalties set forth in Section 3804(c) (relating to penalties) of the Vehicle Code, the same as if you would be convicted of driving with the highest rate of alcohol, which include a minimum of 72 consecutive hours in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000.00, up to a maximum of five years in jail and a maximum fine of $10,000. It is also my duty as a police officer to inform you that you have no right to speak with an attorney or anyone else before deciding whether to submit to testing and any request to speak with an attorney or anyone else after being provided these warnings or remaining silent when asked to submit to chemical testing will constitute a refusal, resulting in the suspension of your operating privilege and other enhanced criminal sanctions if you are convicted of violating Section 3802(a) of the Vehicle Code.
Measuring the Readability of the Implied Consent Warnings
There are a number of indexes in use that measure the readability of a given text. Normally linguists and educators use these formulae to make sure instructional materials are suitable for a particular age group. So I ran the Implied Consent Warnings through these formulas and found the following results:
Reading Ease
The first score we calculated was the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease (Wikipedia). The text scored 29.40 on this scale (a higher score indicates easier readability; scores go from 0 to 100).
These metrics show that this text is written for a very high grade level. A score grater than 22 is generally thought of needing graduate level education to understand. Pennsylvania has a very diverse population and many citizens do not possess the comprehension skills need to decipher this text. This becomes an even bigger problem because of the added penalties that are linked to a DUI refusal in Pennsylvania.
Limitations of These Measures
Admittedly, these metrics are limited in that they don’t take into account the way words are used. For example the words “sanctions” and “baseballs” will rate about the same seeing that they have the same number of letters and syllables. My intuition is that a readability expert would rate this text even higher. Also we should keep in mind the overall situation. Is a driver who has just been pulled over, who is scared and nervous, really in the right frame of mind to understand complex legal ramblings? What about people who’s first language isn’t English? Don’t they have the right to understand the law being applied against them? ( According to some Pennsylvania officials, they don’t!)
What’s wrong with making Pennsylvania DUI laws simple so that drivers can make informed decisions?
If you have any questions about the Pennsylvania Implied Consent Law please call The McShane Firm at 1-866-MCSHANE or contact us .
Every Friday we take a look at some of the most commonly asked questions about Pennsylvania DUI so we can clear up any misconceptions and provide you with the most up-to-date and accurate information about Pennsylvania DUI laws and related topics. Today:
Dear Pennsylvania DUI Lawyer,
Please explain Pennsylvania’s Administrative License Suspension Law.
Refusing a DUI chemical test in Pennsylvania can lead to License Suspension
The Pennsylvania Administrative License Suspension Law pertains to those who are not only convicted of a DUI or a license triggering offense, but also charged with refusing to submit to a chemical test (breath or blood) for DUI. It is the context of the refusal that this post will focus upon while later posts will focus on the others. Under the circumstances of a refusal, PENNDOT will proceed to attempt to suspend your driving license for at least one year and perhaps up to 18 months depending upon your prior record. This suspension is separate and apart from your criminal DUI case. You have 30 days from the mail date on the suspension notice to appeal this suspension. If you do not appeal within this time period or if your appeal is denied, your license will be suspended regardless of the outcome of the separate criminal DUI case. Under Pennsylvania DUI Law, an acquittal in your criminal DUI case cannot be used to re-open the administrative license suspension case. You must act quickly!
If you opt for an appeal of the administrative license suspension, your case will be heard at the PENNDOT Statutory License Appeals Hearings heard before a Judge of proper jurisdiction in the Court of Common Pleas. To preserve your right to drive, you must be successful at both the PENNDOT Statutory License Appeals Hearings and in the criminal DUI case. This is why I recommend everyone charged with a Pennsylvania DUI Refusal to consult with a qualified DUI Lawyer who can review the issues in your case and chart out a proper defense. The penalties for a Pennsylvania DUI Refusal are very serious so please seek out the best legal advice you can find. If you are in Harrisburg, York or anywhere in central Pennsylvania, please call 1-866-MCSHANE
If you would like to ask a question, please submit it via the contact us link.
In Pennsylvania, Implied Consent means that you agree to submit to a chemical test if you are ever asked to do so by a police officer. When you go to renew your driving license, it is one of the forms you will have to sign.
It is known by a couple of different names: the DL-26 form, the O’Connell Warnings and the Implied Consent warnings.
The police are required to read this to you when they ask you to submit to a breath or blood test. Why? Because a refusal to submit to a DUI test carries with it, upon satisfactory proof, at least a 12 month license suspension, just for the act of refusing. Under certain circumstances, the loss of license can be as much as 18 months. This is "free and clear" of the outcome of the criminal case. In other words, you can get a not guilty from the criminal prosecution, but the license loss due to a refusal will be left unaffected. If that same person who was adjudged to be a refusal is found guilty of a DUI on the criminal side, they face another subsequent 12-18 month suspension plus mandatory jail time. Even if you would have been charged at a lower tier because your BAC was not in excess of 0.16, a refusal is charged at the highest tier possible.
However, despite these severe consequences, Pennsylvania doesn’t care if you understand the waiver that the officer is reading:
Court ruling causes DUI dilemma
Should police be required to explain alcohol test in language of suspect?
A New Jersey Supreme Court decision overturning a drunken driving case because the driver did not speak English could affect Pennsylvania motorists and police.
This article shows some of the evident hypocrisy in Pennsylvania DUI law. On one hand, the officer is required to read the waiver to you to make sure you understand the consequences. On the other hand, they don’t have to make it available in Spanish even in areas where there is a majority Latino population?! So what do the Pennsylvania Courts have to say about this?
An appellate case was argued over this very apparent discrepancy. The law in Pennsylvania is hypocritical. The law requires proof that the person who refused made a knowing, intelligent and voluntary decision to refuse; yet, the law has no requirement that the listener be provided the chemical warnings in his/her own native language. In other words, Pennsylvania Courts have de facto held that the English language is the lawful official language in Pennsylvania. Those who do not speak it are held liable for not knowing the de facto official language, the English language. The court ruled that, under implied consent, anything short of submitting to testing is deemed a refusal. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court even refused to hear the appeal.
This holding flies in the face of Pennsylvania history. In 1837, the Pennsylvania legislature passed a law which required schools to provide instruction in different languages, establishing the first ever bilingual education law.
This lunacy is exclusively reserved for DUI and driver’s licensing cases. For example, if English only speaking police officers came to a house that had Spanish only speaking residents and asked in English if the residents would consent to a warrantless search of the house their search, any such consent would be totally invalid. If the police and prosecutors tried to argue that the consent was valid, they would be laughed out of court.
Remarkably, it seems as if appellate courts forget that a chemical test of one’s breath or blood is a search. But, it’s not just any search. It’s a search of one’s body. It’s an invasion of one’s bodily integrity by the government.
Isn’t it amazing how a house or a car gets more protection than our bodies?
Is it really that difficult to keep a copy of the waiver in Spanish? For a long time, AT&T has kept a special line that was available 24/7 free for police agencies to facilitate translating a wide range of languages. There may be a number of people who do not understand English well enough to comprehend the severe consequences they may face. But one DA and the state don’t really care:
But, [the DA] warned, voluntarily agreeing to provide Spanish-speaking interpreters for DUI arrests could become a slippery slope.
"What’s next, bilingual signage on our highways?" he asked.
I find that to be an utterly ridiculous and callous statement. It is at the very least ethnocentric. At the most it’s racist. The whole reason that road and safety signs have shifted to symbols instead of text is so that people of all languages and educational levels can understand them. In fact, it makes our roads safer.
Furthermore, the language used in the Implied-consent Warnings is remarkably complex even for native English speaking non-lawyers to understand. This is the exact language that is supposed to be read is:
1. Please be advised that you are under arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance in violation of Section 3802 of the Vehicle Code.
2. I am requesting that you submit to a chemical test of (blood, breath or urine. Officer chooses the chemical test). [N.B., urine is inadmissible in Pennsylvania]
3. It is my duty as a police officer to inform you that if you refuse to submit to the chemical test, your operating privilege will be suspended for at least 12 months, and up to 18 months, if you have prior refusals or have been previously sentenced for driving under the influence. In addition, if you refuse to submit to the chemical test, and you are convicted of or plead to violating Section 3802(a)(1) (relating to impaired driving) of the Vehicle Code, because of your refusal, you will be subject to more severe penalties set forth in Section 3804(c) (relating to penalties) of the Vehicle Code, the same as if you would be convicted of driving with the highest rate of alcohol, which include a minimum of 72 consecutive hours in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000.00, up to a maximum of five years in jail and a maximum fine of $10,000.
4. It is also my duty as a police officer to inform you that you have no right to speak with an attorney or anyone else before deciding whether to submit to testing and any request to speak with an attorney or anyone else after being provided these warnings or remaining silent when asked to submit to chemical testing will constitute a refusal, resulting in the suspension of your operating privilege and other enhanced criminal
sanctions if you are convicted of violating Section 3802(a) of the Vehicle Code.
3802 and 3804(c)??!!??? Say what?
So remember friends if even you don’t understand what the officer is saying, it doesn’t matter. It counts as a refusal. So sad. At the McShane Firm, LLC we are litigating this issue anew to try to get common sense, fair and non-ethnocentric rulings that reflects our society and not xenophobia.
-Justin J. McShane, Esquire, Pennsylvania DUI Attorney
I am the highest rated DUI Attorney in PA as Rated by Avvo.com
You can follow me on Twitter, Facebook or Linkedin
Board Certified Criminal Trial Advocate
By the National Board of Trial Advocacy
A Pennsylvania Supreme Court Approved Agency
Every Friday we will take a look at some of the most commonly asked questions about Pennsylvania DUI so that we can clear up any misconceptions and provide you with the most up-to-date and accurate information. Today:
Dear Pennsylvania DUI Lawyer,
I am licensed out of state and was recently charged with a Pennsylvania DUI refusal. How will this effect my driving privileges in my home state?
Pennsylvania cannot suspend an out-of-state license even if you are convicted of a DUI. Only your home state can suspend your license. Pennsylvania can only suspend your privilege to drive in this state. A refusal to submit to an officer’s request for a breath or blood test, MAY result in a suspension of driving privileges in Pennsylvania (if you are unsuccessful at the administrative hearing) but MAY or MAY NOT cause you to be suspended in your home state. The rules for processing a notification of a refusal report vary in each state. Pennsylvania is obligated to send such notice to your licensing state. Some states take no adverse action against the license in the non-resident driver’s home state for a “refusal” to be tested in Pennsylvania. If you are a CDL holder, it is very likely that you will face a one (1) year disqualification.
Since The McShane Firm is the pinnacle in terms of DUI defense in Pennsylvania, we associate ourselves with other highly skilled and highly reputable attorneys in other states. We will be able to provide to you a direct answer as to how your home state will treat every possible scenario as the case develops and if necessary get you a consultation with the very best attorney in another state to help you with that state’s actions.
If you would like to ask a question, please submit it via the contact us link.
-Justin J. McShane, Esquire, Pennsylvania DUI Attorney
I am the highest rated DUI Attorney in PA as Rated by Avvo.com
You can follow me on Twitter, Facebook or Linkedin
Board Certified Criminal Trial Advocate
By the National Board of Trial Advocacy
A Pennsylvania Supreme Court Approved Agency
Some states have passed laws enacting mandatory DUI blood testing meaning that police officers can forcibly draw blood from an unwilling suspect. This means that even if they refuse to provide a sample of their breath or blood upon demand that the police can apply for a search warrant using forms that are pre-made and use whatever force is necessary to take blood out of the vein of someone. DUI lobbyists and neo-prohibitionists support this measure because in their view it provides proof of intoxication and speeds up the prosecution of DUI cases. However, many of us in the legal fraternity are appalled by this blatant disregard of our constitutional rights. I think most folks if they understood what was going on would likewise be appalled. It is a brutal tactic. It is a medieval tactic. It is an unnecessary tactic.
To make matters worse, this is not only a matter of constitutional rights, it becomes a matter of basic human rights and human dignity. We, as a nation, are the first to point fingers at brutal regimes over seas for their massive abuse of basic human dignity and human respect, but we are downright hypocrites in that we allow this practice to continue. Just as in the case of rape where “no means no” in DUI “no means no”. I first saw this report on Attorney Jay Norton’s Kansas and Missouri DUI blog, it shows just such an example of our inhumanity towards a fellow human being all for the sake of the “war against DUI”.
Police Brutally Beat a Man for a DUI Blood Test in Texas
Here we have the police, the purported upholders of the law, beating a man, breaking his leg, stomping on his broken leg and forcibly sticking a needle in him all in the name of DUI enforcement. All of this for a blood sample they don’t necessarily even need as they can argue consciousness of guilt come trial (meaning that he refused to give a sample because he knew that he was over the limit).
But why be humane and why spend time and money on training when you can enact draconian laws and stomp and beat your way to a conviction?
Two quotes come to mind:
We cloak ourselves in cold indifference to the unnecessary suffering of others–even when we cause it. – James Carroll
and
All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for enough good men to do nothing-Edmund Burke
-Justin J. McShane, Esquire, Pennsylvania DUI Attorney
I am the highest rated DUI Attorney in PA as Rated by Avvo.com
You can follow me on Twitter, Facebook or Linkedin
Board Certified Criminal Trial Advocate
By the National Board of Trial Advocacy
A Pennsylvania Supreme Court Approved Agency
Every Friday we will take a look at some of the most commonly asked questions about Pennsylvania DUI so that we can clear up any misconceptions and provide you with the most up-to-date and accurate information. Today:
I was recently arrested for a DUI and taken to the station for testing. The machine was an Intoxilyzer 5000. I was told to blow into the machine and I did. The machine printed “Invalid Sample” and on the second go around it read “Invalid Test” on the tickets. The cops then said I refused the test and charged me with a refusal. What does this all mean?
The machine you are referring is the Intoxilyzer 5000. As a certified technician and owner of this machine, I know this machine inside and out. Here is some information to clear up your confusion:
Invalid Sample
I
nvalid sample means residual mouth alcohol detector went off. This means that the machine thinks that you still have alcohol in your mouth perhaps because you burped or you have GERD or a full 20 minute deprivation period hasn’t been achieved. The police should know that this is not a refusal. Instead, what they should do is wait 20 minutes and try again. This is NOT a refusal. Sometimes the machine will display “Invalid Sample” or “xxx” on the display unit, and an officer will say that it is a refusal in total contravention to the design of the machine and claim that the person was sucking or huffing or twirling the mouthpiece with his/her tongue. However, sucking or huffing would cause the steady tone that goes off when the machine is being used to stop emitting no sound and it would have read “Please blow” on the screen not “invalid sample”.
Invalid Test
There are three ways that gets printed on a card: (1) the start button is hit by the operator during the test causing an abort (2) the test card is removed from the printer (which wouldn’t be printed on the card because it has been removed) and (3) the purge pump is unable to purge the chamber-ambient or the chamber is flooded. This is NEVER EVER a refusal.
Unfortunately, often the police officers conducting these tests have not gone through enough training and make erroneous assumptions as in this case.
If you would like to ask a question, please submit it via the contact us link.
-Justin J. McShane, Esquire, Pennsylvania DUI Attorney
I am the highest rated DUI Attorney in PA as Rated by Avvo.com
You can follow me on Twitter, Facebook or Linkedin
Board Certified Criminal Trial Advocate
By the National Board of Trial Advocacy
A Pennsylvania Supreme Court Approved Agency
Every Friday we will take a look at some of the most commonly asked questions about Pennsylvania DUI so that we can clear up any misconceptions and provide you with the most up-to-date and accurate information. Today:
I was pulled over in Harrisburg and I refused a breath test. I visited an attorney who told that basically my case was hopeless and that I should just plead guilty. I don’t want to lose my license. What should I do?
1. The Consequences of a Pennsylvania DUI Refusal
Under Pennsylvania DUI law, a refusal of a breath or chemical test is charged with two offenses. The refusal itself is a civil offense that carries a one year license suspension for a first offense. The criminal charge carries the following penalty range for a first offense:
- Prison time: Three days to up to six months
- License suspension: One year
- Fines: $1000-$5000
- DUI School
- Not eligible for ARD
As with all DUI cases, if convicted, it will be on your criminal history for background checks and also on your driving record FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE. Please see our post The Legal Consequences for a DUI in PA for a more detailed description on Pennsylvania DUI Penalties for different categories and our series Why Fight a DUI in PA for details on many other consequences of a DUI conviction that you may not be aware of.
2. Time is of the Essence in a Refusal
There is a separate set of hearings called the PennDOT License Appeal that safeguards against arbitrary loss of your license. There is, however, a strict time limit to challenge a standalone PennDOT suspension pursuant to a refusal. If it is not appealed within 30 days of the mail date on the notice sent by regular mail to your last registered address, then you are out of luck, even if later on in the criminal matter you are found "not guilty". You cannot use the criminal acquittal to re-open the PennDOT suspension. So it is appeal within those 30 days or risk losing your driving privileges for a year, even if you are exonerated.
3. Don’t Plead Guilty
There are several successful strategies to defending DUI refusal cases. A qualified DUI expert can examine the evidence in your case and help chart a course of action. It’s not hopeless. Please see my previous post on the advantages of fighting DUI charges and taking them to trial.
Please get a second opinion on this and don’t follow that lawyer’s advice.
If you would like to ask a question, please submit it via the contact us link.
-Justin J. McShane, Esquire, Pennsylvania DUI Attorney
I am the highest rated DUI Attorney in PA as Rated by Avvo.com
You can follow me on Twitter, Facebook or Linkedin
Board Certified Criminal Trial Advocate
By the National Board of Trial Advocacy
A Pennsylvania Supreme Court Approved Agency
I have often lamented that DUI is one of the most politically charged crimes in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. There are a number of lobbies like MADD and the PA DUI Association that exert inordinate amounts of pressure on politicians to enact stricter Pennsylvania DUI Laws. In my opinion, as Pennsylvania’s first and only national Board certified DUI trial attorney as recognized by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, legal penalties should be based on factual research and scientific observations rather than the political clout of special interest groups.
Recently, I have noticed a surge in DUI related articles in newspapers across the country which only present a single-sided view of DUI related issues. Here is a recent article from The Patriot News:
Refusing DUI test is ‘a big gamble’ for drivers in Pennsylvania
Abdul Walters has to get up at 4:30 a.m. and catch two buses to make it to work on time.
He rides his bike to his second job. He asks for rides from friends. He has trouble getting his two daughters where they need to go.
Walters, 28, of Harrisburg, saw his driver’s license suspended for a year after he refused to take a blood alcohol test after a crash in January.
There are a great many factual and legal inaccuracies to this article. it shows a remarkable lack of due diligence by an otherwise great reporter. Among the several inaccuracies include:
- A DUI attorney says that blood and breath tests are “unbeatable”. They are not. There is a widespread lack of data to support a well-founded assertion that the magic number is true and oftentimes there are demonstrable issues in the collection, storage, testing and reporting of BrAC or BAC results. You just have to know what you are looking for. If you don’t know what to look for, then you will never find it.
- A DUI Refusal in and of itself is a civil offense not a criminal offense. A driver who refuses a DUI chemical test will not face jail time for the refusal as a standalone offense.
- The roadside tests or the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs) are totally subjective without a base line of comparison to properly conclude that one is impaired. The tests are not even designed by the test makers to record impairment. In many cases they are not instructed correctly, administered correctly or scored correctly. If the defense attorney understands the scientific and procedural intricacies surrounding these tests, then they can be exposed for what they truly are which are awkward high-pressure meaningless and purposeless roadside games of Simon says. I have blogged before about how according to a study conducted by Dr. Lance Platt, PhD (a renowned NHTSA/IACP SFST Instructor and expert) that showed 93% of the time the police improperly administered these tests. If test is administered incorrectly, often times the results are contestable.
- The article fails to mention that there are a separate set of hearings called PENNDOT Statutory License Appeals that stand as a safeguard to arbitrary loss of a driver’s license. When covering a topic like this, shouldn’t the readers be informed of all of their legal options? It is not an “automatic” as you can appeal to a court and have your day in court.
It is clearly within your constitutional rights to refuse government intrusion into your life. Isn’t that what our founding fathers did?
I can’t help but believe that this article has been influenced by political lobbyists. “Why?” you ask.
There was a recent MADD and NHTSA communiqué calling on state level organizations to prompt such writings in newspapers to highlight the “refusal problem”. Thus there have been a number of articles published in local newspapers nationwide that, similar to one quoted above, provide a biased view of the issue. Here are two more articles to prove my point:
Missoula City Council takes up refusal ordinance again
Ruling in favor of no-refusal strategy helps police keep roads safer
Their goal is to sway public opinion in favor of their national legislative drive to make all refusals to submit to a chemical test, regardless of reason, a standalone crime which it currently is not in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Several other states have also refused to make a refusal a standalone crime. If enacted as proposed, such a law would really mean that if you exercise your rights to refuse Government intrusion into your bodily integrity, then you who may not guilty of DUI could serve jail time for simply exercising your rights. Patrick Henry of “Give me Liberty of Give Me Death” along with Thomas Payne and all of the Founding Fathers would justifiable wag their fingers at us for the shame of it all.
My gripe here is elemental and philosophical in that laws and penalties should be based on academic research and studies not emotions. I do not like true DUI drivers any more than anyone else. I would be happy to be out of a job, but neo-prohibitionist nonsense and emotional-based decisions that lead to irrationally based laws is not the feature of sapience. Punishment should be rational, not emotional. I’ve represented a lot of people who are innocent of DUI and have seen people suffer through being penalized for a crime they did not commit or there is insufficient or inaccurate proof of guilt. By increasing penalties you are increasing the suffering of a lot of innocent people as well.
At the end- one final question: Will increasing penalties deter people from driving drunk? This should be answered by scientists not lobbyists.
-Justin J. McShane, Esquire, Pennsylvania DUI Attorney
I am the highest rated DUI Attorney in PA as Rated by Avvo.com
You can follow me on Twitter, Facebook or Linkedin
Board Certified Criminal Trial Advocate
By the National Board of Trial Advocacy
A Pennsylvania Supreme Court Approved Agency
Connect with us:
Connect with Attorney McShane
Attorney Profile on TheMcShaneFirm.com
Justin McShane on Avvo
Justin McShane on FaceBook
Justin McShane on Google+
Justin McShane on JustiaJustin McShane on LinkedIn
Justin McShane on Super Lawyers
Justin McShane on Twitter
National College for DUI Defense- The Truth About Forensic Science
Videos by Justin McShane
