At The McShane Firm we are committed to providing the best DUI defense in PA. This is why we have expanded our team of PA DUI Attorney by adding two talented attorneys Bryan DePowell and Josh Auriemma. Both of them understand the high standards of excellence in DUI defense we stand for at The McShane Firm and they are working hard to become the best DUI lawyers they can be.
PA DUI Attorneys DePowell and Auriemma have completed the ARIDE certification course
Part of being the best is attending advanced DUI training, even those courses designed for police officers. Attending these courses allows us to highlight the shortcomings of the techniques the police use and keep us ahead of them as far as DUI expertise goes. Being highly trained translates to success in the courtroom because our attorneys understand the procedures police officers are supposed to follow and can expose them if they deviate from those procedures.
Recently, Attorneys DePowell and Auriemma attended a certification course in Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) which is a program developed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) with input from the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). The goal of the course is to provide officers general knowledge related to drug impairment. This is an advanced course for police officers and the majority of DUI police officers in PA have not reached this level of certification.
This week, both Attorneys DePowell and Auriemma will be attend drug recognition expert (DRE) training which is the highest training course NHTSA offers for police officers in impaired driving. This course trains officers in the standardized 12-step evaluation DRE protocol used to identified driver impaired by drugs for DUI drugs cases.
If you have questions on DUI drugs and would like to meet with a qualified PA DUI attorney please call 1-866-MCSHANE.
Are Pennsylvania Police Officers Being Misinformed About DUI?
Hunting for DUI without knowing what to look for
One of the important aspects of DUI enforcement that is being treated lightly is properly training Pennsylvania’s police force. The truth of the matter is that police officers in PA who receive very little DUI training are entrusted with the very difficult task of determining who is driving drunk and who isn’t. Furthermore, there is a great deal of pressure put on police officers to arrest people for DUI because it is well known that the officers with the most DUI arrests (not actual convictions) receive awards and promotions. So here is your recipe for disaster: over-zealous police officers “hunting” for DUIs without really knowing how to spot one with certainty.
To compound the problem, much of the little training police officers do receive is not scientifically valid. Here is some information for law enforcement from the website padui.org:
Following are 20 cues which police officers may use to detect nighttime drunk drivers. The cues were developed from interviews with a variety of law enforcement specialists in DUI detection; from a detailed analysis of more than 1,000 DUI arrest reports from different geographical regions; and from a field study in which cues observed in more than 600 patrol stops were correlated with driver BAC levels. These cues represent the most systematically developed method available for visually predicting whether a vehicle operated at night is being driven by a DUI driver or a sober driver.
Turning with a wide radius 65% Straddling center or lane marker 65% Appearing to be drunk 60% Almost striking object or vehicle 60% Weaving 60% Driving on other than designated roadway 55% Swerving 55% Slow speed (more than 10 mph below limit) 50% Stopping (without cause) in traffic lane 50% Following too closely 50% Drifting 50% Tires on center or lane marker 45% Braking erratically 45% Driving into opposing or crossing traffic 45% Signaling inconsistent with driving actions 40% Slow response to traffic signals 40% Stopping inappropriately (other than in lane) 35% Turning abruptly or illegally 35% Accelerating or decelerating rapidly 30% Headlights off 30% The number given after each visual cue is the probability that a driver exhibiting that cue has a BAC equal to or greater than 0.10 percent. For example, the 65 for the first cue; turning with wide radius, means that chances are 65 out of 100 that a driver who turns with a wide radius at night will have a BAC equal to or greater than 0.10 percent. The 50 for drifting means that chances are 50 out of 100 (50:50) that a driver who is drifting at night will have a BAC equal to or greater than 0.10 percent.
Each value shown is based on seeing only one cue. However, multiple cues are often seen. When two or more cues are seen add 10 to the highest value among the cues observed.
How many of us have taken a wide turn, maybe because we were talking on the phone or were holding a cup of coffee between our legs? According to this information with is originally taken from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration manual “Visual Detection of DWI” two out of three of us were drunk when taking that wide turn. These percentages have not been peer reviewed and can cause officers to draw incorrect conclusions about who should be pulled over for DUI and who shouldn’t. I can tell you from actual trial experience that many of these “DUI cues” are not fair indicators of whether or not the motorist was drunk. For example, based upon current Pennsylvania DUI case law, if a police officer pulls someone over simply for “drifting within their own lane,” the case is likely to be thrown out due to lack of probable cause to stop the vehicle.
People all over PA want to solve the DUI problem and keep our families safe. The first step to that is providing police officers with the right training needed to enforce DUI laws.
We have all heard of the “Innocence Project” which is a national joint legal and scientific project to identify and where appropriate re-examine cases where guilt has been found and after being examined with “fresh eyes” and with the use of DNA to either confirm or exonerate those actually convicted of a crime. To date, over two hundred (200) people who have been convicted after a full-blown Jury trial have been factually and totally exonerated through the use of DNA. I think everyone thinks this is a good idea.
Or do we?
There is little doubt that a certain segment of our society believes that someone who is simply accused of a DUI should be found guilty automatically. No trial. No Due Process. No Constitution. No Bill of Rights.
When people ask me what I do, I respond that I think that our office’s work is sort of like the DUI Innocence Project where we use science and facts to examine the Government’s case against the accused without pre-conceived notions and without pre-fixed conclusions in mind. If the accused is factually and scientifically guilty, then he or she is. If he accused is not, we contest the case using the truth as a defense: we use forensic science, metrology and experts much like the DNA based “Innocence Project’ does to exonerate the falsely accused.
Consider this scenario…
Traffic Stop. Officer approaches. Officer says, “Have you been drinking?” [You say either yes or no.-It really doesn't matter as the next event is unavoidable]. Officer says, “Step out of the car. We’re going to do some tests.”
Now this is where it gets scary. The Officer is going to try to administer the battery of roadside tests known as Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs) as developed and published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The stated purpose behind these tests is to use a standardized method that has been supposedly scientifically validated to correspond to behavior by using divided attention psychomotor function tests to arrive at an objective opinion that the test taker is possibly above a .10 or a .08 BAC level.
At the conclusion of these tests, the police officer is about to make a decision as to whether or not to arrest you. In this decision you have no control or influence. In this decision, the Officer is making perhaps the single most important decision that another person will ever make for you. In this decision, the Officer holds not only your liberty in his or her hands, but also your license, your job, your self-esteem, and just about everything. The consequences are huge.
But what if the Officer, doesn’t know what he or she is doing?
What if the Officer is under-educated or improperly trained?
What if the Officer cut corners?
What if the Officer just simply doesn’t care?
Well, that is what one expert has looked into…
Lance Platt is a renowned NHTSA/IACP SFST Instructor who has testified as an expert in the proper instruction, administration and interpretation of the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, in many, many state and federal courts. In the DWI Journal: Law & Science Journal, he published an article that examined the differences between the manner in which officer was trained to perform the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests and the manner in which the Officer actually administer them.
In other words, the difference between the book and the real world.
For example, the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test (the eye tracking test which is one of the 3 supposedly validated tests), Mr. Platt wrote that there are sixteen (16) distinct elements that make up the test. Mr Platt chose to examine at random three hundred and sixty (360) video recorded administrations nationwide to determine whether or not the test was given correctly by the Officers at roadside.
He found only twenty-four (24) were performed correctly per the NHTSA Manual. Those 24 represent only 7% of the tests administered, meaning that officers administered the test incorrectly 93% of the time.
Now this is 93% figure only speaks as to the incorrect administration of the test. It is very likely that when those twenty-four (24) tests that were administered correctly are further examined to see if the interpretation of the tests were correct, we will get closer to zero.
This is only for the HGN test which is only one out of the three tests given at roadside in most cases.
This is why a DUI Innocence Project is so important. This is why we do what we do.
-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
.jpg)
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
