This article in the patch about a DUI suspect who claimed she was “too fat” to pass field sobriety tests is played for comedy, but is actually a legitimate reason explicitly listed in police training manuals for administering these tests.

Field sobriety tests are designed to measure balance and coordination compared to the average person who is not impaired or intoxicated. But for someone who is significantly overweight, they are not the average person, and are nowhere near the baseline for these balance and coordination exercises.

According to the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration, who designed and scientifically tested the standard field sobriety tests to determine alcohol impairment, they found approximately an 80% correlation between being above .08% BAC and  failing either the One Leg Stand test, or the Nine Step Walk and Turn test.

However, individuals who are more than 50lbs overweight or over the age of 65 are not considered good candidates for these tests, and are presumed to be much more likely in the 20% outside of the correlation.

It’s just a fact that some people do not have the inherent balance and coordination levels to pass these tests under any circumstances, whether it be physical limitations, injuries, or other medical conditions that can influence the performance in these exercises.

And these exceptions are explicit in the officer’s training. It is surprisingly easy to fail these tests, through no fault of your own, and without being drunk or impaired by alcohol in any way.

I see people all the time who have medical conditions that make it impossible for them complete these exercises, and makes this so called evidence against them completely invalid. We just need to spell out to the court the reasons why these facts don’t prove you were drunk.

When cross examining a police officer on the stand, I can use his own training to establish these situations which are clearly outside the scientific guidelines.  And in some cases, we can introduce medical evidence that establishes previous injuries or other physical limitations that make the results of the field sobriety tests factually meaningless.

If you’ve been charged with a DUI in Rhode Island, and don’t think it’s fair, give me a call and let’s go over your case together.

Rhode Island judges and juries convict two thirds of the first offense DUI charges that go to trial.

According to this article in golocalprov.com, RI DUI convictions are much higher than neighboring Massachusetts because the process is very different, and far fewer weak cases are prosecuted, that would ultimately likely end in acquittal.

The article quotes Attorney James Powerderly extensively:

If the DUI charge may be difficult to prove, the prosecutor will often offer a deal that allows the defendant to plead guilty to the chemical test refusal charge in exchange for a dismissal or reduction of the DUI charge. With the discretion to appropriately resolve the borderline or difficult to prove cases, Rhode Island prosecutors are able to focus their efforts on achieving convictions for the cases with strong evidence, said Powderly.

“By weeding out the slam dunk wins for the defendant at the pre-trial stage, judges are left to preside over serious trials with the inevitable result of higher conviction rates then their Massachusetts counterparts,” said Powderly.

The plea process is significantly different, and the fact than many people agree to plead guilty to the chemical, or breath test refusal, means that more penalties are handed out that are short of DUI convictions.

In addition, because of this process, the number of first offense DUI cases that actually go to trial in Rhode Island is relatively small.  The article cited statistics from only 56 trials in the state in a three year period.

A report from MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) gives Rhode Island it’s lowest rating on preventing drunk driving. But is that all that matters? Is this criteria correct, and does it consider civil liberties?

As reported by WPRI, the MADD state by state report suggests it is a problem that Rhode Island doesn’t enforce draconian laws like “no refusals”, where a judge can order you to have your blood drawn to test for alcohol content. Also, Rhode Island doesn’t have sobriety checkpoints (DUI roadblocks) to stop unsuspecting citizens for literally no reason, just to check if someone has been drinking.

It can easily be argued that these restrictions on government power and intrusions allow Rhode Islander’s more freedom in their everyday lives.

No one is in favor of drunk driving. But there is more to life and freedom that taking every possible step that might possibly prevent someone’s poor decision making, and punish a mistake.

Every restriction and penalty is a further imposition on regular citizens. So while it is fine for MADD to advocate for it’s point of view, and it’s particular issue, there is far more to the story than just “getting tougher”.

Attorney James Powderly interview on Channel 10 about Rhode Island’s Social Host Law. Watch:

Police in Woonsocket are testing some of the latest license plate scanning and surveillance technology. These systems are able to scan and match thousands of license plates per day, and match them against law enforcement and DMV databases for stolen cars, suspended drivers licenses, or any other reason the car or driver might be sought by police.

According to the Woonsocket Patch, these systems are automatically updated with stolen car and other data from the National Crime Information Center. They can be easily adapted to get local data from the Rhode Island DMV to have current data on cars owned by drivers who may have suspended driver’s licenses, or anyone wanted by Rhode Island courts for bail jumping or an outstanding warrant.

There is a license plate scanning system already in operation by Providence police.

Automatic license plate recognition systems are quickly becoming a must-have item for police forces, because of their ability to be a force multiplier on the streets. An officer is instantly alerted to any vehicle sought for charges or wanted for questioning. Previously, an officer would have to manually enter the plate of any nearby vehicles, but these systems literally scan, check, match, and store location data on any plate within camera range.

This ability to collect massive amounts of data on cars raises significant concerns among civil liberties and privacy advocates. Car location data via GPS markers from these systems can be stored and saved in a massive, national surveillance database, where it is very possible for your driving location history to be accessed by government officials at any time.

But police just like them because it makes there jobs easier. And that is understandable.

But it is important for citizens to be aware of this government data collection.

And, at a minimum, if your license is under suspension in Rhode Island, you can’t expect to drive your car without being spotted and pulled over.

There are a number of new DUI related laws being considered by the Rhode Island General Assembly.

According to the Brown Daily Herald, Rhode Island DUI law changes proposed include:

1. A measure to immediately suspend the driver’s license of anyone arrested for a drunk driving charge. If a person is charged with a DUI, or refusing a chemical alcohol (breathalyser) test, the license suspension would be immediate. Currently 41 states have similar provisions.
2. A measure to require mandatory “enhanced probation” for anyone who refuses to take a breath test. The requirement would mandate twice daily alcohol breath tests for anyone on probation for a DUI charge after a chemical, breath, or blood test refusal.
3. A measure to permit police officers to perform an alcohol breath test or blood test before performing any other roadside field sobriety tests.

Currently, Rhode Island is one of the few states that doesn’t allow the courts to hold a breath test refusal as evidence against a person at trial.

The DUI laws in Rhode Island are considered relatively lax by some measures, compared with other states. And some statistical measures indicate more drunk driving incidents and alcohol related accidents.

As reported in the Providence Journal, the local Chapter of MADD is hoping to require mandatory ignition interlock devices for convicted drunk drivers, even for a first offense conviction.

An ignition interlock device is a breathalyzer device attached to the ignition of the car, allowing the vehicle to start only if it detects no alcohol on the breath of the driver. Current RI DUI law allows judges to impose an ignition interlock device, but does not mandate it.

First offense requirements for these devices are controversial. Critics argue that this mandate is a harsh reaction to a single incident.  Many states like Illinois and Arizona have recently adopted interlock requirements on any first offense drunk driving conviction. Other states like Florida only mandate a 1st offense interlock in high BAC cases (over .15%, or nearly twice the limit), where the driver was seriously impaired. Massachusetts requires them only for 2nd offense DUI convictions.

Also noted in the article is a mention of increased DUI roadblocks being sought. Roadblocks, or sobriety checkpoints, are also controversial, as to whether they are truly an effective use of police resources to stop and prevent drunk driving, as opposed to regular patrols looking for active dangerous and potentially impaired drivers.

Everyone is against drunk driving, but there are honest differences about the most effective means to prevent drunk driving incidents.

In a bizarre story, a suspicious situation where a couple of men were moving a safe lead to multiple arrests and felony drug charges for the victim of the theft.

According to the Providence Journal,  police stopped the men after a witness called in the suspicious situation with the men taking the safe.

Shortly thereafter, a man reported his safe stolen, so the story matched up. However, in order to prove the safe was his, he unlocked in in front of the police, only to reveal the safe’s contents included $5000 in cash, and two pounds of marijuana. The police then arrested the man for felony possession of marijuana with intent to deliver or distribute.

The thieves were also issued separate charges with possession of marijuana for pot found in their vehicle during the theft, as well as the burglary offense.

All in all, not a banner day for the criminal element in Portsmouth, RI.

A prominent and detailed editorial in the Providence Journal makes the claim that Rhode Island has the laxest drunk driving laws in New England.

The editorial describes a specific horrifying case where the defendant kills a gas station attendant in a hit and run. He later fights off a police officer who came to arrest him, wrestles away his gun, shooting him in the back, and stealing his police cruiser.

In the case of the deadly hit and run, the defendant isn’t charged with a DUI, though he had a history of previous DUI arrests, one conviction for DUI, and two convictions for refusing the breath test.

As disturbing as this case is, the editorial largely misses the point. The fact that he may have an alcohol problem and be prone to drunk driving is almost irrelevant to the fact that he is a dangerous criminal. Even chronic multiple offense drunk drivers to not typically kill people and evade arrest by fighting off and shooting police officers.

It is hard to imagine that harsher penalties and additional DUI charges, or even a suspended license would have had any impact on a person like this.

Whether or not there is a case to be made for changing Rhode Island’s breath test refusal laws and penalties, or extending the lookback period in 2nd and 3rd offense DUIs, the argument is not served by citing this extreme case.

Typical people arrested for drunk driving in Rhode Island are not hardcore criminals. Most people make a single mistake, and never repeat. Of course some people have serious alcohol abuse problems and do repeat offend. Are there better ways to treat chronic alcoholics and enhance public safety? That could well be.

Everyone agrees that drunk driving is a dangerous activity, but citing extreme and aberrant situations does not clarify the need for DUI reform.

This pair of Rhode Island legislators are aggressively targeting illegal imigrants, looking to mimic Arizona’s new immigration laws.

The peculiar part is the coining of the new term, “anchor embryos”, attacking benefits and prenatal care that Rhode Island may provide to illegal immigrants who are pregnant.

Watch:

(via think progress)