Rhode Island Injury Lawyer Blog

It has been an exceptionally difficult month for Massachusetts State troopers. In the past five weeks alone, five state troopers have been injured on duty by drunk drivers. In one case, Sgt. Doug Weddleton was killed in an accident caused by a drunk driver. In the most recent incident, a thirty-three year old Massachusetts trooper was injured while writing a ticket for an uninvolved Brockton woman, Fatima Baptista.

In light of this increased string of drunk driving incidents, the Massachusetts Police Union is seeking extra patrols on the roads to identify impaired drivers before they cause injury. The union believes that more patrols will increase drunk driving arrests and keep dangerous drivers off the road.

It is important to remember that .08 is not a very high standard for DUI, but it is the law in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. Even a few drinks can impair your ability to drive and subject you to arrest for drunk driving. Additional penalties will be added to your case if you injury, or God forbid, kill someone while operating under the influence.

Continue reading "Massachusetts Police Union Seeking to Limit Drunk Driving" »

Washington, D.C. is reporting that nearly 400 people convicted of drunk driving since 2008 may have been convicted with inaccurate breathalyzer results. Half of those convicted spent time in jail, perhaps unnecessarily. D.C. Attorney General, Peter Nickles, said that the machines were improperly calibrated by the police. The inaccurate calibration led to results that were up to 20% higher than the actual blood alcohol level. Such a mistake could have resulted in wrongful convictions or may have wrongfully earned a more severe sentence under the wrong belief that a person was highly intoxicated.

Requests for new trials, expungements, and even lawsuits against the District have already begun pouring in. Some of the verdicts will stand based on other, still useful, evidence such as police testimony or subsequent blood and urine testing. Nevertheless, other cases may need to be re-tried without the inaccurate breathalyzer results.

These machines require precise calibration and proper care and maintenance at all times in order to give an accurate blood alcohol reading. A good DUI lawyer will challenge the accuracy and validity of test results to try and remove the results from evidence. This story will add fuel to the debate that these tests too often produce inaccurate results.

Continue reading "400 DUI Convcitions Based on Flawed Testing" »

I found this interesting article on the legal blog watch. Following my recent post about the Red Room and liquor liability, comes news that a New Jersey Appellate Court has now ruled that drunk drivers, injured in an auto accident of their own causing, can now sue the bar or club that served them despite obvious intoxication.

I suspect that such a ruling will be shot down at the Supreme Court level or overturned by the legislature, not necessarily because the reasoning is flawed, but because public policy demands it. In fact, the ruling is already in conflict with a New Jersey law that states a driver convicted of DUI shall have no cause of action over his or her injuries. A reading of the decision shows that the Court gave greater weight to the Dram Shop Act than to the above stated law. The NJ Dram Shop Act, similar to our own, indicates that ANYONE injured as a result of the negligent service of alcohol may have an action against the licensed provider of that alcohol. The New Jersey Appellate Court reasoned that there is no bar to ANYONE including the drunk driver.

Drunk drivers are often vilified because it is well known that it is a reckless and dangerous activity that puts peoples lives at risk. This is indisputable. Unfortunately, one of the effects of alcohol is to reduce our ability to reason and use proper judgment. Isn't it reasonable, therefore, to hold the negligent server of alcohol responsible since they profit heavily from increased intoxication. Please know that I am only playing devil's advocate here, and I understand that a reasonable person would cut himself off before he gets to a point in which he can no longer drive.

I found this ruling interesting. It expands the scope of the Dram Shop Act, and I believe rightfully so. That is not to say that drunk drivers should be awarded for their reckless behavior, but a licensed vendor of liquor, an intoxicating and dangerous drug, needs to be more carefully regulated and held responsible when they place profits over safety. Again, I imagine that this ruling will be overturned for public policy reasons - but it is interesting nonetheless.

Continue reading "Will New Jersey Allow Drunk Drivers to Sue the Bars That Served Them?" »

Early Thanksgiving morning, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Gerard Sullivan, was stopped by Warwick police for driving erratically. Allegedly, Mr. Sullivan told the police that he was a federal prosecutor and acquaintance of the police chief. Instead of being charged with DUI, Mr. Sullivan was charged only with refusal to take a breathalyzer, a lesser civil charge.

Typically, an officer will charge a suspected drunk driver with DUI based on the surrounding circumstances (i.e. erratic driving, slurred speech, smell of alcohol and/or weed), even absent a positive breathalyzer test. The public was outraged over the lack of the more serious charge suggesting this was another case of favortism and cronyism. In fact, of 8 people stopped in Warwick over the Holiday weekend who refused a breathalyzer, Mr. Sullivan was the only person NOT charged with DUI.

Today, the Providence Journal is reporting, that Warwick will charge Mr. Sullivan with both refusal to take a breathalyzer and DUI. Warwick Police Chief Stephen McCartney stated "The legal review showed that the arresting officer's observations of impaired driving in this particular case were more than sufficient probable cause to bring forward the aforementioned additional DUI charge." Whether this was police procedure or a knee-jerk reaction to public outrage is for the public to decide.

It is also worth noting that when a lawyer is pulled over for suspicion of DUI - he (or she) refuses the breathalyzer test. This is a lesson to anyone who might find him or herself in this unfortunate circumstance.

Continue reading "Warwick to Charge Federal Prosecutor With DUI" »

The State legislature has passed a new law that allows officers to force drivers suspected of being under the influence AND are involved in accidents that cause death or serious bodily injury, to submit to a blood alcohol test.

Rhode Island law holds that any driver on a public road gives consent to a breathalyzer test if suspected of DUI. Drivers, however, can refuse to take the test. Refusal to take the breathalyzer will result in a separate charge from the DUI and will result in a loss of license, but may help avoid a DUI conviction.

This new State law denies the driver's right to refusal when the suspected DUI has led to an accident involving serious bodily injury or death. The law will really aid the prosecution for the heightened charges of R.I.G.L. 31-27-2.2 "driving under the influence of liquor or drugs, resulting in death."

I will be curious to see where the fine line is drawn in regards to "serious bodily injury." What will it take for an injury to be deemed serious enough to give the officer power to force the suspected drunk driver to submit to the chemical test. I am willing to bet that this will be the subject of much litigation in the coming years.

Rhode Island legislators are happy to have this law passed in time for the Thanksgiving weekend when a higher percentage of drunk drivers are on the road. Everyone be careful out there this weekend.

Continue reading "New Rhode Island Law Compels Blood Alcohol Testing" »