Driving under the influence of intoxicants is theoretically a minor crime, but in terms of the sentence it carries and the collateral consequences, it can be more serious than many felonies. Further, a DUII trial may present issues that rarely come up in other kinds of cases; the reliability of the Intoxilyzer machine and field sobriety tests, search-and-seizure issues unique to DUII such as hospital blood draws and urine tests, and DRE exams, the Widmark formula, and other science and pseudoscience of intoxication. A good DUII lawyer is familiar with DMV procedure and the effect of out-of-state convictions and prior drug or alcohol treatment.
If you are charged with DUII, you need a lawyer who understands those issues as you decide whether to enter diversion, enter a guilty plea, or go to trial. A conviction carries a mandatory jail sentence and driver’s license suspension, and the third conviction carries a lifetime driver’s license revocation. You need to understand your options and the risks, and you need good legal advice, before you decide what to do. Call me if you have questions about your DUII charges, or those of a family member, or if you need a lawyer to handle them.
Senator Crapo’s alcohol problem
In Oregon, and in most states, driving with a blood-alcohol level of .08% or higher is driving under the influence of intoxicants, or DUII. The .08% is defined, semiofficially, by federal law, and it represents a balance between increasing public safety (a low number would capture more drivers) and individual autonomy (if the number is too low, no one could have a few drinks at dinner and still drive home). It’s probably necessary to have a single figure for everyone, but in fact the .08 figure is too high for people who don’t...
read moreHow many times do they have to catch you driving under the influence to get three convictions? (Four, of course; the diverted first DUII doesn’t really count.)
I had oral argument today in the Oregon Court of Appeals about whether a first DUII conviction from Nevada counts as a conviction in Oregon for purposes of a lifetime driver’s license revocation. There is a decent argument that it doesn’t; the first conviction in Nevada has a significant treatment component that makes it look kind of like a diversion. The panel (Haselton, Armstrong, Duncan) were interested in the issue, and asked about hypothetical other states where DUII is an infraction, or where there is no diversion of any sort. There...
read more
