Colorado Springs Criminal Attorney Blog

Is the dog to the left high?!? There will be an answer at the end of this post.

A law school classmate who is now a professor at our alma mater--Creighton--just posted (on Facebook, no less) that the Supreme Court has decided that a drug dog sniff is a search that requires a warrant.

The first important consideration that jumps out--what kind of lawyer gets his Supreme Court decision announcements via Facebook?!? Probably more important, though, is the ramification to law enforcement. In Florida v. Jardines (11-564), the police get an anonymous tip that a dude has got a bunch of pot in his house. The coppers investigate by noting that there is an air conditioner running for FIFTEEN WHOLE minutes (which, apparently, is indicative of trying to dissipate heat from grow lamps. I would have thought it indicates that Florida is hot, but I live in Colorado and it was 6 degrees yesterday morning, so "hot" might be relative. But I digress . . .). Anyway, the Man then takes a drug dog to the front door and allows him the sniff at the threshold. The dog "hits", essentially going crazy and then falling over on his back like my dog Junior in the picture above. Ok, I made that last part up--but you get the idea. Also, the part about the air conditioner didn't make it into the opinion, but it was in the briefs. Again, I digress. Sorry.

Armed with the dog sniff information (along with the air conditioner and the anonymous tip info), the Narcos go and get a warrant. Once they get in the house, they find 25 pounds of the evil weed and charge Mr. Jardines with various offenses. The evidence was then suppressed and un-suppressed in a number of different court proceedings until the Supreme Court got involved.

"Not so fast!" said the Supremes. "A dog sniff is a search!" they pronounced. (You can tell I'm excited by my use of exclamation points!!!!). Thus, law enforcement needs a warrant prior to having the dog sniff. The insightful analysis of this attorney?: drug dogs are now somewhat irrelevant. If the cops can get a warrant for a sniff, they can get a warrant to get into the house anyway. So why have the dogs in the first place? Sorry Fido! ****EDIT**** Fido gets a reprieve! My professor buddy just pointed out that Fido may still have utility in airports, sniffing cars, and that this holding applies only to homes which have a higher expectation of privacy. That's why he's a professor and I'm just a practitioner. Although, if the police have a drug dog sniffing your car, they probably can get into it some other way. Just sayin'!

Oh, yeah. Junior above actually is on drugs--for seizures. He slept like that long before he went on meds, though. Not sure what that means in terms of probable cause for warrants or searches, but I thought it was a funny picture. As always, if you are charged with a crime, it's a good idea to call a qualified attorney to discuss your case before making any important decisions about your rights.

Cleaning out the e-mail box and found this gem from last year. I'd hung onto it so long because it's really, really, funny. I should add a bunch of commentary about how this relates to criminal law in Colorado Springs and then give a call to action about how you should contact a Colorado Springs Criminal Defense Attorney like me if you find your self in similar trouble, but really, I'm not too sure any of my readership will ever find himself or herself in a similar situation. So, without further ado, enjoy this old story about a man committing trespass, criminal impersonation and theft!

One thing I've learned after 18 years as a lawyer (WTH?!?, I don't feel a day over, um, 40.) is that police and citizens sometimes have a very different opinion of what you can say--or in this case--sign to a police officer.

I know, cops have a tough job. They put their lives on the line to protect us every time they go out on the street. And we, as a community, generally respect their service. Heck, just look at this survey and compare where police officers rank. At least lawyers didn't make the bad side of the list in this survey!

Anyway, I've had clients arrested for all kinds of various slights to police officers--ranging from being charged with City of Colorado Springs Municipal Code Violations for Interference (for not sitting on the curb quickly enough when directed) to being charged with first degree assault on a peace officer (for being shot when not complying with an officer's orders). Those are extremes, but one situation is more common--a client is mouthy or makes an obscene gesture and is cited for either verbal "harassment" or "disorderly conduct".

Jumping back to the respect that we give police officers, the down side of that respect is that it's part of the job to deal with people who are drunk, irrational, or just don't like authority. And that last part, dislike of authority and being able to communicate that dislike is one of the founding principals of our Constitution. I know I've said it before, but it's so important, "they" put it #1 in the Bill of Rights--The First Amendment!

The reasoning is this: Nowhere is being able to speak your mind so important as it is when telling the government and it's representatives to pound sand. That's where the rubber hits the road for a truly free people, apologies to my friends that really like the Second Amendment--there's a reason it was # 2 :-). This case was decided last year and is instructive, and reviewing gave me the idea for this entry. It's almost a carbon copy of this case I wrote about eighteen months ago. I don't advocate running around and "flipping the bird" at the police, or really anybody, (I'm big on being polite) but it just isn't a crime.

So, if you've been charged with verbal harassment or verbal disorderly conduct, you may have a Constitutional defense. Call a qualified defense attorney to talk about your rights.

Hi,

Another day, another blog. Just so you know--if you've landed on this page because you have been doing a web search about whether the ticket you received for biking (see the Colorado State Patrol warning here) or boating (the Parks and Wildlife warning here) under the influence is proper? Yes, at least generally, the state can charge you for those two things and the consequences are similar to those for driving under the influence (including loss of license, jail, community service, alcohol therapy, and fines). I remember one case from about twelve years ago, where a man was accused of riding his motorized wheel chair while impaired (to be fair, he did run over a couple of pedestrians on the sidewalk).

O.k., you say, but what about horses? I don't know specifically how that works in Colorado, because I've never dealt with that case, but in Palm Beach, Fla., you can charged with RHUI--Riding a Horse Under the Influence. Here's the link. Be forewarned, there's video. And the guy riding the horse has no shirt on. And he's no Daniel Craig. But at least in my mind, this Colorado Springs Criminal Defense Attorney is 007-like, at least in the courtroom!

That headline came from this Fox News story. I'm not sure what to say about this one, except "Wow." I mean, "Wowwwww!"

Anyway, this type of "issue" comes up (out) from time to time--some type of testimony or evidence that substantially impacts the ability of the jury to remain impartial. Generally, three Court rules will dictate what should happen.

First, in the event of some highly prejudicial evidence being adduced before a jury (intentionally or not), the Court will conduct an analysis under Colorado Rule of Evidence 403. The Court will essentially weigh the probative value (relevance) of the evidence against the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused. If the relevance of the evidence outweighs that prejudice, the evidence can go to the jury. If not . . . the judge can either strike the testimony or, if the damage has been done, move on to an analysis of whether a mistrial is necessary.

A mistrial occurs when the jury has been presented evidence or a scenario which renders it's ability to render a fair verdict unreliable. If that evidence or scenario happens, the judge makes a decision about whether the "taint" on the jury makes it a "manifest necessity" to start over. Those quotes indicate fancy legal terms. Basically, if the stuff that happens in trial is so unfair that a jury can't see past it, the judge says "do over". However, if it turns out that the DA caused the mistrial recklessly or on purpose, the rule against "double jeopardy" could apply and the prosecution would be barred from bringing the charges again.

So, there's your criminal law primer on Rule 403, mistrials, and double jeopardy. None of which I really wanted to talk about, but it flowed from the "wowwwwww."

So, as announced in all major media outlets and our local paper, the Gazette, our law makers have brought back "per se" blood limits for driver's suspected of being under the influence of marijuana.

I've written about this before a couple of times before here and here.

I'm not sure that I have a lot to add to those articles. The same arguments have been made--what's changed in the past year is that our citizenry has decided that recreational marijuana should no longer be prohibited. So now Rep. Waller is able to say, and acutally did yesterday according to a story I heard on KRCC this morning, that public safety dictates that if a person's blood contains a certain level of THC that level is the equivalent to being under the influence, whether the person exhibits signs of impairment or not. If the person doesn't show signs, well, then, she can present evidence to prove she's not guilty. Leaving the obvious shifting of the burden of proof to the suspect aside, this type of legislation concerns me.

First, Rep. Waller and his boss for his "other" job, D.A. Dan May, have long been on record as opposing any marijuana use, whether medical or recreational. Mr. Waller fought medical marijuana and Amendment 64. Now he is the primary sponsor of the per se marijuana DUI bill. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the motivation is not just the safety of our motoring public--it's marijuana in the first place.

Second, if a driver is stopped for a technical reason (lamp out, expired tags, speeding--a non-"impaired" type of reason) and has a marijuana card, does that mean a cop gets to ask for a blood test? What if the person has allergies and her eyes are red? Do the police get to take blood? What if it's 10:30 at night and the person has a pint of Ben and Jerry's in the passenger seat? Is that a blood test, too?

Kidding aside, I do get concerned that our public servants start manufacturing reasons to get into our lives. I once had a client in an alcohol case who went through the system herself, before she came to me to help "fix" her situation. She was asked to take a blood test because her "breath smelled like breath mints" and, the officer reasoned, people who drink use breath mints to cover the scent of alcohol. Based on that "indicia of alcohol" alone, he asked the client to take a blood test. She complied (because if she refused, the state would take her driver's license for one year). She went to court and the DA asked her to plead guilty to a drinking and driving offense (DWAI). The judge took her plea. She went to alcohol classes. At alcohol class, they asked what her blood test result was--she didn't know. They went back to the court file to find the BAC and, lo and behold, it was .027--under the legal limit for even DWAI. It took tens of hours of work, thousands of dollars, and months of scheduling to undo the damage done. That's because she smelled like breath mints. Heaven forbid an officer stops you and you smell like cigarettes, have red-eyes and a marijuana card. Even if you weren't all over the road, and even if you don't do roadsides, the police officer is still going to ask for your blood. If you refuse, you'll lose your license for a year. If you take a test and there is ANY THC in there, you'll be trying to put on evidence you weren't impaired. And from the anecdote above, how do you think that's going to over with people on record as deploring the evil weed.

Just some food for thought. As always, call a good criminal defense attorney if you find yourself charged with a crime.

So, ahem, it may have been a little bit since I've last written here. A lot has happened in the past, cough, year. The Waldo Canyon fire, an office move somewhat dictated by that, legal marijuana, a presidential election, the fiscal cliff and now sequestration! Oh my!

A little closer to home, one of our Colorado Springs legislators and sometimes El Paso County Deputy District Attorney, Mark Waller, is pushing to give Colorado a felony DUI law. You can see an editorial that outlines the details in this Denver Post article.

While I've only skimmed House Bill 13-1214, my general understanding is that if you have two prior convictions for driving under the influence (DUI) or driving while ability impaired (DWAI) within 7 years of a new allegation, or three prior convictions in a lifetime, the new allegation could be filed as a class five felony.

The class five felony carries enhanced penalties of which, just being labeled a "felon" may be the most significant. Other penalties include mandatory jail and/or prison time, enhanced ignition interlock (which is already a DMV requirement--don't get me started on the bureaucratic nightmare of interlacing laws between the courts and DMV), enhanced penalties, and substance abuse treatment. Of course, all of the "treatment" must be done at the offender's own expense.

Ok, I get it. As a politician, if you want to get tough on crime, the two easiest targets are drunk drivers and sex offenders (by the by, there is big furor today at the Legislature over a sex offender bill that died after everybody but the politicians that sponsored it said it was nothing but politics). And drunk driving is something that is preventable. I'm just not sure the unfunded dictates for treatment, the additional expenses of felony prosecution to the state and defendants, and the additional expense of mandatory prison time (remember, this is for cases where no one has been injured--pre-emptive prison time, if you will), will be justified when those funds could actually go to state funded treatment.

That's just me, though. Anyway, if you (or a loved one) find yourself in the cross-hairs of our soon to be new felony DUI law (or any criminal prosecution), call me for a no-pressure consultation on how to position yourself for an optimal outcome.

From the Fast and Furious Division of Geoff Heim, Attorney, LLC: Colorado's most dangerous mountain pass is . . . Wolf Creek! Read about it here in the Durango Herald.

As I look back over my posts, I see that I haven't really mentioned that as well as being a Colorado Springs Criminal Defense Attorney and Colorado Springs DUI Lawyer, I'm a Colorado Springs Traffic Attorney. (Note, the annoying list with geographic and practice area descriptors is for SEO marketing purposes and not because I normally talk like that!).

Anyway, the majority of the contact our citizenry has with law enforcement and the courts is through the basic, garden variety traffic ticket. Only, when it's you that gets the ticket, it is suddenly not basic, nor garden variety anymore. Nay, it becomes the CASE OF THE CENTURY. The hyperbole is intended, but people get fired up over the traffic ticket: "A cop is hiding behind a bush with a radar gun--that's ENTRAPMENT, right Mr. Heim? That should be thrown-out!" Or, one of my personal favorites: "I was not following to closely, the guy in front of me slammed on his brakes!" But sometimes, an accident is just that--an accident on a wintery pass (like Wolf Creek) where there is no fault but the weather--but the police write a Colorado Springs careless driving ticket anyway.

Regardless of the ticket, they bring potential driver's license and insurance consequences, stress and uncertainty, and (sometimes) much more emotional turmoil than is necessary.

My Colorado Springs Traffic Lawyer firm (it's that search engine marketing thing again) can keep you out of court, minimize the damage, and ensure that you get the best result possible. All for a reasonable, fixed fee. So, take a breath, let go of the annoyance of the ticket and give me a call to see how we can make the best out of a bad (or at least annoying) situation. And drive safe out there, my friends.

I had another post all lined up and ready to publish, but this article in the Colorado Springs Gazette about our local DA failing to disclose evidence in a sex crime prosecution against a cop hit the wires and I thought it was just too timely and too relevant to not comment.

Colorado Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 dictates what information must be turned over by the prosecution to the defense and when it must be turned over. This flow of information, and the information itself, is known as "discovery". Rule 16 applies to all criminal cases from the most heinous murder cases to a Colorado Springs DUI case. While there is some discretion regarding what the DA must turn over, for practical purposes, the letter and spirit of the Rule dictate that the prosecution needs to turn over EVERYTHING!

Why? In the most broad terms, it's because our Constitution requires that a defendant be given a vigorous defense to protect against tyranny and corruption. It's because we want transparency in our government agencies. It's because the District Attorney is supposed to be the good guy. The guy in the white hat. While a Colorado Springs Criminal Defense Attorney is charged with zealously representing his client, the ethical dictates for a prosecutor are different--a prosecutor is to seek "justice". You know, the person that makes sure the rules are applied evenly. The person that ensures that justice is done. The person that is supposed to look at what is fair.

This is not the first time that our current DA's office has come under scrutiny for discovery violations. In 2010, we learned in a Colorado Springs Independent article that potentially hundreds of Colorado Springs DUI charges cases were prosecuted with faulty blood tests. Until Colorado Springs DUI lawyers fought to have the erroneous blood tests brought to light, the DA's office sat on it. And even after the problems were disclosed and the Crime Lab was decertified to test blood (it still is, by the way), the DA continued to prosecute those cases.

So, this new allegation continues a disturbing trend. What's most disturbing about it is that there are just two explanations. First, the DA's office is so inept that it is mismanaging evidence in a high profile sex crime case against a cop. And that's bad. Really bad. The second explanation is that the DA is intentionally hiding evidence. Which is much worse.

Yesterday, this Colorado Springs Criminal Defense Attorney (me!) wrote a blog about the many medical marijuana happenings in Colorado Springs and the State of Colorado. In July 2011, the Colorado Springs Gazette reported that the City was about to take in $745,000 in medical marijuana dispensary application and licensing fees, excluding sales tax revenue.

Well, the sales tax estimates were just reported today. According to the Gazette, the City brought in $710,000 in sales tax revenue from medical marijuana sales. While I'm no math wizard, it would appear that in 2011 the City's revenues were increased by $1.455 million dollars from the sale of medical marijuana. For a cash strapped municipality, that's a LOT of green (pun intended).

With freedom comes responsibility, or so I've been told. Sometimes, however, people can make mistakes--like driving under the influence of marijuana or allowing someone else to use his medical marijuana. Those mistakes are actually crimes. Not the crimes of the century, but crimes nonetheless, and with the heightened scrutiny our local DA's office is giving marijuana cases, those crimes can carry big punishments. Like loss of driving privileges, jail time, felony convictions, and huge fines. So be careful and wise out there my friends.

If you do get in trouble, give me a call. Let's see how we can make the best of a bad situation.

So, 2012 has rolled around and it's time for this Colorado Springs Criminal Defense and DUI Defense Attorney to clean out his in-box of the interesting stuff I never got around to writing about last year.

2011 was a big year for marijuana in Colorado, in both criminal and driving under the influence of drug (DUID) cases. A number of cops, DA's, "get tough on crime" legislators, and Department of Health folks pushed for a "legal limit" of THC to be set for blood. Actual scientists pushed back, rightfully claiming that the proposed limits could sweep up non-impaired, innocent drivers. The proposed legislation was tabled. Here's a good overview from the Denver Post.

Even though he wasn't driving stoned, this NASCAR driver found out that you can legally use marijuana and still be fired (or suspended) by your employers. The state will continue to push for limits in 2012 and the tension between medicinal pot use and employment policies isn't going to go away, so keep your eyes open. I believe, however, that the pendulum is swinging towards more expansive marijuana laws. And the reason is--not your civil rights. You guessed it. It's the other green stuff--MONEY.

The City of Colorado Springs was poised to take in an estimated $745,000 in application and licensing fees from pot shops last year. That doesn't even include sales tax. Question: Would you rather have a medicinally useful legal substance sold in a safe, regulated, tax generating establishment or by a bunch of thugs on a corner? That's what I thought.

In fact, in 2012, it looks like the pendulum will swing even closer towards complete legalization of marijuana possession with a recent poll indicating 49% of Coloradans support legalization, with only 40% opposing. See this Denver Post article. The legalization question looks headed to the ballot, and even the Colorado Attorney General thinks it will pass.

If you've read my blog before, you know how much I hate DUI checkpoints. They have minimal impact (the officers could be better utilized actually looking for erratic, unsafe driving) and are Constitutionally suspect. Well, the City of Colorado Springs agreed. I rarely agree with the Colorado Springs Gazette editorial board, but on the DUI Check point question, they got it right. After they printed this editorial, the outrage in the comments section caused the City to cease its participation in DUI Checkpoints. Don't get too giddy though, the State Patrol indicated they'll pick up where the city left off.

In more news, I've heard through the grapevine that the Colorado Legislature may be allowing common sense to enter into domestic violence prosecutions and give the cops, DAs and courts back some discretion to handle those situations on a case by case basis. I'll let you know if and when that becomes law.

Well, my e-mail is now empty. If you've been charged with a Colorado Springs DUI, Colorado Springs Criminal, or Colorado Springs Domestic Violence case, give me a call to see how to make the best of a bad situation.

As a Colorado Springs Criminal and DUI attorney, I see some humorous things come across my desk. Tragic, but humorous, nonetheless. These next three stories, while not about my clients, are examples. Thankfully, none of these people hurt themselves or anyone else.

First--A friend of mine (shout out to David M!) sent me this anecdote via a group e-mail last month. I hope this is a made-up situation, but I do recall a friend of mine (now a US Attorney!) telling me what a jerk I was for driving home after a night at the bar, when in fact it was he who drove--he was just too drunk to remember.

I would like to share an experience with you all, to do with drinking and driving. As you know some people have brushes with the authorities on their way home. Well I for one have done something about it.

The other night I was out for a dinner and a few drinks, and having had far too much vino, and knowing full well I was over the limit, I did something I have never done before. I took a bus home.

I arrived home safely and without incident, which was a real surprise,
as I have never driven a bus before.

Next, from Pennsylvania (he says as he chuckles because his in-laws are from PA): This man from Avondale had far too much fun at the lake. Note to self, the trailer wheels should be on the pavement, NOT up in the air. Or, as this headline from GoFISHn puts it: "If you're drunk, don't tow your boat flipped over." Probably not a good idea if you are sober, either.

Finally, from NBC Miami, we learn that a taco is not an appropriate form of identification. Although this seems funny because it's unusual, it's really not (funny nor unusual). I've represented people who have passed out at Burger King, McD's, Taco Bell and Sonic to name a few.

Anyway, if you've found yourself in any of these, ahem, interesting situations, or maybe a routine Colorado Springs drinking and driving case, hope isn't lost. Give me a call to discuss making the best of a bad situation.

Happy New Year! It's been awhile since this Colorado Springs DUI lawyer has written. So, with resolutions and all that, here we go!

In Colorado Springs misdemeanor and Colorado Springs DUI cases, there used to be established "plea bargain guidelines" that the DA's office utilized to treat people who had similar cases and criminal histories equally. That is fair on a common sense level and the Colorado Criminal Code actually requires it. Those same policies allowed for departure (read "a better deal") if there were proof issues in the case for the El Paso County DA's office or mitigating issues that a Defendant or Defense Attorney could show.

That is changing here in Colorado Springs, El Paso County, and Teller County, folks. According to the Colorado Springs Gazette, your prosecutor's office has decided to use the smaller (inference being "less important") misdemeanor, domestic violence, and DUI cases as a training ground for young prosecutors to "cut their teeth." O.k., this has been going on forever--when I was a DA I started with DUI's and misdemeanors as well. So what's changed? Something very important--prosecutors are no longer judged by how well they do their jobs and how they use their discretion. Nope, now the litmus test for promotion is "how many trials have you had?"

Four problems here:

1. Cases are not handled based on just the facts of the case. A prosecutor "needs" a trial for advancement? You tell me, is she going to take a domestic violence offender with prior offenses to trial if the victim doesn't really want to prosecute, or is she going to take the first time Colorado Springs DUI offender where the evidence is solid? What looks better to her supervisor, a win or a loss? The mandated trial count fosters trial for trial's sake, not justice.

2. The policy wastes time and resources. For example, an El Paso County DUI offender loses his license at DMV for a relatively high alcohol content, but not high enough for a mandatory jail sentence. The defendant wants to plead guilty to DWAI, but because of the trial policy the DA will not offer a plea bargain. The case goes to trial and the defendant loses. The resulting difference in sentence? The defendant faces an additional 24 hours of public service. That's it. No additional loss of license. No mandatory increase in fine or jail. So, we have wasted a judge's, six jurors', two cops', two clerks', two prosecutors', and a defense attorney's time and salaries for an additional 24 hours of public service. Awesome. But the DA gets a "trial stat!"

3. These "less important" cases that the DA won't plea bargain aren't less important! A DUI or DV case has devastating impact to those involved. Those charged face loss of career, gun rights, driver's license, and incarceration, as well as the stigma of being a criminal.

4. Finally, judging a DA based on the number of trials he has had is not an accurate indication of how well he does his job. Does he overwork support staff? Does he have a gentle bedside manner with victims? Is he responsive by phone for questions? Who cares as long as he has 15 trials!

Listen, I do think felony prosecutors need experience--but not at the expense of making sure individual cases are handled correctly and fairly. If you think your case is a victim of this new policy, give a Colorado Springs DUI and Misdemeanor attorney a call to ensure you are being treated fairly.

O.k., I came across this article today. Now, the Greeley Tribune's headline editing aside (look at it again), this article brings up an ugly truth that sometimes raises its head in Colorado Springs domestic violence cases involving divorce and children. What is that truth? Sometimes people lie! I don't mean a difference of perspective about the same event--I mean out and out lies. It doesn't happen in many cases, but in a criminal domestic violence case whose participants also have a divorce or custody dispute going on, look out.

Look, as a Colorado Springs criminal defense attorney and former El Paso County prosecutor, I've seen my share of horrendous domestic violence (DV) cases where emotional and physical abuse is common place, shocking, and sadly ends with a serious injury. For everyone of those cases, however, there are three of four or more where one party or another blows a small incident out of proportion to gain an advantage as a relationship comes to an end. Some are small exaggerations, but some are just lies. And the problem is this: the system (police, judges, DA's) has sometimes been burned when it didn't treat the true bad guy seriously. As such, our legislature has decreed that anytime a DV allegation is made, someone is arrested and, once arrested, prosecuted. Those charges have serious and long lasting consequences. Consequences like persuading a judge in a divorce action to deny custody based on the fact that one parent has pending DV charges. Hopefully my friends that are domestic violence victim advocates will forgive me, but some "victims" game the system. Like the subject of the article above.

So, if you or someone you love has been charged with domestic violence and you think you may have been "set up", give me a call to talk about your options.

One of the things I deal with every day in my job as a Colorado Springs criminal defense attorney is the toll addiction takes on our communities. It has a real sociological and financial impact. There was a time when our communities banded together and took care of those who had addictions and mental health issues--for example, Sheriff Andy and Deputy Barney looking after Otis when he fell off the wagon. That time seems to be slipping away.

In real life, it seems that while the new system is well meaning, it really "piles on" and can make it harder for those charged with DUI, Possession of Drugs, or an alcohol offense. Financially, for the average Colorado Springs DUI or DWAI case, a client is conservatively looking at $1200 in fines and court costs, $1200 in ignition interlock fees, $600 in alcohol class fees, $600 to $1200 in probation supervision fees, $75 in community service fees PLUS jail fees PLUS insurance increases PLUS lawyer fees PLUS lost income if the client goes to jail. And that's just on a first offense.

More important than the money, though, is the loss of self esteem, the shame, the family stress, and the work stress an El Paso County DUI or Colorado Springs Drug Possession case can cause. People lose their jobs for these type of offenses. There's a stigma to them as well. My most important responsibility, especially early on in a case, is to let my client know to take a deep breath, slow down, and educate him or herself about the process--because the uncertainty about the process is one of the main causes for my client's stress (and can be a trigger for further substance abuse problems). Once a client knows what he or she is facing, it's much easier to come up with a plan on how to make the best out of a bad situation. And, it's really important to assess whether there is an actual substance abuse issue or just some bad choices that have been made. That education and assessment process needs occur in every case.

With those societal and financial costs in mind, I found this article really interesting. It seems that in 1971, Massachusetts was cognizant of the need to treat those were struggling with substance abuse and dependence with a little more compassion than now. I understand that it might cost Foxborourgh a little more to control the rowdies after a big sporting event, but I'd think that is a million times offset by the tax revenue and lease fees having the stadium brings in the first place. It seems that reverting back to Mayberry wouldn't always be a bad thing.