Colorado Springs Criminal Attorney Blog

With the Holiday Season rapidly approaching, you can be sure that the Colorado Springs Police Department, El Paso County Sheriff's Office, and Colorado State Patrol will pull out one of their most used (and most controversial) DUI prevention tools: the DUI checkpoint.

As a Colorado Springs DUI defense attorney, I really dislike DUI checkpoints. A checkpoint essentially forces every citizen who drives down a certain road to be stopped and interrogated by the police. I know some people justify this type of law enforcement technique with the "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to hide" rationale. From my perspective, that's just not the point. Our Bill of Rights is predicated on the notion that we should be free from government interference unless we've demonstrated that we have somehow broken the law. A checkpoint flies in the face of that principal: it's essentially a "stop and show us your papers" mentality--no probable cause needed for the police to get into your business.

According to the Colorado Springs Gazette, a recent Colorado Springs DUI checkpoint netted 16 potential drunk drivers. Sounds great, right? The problem though, is that almost 1200 cars (many containing multiple people) were detained for no reason other than trying to get from point A to point B. Assuming just 2 people were in each car, that's 2400 people detained to net 16 potential problem drivers. I'm no math wizard, but that's means that well over 99% of those that drove through the checkpoint were innocent and wrongly detained. When those types of numbers are coupled with studies that show how patrol officers who stop cars for erratic driving behavior are much more effective at finding drunk driver's, the public policy argument to allow checkpoints becomes even weaker.

The US Supreme Court and Colorado Supreme Court allow DUI checkpoints, but they do set parameters to attempt to prevent discrimination and abuse of this intimidating law enforcement technique. If you were detained in a DUI checkpoint and charged into court, call an experience Colorado Springs criminal defense attorney to determine if your rights were violated.

As I review the blog posts I've written over the last month, it occurs to me that I have focused primarily on Colorado Springs Driving Under the Influence (DUI) cases. There are reasons for that: DUI cases are complex, are probably the most common criminal charge for otherwise non-crime committing clients, and have complicated and far reaching consequences.

Geoff Heim, Attorney, LLC defends a lot more than just DUI, though. Another criminal offense that many clients find themselves defending is "domestic violence" or "DV." It's important to note that "domestic violence" is not a charge in and of itself. In Colorado, DV is an aggravator--an allegation that enhances the consequences for what would otherwise be a routine charge. The DV allegation can be incredibly damaging because the stigma of the charge and the consequences that come from a conviction can be life-altering and career-ending.

Most DV charges in Colorado Springs are for harassment and assault. But what can be really frustrating, and sometimes hard for clients to understand, is that the "domestic violence" tag can be attached to almost any offense--even a non-violent offense. Colorado has defined domestic violence:

"Domestic violence" means an act or threatened act of violence upon a person with whom the actor is or has been involved in an intimate relationship. "Domestic violence" also includes any other crime against a person, or against property, including an animal, or any municipal ordinance violation against a person, or against property, including an animal, when used as a method of coercion, control, punishment, intimidation, or revenge directed against a person with whom the actor is or has been involved in an intimate relationship.

Moreover, once an allegation of DV is made and police reasonably believe probable cause exists for the offense, they must make an actual arrest. No tickets allowed--just arrest and booking into jail until the client can go before a judge.

Continue reading "Colorado Springs Domestic Violence Cases" »

To briefly revisit yesterday's blog about Colorado Springs DUI cases: David Cassidy was recently arrested for DUI. That got me thinking about the common mistakes that clients make when they are contacted by the police for suspicion of Colorado Springs drunk driving cases and the things they can do to minimize the damage. I came up with a list of seven things a suspected drunk driver should do during and after police contact. We went through the first four yesterday.

For today's installment: 5 through 7 AND scoring David Cassidy on protecting his rights!

5. The police don't have carte blanche to search your car. If they don't have a legal justification to get into it, they will ask you for your consent to search it. DON'T give them that consent. Again, use your Fourth Amendment right!

6. In Colorado DUI and DWAI investigations, you DO have to take evidential breath test at the police station, or a blood test at the hospital, or a urine test if requested. If you refuse a Colorado evidential chemical test, you face a one year revocation of your driver's license. If you don't want to lose your license, take the chemical test.

7. Hire an experienced DUI or DWAI attorney to help you protect your rights.

Although DUI is probably the most common criminal charge the "average" citizen finds himself mixed-up with, it is also one of the more complex charges because it involves the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights, as will as some complicated forensic evidence testing. So complex, the Colorado Springs Police Department's Metro Forensic Laboratory recently disclosed they had been certifying erroneous tests that were the basis for charging innocent people with DUI's and landing people in jail who didn't deserve to be there. Wow, the state test was wrong. Who woulda thunk it? But that's the subject for another blog.

Back to Mr. Cassidy, what did he do wrong? First, his driving was abhorrent and suggests impairment. Second, he admitted to drinking a certain amount. That amount is inconsistent with the actually alcohol concentration, so he appears that he not only admitted drinking, but then lied about it at the same time. Third, he admitted to using a controlled substance in addition to consuming alcohol. Although the pill he took may have been prescribed, it's no defense to driving under the influence. Fourth, he did the roadsides--poorly. Fifth, he let the police search his car. And they found a half-consumed bottle of bourbon under the driver's seat.

Every decision you make when the police contact you will be scrutinized. It's best to give them as little evidence as possible, invoke your rights, and hire a good attorney to help you untangle to situation later.

While I was reading about the recent DUI arrest of David Cassidy, I got to thinking about some common mistakes that clients make when they are contacted by the police for suspicion of Driving Under The Influence.

This blog should not be a substitution for legal advice in a particular case. For that, contact a Colorado Springs Criminal DUI Defense Attorney.

Most DUI clients have never been on the wrong side of the law before. They are surprised to learn that when they are being investigated for a Colorado Springs DUI or DWAI, the police are NOT their friends. During the DUI investigation, the police are NOT trying to find a reason to let the client go--quite the contrary is true--the police are scrutinizing every move a client makes, every statement a client utters, every roadside test a client takes, the quality of the client's speech, the color of the client's face, the condition of the client's eyes, and the odor client's breath. And they aren't making those observations for their health; make no mistake about it, they are doing it to charge the client into court, take the client's driver's license, convict the client, and label the client a DUI offender.

So, if you are pulled over after having a few drinks, how can you make the best of a bad situation? Here is the first half of a seven point list.

1. Immediately pull over. Have your documents ready. Don't fumble for them. Be polite, but brief. Speak as little as possible. Don't make any admissions about traffic violations or drinking.

2. DON'T make any statements. Politely decline to answer any questions. Don't apologize. Don't cry. Don't try to explain your way out of the situation. Keep your mouth shut! Literally, keep it shut--the police can't make observations about your breath and quality of speech when your mouth is closed and not saying anything. Don't tell the police what you had to drink or any drugs you may have taken. You have a Fifth Amendment right. Use it!

3. DON'T do roadside tests. In Colorado, they are strictly voluntary. They can't be used against you in court if you don't do them, so don't do them. Why, you ask? They aren't fair. You aren't "scored" for the things you do right, only the things you do poorly on. For instance, the "walk and turn" maneuver where the officer has you take 9 steps, turn around, and take 9 steps back? That test has over 80 separate components that the officer observes, and if you miss just one component--you fail! To repeat, DON'T do roadsides. You have a Fourth Amendment right. Use it!

4. In Colorado, the preliminary test breath test on the side of the road is also strictly voluntary. They can't use it if you don't take it. Again, excercise your Fourth Amendment right!

We will finish the list tomorrow and find out if David did a good job protecting his rights or if he should get used to being behind bars. And if so, "Could It Be Forever"?

I caught this story on KXRM last week. While it mildly surprises me that a bar would install this type of device (not so much because it would discourage patrons from buying more drinks, but I can imagine that if someone forensically demonstrates his intoxication and then the bar lets him drive anyway, civil liability could follow), it does not surprise me at all that the volunteer in the story didn't realize he was over the legal limit.

Colorado law defines two kinds of DUI (and two types of lesser offenses called Driving While Ability Impaired or DWAI).

The first is called Driving Under the Influence. That is the classic "too drunk to drive safe, hit a curb, get pulled over and vomit on the cops shoes" type of DUI charge. The legal definition boils down to being substantially incapable of operating a motor vehicle safety due to the consumption of alcohol or drugs. The lesser offense of DWAI means that your ability to operate a vehicle is "impaired to the slightest degreee" by alcohol or drugs (you don't vomit on the cop).

The second type of DUI, and where most people get in trouble, is based on the "legal limit". This is called "Driving With Excessive Alcohol" or "DUI Per Se". That limit is .08 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood for DUI (.05 for DWAI). Why people get into trouble with this law is that doesn't need to be any visible sign of impairment to sustain a conviction. This is how someone who demonstrates no "bad driving" (ie, gets pulled over for a plate violation or the like) and isn't stumbling around gets charged with DUI. A jury can convict without any evidence of impairment; rather, it can rely on the results of the test alone allow for to convict. So, even though the volunteer in the above story might not have felt or acted drunk, for driving purposes he was drunk just the same.

I read an article recently on reason.com by Radley Balko that argued we should throw out "legal limits" and prosecute based on "impairment"; whether that impairment is caused by alcohol, drugs, cell phones, texting, etc. I don't think our legislature would ever go down that road, but it is a more logical approach. I also see that Colorado is more "progressive" than Texas because we've already codified "Driving While Ability Impaired."

Anyway, the best way to avoid a DUI is to not drive after drinking. Absent that, you place yourself at risk. Best to call a cab or sober friend when in doubt.