Colorado Springs Criminal Attorney Blog

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!

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.

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.

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.

I just ran across an article about Maryland cracking down on DUI cases by requiring first time offenders to place an ignition interlock device in their vehicles. Well, Colorado has required that for the last two years! I guess we are ahead of the curve.

An ignition interlock is a device that a driver blows into prior to starting a vehicle and occasionally after the vehicle has been started. If the device detects alcohol in the driver's breath, it "locks" the driver out. Theoretically, if the device is in a car and working properly, the driver won't be able to start the car, won't be subject to another DUI, and everyone is safer. That's the theory.

Essentially, every Colorado DUI driver who has lost his license has to put one of these devices in his car for a minimum of nine months on a first offense. That time frame can be extended up to two-years depending on "aggravating" factors like an extremely high blood alcohol level. For specific rules, call an experienced Colorado Springs DUI attorney.

That's all well and good, in theory. Sometimes practical considerations come into play though--what if someone uses an alcohol based mouthwash or toothpaste? What if you must drive a work vehicle? What if your spouse also drives your car? Those are all common problems for the ignition interlock system and the answers aren't necessarily easy. Plus, there is an inconvenience and a stigma (some will say justifiably so) associated with the interlock. To answer those questions and to see whether reinstating your driver's license will require ignition interlock, you should call an El Paso County DUI attorney.

Hello everyone! Today is St. Patrick's Day. Luck o' the Irish to ya. I've also got a couple of updates for you as well.

As with every "party" holiday, there is sure to be a lot of drinking tonight. The best way to stay out of trouble if you go out is to take it easy, stay in control and don't drive! The Colorado Springs Police and El Paso County Sheriff's are out there using "saturation patrols" and DUI checkpoints to search for impaired drivers. A DUI saturation patrol is simply flooding an area to patrol for driving behavior indicative of impairment (weaving, slow driving, not responding to traffic control devices, etc.). So, be careful, be smart, and be safe.

In other news, the THC (marijuana) DUI bill has gone through first reading at the Capitol. Looks like this one is going to be law, my friends. Here's an update about it from the Colorado Independent. It's a pretty decent explanation of the issues. I, for one, believe the focus on "legal limits" really detracts from the real issue of DUI cases--dangerous driving. I posted a blog a while back that linked to an article that suggests we should really look at how impaired a driver is instead of what their "level" is when imposing sanctions. Studies have shown (but I don't have time right now so I'm not going to link to them) that using a cell phone is while driving is as dangerous as driving at a .08 BAC for most people. I guess that would hold true for 5 ng of THC in your blood too. Wouldn't it be better just to focus on whether someone is actually driving poorly? Or am I just a jaded Colorado Springs defense attorney :-)?!

Be safe out there tonight, my friends!

This article about a Mothers Against Drunk Driving chapter president has gone viral on the internet this week. As a Colorado Springs DUI lawyer, I have some observations.

First, no matter how ironic (poetic to some) this woman's arrest seems, she is a person--with all the good things and bad things that go with humanity. Many say she's a hypocrite. Maybe, maybe not. One thing is for sure. She is having a BAD week. I've represented cops, soldiers, pilots, firefighters, lawyers, doctors, school teachers, school administrators, and nurses on El Paso County DUI cases. It's not just college kids and alcoholics that get into trouble. And there are some things all of those clients have in common--they are scared, embarrassed, and troubled by their situation. And on many levels, they need support and compassion.

People have very strong feelings about MADD. I happen to think they have a great mission, but perhaps too much political clout. DUI laws have become some of the most onerous and burdensome around. When a first time DUI client has must serve a mandatory jail sentence, but a sex offender can get probation without jail, I think we should reassess our priorities and where we put our resources. That said, don't drive drunk in Colorado Springs. Or elsewhere.

I was talking with a client yesterday and he made the observation that it seemed like my primary job as a Colorado Springs defense attorney was to separate him from the rest of the defendants in court--to provide the human element of his life to those in power. I whole heartedly agreed. My main job is to get the "system" (the El Paso County District Attorney, or Judge, or probation officer) to view my client as a real live person instead of a case file.

No one deserves to be judged by what happens on the worst day of her life. No one is as good as the best thing he has done, nor as bad as the worst thing he has done. I think we'd all be a little better people if we kept that realization in our consciousness as we go through our days.

Last month, I posted about Colorado pressing forward with per se DUI limits for THC in blood. Essentially, this means that if you have a certain level of nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood, Colorado law will presume that you are impaired. Well, according to the Aspen Times, it looks like Colorado is one step closer to a 5 ng reality.

I can't really tell from the article what the minutia of the bill looks like--whether the "limit" will follow the Colorado Driving While Ability Impaired (DWAI) presumption or whether it will follow the Driving Under the Influence (DUI) scheme, along with the DUI and DMV consequences. And while this law would appear on it's face to not be targeting medical marijuana users, it's interesting to note that Colorado already has a driving under the influence of drugs charge that is built around the "totality" of the circumstances that of which the article speaks. It's also common to have testimony about THC levels in blood and what equals impairment or intoxication. It's also interesting to note that Colorado Springs Representative Waller has come out (along with El Paso County District Attorney Dan May) against MMJ.

So why the push for "limits"? It might just be that without them, DA's are having a hard time making a case based on actual driving behavior that the driver's ability to drive is compromised. And the cynic in me thinks our elected officials may be trying to get some "tough on crime" good press.

If you have been cited for a Colorado Springs DUI, make sure you call a good Colorado Springs criminal defense attorney to talk about your case.

From the too weird to be true files: I recently had a client whose DUI case was dismissed. Was it due to my great lawyering? Did I find the legal loophole to save his license and freedom? Alas, no. It was because the police arrested him after assuming he was drunk and his blood test showed he wasn't. So much for those fancy roadside tests and the police officer's impressive DUI detection training and education. He saw someone he assumed was drunk, recorded only those observations that supported his assumption, arrested the client on CHRISTMAS EVE, and made him submit to a blood test--which was well under the legal limit. Of course, the blood wasn't tested until mid-January and the client couldn't bond out of jail until late Christmas day, but that's another story. Now why do I bring this up under a post entitled "sealing" criminal records, you ask? Because this was the SECOND TIME this same client was arrested for DUI and came back under the limit.

I'm not saying this happened, but I would bet (maybe not my house) that the arresting officer on the second case looked at my client's criminal history before he made the arrest, saw my client had been arrested for DUI before, and that bias was enough to induce him into making an erroneous assumption--even though the client was actually innocent of the first DUI charge as well. The criminal arrest history isn't "erased" because you are actually innocent, you must proactively petition a court to "seal" your record.

Colorado law allows you to seal your arrest record if you have been acquitted of a crime, your case has been dismissed, or you have been charged with certain drug offenses. Sealing an arrest record or a court case can have significant benefits. I have one client who was turned down for an apartment because he was once arrested for trespassing. Hmm, no real connection between that arrest and being a bad tenant, but the apartment won't rent to anyone arrested for a felony. He hired me, got his record sealed, and . . . the same apartment rented to him. Sealing can keep your arrest or court records from potential employers, schools, and financial institutions. If you have a previous case that has been dismissed, contact a Colorado Springs Criminal Defense Lawyerto see if you are eligible to seal your arrest record from public view.

It's been awhile since I've posted. Holidays and vacations and such.

This news story from the Denver Post about Colorado setting "per se" marijuana blood levels shook me from my holiday laziness because it's important in both the medical marijuana areas as wells as for Driving Under the Influence of Drugs charges.

Colorado (and the nation) has long set blood alcohol levels for "safe driving." First, they were set at .15, then .10, and now .08 for being under the influence. Colorado also has a .05 impaired law. The proposed "per se" limits for marijuana would be similar to the alcohol limits. They essentially would mean that a jury or judge could consider you impaired by the drug--even if you don't exhibit any physical manifestations of impairment. All the judge or jury would need to convict is a certain level of active THC in your blood stream, and the burden effectively shifts to you to show you aren't high at the time you are driving.

Currently, Colorado law doesn't require a DMV revocation just for having a certain level of THC in a driver's system as long as a driver isn't convicted of DUI. That could very well change if "per se" limits are set for marijuana use and driving, meaning THC impaired driving would be treated just like alcohol impaired driving.

There doesn't appear to be a consensus on the "level" and what a level indicates--it also doesn't appear that impairment levels have been scientifically validated like those for alcohol. Jessica Corry, a Denver attorney, recently had an article on the Huffington Post about the problems "per se" levels could cause. What will these levels ultimately mean for mmj and recreational users: a lot more risk, regulations, and prosecutions.

If you have any questions about marijuana levels and driving, don't hesitate to call a Colorado Springs Criminal Defense Attorney for advice!

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.

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.