Driving while impaired (DWI) is a serious offense. DWI generally refers to driving while under the influence of alcohol, but it can also pertain to drugs. If you are stopped by law enforcement, they will want to assess you for impairment and determine whether you are over the legal drinking limit. The legal limit in North Carolina is 0.08% blood alcohol concentration (BAC). The police will utilize field sobriety tests to evaluate impairment. They will also use breath tests to measure your BAC level.
Charlotte DWI Lawyer Brad Smith answers the question: “Can the police search my car without a warrant?”
James Lee Johnson was indisputably impaired as he drove to his Hendersonville, North Carolina home one night in February of 2013. He blew a 0.13 on the blood alcohol test the police officer gave him—well above the legal 0.08 limit. The officer testified later that Johnson’s face was red, he was glassy-eyed and his speech was slurred. So how did Johnson just defeat a DWI rap?
Charlotte DWI and Criminal Defense Attorney J. Bradley Smith of Arnold & Smith, PLLC answers the question “Can the police search my car without a warrant?”
The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently issued a long-awaited opinion concerning the constitutionality of the state’s implied consent law. The Appeals Court affirmed the law, holding that a warrantless breath test qualifies as a valid search so long as it is connected to a lawful arrest.
Charlotte DWI and Criminal Defense Attorney J. Bradley Smith of Arnold & Smith, PLLC answers the question “Are breath test results always accurate?”
You thought it was July 4th weekend? You’re right, but it’s also “No Refusal Weekend” in Eugene, Oregon. Local and state police in Eugene plan to have prosecutors and judges on standby this weekend to obtain “blood draw warrants” against drivers who refuse to submit to alcohol content testing.
This will prevent “people from avoiding full accountability,” police said. The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed in a 2013 case that police must obtain a warrant before drawing a person’s blood, except in cases of emergency. That case was called Missouri v. McNeely.
The program in Eugene is unique because, evidently, prosecutors and magistrates will be available to issue warrants quickly. The local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union gave its blessing to the arrangement; a representative said more warrants in blood-draw cases was a “good thing.”
This could be the dawn of the age of warrants en masse, as litigation in the wake of the McNeely decision may show. Many people consent to blood draws. Lawyers are now arguing that McNeely requires courts to consider whether, in the totality of the circumstances, consensual blood draws done without a warrant are constitutional.