| Penalties for DUI/DWI Offenses Involving the Operation of a Boat |
|
| The United States Coast Guard and the states cooperate fully in enforcement of laws to remove impaired boat operators from the waters. Both the Coast Guard and every state impose stringent penalties for violating boating under the influence (BUI) laws. More... |
|
|
| Traffic Control Device Violations |
|
| The right to drive on the highways and streets for travel and transportation of goods is not an absolute right, and it is not an unqualified right. A person's use of highways and streets is subject to traffic laws and the person's adherence to traffic control devices such as street signs and lights. More... |
|
|
| Victim Impact Statements in DUI/DWI Cases |
|
| Victim impact statements are typically addressed in cases involving drunk driving accidents resulting in serious injury or death. Such offenses are charged as felonies, punishable by incarceration of up to five to seven years in the case of injury and up to 30 years in the case of death. More... |
|
|
| Overview of Private Motor Vehicle Traffic Regulation |
|
| The ability to drive a motor vehicle on a public highway is not a fundamental right under the United States Constitution; it is a revocable privilege that is granted upon compliance with statutory licensing procedures. Whether the right to operate a motor vehicle it is termed a right or a privilege, one's ability to travel on public highways is always subject to reasonable regulation by the state in the valid exercise of its police power. Accordingly, state vehicle codes were promulgated to increase the safety and efficiency of public roadways, and it is viewed as an enhancement rather than an infringement upon a citizen's right to travel. The privilege properly may be revoked for noncompliance, and revocation is not an unconstitutional infringement of the revokee's right to travel. More... |
|
|
| Defendant's Right to Counsel Before Consenting to Chemical Test in Drunk Driving Case |
|
| Most people are aware that Miranda warnings must be given an accused before he or she is subjected to custodial interrogation. The warnings are intended to protect the privilege against self-incrimination, and the Fifth Amendment right to counsel was created to protect that privilege. However, if the privilege against self-incrimination is not implicated, the warnings are not required, and there is no right to counsel. The United States Supreme Court has held that "physical" evidence may be obtained from an accused without running afoul of the privilege. Therefore, the right to counsel privilege has been held inapplicable to physical or performance tests and chemical tests of bodily substances. More... |
|
|