A new study has supported scientists’ concerns that alcohol abuse by the elderly has become a major national health problem.

The researchers found that more than a third of American drinkers age 60 and over are at risk of harm because of alcohol’s interaction with their diseases or their medications — or simply because they are imbibing too much.

About nine million people, more than half of which fit into at least two of the risk categories, and almost a third were in all three. Many older drinkers are unaware they even have a problem until it’s too late.

Some experts believe that the worst is yet to come. The aging of the baby boomers will add millions more to the ranks of at-risk drinkers — and the rate of alcoholism among boomers is substantially higher than that of earlier generations.

The country as a whole is unprepared to cope with this growing threat. Many older drinkers are unaware they even have a problem until it’s too late — after they lose their balance and break a hip or pick a fight with a friend or cause a fatal car crash. What they don’t understand is that the same amount they drank with no ill effects at age 50 can have double the impact at age 70, drastically altering their state of mind and behavior.

This is true due to the levels of the enzyme that breaks down alcohol in the body fall as you age. As a result, higher concentrations of alcohol reach your brain. Some people have a negative reaction. For others, the extra bit hits the pleasure centers of the brain, making addiction more likely.

There is are many reasons why older people drink: personal loss, ill health, loneliness, feelings of uselessness. Constraints that once kept them sober — the fear of losing a job, for example — have vanished. Many take up serious drinking in retirement communities where the social life revolves around the happy hour. More men than women become alcoholics, but women are more likely to become late-onset addicts.

Research shows that older alcoholics in treatment programs had better attendance records and better adherence to anti-abuse medications than their younger counterparts. Nevertheless, most of the people who receive medical treatment for alcoholism around the country are young.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved three drugs for dealing with alcoholism, however, they are prescribed for only a tiny fraction of alcoholics of any age. Most physicians typically do not screen their older patients for alcohol use and abuse. The problem is also difficult to diagnose since its symptoms — insomnia, frequent falls, memory loss — mimic those of other age-related ailments.

Many alcoholics in search of help attend Alcoholics Anonymous, which has traditionally required that its meetings be open to addicts of all ages. More recently, individual AA groups have begun sponsoring meetings specifically for the elderly. They say that alcoholics in their 70s have substantively different problems from those in their 20s.

For more information visit my website at www.drunkdrivinglawyer.com or call me at 1 (866) DUI-BUST.

What’s the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor?
Most states break their crimes into two major groups: felonies and misdemeanors. Whether a crime falls into one category or the other depends on the potential punishment. If a law provides for imprisonment for longer than a year, it is usually considered a felony. If the potential punishment is for a year or less, then the crime is considered a misdemeanor.
In some states, certain crimes are described on the books as “wobblers,” which means that the prosecutor may charge the crime as either a misdemeanor (carrying less than a year jail time as punishment) or a felony (carrying a year or more).
Behaviors punishable only by fine are usually not considered crimes at all, but infractions — for example, traffic tickets. But a legislature may on occasion punish behavior only by a fine and still provide that it is a misdemeanor — such as possession of less than an ounce of marijuana for personal use in California.

For more information visit my website at www.drunkdrivinglawyer.com or call me at 1 (866) DUI-BUST.

Seven meth samples handled by one analyst had lower weights then were originally reported, leading to an investigation of the crime lab.

A weight discrepancy involving narcotics sent for analysis at the state crime lab in Ripon, California , has launched a full-scale investigation by the California Department of Justice and put thousands of cases in multiple jurisdictions in jeopardy.

The five district attorney’s offices that use the service of the California Department of Justice’s Bureau of Forensic Services Central Valley Crime Lab announced that an investigation was initiated after a weight discrepancy was brought to light. The five counties that use the service of the crime lab are: Stanislaus, Merced, San Joaquin, Calaveras and Tuolumne.

One criminologist at the lab, who has not been identified, has been placed on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation.

Management at the crime lab were made aware of a protocol breach involving the handling and analysis of a methamphetamine evidence sample. This prompted a thorough check of other methamphetamine samples handled by the same analyst. In all, the retesting found seven methamphetamine samples handled by the analyst that had lower weights then were originally reported.

The investigation puts thousands of cases in jeopardy of being thrown out or overturned. The Stanislaus County District Attorney’s Office said at least 2,400 cases will have to be reviewed in their jurisdiction.

For more information visit my website at www.drunkdrivinglawyer.com or call me at 1 (866) DUI-BUST.

1. The National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration (NHTSA) recommends a speed breakdown when checking smooth pursuit. Failure to follow that speed can cause many people, even those that are totally alcohol free, appear to have nystagmus. NHTSA recommends a speed of two seconds from midline to the far gaze.

2.    According to the largest study conducted to-date, ten percent of the population have an onset of nystagmus before 45̊ with a zero percent BAC. And, another ten percent have an onset of nystagmus at 45̊ that are totally alcohol free.

3.    Age has a direct affect on HGN when looking for smooth pursuit. The rate of smooth pursuit falls beginning in the early 30′s.

4.    HGN is a divided attention test. It is not a simple test as first thought. Studies have shown that the presence of smooth pursuit is heavily influenced by the presence of any undetected peripheral activity, i.e., cars going by, people moving around, etc. The test needs to be done in almost complete blackout conditions.

5.    Background activity can affect smooth pursuit and result in nystagmus, i.e., the officer’s trying to perform the nystagmus test and in your periphery you can see your vehicle being towed away.

6.    The list of causes of nystagmus other than alcohol is well known. Possible sources of nystagmus include Parkinson’s Disease, Progressive Supra Nuclear Palsy, Cerebral Disorders, Encephalopathy, Alzheimer’s Disease, Large Cerebral Lesions, i.e., someone suffering from Epileptic Seizures or any form of degenerative disorder.

7.    A number of psychiatric conditions can affect smooth pursuit including Schizophrenia, and Psychosis.

8.    Nicotine affects smooth pursuit.

9.    Nystagmus does not significantly affect vision acuity. Most people will move their head when looking at a target of more than 15̊ off center line. So trying to determine nystagmus onset or at max deviation at or around 45̊ is of little relevance.

10.    The reliability of HGN and it’s component parts, i.e., lack of smooth pursuit. Nystagmus at max deviation and an onset prior to 45̊ is problematic.

For more information visit my website at www.drunkdrivinglawyer.com or call my office at 1 (866) DUI-BUST.

There are few things more nerve-wracking, or more anxiety-producing for even the most law-abiding driver, than seeing the flashing red and blue lights of a police car in your rear-view mirror.

It doesn’t always have to be a harrowing experience, even if you know that you were driving well over the speed limit, or that your registration is expired, or heaven forbid, you’ve had a few too many cocktails and are behind the wheel anyway.

There are a few simple rules to follow to make sure the experience doesn’t have to be any more unpleasant than it already is — considering that it’s likely you will come away with a fat ticket.

A former Virginia State Trooper, now retired and working happily at an intelligence analyst job for a federal agency in  shared his six tips.

1.    Pull Over in a Safe Area – First of all, the most important rule to follow is to pull over in a safe area, as soon as it is reasonable and safe to do so. Don’t pull over in a place that is going to put you or the officer in danger, like a narrow left-hand-lane shoulder on a highway. If you do that, the officer is not going to get out and risk being hit — he’s going to get on the loudspeaker and tell you to move over to the right shoulder, and then you have to negotiate traffic to try to cross the highway. That can be aggravating, and you don’t want to lock yourself into a ticket by making the officer mad.

2.    Don’t Coast – Secondly, don’t coast for several blocks before pulling over. If you just keep coasting, the cop is going to think you’re up to something. He may think you’re stalling because you’re trying to stash something. If you pass a few safe places to pull over, the officer is definitely going to think you’re up to something.

3.    Keep the Engine Running – Surprisingly it’s advisable that you not turn off your engine, especially if you’re driving an old vehicle that’s not reliable, it might not start again, and then the officer is in a situation where he may have to wait for you to call a tow truck.

4.    Keep Your Hands on the Wheel- Keep your hands on the wheel as the officer approaches your vehicle. The officer is wary of where your hands are. They always focus on the driver’s hands, and if they’re not on the wheel, he will be immediately more apprehensive, and that doesn’t help your situation.

5.    Stay in the Car – You should always stay in the car. They usually don’t want anyone out of the car, ever. If you get out of the car, the officer may be thinking he has something to be afraid of, like your’re wanted, or intoxicated, and in either case, that’s a safety issue for the officer.

6.    Be Careful What You Say – Being polite to the officer isn’t necessarily a pre-requisite. They may not demand respect, but they don’t want disrespect. If you want to be rude and yell and complain and say you’re going to file a complaint against the officer, that’s fine,– just don’t get physical. And don’t use curse words in an aggressive way, because that may get you arrested for disorderly conduct.

For more information visit my website at www.drunkdrivinglawyer.com or call me at 1 (866) DUI-BUST (384-2878).

Following an arrest in California for DUI, two separate actions are triggered. First is the criminal case, which is handled through the court system. You should have received a citation or promise to appear from the arresting officer or the jailer upon your release from jail. The document will have a date, time and location for you to appear for a hearing. This hearing is called the “arraignment hearing”, and it’s the beginning of the formal criminal court proceedings.

The second action you should be aware of is the DMV Admin Per Se hearing. As a result of most DUI arrests in California, the officer will take your California driver’s license and give you the pink copy of a form called “Age 21 and Older Admin Per Se Suspension/Revocation Order and Temporary License (DS-367)”. This form does include information as to how to request an Admin Per Se hearing, which must be done within 10 days of your arrest. If you don’t request a hearing within those first 10 days, your license will be suspended at the end of the 30 day period allowed by the Temporary License, without a hearing as to the merits of your case.

The length of the suspension will vary depending upon whether this is a first offense, second offense, etc., and will also depend upon whether you refused a chemical test once arrested. Regardless of whether it’s your first DUI or your third DUI, if you don’t request a hearing within 10 days of your arrest, your will lose your right to a hearing and your license will be suspended 30 days after your arrest.

Don’t waste time, call my office now at 1 (866) DUI-BUST (384-2878) or for more information visit my website at www.drunkdrivinglawyer.com.

DMV Vision Standards -Vision Requirements For Driving Class C Vehicles

If you have difficulty reading the eye chart, the DMV employee will take you to a vision testing machine. This machine tests for distance vision. You will be asked to read lines of letters, first with both eyes open and then with each eye individually. The employee will guide you through each step of the exam. Please ask the employee to repeat the instructions if you don’t understand them.

The machine tests for distance vision so you must look though the distance part of your glasses, if you wear bifocals.

DMV’s Evaluation of Your Vision Many factors about your overall vision are considered before DMV determines what steps to take. Some of these factors include:

* The severity of your vision condition.

* How your vision condition affects your central and side vision.

* If your vision condition affects one or both eyes.

* Can your vision condition be corrected by glasses, contact lenses, or surgery.

* Whether your vision condition will get worse.

DMV’s Vision Screening Standards

DMV is authorized to test all applicants’ vision under California Vehicle Code §12804.9(a)(1)(E).

Anyone who applies for an original or renewal driver license must meet the department’s visual acuity (vision) screening standard. DMV’s vision screening standard is:

* 20/40 with both eyes tested together and

* 20/40 in one eye and

* 20/70, at least, in the other eye

Minimum Visual Acuity Requirement

If you cannot meet the vision screening standard, you must have a minimum visual acuity in at least one eye better than 20/200 (best corrected). Visual acuity is a person’s ability to see items clearly and sharply and to recognize small details. You may wear glasses or contact lenses to meet the minimum visual acuity standard but you cannot wear a bioptic telescopic or similar lens. DMV can not license drivers who do not meet the minimum visual acuity standard.

Drivers With Monovision

Monovision is one eye treated or untreated for distance by surgery or contact lenses, and one eye treated or untreated for close-up vision. If you have monovision, you may not be able to meet DMV’s vision screening standard.

Vision Referral

You will be referred to a vision specialist (eye doctor) if your vision does not meet DMV’s screening standard. You will be given a Report of Vision Examination form for your eye doctor to complete and sign. When you return to DMV with the DL 62 form, your vision will be retested. You will also have to take a driving test to demonstrate that you can drive safely, even though your vision is impaired. Passing the driving test establishes that you can compensate for any vision loss caused by your vision condition.

Your license may be restricted. Common restrictions are “Restricted to wearing corrective lenses” or “Restricted to driving during daylight hours only.” Other restrictions to your driving privilege are possible.

DMV will document your impaired vision condition. If your vision condition is determined to be stable or won’t affect your unaffected eye, you will probably not be required to repeat the vision referral process again for your next license renewal.

For more information visit my website at www.drunkdrivinglawyer.com.

Speeding is often an essential part of evidence before the court in a DUI case. Police departments currently use four primary speed measurement devices: 1) speedometer clocks, 2) radar, 3) average speed computers and 4) LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging). Two additional types used to a lesser extent are 1) aircraft and 2) photo radar. Each method has its own advantages and disadvantages.

Speedometer Clocks

Speedometer clocks have gradually been replaced by more technologically advanced methods, but they are still the least expensive method of clocking speeders and can be extremely effective. The patrol car speedometer is used to pace vehicles. The most important component of this method is an accurate speedometer that is factory certified.

RADAR

An acronym for Radio Detection And Ranging, radar involves the transmission of electromagnetic waves that reflect off a moving object. When the wave is reflected, it changes frequency and is interpreted by the radar unit in a speed calculation. This change is referred to as the Doppler effect or Doppler shift. In the simplest terms, the Doppler effect explains how as a sound gets closer to a person, it gets louder. For example, consider the sound a passing car makes as it approaches you then moves away. Radar may be used in both moving and stationary modes.

This is the most popular technology for speed enforcement as evidenced by the variety of radar detectors on the consumer market. These devices emit a beeping sound when radar waves are detected, warning drivers of approaching police officers. Despite its popularity, radar use is in litigation across the country due to health concerns regarding cancer risk.

Average Speed Computers

An average speed computer is a device that uses a computer to measure speed by dividing the distance traveled by the time it took to travel the distance. They are typically mounted in police patrol cars and can be used in both a moving and stationary mode.

LIDAR

On of the more recent devices used in law enforcement for speed measurement is laser or LIDAR (Light Detection And Ranging). LIDAR devices use an infrared light wave emitted at frequencies that allow the beam to be focused into an extremely narrow target area. The devices are usually operated in the hand-held mode. Although they can be used through the glass it reduces the devices range; therefore, an open window or exterior use is preferred.

LIDAR has become more popular with the frequency of consumers radar detectors. Detection of laser beams is possible but the devices that detect laser beams are limited in their effectiveness.

In addition, most LIDAR devices are mounted inside the vehicle, further limiting their detection by another device. The theory behind laser technology is that speed is calculated by dividing the distance by the time of the light pulses of the laser (S=D/T of light pulses).

Aircraft

This method of speed enforcement uses the combination of ground-based units and a fixed wing airplane. This method of enforcement is based on the formula Speed = Distance/Time.

Law enforcement uses painted lines on the pavement to identify a measured course. Then as vehicles travel on the measured course, a stopwatch is activated in the airplane. Once the course is completed, the speed is calculated and, if the vehicle was speeding, the description is broadcast to the ground units. The vehicle is pulled over and the vehicle and speed are verified.

Photo Radar

An extension of traditional radar devices, this technology uses photography to capture the vehicle and license plate when the violation occurs. The date, time and speed can be superimposed onto the photograph. Some devices are so accurate that they can also capture the driver’s image in the picture.

Photo radar can be used in manned or unmanned applications such as those devices installed in lights at busy intersections. It is commonly used in jurisdictions where specific legislation permits its use and where vehicles have both front and rear plates.

Drone Radar

Drone radar is essentially an unmanned radar station that purposefully triggers motorists’ radar detectors. When the detector alarms sound, it is presumed that drivers will slow their vehicles wary of a police officer that’s not actually there.

These units can be mounted in moving vehicles, concealed in highway signs, or installed in highway work vehicles and any variety of other locations. The FCC and NHTSA have regulations that must be met in order to use this method of speed enforcement. As motorists catch on, overuse of this method will reduce its effectiveness.

For more information, visit my website at www.drunkdrivinglawyer.com or call me at 1 (866) DUI-BUST.

First-time and repeat DUI offenders in Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Tulare counties must have an Ignition Interlock Device (IID) installed on vehicles they own or operate under a new law that takes effect July 1, 2010. The law, created through AB 91 calls for a five-year pilot program that runs through December 31, 2015.

The programming costs of the pilot program are funded by a grant from the state’s Office of Traffic Safety through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The new law – passed by the Legislature and signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2009 — prohibits an offender from being issued or reissued a driver license by the DMV following a suspension or revocation for any DUI violation in a pilot county that occurs on or after July 1, 2010, until an offender provides proof of IID installation and pays a $45 administrative service fee, in addition to meeting all other reinstatement requirements.

For more information visit my website at www.drunkdrivinglawyer.com.

Want to invoke your right to remain silent? You’ll have to speak up to invoke that right.

In a narrowly split decision, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority expanded its limits on the Miranda rights for criminal suspects.

The right to remain silent and the right to a lawyer are at the top of the warnings that police recite to suspects during arrests and interrogations. But this decision says that suspects must break their silence and tell police they are going to remain quiet to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.

This decision means that police can keep questioning a suspect who refuses to talk as long as they want in the hope that the person will eventually give them some information.

The ruling comes in a case in which a suspect, Van Chester Thompkins, remained mostly silent for a three-hour police interrogation before implicating himself in a January 10, 2000, murder in Southfield, Mich. He appealed his conviction, saying he had invoked his Miranda right to remain silent by remaining silent.

“Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk to police,” Justice Kennedy said. “Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his ‘right to cut off questioning.’ Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent.”

Prosecutors cheered the decision, saying it takes the guesswork out of when police have to stop questioning suspects. “Is it too much to ask for a criminal suspect to say he doesn’t want to talk to police?” said Scott Burns, executive director of the National District Attorneys Association.

This is the third time this session that the Supreme Court has placed limits on Miranda rights, which come from a 1966 decision – it involved police questioning of Ernesto Miranda in a rape and kidnapping case in Phoenix – requiring officers to tell suspects they have the right to remain silent and to have a lawyer represent them, even if they can’t afford one.

Earlier this term, the high court ruled that a suspect’s request for a lawyer is good for only 14 days after the person is released from police custody – the first time the court has placed a time limit on a request for a lawyer – and that police do not have to explicitly tell suspects they have a right to a lawyer during an interrogation.

For Justice Sotomayor, deciding to make suspects speak to have the right to remain silent was a step too far. Sotomayor, the court’s newest member, wrote a strongly worded dissent for the court’s liberals, saying the majority’s decision “turns Miranda upside down.”

“Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent – which counterintuitively requires them to speak,” she said. “At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded.”

Supreme Court nominee Kagan had sided with the police in this case. As solicitor general, she told the Supreme Court that the Constitution “does not require that the police interpret ambiguous statements as invocations of Miranda rights.”

“An unambiguous-invocation requirement for the right to remain silent and terminate questioning strikes the appropriate balance between protecting the suspect’s rights and permitting valuable police investigation,” Kagan said in court papers.

Thompkins was arrested for murder in 2001 and questioned by police for three hours. At the beginning, he was read his Miranda rights and said he understood.

The officers in the room said Thompkins said little during the interrogation, occasionally answering “yes,” ”no,” ”I don’t know,” nodding his head and making eye contact as his responses. But when one of the officers asked him if he prayed for forgiveness for “shooting that boy down,” Thompkins said, “Yes.”

He was convicted, but on appeal he wanted that statement thrown out because he said he had invoked his Miranda rights by being uncommunicative with the interrogating officers.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati agreed and threw out his confession and conviction. The high court reversed that decision.

“In sum, a suspect who has received and understood the Miranda warnings, and has not invoked his Miranda rights, waives the right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to police,” Kennedy said. “Thompkins did not invoke his right to remain silent and stop the questioning. Understanding his rights in full, he waived his right to remain silent by making a voluntary statement to the police. The police, moreover, were not required to obtain a waiver of Thompkins’ right to remain silent before interrogating him.”

Sotomayor called that reasoning “a substantial retreat from the protection against compelled self-incrimination that Miranda v. Arizona has long provided during custodial interrogation.”

For more information visit my website at www.drunkdrivinglawyer.com or call me at 1 (866) DUI-BUST.