Drugged Driving

Will My Home Driver’s License Be Suspended For a Vermont DUI?

/ chadwicklawvt / Leave a comment

All states except for 5 (Massachusetts, Michigan, Wisconsin, Tennessee, and Georgia) are part of the Driver’s License Compact. The idea behind this is that there is one license, one record, for all of these states. Unfortunately, it is not always that simple. The idea for these states is to treat violations from out of the state as if they happened in the violator’s home state. However, legal statutes are not identical from state to state and there can be some legal wiggle room depending on how the law matches up between states. Even worse, the operator could potentially receive double the fine. If the charge is treated as if it happened in the violator’s home state, both states have the power to levy fines, as well as license reinstatement fees.

New York 

If you are over 21 years old and are convicted of an alcohol or drug related driving offense in another state (or even Ontario or Quebec), you could get your driver’s license suspended for at least 90 days.  For non-alcohol/drug related driving offenses, New York does not record out of state violations, with the exception of criminal negligence, homicide, or assault with a motor vehicle that results in death. 

Massachusetts 

In Massachusetts, the courts could indefinitely suspend a driver’s license after receiving notice of an out-of-state DUI charge until the driver’s ability to operate a motor vehicle has been restored in the state or jurisdiction in charge of the DUI case. Similarly, for other charges such as gross negligence, the operator will receive a comparable punishment, however, certain criteria may not be identical between Massachusetts and Vermont, which could lead to grounds for dismissal in Massachusetts. 

Rhode Island

Rhode Island could suspend your license if prosecutors can prove that you were convicted of a DUI, not just charged. However, there are very specific parameters for a DUI in Rhode Island that are not exactly the same as those in Vermont or other states, which could help the operator’s case in Rhode Island. The same rules apply for gross negligence cases.

New Jersey

New Jersey drivers could see their license suspended if convicted of DUI or gross negligence in another state. The state treats convictions from other states essentially the same as being convicted within the state, as long as the statutes have relatively comparable statutes. 

Connecticut

Connecticut operates under very similar rules to New Jersey. If convicted in Vermont or another state of a DUI or gross negligence, Connecticut drivers could see their license suspended, as long as the parameters of conviction match up.

New Hampshire

Upon notification from Vermont of a DUI, New Hampshire could suspend your license. This goes for other traffic violations as well. For a DUI/DWI, the suspension would be at least 9 months. 

Maine

If convicted of a DUI in Vermont or other states, Maine will receive a notice of conviction. Once this notice is received, the operator’s license could be suspended based on their driving record in Maine. Additionally, gross negligence could also end in a suspended license depending on record and how the state statutes align.

It is important to understand your rights as an out of state driver if charged with a Vermont DUI. Understanding how a Vermont conviction can affect your out of state license is one of the most important pieces of navigating the Vermont criminal justice system in a way to ensure you receive the best, most well-informed path forward.

Is The Truth in the Eyes?

/ chadwicklawvt / Leave a comment

A Brief on Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus in Vermont DUI Investigations

What is Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN)?

The definition of nystagmus is a “rapid involuntary movement of the eyes.” This could be side to side, up and down, or circular movements of the eyes. This is due to brain disease or inner ear balance. Brain disease causes vertical nystagmus, while inner ear balance causes horizontal. 

Alcohol consumption, as well as other depressants and various types of drugs can also lead to nystagmus via preventing the brain from properly communicating with the eyes, causing horizontal nystagmus. The further the individual becomes impaired, the more violent the eyes will jerk. 

How Do Vermont Law Enforcement Use HGN?

The HGN test is one of the three parts of the Standard Field Sobriety Tests System. Criminal justice students in Vermont are taught that the HGN test is the most reliable field sobriety test.

Officers in Vermont administer the test in three parts. They always begin with the left eye. The first thing that they test for is smoothness in movement. As the eye moves from side to side following the object that it is prompted to follow, does it move smoothly or jerk? The next thing tested for is nystagmus at the end of the movement. When the eyes are moved all the way to one side and held in position for four seconds do they begin to jerk at all? Finally, They test to see if the eyes begin to jerk before they reach 45 degrees in movement. 

For each eye, there are 3 points allotted in the test, totalling 6 points. Officers are taught that if the suspect fails 4 or more of these points, they can tell with 77% certainty that their blood alcohol percentage is above 0.10%. 

How You May Limit the Relevance of HGN in a VT DUI Trial

Before an officer may go ahead with an HGN test, they must verify that the subject’s eyes track stimulus together, and that their pupils are the same size. If they are not, this could be a sign of medical disorder or head injury. 

If your case goes to trial, it is important for your attorney to file a motion in limine to exclude all evidence regarding the HGN test. This is essentially a motion to exclude certain evidence from being presented to a jury as it is irrelevant, untrustworthy, or more based on prejudice than probate. 

Additionally, the state should not be allowed, based on legal precedent, to enter an HGN test into evidence if they have not given notice of an expert witness testimony on the subject. If the evidence were allowed to be presented in court, the witness should be required to relate the complicated science behind the test to the jury, who’s members most likely don’t have advanced scientific backgrounds. Vermont trial courts have decided that this expert testimony must occur before HGN evidence is allowed to be brought forward to the jury.

However, the state rarely has the time, resources, or will to pay for an expert witness sufficient enough to allow for HGN evidence to be used in trial. A motion in limine will most likely be successful in blocking this test from following you into the courtroom. It is of the utmost importance that you contact your attorney as soon as you receive the citation, as they can help prevent you from loss or suspension of licensure, large fines or possibly jail time. Preventing HGN evidence from being used in your trial could just make the difference.

5 takeaways from NHTSA report to Congress on marijuana impairment

/ chadwicklawvt / Leave a comment

The National Highway Transit Safety Association (NHTSA) recently released a report to Congress outlining the research they currently have on Marijuana use and its effect on driving.  In sum, the report found that the effects marijuana have on driver’s ability to operate safely is unsettled. In fact, there is some research out there that shows that those impaired may in fact operate their vehicle in a more careful manner then when sober or under the influence of alcohol.  Here are five takeaways from this report.

1) THC levels found in blood do not equate to a level of impairment:   One of the major tools used by law enforcement is the blood draw.  This can provide concrete proof that a motorist has used marijuana in the past.  However, it is stated several times over in the report, that the science does not support a level of impairment based on the THC level alone.  In fact, low levels of THC can be found in the blood for up to 30 days after use, which makes it difficult to equate a THC level with a level of impairment.

2) Some tests have shown that those under the influence of marijuana drive more carefully then those who are sober.  An interesting study was  released in 2015 that marijuana may in fact mitigate risky driving by those under the influence of alcohol.  It further found that those under the influence of marijuana tended to drive slower and at farther distances from a vehicle in front of them.

3) Specific cues of marijuana impairment are not available to detect impairment with reasonable certainty:  NHTSA has admitted that unlike with alcohol, law enforcement cannot point to a series of standardized evidentiary cues that can per-se, lead them to a conclusion marijuana impairment.

4) Marijuana’s role in causing crashes is “less clear”:  NHTSA has admitted in their report that it is difficult to correlate the cause of crashes due to marijuana impairment.  The hurdles to show that marijuana impairment does in fact increase the risk of a crash are the same in which NHTSA acknowledged with regards to THC levels in the blood (i.e. they do not equate to a level of impairment).  Further, the presence of THC in the blood for 30 days, skews any data they may have that states that marijuana impairment was in fact the cause of the CRASH.

5) Impairment Curve of Marijuana is sudden:  With alcohol, there has long been established a BAC curve, that shows how alcohol is processed.  Customarily, a peak BAC is reached 20 minutes after the last drink has been consumed.  With marijuana, it is much more difficult to calculate.  According to NHTSA, peak impairment occurs immediately after smoking and drops significantly thereafter.  This curve is heavily dependent on the user, as those who are regular consumers may show far less signs of impairment even after consuming large doses then those who use less consistently.

The overall takeaways from this Marijuana report, is that much is still to be learned about the effects of Marijuana and driving.  Despite this significant gap in knowledge however, one thing was made crystal clear by NHTSA’s report.  They want to see more Drug Recognition Experts trained and on Vermont roads.  This, with the impending legalization bill, will likely result in an increase in Vermont DUI-Marijuana arrests, despite the evidence that supports these arrests remaining unsettled.

Evan Chadwick Receives Advanced Level Training on Defending Against Hospital Blood Tests

/ chadwicklawvt / Leave a comment

In furtherance of advancing his proficiency in DUI defense, Vermont DUI attorney Evan Chadwick recently received advanced level training on defending against hospital blood tests which are often secured by law enforcement during their DUI-drug and accident based DUI-alcohol investigations.

“Reviewing every aspect of the blood draw and analysis is a key component to defending DUI offenses”, stated Attorney Chadwick.  “The science and law behind these analysis are constantly evolving and we, as attorneys, need to stay ahead of the curve so that we can better understand the science that supports and/or undermines the reliability of these tests.”

For more information on the training received by Attorney Chadwick, click HERE.

 

 

 

Field sobriety tests invalid in determining whether driver is intoxicated by marijuana

/ chadwicklawvt / Leave a comment

With the legalization of marijuana in Massachusetts and Maine and the decriminalization of possession of small amounts of marijuana in Vermont and New Hampshire a new legal front has been established in determining how to measure an individual’s level of impairment when operating a motor vehicle.  The lack of specific scientific evidence as to how to detect impairment is one of the major reasons Vermont governor Phil Scott vetoed a bill to legalize possession of marijuana last year and continues to be a huge concern for Vermont law enforcement in their ability to arrest individuals for driving under the influence of marijuana or other drugs.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court decision in COMMONWEALTH V. GERHARD has now limited police officer’s ability to use the standardized field sobriety tests as evidence of drug impairment, tests which have long been validated to detect alcohol impairment.

“The research on the efficacy of FSTs to measure marijuana impairment has produced highly disparate results. Some studies have shown no correlation between inadequate performance on FSTs and the consumption of marijuana; other studies have shown some correlation with certain FSTs, but not with others; and yet other studies have shown a correlation with all of the most frequently used FSTs.”

As has been litigated in Vermont Courts (and recently won by Attorney Evan Chadwick in a drugged driving case), a law enforcement officer who is not a certified Drug Recognition Expert should not be able to  testify as to their opinion of impairment when investigating an individual for DUI-Drugs .  The Gearhardt decision adds an extra layer of protection for these types of investigations by limiting what evidence can be presented on the roadside investigation.

Vermont Attorney Evan Chadwick Successfully Completes Drug Recognition Expert Training

/ chadwicklawvt / Leave a comment

Attorney Evan Chadwick of Chadwick Law, traveled to Alpharetta Georgia in order to participate in a vigorous three day training regarding the process and science behind a Drug Recognition Evaluation that accompanies many Vermont DUI prosecutions.

Attorney Chadwick received a thorough overview in the 2015 NHTSA/IACP DRE Pre-School & DRE 7-Day training curriculum that officers attend nationwide. Emphasis was made on analyzing a DRE case file, to include, the DRE Face Sheet & DRE Narrative report, how to compare the two with one another and with the Drug Symptomology Chart, as well as emphasis on each specific step involved in a 12-step DRE evaluation. Time was also be spent covering the IACP’s rules and regulations that officers are required to follow in order to become certified and to recertify as a DRE.

“The training I received was essential in furthering my understanding of the science behind a Drug Recognition Evaluation and what errors officers make in conducting these evaluations”, stated Attorney Chadwick. “It is a training that anyone who is serious about defending DUIs in Vermont needs to take in order to best serve their clients”.

Smell of marijuana still enough for Vermont vehicle search

/ chadwicklawvt / Leave a comment

An officer needs probable cause  in order to be to search a vehicle without the owner’s consent.  Despite Vermont decriminalizing the possession of under an ounce of marijuana in 2013, the smell of marijuana alone still grants law enforcement the probable cause they need to request a search.  This reality was recently reinforced in Judge Helen’s Toor’s district court decision denying  a Rutland man’s motion to suppress the evidence seized as a result of the search.  “Vermont’s decriminalization statute explicitly states that it leaves unchanged marijuana’s ability to furnish probable cause. The national consensus is that the mere smell of marijuana supports probable cause.”  Although still currently good law in Vermont, Toor’s decision has since been appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court.

Further clarification as to the sniff test may be supported by recent decisions in Massachusetts and Colorado, that have found that the oder of marijuana alone does not give an officer probable cause.  The Massachusetts case is especially important to Vermont as at the time of the decision, possession of one ounce or less of marijuana was considered a civil infraction in Massachusetts as it is considered in Vermont.  “[W]e no longer consider the “strong” or “very strong” smell of unburnt marijuana to provide probable cause to believe that a criminal amount of the drug is present.  Commonwealth v. Rodriguez.

The wild card in the entire calculus is the fact that it is all but assured that Vermont will legalize recreational marijuana use in the near future.  In 2017, a legalization bill made it all the way to Governor Phil Scott’s desk before he vetoed it, stating that further study was needed before he signed the bill into law.  Thus, if legalization does occur, the Vermont courts may look more towards the recent decisions in Colorado to guide them in reviewing the smell test as a sole basis for a search.  “Because Amendment 64 legalized possession for personal use of one ounce or less of marijuana by persons 21 years of age or older in Colorado, it is no longer accurate to say, at least as a matter of state law, that an alert by a dog which can detect marijuana — but not specific amounts — can reveal only the presence of ‘contraband,’”.  Colorado v. McKnight

If Vermont does pass a marijuana legalization bill, expect further challenges to law enforcement’s ability to decipher criminal behavior from that of legal, including, but not limited to their ability to tell the difference between a legal amount of marijuana and that which surpasses the criminal threshold.

 

 

DUI checkpoints net more than just DUIs

/ chadwicklawvt / Leave a comment

checkpoint

The sign should read, “law compliance checkpoint ahead”, as officers are on the lookout for all types of potential criminal offenses.

A favorite tool for law enforcement in detecting drivers operating under the influence of alcohol, DUI checkpoints have long been effective in law enforcement netting arrests on busy holiday weekends such as Memorial Day and the 4th of July.  However, drivers would be remiss to believe that these checkpoints are present only to detect potential alcohol based offenses along busy Vermont roads.  Instead, in recent years, law enforcement have honed their skills to detect other offenses, such as drug consumption that can also result in a motorist be inglead off to the mobile command post to be processed for a criminal offense.

Of the most common offenses detected by law enforcement is the possession and consumption of marijuana.  Although possession of small amounts of marijuana have been decriminalized (resulting in only a civil infraction, not a criminal citation for possession of under 1 oz.), the detection of marijuana can now lead to not only a hefty fine, but also increased scrutiny by law enforcement to see if the operator is under the influence of marijuana while driving the motor vehicle.  Although this is not your standard run of the mill DUI investigation, drug recognition experts are being trained at increased levels to be able to respond quickly to a report of a potential driving while high infraction.

These offenses carry with them the same penalties as a driving under the influence of alcohol charge (maximum of 2 years in jail and loss of license for up to 6 months).  Further, even if a motorist is found not be under the influence of marijuana, but is under the age of 21, they can face up to a 6 month license suspension as a result of merely possession a small amount of marijuana.

DUI checkpoints are misleading in name and in purpose.  Law enforcement use these checkpoints to have unfettered brief contact with a magnitude of individuals to detect and arrest those suspected of violating Vermont laws.  Thus, when approaching one of these checkpoints it is important to know that all actions committed by the driver will be heavily scrutinized and that you will not be off the hook if you have not consumed alcohol, but may have something else of interest in the vehicle that a well trained Vermont law enforcement officer may be able to detect.

Will marijuana legalization change Vermont DUI laws?

/ chadwicklawvt / Leave a comment

By most accounts, marijuana legalization is now considered a foregone conclusion in the State of Vermont. According to a recent Castleton State College Poll, 56 percent of Vermont adults now support legalization. Further confidence in legalization has been voiced by the Governor Peter Schumlin, Speaker of the House, Shap Smith, and Attorney General, William Sorrell.

With momentum growing, the State elected to commission the Rand Corporation, to conduct a financial analysis of the cost benefits of marijuana legalization to the State of Vermont.

In its recently released report, it was disclosed by Rand that Vermont could generate up to $75 million in tax revenue per year. This figure certainly rings bells in the minds of legislators, as they faced a $113 million budget shortfall by the end of 2014.

With the potential benefits in mind, it should come as no surprise that Jeannette White, D-Windham County and Joe Benning R-Caledonia County, introduced a 41-page bill in December proposing legalization of the possession of up to one ounce for recreational use and cultivation of that totaled 100 square foot or less.   White has long supported legalization, as she led the effort to approve Act 76, which decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana in 2013.

Despite the optimism of passing a legalization bill in 2016, there remain some headwinds for legalization the strongest of all being the interpretation and enforcement of DUI laws when it comes to Driving while under the influence of marijuana or Driving While High (DWH). If this delay lasts too long, the bill’s approval may outlast Schumlin’s 3rd and final term, causing the bill to be placed on the desk of an unknown governor.

Currently, Vermont law does not give much clarity on the subject of DWH, merely stating that someone is under the influence of marijuana or other drugs if the impairment, is “noticeably and appreciably” affecting a person’s ability to drive a vehicle safely.

“Noticeably and appreciably” certain appear to lend themselves subjective observations that allow for significant discretion by individual law enforcement officers.  However, convictions for DWH have posed significant challenges for prosecutors to scientifically prove that the motorist was influenced by marijuana at the time of the stop due to the lack of a numeric standard for impairment that could be relied upon similar to the current .08 law for alcohol.

Now, with legalization on the negotiating table, reports have surfaced that lawmakers are considering amending Vermont DUI laws to allow for the admission of saliva tests, which could be conducted roadside. These tests are alleged to be able to detect recently ingested marijuana and provide a reading that could give prosecutors further tools to prove DWH charges.

In a 2013 report from the Drugged Driving Coalition, Greg Nagurney, the appointed representative of the State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs, stated that a majority of county prosecutors and sheriffs supported an amendment to DUI laws to allow prosecutors to charge motorists with DWH if impairment could be detected “to the slightest degree” (23 VSA 1201(a)(2). If this low standard of proof is approved as part of the legalization bill, it may be difficult for any motorist who has consumed marijuana in the last 30 days to immediately refute law enforcement suspicions of DWH. If these suspicions are supported by other evidence such as smell, bloodshot eyes or confusion, a probable cause arrest could very well ensue even in cases when the high from smoking marijuana has long subsided.

 

 

 

Smell of marijuana may not be enough for search of vehicle in Vermont

/ chadwicklawvt / Leave a comment

With the passage of Act 76 in the State of Vermont, decriminalizing possession of under 1 ounce of marijuana, questions have been raised as to whether or not the discovery of such an amount can still give a basis for law enforcement to search a motor vehicle.  Without owner consent, Vermont law enforcement need to meet a probable cause of criminal wrongdoing in order to receive approval from a judge for a search warrant.  Thus, given that possession of small amounts of marijuana is now considered a civil infraction, similar to a speeding ticket, challenges are beginning to surface in Vermont and surrounding states as to the lawfulness of warrants issued on a violation of ACT 76 alone.

Although the law is clear that for civil violations, officers may not detain motorists for a time that would exceed the normal time for issuing a traffic ticket, law enforcement continues to challenge this rule by attempting to expand the scope of their investigation when they claim to smell a strong odor of burnt marijuana.  However, some recent cases against search and seizure have arisen recently in Massachusetts, one most notably in      COMMONWEALTH vs. MATTHEW W. OVERMYER, which states “In sum, we are not confident, at least on this record, that a human nose can discern reliably the presence of a criminal amount of marijuana, as distinct from an amount subject only to a civil fine. In the absence of reliability, a neutral magistrate would not issue a search warrant, and therefore a warrantless search is not justified based solely on the smell of marijuana, whether burnt or unburnt.”

Thus, with the increasing number of drugged driving arrests occurring on Vermont roads, and the legalization of marijuana possession in the forefront of the Vermont legislature, it is reasonable to conclude that a substantial amount of grey area continues to exist in prosecuting such cases that can only be clarified through litigation in the Vermont County court system.