410 ProbationIllinois law has made a special type of Probation available for first-time felony drug offenders to avoid a felony conviction on their record. This type of Probation is commonly known as Section 410 or Section 1410 Probation. In order to be eligible for this type of Probation, you cannot have previously been convicted or placed on Probation or Court Supervision for any offense related to Cannabis or Illegal Drugs. This includes Prescription Drugs.  If you are able to get this type of Probation, here’s how it works:

At the time of sentencing, you plead guilty to the charges. The court accepts your plea but does not enter judgment. The court will place you on a period of Probation that will last 24 months. The only time you should have to go back to court before your Probation ends is if a Petition to Violate your Probation is filed. While you are on Probation the court will require that you do not violate any criminal laws in any state. You will not be allowed to possess a firearm or any other dangerous weapon. The court will order that you submit to random and unscheduled drug testing.  You will be required to pay the cost of the drug testing but you should not have to take more than 3 drug tests during the period of your Probation. You will also be required to perform 30 hours of community service. In addition, the court may require additional conditions such as payment of fines and court costs, require that you continue with your education, undergo medical or psychiatric treatment, and may require that you appear in court periodically.  The statute gives the court great latitude on imposing additional conditions on your 410 Probation.  Since every case is different, any additional requirements will depend on the particular case.

There are some drawbacks to this type of Probation. The main problem being that since you have pled guilty to the charges, if the court determines that you violated your 410 Probation for any reason, you cannot go back to that court and fight the case because you have already pled guilty. So if you violate this Probation, the only question before the court will be what your sentence should be. You will not be able to contest your guilt or innocence. If you violate your Probation, typically the court will convert the 410 Probation to a felony conviction which could involve felony Probation or a jail sentence.

Jail building in Chicago, IL.

When somebody is arrested and charged with a felony, they have a right to a bond hearing.  At the bond hearing, the judge determines how much money needs to be posted in order for someone charged with a felony to be released from jail.  The statute that lays out the various factors that must be taken into consideration when setting the amount of the bond provides that the court should take into consideration the background, character, and criminal record of the defendant.  The court should also take into consideration the nature of the offense that a defendant is charged with and their criminal record and criminal background.  The purpose of the bond is to ensure that the defendant appears in court and that the public be protected from any potential harm that the defendant could cause.  The bond amount set by the court can have enormous consequences for an individual charged with a crime.  The cash bail system is coming under increased scrutiny with charges that it is discriminatory because it is unfair to indigent defendants who do not have any money.  The same statute that lays out the various factors that the court should take into consideration also provides that Bond shall not be excessive and that the court should take the financial resources of a defendant into consideration when setting a bond.  In my 24 years of practicing law in Cook County, I must have been at hundreds of bond hearings in Cook County.  Very rarely have I heard judges ask about the financial resources of a defendant.  The problem with that is that low-level drug offenders get arrested every single day in Cook County.  When they go to Bond Court the prosecutor tells the judge about the facts of the case and about the criminal history of the defendant.  If the judge sets a low bond that requires only a few hundred dollars be posted, the judge may well have set million dollar bond.  Many of these criminal defendants have no money whatsoever so they end up languishing in jail for many months until their case is resolved just because they don’t have a hundred dollars to post for Bond.  Not only is that wrong, but it makes no economic sense.  Last year, a record 1024 inmates spent more time in custody than the length of their entire jail sentence. According to Cook County, it costs the taxpayers about $60,000 a year to house an inmate in Cook County Jail for one year.  That cost is much more if the inmate has mental health or other health problems.

Cook County has been grappling with this problem for a long time.  The economic strain on the Cook County budget has caused officials to look at different ways to lower jail population.  The focus is on how to keep nonviolent low-level offenders out of jail.  County officials want to figure out how to avoid putting people in jail who pose no risk to the public so that tax dollars and costly jail space are not needlessly used.  Cook County has instituted a program whereby Pre-Trial Services prepares a report about a particular defendant that generates a score which informs the court about the likelihood that they will fail to go to court. However, the system has been criticized as not being thorough enough and for not doing enough to reduce the jail population in Cook County.  A class-action lawsuit has recently been filed in Cook County which alleges that the cash bail system in Cook County is racially discriminatory.  The Cook County Board has scheduled meetings to look at new and different ways to address the deficiencies in the cash bail system. There are simply too many low-level drug offenders who are spending time in jail simply because they lack the financial resources to get out of jail. This problem is straining the financial resources of Cook County.

James Dimeas is an award winning criminal defense attorney and author with more than 24 years of experience aggressively representing his clients in criminal cases.  If you have a criminal case in Illinois, contact me in Chicago (312-229-5500), DuPage and Kane (630-504-2096) or Lake (847-696-6458) for a free and confidential consultation to discuss your legal options.

Domestic BatteryThe Illinois State Senate Judiciary Committee will begin hearings on changes to the Rights of Crime Victims and Witnesses Act. This Act is commonly known as the Illinois Crime Victims Bill of Rights. This Act is designed to preserve, protect and enforce the guaranteed rights of Crime Victims throughout the criminal justice process. It requires that victims receive notice of all court dates, requires prosecutors to communicate with victims, and gives victims the right to be consulted when it comes to plea agreements and at sentencing hearings.  The changes that will be considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee will give crime victims the right to hire an attorney who will represent them during the entire criminal case so as to ensure that their rights are protected and enforced at no charge.  The attorney fee will be paid from the Crime Victim Compensation Fund. This Fund was established by the State Legislature to help victims of violent crime and their families to help reduce the financial burden to them. Currently, Crime Victims are allowed to hire their own attorney to represent them in a criminal case. But under current law, the victim has to pay for the attorney out of their own pocket. The new law will provide that the attorney be paid out of this Fund.

There is no doubt that more needs to be done to help crime victims. In my practice, I frequently receive phone calls from people who are victims of crime looking for answers and looking for help. While there’s plenty of resources online for criminal defendants looking for legal representation in criminal cases, there are not enough resources to assist victims of crime. This is especially true for victims of Domestic Violence. Not only do they have to go to court and try to understand how the court proceedings will affect their lives, but many of these victims have to make arrangements to live outside the home. Some of the victims have child care issues, child support issues, child visitation issues, and various other issues having to do with raising their family during the pendency of a Domestic Battery criminal prosecution and afterwards. Many of these cases involve Orders of Protection, Conditions of Bond issues which may affect whether they can have contact with their spouse, and various other issues that go well beyond the criminal proceedings in court. These victims are in desperate need of assistance. Some of these victims have never been on their own before. These people need help and it’s very difficult, if not impossible, to find someone to help you. On top of that, to ask victims to come up with money to hire their own attorney is simply unrealistic. Prosecutors are busy prosecuting cases in court. To ask them to take on the responsibility of basically representing the victim during a criminal prosecution may be asking too much of prosecutors. There is no doubt that victims of crime need and deserve an attorney who will be with them during all the phases of a criminal case. Many victims of crime have never been exposed to the criminal justice system. Some criminal defendants have previously been through the system so they know what is happening and what is going to happen.  As with many other things, while this is a good idea, the money may not be there to make this work. The State of Illinois is going through very difficult economic times. If you ask any Illinois resident they will tell you that Illinois is basically broke. There may not be any money to make this work. So while conceptually this legislation makes sense, there may not be enough money around to make this happen.  In addition to the financial constraints, the Attorney General’s office is also withholding support for the legislation. Apparently, recent changes to this same Act were made and the Attorney General’s office wants to wait and see how the new changes operate before agreeing to more changes to the Illinois Crime Victims Bill of Rights.

If the measure makes it past the Judiciary Committee, it will go before the House and Senate for a vote.

Retail TheftThis is one of the most common questions I get asked by people that have been arrested and charged with a Retail Theft. When I get asked that question, that’s when I start asking questions. Because whether or not they committed a Retail Theft depends on the specific facts of their case.  Most of the time they tell me that they forgot to pay for an item that they had mistakenly placed in their purse or in a bag. Some people tell me that their child took an item and hid it from them without them knowing. Other people tell me they tried on a piece of jewelry and forgot to take it off. Whatever the explanation is, many of them tell me that they don’t understand how they could be charged with stealing something from a store if they did not physically leave the store when they were stopped by security.

Like many other things having to do with the legal system, there is a difference between what is commonly considered to be Retail Theft, and what the law considers to be a Retail Theft. Retail Theft is commonly referred to as shoplifting.  You do not have to get out of the store with the item in order to be guilty of a Retail Theft in Illinois. If the state is able to prove that you took something from a store with the intent to take that item without paying for it, that’s enough to prove that you are guilty of a Retail Theft. Taking something doesn’t mean that you walked out of the store with it, taking means that you took it from the shelf or the place where it was and took possession of it with the intention of not paying for it.  There’s many ways that the state can prove that you took something with the intent to not pay for it. In my 24 years of experience I cannot even begin to count the number of ways that the state has been able to prove this in cases that I have handled. Sometimes there is a loss prevention agent who testifies that they saw my client put something in their pocket. I’ve had cases where video surveillance shows my client switching price tags or placing items in their pocket or in their jacket and then walking past the cash register and not paying for the items that they had taken.  Once you walk past the last place of purchase, which is basically the cash register, without paying for the goods, then you have committed a Retail Theft. I recently had a client that was caught by security in the store parking lot after they ran out of the store with items that she had placed in her pants pockets and in her jacket. I asked the client why she ran when she was first approached by security and she client told me that she knew that she was being followed by security inside the store but didn’t know what to do when that happened. I told her that once she realized that she was being followed by security, she should have taken the items out of her pocket, put them back where she found them, and left the store. The last thing she should have done once she realized that she was being followed by security was to walk past the cash register when she knew that they knew that she had items on her that she had concealed.  As a matter of fact, store security did not approach her until after she walked past the cash register. If she had dumped the merchandise before she walked past the cash register, she would not have been arrested.

Once you are detained by store security, you need to be aware that anything you say and do can be used against you in court. And because the store security agents are not employed by the government, many of the Constitutional protections that apply to our interactions with the police, do not apply to store security. For instance, the store security agents don’t have to warn you that whatever you say can be used against you in a court of law. They don’t have to advise you that you have a right to an attorney. They can get you to sign confessions without reading you your Miranda warnings. And whatever evidence they obtain they can give to the police and you cannot argue that they did not advise you of your rights because they don’t have to. That’s why I advise my clients that if they are detained by store security, while they should not resist the agents, they should not answer their questions and they should definitely not be signing any documents that they place in front of them. Many times, the video surveillance, or the witness testimony is unclear as to whether my client was trying to steal something. But it gets very difficult to fight the case when the client signed a statement prepared by store security in which they admit that they were trying to steal. It’s not a defense in court to say that you didn’t know what you were signing. So the moral of the story is don’t sign anything put in front of you by store security and don’t answer their questions. Don’t try to talk yourself out of it. You are better off not saying anything and letting your attorney handle the case in court.

EyewitnessThere was a time when eyewitness testimony was considered the best evidence in a criminal case.  But recent scientific developments have cast doubt on the reliability of eyewitness testimony.  Surveys of jurors in criminal cases show that jurors place great weight on the testimony of eyewitnesses. This can be dangerous because jurors will put greater weight on the testimony of an eyewitness and disregard other powerful and compelling evidence of innocence.  Several high-profile cases in which defendants were convicted based on eyewitness testimony were later overturned after it was proven that the defendants were not guilty. Kyle Bloodsworth was convicted of the rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl based on the testimony of five eyewitness.  He was later cleared of the rape and murder after DNA testing proved that he was innocent.

Eyewitness testimony is based on the human memory.  To determine the reliability of eyewitness testimony, you must understand how the human memory works.  Most people think that the human memory is like a video recorder.  They believe that the human memory records the events and just plays them back exactly how they happened.  But researchers have discovered that this is not how the human memory actually works. Researchers believe that the human memory is more like a giant puzzle.  It seems like pieces of material are put together by the human brain in order to create a memory, or a narrative, of what happened.  That puzzle can be manipulated by questioning from defense attorneys or from other pieces of material that the person who is recalling the events is exposed to.  In addition, the accuracy of someone’s memory can be affected by psychological issues or substance abuse issues that the person providing eyewitness testimony may be suffering from.  In controlled studies, researchers have been able to create false memories in individuals by introducing pieces of information that did not actually occur.  The scientific studies have changed the way the legal system is dealing with eyewitness testimony.  In recent years, there has been a steady movement in the courts to allow expert testimony to be presented before a jury so that they can understand the true significance of eyewitness testimony.  The expert testimony is giving juries a more balanced and greater understanding of eyewitness testimony so that juries may be able to give a more measured response to such testimony.

Earlier this year, the Illinois Supreme Court addressed the issue of eyewitness testimony.  The court looked at the murder conviction of a man who had been convicted of the murder of a friend.  The only evidence in the case was the eyewitness testimony of a witness and a statement made by the victim identifying the defendant as the shooter.  When the defendant’s attorney sought to introduce expert testimony at trial to contest the accuracy and reliability of the eyewitness testimony, the trial court did not allow the expert testimony to be presented.  In overturning the murder conviction, the court cited the scientific evidence that we discussed earlier in this article along with the number of convictions later overturned after defendants were exonerated by DNA evidence.  The court pointed out that since 1989 there have been 150 wrongful convictions in Illinois. One-third of those wrongful convictions were based on mistaken eyewitness testimony.  The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that if prosecutors wanted to retry the defendant, the trial court must allow expert testimony to be introduced concerning the reliability of the eyewitness testimony.

Veterans CourtThe recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have seen a dramatic rise in the number of mental health and substance abuse issues involving military veterans returning from serving in those wars.  Some of these soldiers are returning home with mental health issues and are using drugs to deal with the mental health issues which such wars have caused.  Those issues have spilled into the criminal justice system when these military veterans are getting arrested for crimes caused by substance abuse and mental health issues arising out of their military service.  In an effort to address the specific needs of returning veterans, the Illinois Legislature passed legislation in 2009 establishing Veterans Courts in Illinois.  The 2009 legislation did not require that counties establish such courts.  Nevertheless, Cook County and Lake County did establish such courts. Veterans Courts are specific courts which are designed to steer military veterans out of the criminal punishment aspect of the court system and towards the treatment aspect of the court system.  Specific courts have been established at 26th and California, Skokie, Rolling Meadows, Maywood, Bridgeview and Markham. The Veterans Courts in Cook County have been very successful and have been used as a model by court systems throughout the United States to help them establish their own Veterans Courts.  The Illinois Legislature recently passed legislation requiring that each county in Illinois establish such a court by January 1, 2018.  In anticipation of this new law taking effect, counties throughout Illinois are beginning to make plans to establish these courts.  Kane County officials are aware of the new law and are beginning to make plans to start the process of establishing these courts.

In order for a veteran to be eligible for Veterans Court in Cook County, enrollment has to be agreed to by the Court, Prosecutor and the Defendant.  The crime that the veteran is charged with cannot be a crime of violence. The veteran will not be eligible unless they have demonstrated a willingness to undergo treatment in the program.  They will also be ineligible if they have been convicted of a crime of violence within the past 10 years or if they have been discharged from a similar program within the past 3 years.

Lake County’s Veterans Court is similar with minor changes to the eligibility requirements.  To be eligible for Veterans Court in Lake County the veteran must have been honorably discharged from the military, must have a service related disability or currently be in the military, must be charged with a felony or misdemeanor in which probation or supervision is available, and must be willing to participate in the program before and after they enter the program.  They prefer that the veteran be eligible for VA benefits but is not a requirement.  For any crime involving a crime against an individual, the victim must agree to allowing the veteran to enter such a program.

Felony ConvictionThis is a question that I am asked frequently around election time.  Most people do not understand what the rules are when it comes to whether you are allowed to vote if you have a felony conviction.  Rules vary from state to state and this has created confusion.  People don’t understand that each state has it’s own rules which requires that people with felony convictions inform themselves of what the rules are in their state. My experience with this issue is that most people are not informed as to what the law is in Illinois when it comes to felony convictions and voting rights in Illinois. Illinois has passed a specific law which spells out what effect a felony conviction can have on your right to vote in Illinois.  The law is set out in 10 ILCS 5/3-5.  In Illinois, a convicted felon has just as much of a right to vote as any other citizen in the state.  As long as you are not incarcerated, meaning serving a prison sentence, you can register and cast a vote in Illinois.  If you are in court and fighting your case, you can vote in Illinois.  Even if you are in jail fighting your case. If you are on probation, you can vote in Illinois.  If you are on parole, you can vote in Illinois.  As long as you have not been convicted and are in prison, you can vote.  However, if instead of being in prison, you are allowed to serve your sentence outside of prison, such as prison furlough or work release, you will not be allowed to vote until you finish your sentence.  If you went to prison and lost the right to vote you should re-register once you are released from prison so that you can go to the polls and cast your vote.

When someone is not allowed under the law to vote, they are called “disenfranchised” voters.  In 2010, roughly 2.5% of the nation’s voting age population could not vote because of a felony conviction.  In Illinois, that comes out to about 800,000 people who have been convicted of a felony.  If 800,000 people do not realize that they have not been stripped of their right to vote, and sit out an election because of their mistaken belief, this could make a big difference in a close election.  In my opinion, which is based on the questions that I get from criminal clients, as well as members of the public, not enough is being done to educate the public about this issue.

In seven states, people convicted of a felony are barred forever from ever voting.  Florida has the largest number of disenfranchised voters with roughly 10.42% of all voters.  In two states, Maine and Vermont, even prison inmates are allowed to vote.  In other states, convicted felons are required to petition the Governor to have their right to vote reinstated, or restored, once their sentence is completed.

IDOCThe United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit sided with an inmate who had ordered the death certificate of his victim and was not allowed to keep it when his mail was opened by prison officials.  The case involves Kevin Williams. Kevin Williams was convicted of the murder of Traci Todd and sentenced to 65 years in prison.  While he was incarcerated at the Pontiac Correction Center, a maximum security prison in Illinois, Williams ordered the death certificate of his victim from the County Clerk’s Office.  The death certificate was received in the mail at Pontiac.  His mail was opened by prison officials and inside the envelope, they found the victim’s death certificate along with an unsigned note which stated that “there is a place in hell waiting for you as you must know you will reap what you have sowed.”  The prison officials confiscated the mail claiming that they were doing so to insure the safety and security of the facility and not to negatively impact his rehabilitation. Williams filed a civil suit in Federal Court against the prison warden, the Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections, and the prison employees responsible for confiscating his mail for a Deprivation of his First Amendment Rights.   Initially the Federal Court dismissed Williams’s lawsuit against some of the defendants because they had not been involved in the confiscation of his mail.  The court then dismissed the lawsuit against the remaining defendants because the court found that confiscating the mail would decrease the chances that inmates would retaliate against him for boasting about his crime, and that it would protect family members from the release of private information about surviving family members.  The Court of Appeals overturned the decision of the District Court and struck the confiscation of his mail.

The Court started by stating that prisoners have a First Amendment right to send and receive mail.  However, prison officials can confiscate a prisoner’s mail if they are able to show that doing so is reasonably related to a management of prison interest.  A mere statement by prison officials that they are protecting this interest is not enough.  They have to come forth with some evidence that shows that this restriction is justified.  In this case, the note did not threaten any harm in prison.  It warned of harm “in hell.”  There was no allegation by prison officials that the letter threatened any harm to Williams inside the prison.  Prison officials argued that the death certificate could be used as a “trophy” by Williams to boast in prison and that would cause security problems and negatively impact his rehabilitation.  The Court found that this is a legitimate interest for prison officials but pointed out that in his deposition, Williams claimed that he needed the death certificate so he could pursue an appeal of his conviction rather than as a trophy.  The assertion by prison officials that he was going to use the death certificate as a trophy without any supporting evidence, was insufficient to justify the confiscation of his mail.  Prison officials could have avoided this controversy if they held on to the death certificate until he wanted a copy of it to include in his appeal.  Instead they imposed a blanket prohibition against him having any ability to have access to this document.  If they had testimony from a fellow inmate that Williams had made statements that he wanted the death certificate as a trophy, they may have prevailed in this lawsuit.  But all the Court had was Williams testifying that he needed this document to pursue an appeal without any evidence to rebut this claim by prison officials.  The Court upheld the dismissal against the defendants not involved in the confiscation of his mail but the lawsuit is reinstated against the remaining defendants.

This case establishes that inmates are entitled to send and receive mail and that in order to stop that from happening, prison officials need more than just a mere allegation.

UUWA decision this week out of the Court of Appeals of the Sixth Circuit has added fuel to a new front to the 2nd Amendment debate.  Under federal law, certain groups, or classes of people, are barred from owning a firearm. Those groups include convicted felons, fugitives and people with a prior history of domestic batteries.  The case decided this week in the Sixth Circuit deals with a provision in the law which bars people who have been committed to a mental institution from owning a firearm.  The law allows an individual to appeal for relief from the prohibitions imposed by this law to the Attorney General of the United States. The Attorney General has delegated the authority to investigate such petitions to the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms.   This appeal process is called the “relief from disabilities program.”  The law is pretty detailed about what an individual is required to provide in such a petition to the director of the ATF.  The law requires that the petitioner provide copies of the court order mandating commitment to a mental institution, and all other medical records having anything to do with the person’s mental condition along with letters of recommendation from at least three people along with a written consent allowing the Attorney General to obtain any medical records. The law then sets out in detail what the Director of the ATF is supposed to do when it comes to making a decision as to whether to grant relief from this law.  However, in 1992 Congress defunded the relief from disabilities program.  The defunding of this program has continued since then.  In 1998 Congress authorized federal grants to help states pay for determining which individuals may own a gun and to help states pay to provide this information to the federal government.  However, in order for a state to qualify for these federal funds, each state has to show the federal government that they have an appeal process similar to the relief from disabilities program which gives people who are barred from owning a gun the right to an appeal which allows their case to be considered for relief from the state’s prohibition.  About half of the states have established such relief processes.  Michigan is one of the states that has not.  This is where this case comes from.

Seventy three year old Clifford Charles Tyler had been involuntarily confined to a mental institution by a Michigan Court in 1986 because he was suicidal.  Tyler had been served with divorce papers by his wife who had been cheating on him.  The opinion details in great length the seriousness of the mental issues that Tyler was dealing with and the extensive steps that were taken to treat him.  In 1999 Tyler remarried and in 2012 his psychologist reported that he has fully recovered from his mental condition and that he can no longer detect any mental illness.

In 2011 Tyler attempted to purchase a gun but was denied the right to do so because his name showed up on an FBI data base as someone who had previously been committed to a mental institution.  He appealed this determination by the FBI but his appeal was denied.  Tyler was informed that because Michigan has not established a relief process, there’s nothing that the federal government can do for him.

DUIIt’s been a tough week.  You have been swamped at work and you have been busy at home with activities with the kids.  Finally it’s Friday and you made it. Your co-workers invite you to go out for drinks to relax after the end of a long week and you accept.  After a couple of hours at a local bar of unwinding with your co-workers and after a few drinks, it’s time to go home.  You get in your car and start driving and after a few minutes you realize that you may be in no condition to drive.  You don’t know if it’s the alcohol or if you are just tired from your long week, so you decide to pull over and take a nap because you don’t want to take a chance of nodding off while driving and getting into an accident.  So you pull over on a side street, park your car, shut off the engine and take a nap.  After a few minutes you wake up to the sounds of knocking on your car window.  It’s a police officer who is trying to get your attention.  You explain to the officer that you are tired so you pulled over to take a nap before heading home.  The officer asks you if you have been drinking and you tell him you had a couple of drinks a while ago but had a long week and are just tired.  You pull your car keys out of your pocket and the officer asks you to exit your vehicle.  The officer asks you to perform certain tests and then informs you that your are under arrest for suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol.  So how can you be charged with a DUI when you were just taking a nap in your car?

This fact pattern is pretty common.  Unless you understand the law in Illinois, it’s hard to comprehend how you can be charged with a DUI when you were doing the responsible thing and getting off the road when you realized you were in no condition to drive.

The key factor in determining whether you could be charged with a DUI is if you had actual physical control of a motor vehicle.  Whether you had actual physical control of your motor vehicle depends on the specific facts of each case.  The Court will look at the totality of the circumstances to determine whether you had actual physical control of your motor vehicle.  The leading case on this issue in Illinois is City of Naperville v. Watson, 677 NE2d 955 (1977).  In this case, the police found Watson sitting in the driver’s seat asleep with his head on the passenger seat.  Watson had the engine running so he could have the heat on.  There was no evidence that he was driving or that he was planning on driving his vehicle.  Yet, in this case the Court found that he was in actual physical control of his vehicle based on the fact that he was sitting in the front seat, the keys were in the ignition and the car was running.  Since he was in actual physical control of his vehicle, he could be charged with a DUI.  What seemed to be important in that case was that Watson had possession of the keys to the vehicle.  The Court specifically found that “sleeping it off” is not a defense to a DUI.  The Court refused to give an intoxicated motorist a “good citizen discount” for realizing they were in no condition to drive.  Rather the court doesn’t want someone who is intoxicated from entering a motor vehicle unless they are a passenger.

Posted in:
Updated: