What Does DUI or Driving Under the Influence Mean?

There are many dangers associated with the act of driving under the influence (DUI). In addition to the dangers of causing an accident or suffering injury, the driver can face criminal penalties. Not all drivers who have been charged for drunk driving, however, are actually guilty. At Jonathan Blecher, P.A., I offer my experienced representation to help defend individuals charged with DUI.

DUI stands for driving under the influence, which is the term that the state of Florida uses to explain the crime of driving while intoxicated with alcohol or drugs. Any driver who is suspected of being in physical control of the vehicle can be charged with DUI under the state’s statute § 316.193.

There are different ways that “impaired” driving can be proven. If you have a blood alcohol content level of 0.08% or higher, prosecution will have a solid case against you. Other methods, such as field sobriety tests, can be used as tools against you by prosecution to prove your guilt. These, however, can be defended with a knowledgeable Miami DUI attorney who understands the state's DUI laws.

What is the impact of a DUI conviction on my life?

Drinking and driving is seen as a dangerous crime, and for that reason, the penalties carry a high degree of intensity. The state of Florida carries extensive penalties for individuals charged with DUI that can affect the alleged offender’s driving ability, job, and family. Even for just a first-time offense, the state imposes certain mandatory penalties for those who are convicted.

With the life-changing penalties that you can experience with a conviction, you do not want to risk a guilty plea. You will need to establish a strong defense method with the assistance of a knowledgeable attorney by your side. Contact my firm right away so that I can begin building a workable solution for your particular case. I am here to defend your rights and protect your future!

Holiday Drinking: More Problems than a Hangover

With Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year’s coming up we should all be aware of Florida's DUI laws. If you drink, please do so responsibly.

Did you know that it takes very little alcohol to put an average-sized man over a .08? Two martinis will do the trick. And for a woman, two glasses of champagne in an hour is enough to put her over the top. What that can mean is that a lapse in judgment or simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time (DUI roadblock, for example) can earn a set of silver bracelets and a ride to jail for Christmas.

Here are some things you should know:

Florida's administrative suspension laws will affect your driving privileges if you refuse the breath test or blow over a .08. There is also a 10 day time limit for filing an appeal of this suspension. Any conviction for DUI results in a permanent criminal record and can never be sealed or expunged.

There are a number of other consequences that flow from a DUI arrest/conviction such as fines, probation, DUI school, a possible ignition interlock device and guaranteed increased insurance rates.

Do I Take The Breath Test?

Having a .08 BAC you will set in motion an immediate DHSMV suspension of your driving privileges for six months and refusing the test will result in a suspension period of one year. DHSMV will impose an 18 month DUI refusal suspension, with no permit, for a second refusal. It's also important to know that a second refusal can be added as an additional charge punishable by up to one year in county jail.

Defenses to DUI Cases

There are dozens of valid legal defense to any DUI charge. I can determine which of those may be applicable in your case. I have had great success over the years while defending over 3,000 DUI and suspended license cases.

Jonathan Blecher is a former state prosecutor and a criminal defense attorney with offices in the Downtown Dadeland area. He has 31 years of criminal law experience. Contact Jonathan Blecher to schedule an appointment to learn more about any Miami DUI arrest.

Dispelling Miranda Rights Myths

Television and movies have made us all well-aware of the Miranda warnings that officers read off to suspects as they are being arrested. They go something along the lines of this:

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?” (Courtesy of the U.S. Courts website)

While these warnings actually are read to arrested individuals in real life, there are a few misconceptions about the Miranda warning that need to be addressed.

Before delving into these misconceptions, let’s take a look at why the Miranda warnings exist and how they came to be. The purpose of the reading of these warnings is to protect people’s Fifth Amendment right against coerced self-incrimination when they are being questioned by officers while they are in custody (usually once they have been arrested). It is also meant to protect individuals’ Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. The Miranda warnings specifically apply to custodial interrogations, or questioning of a person in the custody of law enforcement and their freedom is limited. The idea is to inform the suspect that they are not legally required to answer officers’ questions; that if the individual does choose to speak, his or her statements can be used as evidence in court; and that he or she can choose to consult with an attorney, and to have one present, before talking to law enforcement.

The Miranda warnings became part of an arrest and interrogation protocol from the 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona. In this case, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that officers must warn detained individuals of their rights as outlined above before they are subject to custodial interrogation. The Court also ruled that a failure to provide such warning (or any violation of the person’s Fifth or Sixth rights) will lead to the person’s statements being deemed inadmissible in court—even if those statements indicate guilt. For more information about the Miranda v. Arizona case, click here.

Many people falsely believe that an officer failing to read a suspect his or her Miranda warnings at the time of arrest means that the arrested person cannot be convicted. This is not necessarily true. A failure of an officer to recite the Miranda warning simply means the suspect’s statements made in the custodial interrogation cannot be used in court as evidence. Oftentimes, this equates to the case being dismissed or the defendant winning the case, due to insufficient evidence. However, in some cases, there may be other strong evidence that is used to reach a conviction, even without the defendant’s inadmissible statements.

Another misconception is that individuals need to be read their Miranda warnings in any type of questioning—even pre-arrest or pre-custodial questioning in which the person willingly cooperates with the investigation. In these types of interrogations, the person being questioned is not being held in custody and therefore has the freedom to walk away from the interrogation at any time. Considering this fact, it is not mandatory for officers to warn these individuals of their Miranda Rights in these types of situations.

My name is Jonathan Blecher, and I am a Miami DUI lawyer with more than three decades of experience. If you believe that you were not properly read your Miranda warnings or that your Constitutional rights were violated during the arrest/interrogation process, do not hesitate to contact myfirm. I provide defense in cases involving DUI arrests and many other types of criminal charges.

Jonathan B. Blecher Named One of the "10 Best" Florida DUI/DWI Lawyers

Miami, Florida attorney Jonathan Blecher has been honored by the American Institute of DUI/DWI Attorneys (AIDUIA), having been named one of the 10 Best Florida DUI lawyers. This is no small honor, since attorneys must meet extensive qualifications in order to make this list. The selection process involves nomination by at least one practicing attorney, as well as independent research by the AIDUIA team.

Attorney Blecher’s nomination alone is enough to show his dedication and commitment to DUI defense, as well as his recognition among his peers. He has proven himself to be a leader in his industry who is highly rated by clients and peers alike.

To be named one on of the “10 Best,” Attorney Blecher holds a perfect 10-out-of-10 rating for client satisfaction, with no negative feedback or complaints with the bar. He also meets the requirements of possessing an advanced degree, receiving awards, being involved with professional associations, being published, and having spoken publicly in his field. Lastly, he was approved by the AIDUIA Board of Regents, resulting in his selection to the 10 Best list.

Attorney Blecher recognizes what an honor it is to receive this recognition from the AIDUIA. His desire is to continue providing excellent counsel and outstanding DUI defense representation for each client who walks through his doors.

Licensed for over 30 years, Mr. Blecher focuses his practice at Jonathan Blecher, P.A. on DUI defense. He is rated AV-Preeminent® by Martindale-Hubbell®. His "Superb" 10.0 out of 10.0 rating on Avvo.com, a professional attorney ratings directory, from both clients and peers speaks to his superior qualifications. He has been named as one of Florida's Legal Elite, by Florida Trend Magazine and has been recognized as a Top Rated Lawyer in South Florida and a Top 100 Criminal Trial Lawyer in Florida by The National Trial Lawyers.

Jonathan Blecher, P.A. is located in the Pinecrest/Dadeland area of Miami, Florida. Mr. Blecher can be reached at (305) 707-0036.

The History of DUI Laws in the United States – 1960 to 1990

Driving while intoxicated is not a new problem. In fact, it's practically as old as the automobile itself. In this blog, we've been looking at the history of DUI laws and enforcement over the past weeks, beginning with the first such U.S. laws in 1907. The decades between 1960 and 1990 brought substantial changes both in how law enforcement deals with DUI offenses and also in public opinion.

While alcohol-related traffic accidents still account for more than 40 percent of all traffic fatalities in the United States, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the number of traffic deaths has been reduced dramatically over the past 50 years.

MADD and DUI Laws

This shift is, in large part, contributable to one California mother's passion and loss. Candy Lightner started Mothers against Drunk Driving (MADD) in 1980 after her 13-year-old was struck and killed by a drunk driver with previous DUI convictions while she was walking home from school. Lightner and MADD worked diligently to change America's DUI laws and raise public opinion about the seriousness of drinking and driving. MADD is largely responsible for the lowering of the legal blood alcohol limit to .10% from .15% and a few years later to .08%. (Today's limit is .05%.) The organization also pushed for "zero tolerance" legislation for drivers under the age of 21. Such laws made it illegal for young drivers to operate a vehicle with a .01% or greater blood alcohol level.

MADD was also successful in lobbying Congress to raise the national drinking age, resulting in the minimum drinking age being raised from 18 to 21 years in 1984. Largely as a result of MADD's activity, 700 new drunk driving laws were passed in the United States between 1980 and 1985.

Student against drunk driving (SADD), formed in 1981, was another force in changing how young people look at drinking and driving. Today, this peer-driven group has 10,000 chapters in middle schools, high schools and colleges throughout the United States.

Drunk driving began to be taken seriously during the 1980s, both by citizens and by law enforcement. That work continued into the 1990s and beyond. In our next post, we'll look at how DUI laws changed from 1990 to the present day.

This is the third post of a four-part series on the history of DUI laws in the United States and their enforcement. Last time, we talked about DUI laws in the post World War II era. We hope you'll visit again over the next few weeks as we discuss how DUI laws in the United States have evolved over the past decades.

MADD Pushes Connecticut Legislature on IID

Ignition interlock devices (IIDs) have been required for all convicted DUI offenders in Connecticut since 2011, even for first offenders. However, first-time offenders who chose to complete a first-offender diversion program are not mentioned in the laws regarding first-time DUI offenders. Connecticut SB 465 makes it clear that IIDs are still required for first-time offenders who choose to enter diversion programs.

In Florida, not all counties have diversion programs for first offenders. Only Miami, West Palm Beach, The Florida Keys, Gainesville and Orlando have such programs. Most, if not all of them, require an ignition interlock device for a specified periods as a condition of the program, though without uniformity between jurisdictions. Oddly enough, only first offenders who are actually convicted of DUI (whether by plea or trial) are required to have an IID ONLY if their BrAC was over a .149 or they had a minor in the car at the time of the arrest.

Interestingly, MADD pushed long and hard for the Connecticut Legislature to close the loophole in their laws, which allowed diversionary DUI cases to avoid the IID. Yet, on the MADD website's FAQ page the following appears:

"Does MADD advocate for ignition interlocks in all cars? 

No. MADD advocates requiring ignition interlocks only for convicted drunk drivers with an illegal blood alcohol concentration of .08 or greater."

Jonathan Blecher Appears on Radio Talk Show

I had the pleasure of being invited to appear as a guest on a local radio program, Fried on Business, which is heard every Thursday from 5-6 PM on 880AM-The Biz, Miami's Bloomberg Radio affiliate. I appear on Jim Fried's program as a legal consultant on criminal law issues, particularly DUI and the business surrounding it.

This episode revolved around DUI and the holiday season. Jim and I discussed what rights people have during a DUI traffic stop, DUI sobriety checkpoints and whether roadside sobriety exercises are mandatory, or even fair. We also talked about breath, blood and urine testing and driver license suspensions that stem from a DUI arrest.

Jim's viewer's wanted to know what the penalties are for a DUI conviction in Florida and we went into some detail on that topic. We discussed how there are potential, long-term, negative collateral consequences that could flow from a DUI conviction including strangled employment opportunities, increased insurance rates and even immigration concerns. Did you know that Canada will turn you away at the border if they discover a U.S. DUI conviction on your record, unless you undergo a 5-year rehabilitation period?

We also discussed the concerns over distracted driving, which poses an even greater safety risk than DUI. A study by Car and Driver magazine concluded that reaction time and stopping distance was more severely affected by texting and reading e-mail than it was by driving with a blood alcohol of .08.

Listen to the interview by clicking here.

Back on Track Miami Diversion Program Changes

The Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office met with Mothers Against Drunk Driving representatives recently to discuss the Back on Track Program, a DUI diversion program for first offenders in Miami. As usually happens when political forces are brought to bear, the MADD Mothers got their way and forced prosecutors to beef up the conditions of the program.

Program participants in Tier One (under .15 BAC) will be required to install an ignition interlock device on their car for 90 days. Tier Two participants will be required to install the device for 180 days.

The program was designed to focus on first time DUI offenders, with no aggravating circumstances surrounding their cases, such as minors in the car, accidents or very high breath/blood test results. It's creation followed the path of successful programs Alachua County (Gainesville) and Orange County (Orlando), the focus of which was to educate first-time offenders, sting their pocketbooks, but not saddle them with a DUI conviction for life—all very reasonable pursuits.

Enter MADD, who tried to force additional program conditions that demonize first offenders. First, they proposed adding a SCRAM alcohol monitoring bracelet for defined time periods. Then they tried adding a "no drink order" during the entire period of program participation, 6-12 months.

Zero tolerance has long been the goal of MADD, starting from the time when they changed their slogan from "Don't Drive Drunk" to "Don't Drink and Drive."

"We believe the best practice is not to drink and drive and that means zero. If that's neo-prohibitionist, then we are." – Chuck Hurley, Former MADD CEO.

"MADD's stance is that ONE drink is too many." – Kelly Larkin, Executive Director of MADD Southern Arizona.

"While a lot of attention is paid to the serious problem of the repeat offender we don't want to overlook the casual drinker." – Karolyn Nunnalee, Former MADD President in USA TODAY.

MADD has pushed for Ignition Interlock Devices for all people convicted of DUI and, at last count, has been successful in doing so in 20 states, most recently Maine and Tennessee. In Florida, the IID is required after a first DUI conviction, if the BrAC is .15 or greater or a minor is in the car.

Fortunately, reasonable minds prevailed at the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office.