Brought to you by Colorado DUI Drunk Driving Defense

Baton Rouge DWI Lawyers

1. Simmons & Associates: When a defendant is convicted of a criminal offense, the defendant is usually required to pay fines and costs as part of his or her sentence. If the defendant has only been ordered to pay fines and costs, the defendant will be discharged from a judgment requiring fines and costs upon full payment of the fines and costs to the proper authorities.

   There are two aspects of a DWI, the first concerns your driving privileges.  A temporary license was issued to you when you were charged. You only have 15 days to request an administrative hearing.  If you allow this time to pass without securing a hearing, your license will be suspended for a minimum of 90 days.  The second aspect is the actual DWI which is a criminal offense that could result in a jail sentence and fines.

   You should be mindful that you only have 15 days from the date of your arrest to protect your driving privileges.  A suspension will affect the near future and could ultimately have far reaching affects in your life.  Therefore, time is of the essence for you to seek legal advice. Failure to do so could be detrimental to your case. The court date that you are given by the officer at the time of arrest, or on your bond paperwork has nothing to do with your driving privileges. You are not automatically eligible for a hardship license at this point, and the court date will not secure you such.

   Refusal of a Breathylizer or Field Sobriety test is your right. If you do not submit to these tests, you run the risk of having your license suspended for 180 days. However, if you do submit and fail, it will provide evidence to be used against you. You are only required to provide the officer with your identification, registration and proof of insurance, and you are only required to answer questions that establish your identity. You are not required to answer questions such as "How many drinks have you had tonight?".

   If you are asked to take the breath - alcohol test, then you are under arrest for DWI. This means that the officer making the arrest has reasonable grounds to believe that you have been driving under the influence. There are exceptions to when you will not be allowed to refuse the test, if the officer has reasonable grounds to think you are driving under the influence and you have refused the test at least twice before on previous stops, or someone has been killed or seriously hurt as a result of an accident.

   If you are pulled over for a suspicion of a DWI/DUI, provide the officer with your identification and required papers, politely refuse the tests, answer any questions that establish your identity, and if he chooses to arrest you, stay quiet. Hire an attorney immediately, and argue it in court.

   Of course, the safest choice is always to not drink and drive!

   Remember: TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE! You MUST request a hearing within fifteen days of your arrest! Your first order of business after a DWI arrest is to secure legal representation!

2. Francis Rougeou: Jurisdiction is a court's power to hear and to decide cases. There are two types of jurisdiction. The two types are subject-matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction. Subject-matter jurisdiction is the power of a particular court to hear and to decide certain types of cases. Personal jurisdiction is the power that a court exercises over a particular person.
3. Joseph Long: Driving while intoxicated (DWI) or driving while under the influence of alcohol or narcotics (DUI) is a serious offense. If anyone is injured by your actions, you may face serious criminal and even homicide charges. If it's your first offense, and if no injury is involved, you may think the consequences may be as light as a fine and a suspended license or less. But make no mistake, prosecutors are doing everything possible to put even first-timers in jail these days. If you take the breath test and register .15 or higher, you have to do jail time if convicted. Suspension or revocation of your license can last from 90 days to a year and a half, or perhaps even longer. The rules covering loss of license are too complicated to explain here. If you have questions, call us today. Another consequence of DWI/DUI is the potential loss of your license. In Louisiana, if your blood alcohol content is more than .08%, the state requires the police officer to take your license immediately. If you refuse a breath test the officer will likewise take you license immediately, and your license is gone for six months. This can be reviewed, but you have to ask for a review immediately. In Louisiana you have 15 days from the date of arrest to request an administrative hearing in writing. If you miss the deadline, you will have no further chance of appeal. If you may have had too much to drink and are stopped by police: * Do not answer any questions. The police will use your answers to build their case against you. * You have the right to remain silent. Do so. * DonÕt be disrespectful or argue with police. They are doing their jobs. * Ask for a lawyer immediately. Then quit talking. * Do not take the field sobriety test. ItÕs up to the officer who thinks you are drunk whether you pass. * Do not blow into the intoxilizer machine. Refuse all tests. DWI convictions are serious matters. Hire a serious professional.
4. Ivey Law Firm: Face-to-Face contact and what the police officer is looking for A. The first observation the officer will make is the manner in which the suspect exits his vehicle. I found, through experience, that a good sign of an impaired driver is where, as he attempts to exit his vehicle, he seems to search for the ground with his left foot, grasps the car door and door frame with his hands to help him exit, or leaves the vehicle in gear as he exits his vehicle. B. Unless the officer is dealing with a driver whose intoxication symptoms are extreme or obvious, the first thing the driver will be asked for is his driver's license, proof of vehicle insurance, and vehicle registration. (Note that the driver is being asked to produce multiple documents. The reason behind this type of request is that alcoholic-beverage consumption impairs one's ability to perform multiple tasks at the same time.) In response to the officer's request, not only must the driver find and produce the correct documents, he must also remember what the officer has asked him to produce. Here, a police officer will be watching for the following mistakes which may be indicative of an impaired driver: -the driver's response to the request is incomplete, in that he finds and produces only his driver's license and registration, or some combination thereof; -the driver produces expired documents; -the driver repeatedly searches through a stack of papers looking for his insurance and/or registration but cannot find them, all the while the officer has seen the driver pass over the very documents he has requested; -the driver produces the incorrect documents, such as handing over a credit card instead of his driver's license -the driver has "butter fingers" in that he drops things Additionally, the officer may interrupt the suspect-driver's document search with a question in order to see if, after answering the question, the driver has the presence of mind to return to the search for what the officer has asked. (Remember, in a DWI investigation, a main investigative tool is seeing how the suspect reacts and responds to having his attention divided. This concept is further explored in the field sobriety testing segment below.) C. During this stage of the officer's investigation, it is likely he will detect, and make note of the following: -an odor of an alcoholic beverage; -slurred, stuttering, or incoherent speech; -swaying balance, or the driver's need to balance himself by leaning against his vehicle or other fixed object.
5. Buddy Stockwell: Despite the fact that persons have a right to privacy and do not have to give any statements to police, you would be surprised how many people voluntarily allow the police to search their vehicles, or give statements to police instead of remaining quiet and seeking the advice of an attorney. Instead, persons routinely and voluntarily fail to enforce their rights to privacy and prosecuting officers utilize information against the party in order to obtain a conviction.
6. Greg Grouner: Louisiana has a DWI cutoff of .08 grams of alcohol per blood or breath sample (BAC).€ This means that after typically three or more drinks (see chart) most people are driving above the limit.€ Following the initial stop, the police officer will generally ask that you submit to several physical tests and answer a series of questions including where you were coming from and how much you had to drink.€ Depending on the answers, he will likely take you to the police station and ask you to blow into a Breathalyzer machine. Louisiana has a DWI cutoff of .08 grams of alcohol per blood or breath sample (BAC). This means that after typically three or more drinks (see chart) most people are driving above the limit. Following the initial stop, the police officer will generally ask that you submit to several physical tests and answer a series of questions including where you were coming from and how much you had to drink. Depending on the answers, he will likely take you to the police station and ask you to blow into a Breathalyzer machine. A BAC above 0.15 now requires mandatory jail time - even on a first offense. It is more important than ever to have a qualified, expert attorney on your side. Penalties: POSSIBLE JAIL TIME * 1st DWI Ð32 hours Community Service, Driver Improvement Program, Substance Abuse Counseling, Mandatory Jail Time (depending on BAC) and up to six months in jail. JAIL TIME IS NOW REQUIRED * 2nd DWI Ð240 hours community service, Driver Improvement Program, Substance Abuse Counseling, Mandatory Jail Time, and up to six months in jail. * 3rd DWI ÐOne to Five Years Jail. (FELONY) * 4th DWI ÐTen to 30 Years Jail. (FELONY) All DWIs may include the loss of your DriverÕs license. THE INITIAL STOP: Most DWIs begin by the officer stopping your vehicle on a pretext or other minor violation in the hope that you have been drinking. This normally happens at night after 8:30 P.M.. when the officer knows that a significant number of motorists have had drinks. Often the cop will stake out a bar or other location that he knows people will have consumed alcoholic beverages. The officer stops the vehicle and then begins to ask the driver questions designed to elicit a confession that you have been drinking and feel impaired. The cop will then attempt to get the driver to take what he will claim are ÒstandardÓ field sobriety tests. THE INITIAL STOP: Field Tests As a general rule, you should refuse the field tests. There is no established penalty for such a refusal but the officer will probably take you to the station for a blood or breath test for alcohol. The main reason that you should refuse the field tests is that they are very subjective meaning that the officer is the sole judge of whether you passed or failed. There will likely be no tape or other evidence showing how well or poor you performed the exams Ð only the word of the arresting officer. THE INITIAL STOP: BAC Once at the station, your should refuse the breath or blood test unless you really believe that you will pass. There is a suspension of your driverÕs license for refusal but also a suspension (slightly shorter) if you fail the test. However, if you score significantly above the limit on a 1st or 2nd offense DWI there is mandatory jail time. Click here for answers to 10 most Frequently Asked Questions AFTER THE ARREST: HIRE AN ATTORNEY. Whether you hire this office or another, do not attempt to handle the case on your own. The District Attorney (DA) prosecutes these cases daily. You will hopefully only have one over your lifetime. Should you go against the DA on your own you will be mismatched. Both the cop and the prosecutor are experienced and familiar with the process: you are likely the only novice to the procedure. An attorney can examine the basis for the stop and whether the police officer did his job right. Depending on the circumstances, it is not uncommon to have the entire charge dismissed or won in court. Even if you are convicted or have to plead guilty, an attorney may still be able to keep the charge off your record. Sometimes hiring a lawyer can help you avoid the mandatory jail time or lessen the hours of community service. It is also especially necessary to hire a lawyer on higher grade DWIs to examine the previous convictions to see whether you should have been charged with a 1st offense instead of a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th level DWI. Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) as a function of Drinks DRINKS PER TWO HOURSOne drink is 1 ounce of 100 proof liquor, 12 ounces of beer, or 4 ounces of table wine. Fatigue, food intake and other conditions may cause your blood alcohol level to be different. weight in pounds 100 120 140 160 180 200 1 .04 .03 .03 .02 .02 .02 2 .08 .06 .05 .05 .04 .04 3 .11 .09 .08 .07 .06 .06 4 .15 .12 .11 .09 .08 .08 5 .19 .16 .13 .13 .12 .09 6 .23 .19 .16 .15 .14 .11 7 .26 .22 .19 .17 .16 .13 Click here for answers to 10 most Frequently Asked Questions
7. Richard Upton:

   A criminal defendant has a right not to testify, and jurors will be told that they cannot assume anything negative if the defendant decides to keep quiet. Of course, some jurors do make assumptions-and they cast their votes accordingly. On the other hand, there are some excellent reasons why a defendant might remain silent in court:

   1. If the defendant has previously been convicted of a crime, the prosecutor may be able to bring this fact out-but only if the defendant testifies. Evidence of a previous crime may cause some jurors to think that the defendant is guilty of the current crime, too.
      
      
   2. If the defendant testifies, the prosecutor may be able to bring out other information that tarnishes the defendant's reputation and discredits his testimony.
      
      
   3. Some defendants have a poor demeanor when speaking in public. A judge or jury may not believe a defendant who, though telling the truth, is a nervous witness and makes a bad impression.
      
      
   4. The defendant may have a perfectly good story which would nevertheless sound fishy to the average jury in that particular locale.
      
      
8. McGlynn, Glisson & Koch: The first line of defense is to challenge the reason that you were stopped. There are many things that you need to do before appearing in front of a judge.
9. Babcock Law Firm: Defense of a Louisiana DWI or Louisiana DUI charge can be quite challenging.€ Challenge number one is that the main witnesses are the police.€ Challenge number 2 is that there is scientific evidence from the breath test and/or the blood tests being presented against you.€ The officer's testimony, and Standard Field Sobriety tests may also present damaging evidence against you.
10. Brown Law Firm: There is a tremendous amount at stake for you. If you plead guilty you are facing 10 days to 6 months in jail, fines up to $ 1,000.00, 32 hours of forced community service, which may include picking up trash on the side of the highway, and a 90 day suspension of your license, all for just a 1st offense. If you blew above .15 there is mandatory jail time. With the potential risk so great you have no choice but to fight. An experienced DWI lawyer has tools available to defend your case. Remember you are innocent unless the State proves you guilty. Do not make the mistake of assuming the State can prove you guilty. Mistakes are made every day in DWI cases.
11. Ben Gibson: Although you are not required to have an attorney, it is a good idea to retain one if you have been placed under arrest, or charged with DUI/DWI, particularly if you have seriously injured or killed another person. DUI/DWI laws are strictly enforced. While there may be some arguments that you can make in your defense, or mistakes that were made by the police, your chance of successfully making those arguments or finding those mistakes is much greater if you have an attorney assisting you sooner, rather than later. Invoke your right to remain silent, and ask to speak to an attorney. If you are faced a DUI/DWI charge, an attorney may be your only hope for avoiding or reducing any penalties or imprisonment you face.
12. Jim Holt: Nearly 2 million drunk-driving cases are filed by law enforcement officers around the country every year.2 These cases take up a large portion of the criminal docket of most court systems. Because the penalties for drunk driving have increased, many of those charged with this crime now must seriously consider alternatives to pleading guilty or nolo contendere. For the rest of the 1990s, the absence of palatable alternatives for the accused driver will lead to a dramatic increase in these trials. Almost every attorney is at one time or another confronted with a client, friend, or family member charged with drunk driving. Because accused drunk drivers are immediately charged with a crime, drunk-driving cases represent the single largest category of criminal infractions of all reported cases, with about 200,000 more cases processed each year than all theft and larceny offenses combined.1 Even attorneys who do not generally handle criminal matters are routinely asked how an accused person should proceed in a drunk-driving case. In the 1960s, driving under the influence of alcohol was considered a minor offense, leading to modest fines; in the 1990s, it is considered the most serious misdemeanor offense. In several states, repeat offenders are considered felons. Nearly 2 million drunk-driving cases are filed by law enforcement officers around the country every year.2 These cases take up a large portion of the criminal docket of most court systems. Because the penalties for drunk driving have increased, many of those charged with this crime now must seriously consider alternatives to pleading guilty or nolo contendere. For the rest of the 1990s, the absence of palatable alternatives for the accused driver will lead to a dramatic increase in these trials. Most attorneys harbor many myths and misconceptions about this offense. These can lead to malpractice. In this article, I will address five myths about defending accused drunk drivers. Myth Number 1: Most people accused of this crime are guilty. This is perhaps the most troubling mythÑone harbored by attorneys and the general public. In my opinion, an attorney who believes this should never represent a person accused of drunk driving. That mind-set can eliminate objectivity. In the overwhelming majority of drunk-driving cases in which a chemical test is obtained by police, an infrared breath analysis machine is used, not a blood test.3 This primary evidence is vulnerable to attack by a skillful practitioner. Most attorneys have no idea how woefully inadequate infrared breath machine are as evidence-gathering devices. These machines are so unsophisticated that virtually no scientist would ever trust the results as a basis for scholarly research or scientific investigation. Yet attorneys assume that since the state has approved the machine, its accuracy and reliability are not subject to challenge. There are at least 30 ways to rebut the evidence from these machines if the attorney understands how the machines work, what causes them to malfunction, and that they are nonspecific for alcohol.4 Without doing exhaustive research, no attorney would understand their internal workings enough to cross-examine the state's witnesses effectively on their alleged accuracy. The "opinion" evidence gathered by police officers typically consists of field or roadside sobriety tests. These agility tests are supposed to indicate that the person suspected of drunk driving was actually impaired or in some way "a less safe driver." Recent scholarly studies have shown that field sobriety tests are not given uniformly, there is no scientific basis for assuming they are valid, and most officers either require the wrong tests or improperly instruct the suspect on how to perform the tests.5 A defense attorney can obtain a pre-trial ruling that the tests and their alleged indication of impairment must be excluded from evidence due to lack of scientific foundation and faulty instructions. Any other "observation" evidence from a police officer will generally be inconclusive and subject to many interpretations by experts. For example, bloodshot eyes can be caused by conditions other than drunkenness, including contact lenses, allergies, or lack of sleep. The defense attorney should analyze the evidence that will likely be presented and take the time to investigate the medical background of clients and the environmental contaminants they have been exposed to. Most alleged evidence of intoxication can be neutralized or eliminated from the state's presentation with findings from this investigation. The defense should leave no stone unturned. These cases require detailed investigation, as does a complex murder case that involves fiber evidence, ballistics tests, or other intricate issues. Attorneys who do not investigate thoroughly and defend the client aggressively do the client a disservice and expose themselves to possible liability. In addition, they harm the legal profession by failing to fully represent the client. Myth Number 2: Drunk driving is a minor offense. Many veteran attorneys remember when drunk-driving convictions led to fines of $50 to $150, with no suspension of driving privileges and no penalties beyond going to court, paying the fine, and being chastised by the judge. Those days are gone. One reason some attorneys still do not give proper consideration to these cases is that their only contact with the client occurs when they enter the plea. The attorney doesn't experience the penalties that later befall the client. A client accused of drunk driving deserves to be represented zealously because an unjustified conviction will have repercussions lasting for the rest of the client's life. Not all the "penalties" for these convictions are legal in nature. The stigma of a conviction can exact a severe psychological toll. A substantial number of drivers whose licenses are suspended continue to drive.6 Typically, they do so to provide for themselves and their families, despite the possibility of being jailed for driving with a suspended license. A surprising number are never caught. Yet, they live in terror of being stopped at a license check or a roadside sobriety checkpoint. Those unjustly convicted should not have to live with this hardship. Most of those convicted also suffer serious financial and social consequences. In most states, a drunk-driving conviction can never be removed from a driving record, so convicted offenders must endure the consequences of their convictions for the rest of their lives. Some blame themselves, because they know that they had something to drink before they were stopped by the police. However, it is not illegal for adults to drive after drinking alcoholic beverages in any state. The crime of drunk driving occurs only when the person's blood-alcohol level has exceeded the arbitrary numerical standard set by the state, or when the person has demonstrated bad driving that can be causally connected to impairment due to a high blood-alcohol level. Most attorneys would cringe at the thought that they might have poorly represented a client on a civil matter and that the substandard representation could come back to haunt them. Malpractice in drunk-driving cases carries the same potential for litigation, except that most convicted drivers don't realize that their attorneys may not have properly represented them when advising them to plead guilty or nolo contendere without first checking into the facts of the case. The client doesn't know whether the state's case was validly made or based on an illegal stop. The client is not familiar with the many ways that breath machines may be inaccurate. That is why people need attorneys in the first place-to investigate the case thoroughly and recommend the best alternative. Myth Number 3: Any attorney can defend an accused drunk driver. If a friend or relative asked me for help on a matter involving antitrust litigation, my response would be to consult an expert in the field. I would probably inquire with the state bar association or phone colleagues to try to locate an expert in antitrust law. I would try to send the client to the most skilled lawyer I could find who specializes in this area of practice. When a prospective client walks into the average law office and asks for help on a drunk-driving case, some attorneys will agree to represent that person even if they have never handled criminal matters. The attorney may advise the person to plead guilty or nolo contendere (depending on state law) and work out an arrangement with the court to keep his or her license with the least possible suspension time. The attorney may not adequately investigate the facts of the case or get copies of documents and other evidence that are readily available through discovery. These naive attorneys don't realize how much exposure to liability they have if they counsel clients to give up their constitutional and statutory rights and plead guilty to this serious offense. Yet these same attorneys would probably not hesitate to refer these same clients to specialists if they were charged with securities fraud. Some clients discover the folly of their plea before the statute of limitations on their potential malpractice claim against their former attorney expires. A suit for malpractice may be the only way they can hope to achieve some semblance of recovery for the devastating effects of a drunk-driving conviction. After a conviction, these clients soon learn what most drunk-driving specialists already know: The penalties are not only serious, but like the Energizer bunny in the TV ads, they keep going and going and going. Consequences like license suspension, fines, community service, probation, mandatory counseling or alcohol treatment, and possible incarceration (even for first offenders) are well known. These cases also carry a plethora of other consequences that will confront the convicted driver days, months, or even years after. For example, in most states insurance rates for convicted drunk drivers will increase 500 percent to 1,000 percent above the premiums paid before the conviction (if coverage isn't canceled).7 In South Carolina, a person with a five-year-old car carrying only liability coverage can expect to pay $10,000 to $11,000 in additional premiums over the first three years after a first-offense drunk-driving conviction.8 This increase in insurance costs is well known. But many attorneys are unaware that most credit bureaus now include drunk-driving convictions on credit reports. This not only will affect future credit, but it may also prevent convicted drivers from getting jobs where the prospective employer runs a credit check in processing job applications. A drunk-driving conviction may bar or restrict employment alternatives with a significant segment of the job market.9 Other penalties have been imposed on defendants in different states. They include the following: College students charged with or convicted of drunk driving have been suspended from school for at least one semester or one quarter.10 Recipients of unemployment benefits who have drunk-driving convictions have had their benefits eliminated.11 Those in military service who are charged with or convicted of drunk-driving offenses can be summarily discharged or required to take extensive alcohol-education courses, restricted to military bases, deprived of normal base privileges, or saddled with other forms of punishment.12 Professionals (like attorneys and judges) may be disciplined by their professional regulatory authorities.13 Many people wrongly convicted of drunk driving need not passively suffer these consequences. Relief may be as close as the nearest attorney who handles legal malpractice cases. Any judge or jury will sympathize with former trusting clients who can show that they lost jobs or homes and suffered other serious penalties as a result of a conviction that should never have occurred. Myth Number 4: These cases can't be won. This is the most prevalent myth about these cases. Not only do members of the general public believe this; so do many attorneys. In fact. experienced drunk-driving defense lawyers "win" most cases of first offenders when there is no evidence of a wreck or other manifest bad driving. The term "win" is in quotation marks here because winning may mean having the charge reduced to a different offense or otherwise obtaining a plea bargain that avoids a conviction. The availability of alternative plea arrangements for offenders varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Where jury trials are available, success rates for acquittal are surprisingly good. The national average for acquittals is about 50 percent for those accused of drunk driving if their cases are heard by juries. In some jurisdictions, only about 20 percent to 30 percent of all drunk-driving arrests lead to a conviction, while other states have an 80 percent to 90 percent conviction rate.14 In the few states that have abandoned the right to jury trials for misdemeanor drunk-driving cases,15 defense attorneys will have a more difficult task convincing a judge to acquit. However, this only applies to about 5 percent of all drunk-driving cases. The formula for success is to investigate exhaustively; conduct pre-trial discovery and motion practice aggressively; use evidentiary maneuvers and procedural devices skillfully; and present a well-conceived, thoroughly choreographed trial with expert witnesses, character witnesses, and other tried-and-true tactics for successful defense of criminal cases. Many people know someone who has been charged with this offense and pleaded guilty or nolo contendere. Because most people believe that these cases are difficult or even impossible to win, the average client will not challenge the trusted attorney's "sage advice." Attorneys who enter pleas of guilty or nolo contendere for these clients will never win those cases. Their files for these clients probably contain only three or four pieces of paper, clearly indicating that they have not performed "due diligence" investigations. Granted, the client may have told the attorney that he or she could not afford to contest the charges. But was the client fully informed of the penalties that will follow a conviction? If the client had known this, would the client have chosen to seek a trial to challenge the state's case? In explaining to clients why they should consider pleading not guilty and letting a jury decide their fate, I often compare receiving a conviction for drunk driving with receiving a diagnosis of cancer. Getting rid of the problem may be expensive and difficult and will involve some risks, but the alternative is much worse. This may seem like a bad analogy, but consider the "cancer" that attacks the lives of convicted drunk drivers. Some have committed suicide after incarceration for drunk driving. Certainly, people who suffer from untreated cancer (or their survivors) will not be pleased if they later discover that the doctor should have recommended surgery, not vitamin therapy. Similarly, people who suffer the consequences of ill-advised guilty pleas to drunk-driving charges will not be pleased with their lawyers. Myth Number 5: Drunk-driving cases are just like any other criminal case. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In many areas, the courts handle these cases differently from other offenses. Here are two examples that make the point. First, consider the normal prosecution where the state proposes to use physical evidence as part of its case-in-chief. For example, suppose John Doe is charged with murder, having allegedly shot Tom Jones. The prosecution will normally order ballistics tests, take blood spatter patterns and fingerprints, and collect other physical evidence. That evidence is always subject to independent analysis by the defense attorney representing the accused. This is not true in drunk-driving cases, where breath tests usually are not required to be preserved. Very few states require police officers taking a breath sample to capture some of the breath so it can be analyzed independently at a later date.16 Yet, all modern breath-analysis machines can provide sealed samples at a minimal cost. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that it is perfectly acceptable that such critical evidence is destroyed, even where the state could have preserved it for less than $1 per sample.17 Another consideration is the use of roadside sobriety checkpoints (roadblocks) at which drivers are briefly detained to determine if they are under the influence of alcohol or drugs. More than 40 states permit this, and the U.S. Supreme Court has given its stamp of approval to this encroachment on our Fourth Amendment rights.18 A few states like Louisiana and Texas have ruled that their state constitutions provide protection against such arbitrary searches and seizures.19 Manifestly unfair judicial decisions have been rendered in many other areas in an effort to stamp out drunk driving.20 A book could be written about these unfair and unconstitutionally premised state court decisions. Suffice it to say that the judicial system has erected difficult hurdles for practitioners who defend drunk-driving cases. No attorney likes to hear the word "malpractice." However, I am convinced that faulty representation in these cases is blatant attorney malpractice. Often, the attorney's negligent handling of a drunk-driving case is attributable to a defeatist attitude. Lawyers must take these cases seriously. Either they must fully educate themselves on this subject so they can provide an effective defense, or they must refer these cases to lawyers with expertise in the field. This will protect these clients from great harm and provide the lawyers with many peaceful nights, free from the concern that they may have improperly advised a client.