The Hudson Law Office

DUI Library:

QQ

 To our fellow lawyers:

In recent years, many attorneys who practice criminal law have been overwhelmed by the constant change in the field of DUI defense, both legal (e.g. drastic revisions in driver's license hearings) and technological (e.g. interlock devices, SCRAM bracelets and source code challenges).  Some lawyers have decided to refer their DUI cases to attorneys who focus on the field.  That's us.  Tom Hudson is the first lawyer in the State of Florida to pass the National Board Certification Test in DUI Defense.  Only 47 lawyers nationwide have ever passed that test.  Between Tom Hudson and Andrew Mikos, we have dozens of DUI jury trials in the past two years, and have spent nearly 150 hours in the last twelve months in Continuing Legal Education, gaining expertise in this rapidly-evolving area of the law.  Tom is an Instructor of the SFST's, and has been trained as a Breath Test Operator and a NHTSA Drug Recognition Expert (DRE).  If you would like to refer your DUI clients to our office, let us know.  We will keep you on the file as client liaison and compensate you accordingly, while giving your client the benefit of our training in, and focus on, DUI defense.  We believe that it is a "win-win" situation.  Call us at (941) 957-0500 in Sarasota and Bradenton, or (305) 292-8384 in Key West.

Crawford applies to Lab Reports.  So Says the Florida Supreme Court.  Check it out!  Here is the case that applies to DUI's.  They can't just put in the breath test affidavit.

A KENTUCKY court tells CMI to give up the code.  Of course, the accused was from Kentucky, too.   Can you see the writing on the wall?   Here is the case.

Now THAT's a Source-Code Order.  Finally, a judge has the stones to stand up to the corporate monolith and speak in favor of the people of this country.  Judge Nordby, you rock!!!   Here is the Opinion.

FDLE letter about CMI's programming error in the 8000 which caused it to accept bad samples.  Here it is.

Leon County Judge Excludes Intoxilyzer results because of the susceptibility to manipulation inherent in permitting police to tell subjects how long to blow.  (August 21, 2007)   Here is the opinion.

Judge Kimberly Bonner holds CMI, Inc. in contempt for failing to turn over source code.  Here is the order.

The Minnesota Supreme Court orders CMI to turn over the source code for the Intoxilyzer 5000 EN.   See Underdahl v. Commissioner of Public Safety here.

Great video.  This Ameriquest Mortgage commercial would make a great argument on reasonable doubt.

Good New Florida Supreme Court Case (and overruling the 2nd DCA) that Cracked Windshield is not Reasonable Articulable Suspicion for traffic stop.  (July 2007)

A Good New Case on HGN restating that it requires expert testimony. (June, 2007)

The Police Can't Judge Impairment by Breath.  The NHTSA Study which shows that police cannot judge impairment from the smell of alcohol on a person's breath.  This is a definitive study, and one of the co-authors is Marcelline Burns, who co-authored ALL of the SFST studies. 

HGN Article-Here is a good article describing the different kinds of nystagmus.  Don't believe everything they say about all kinds, however.

The 2006 NHTSA Standardized Field Sobriety Test Instruction Manual-Lawyers should know this manual, because the police don't.  This is not the entire manual, but is Session VIII, which is the actual instructions for the tests.

The NHTSA Prosecutor's Guide to HGN-Nice to see what the feds are teaching the prosecutors.  Like the article above, it is useful for cross, but don't believe everything they say.  Go to the original studies and read them for yourself.  

The Original 1977 California Study Supporting the SFST's-This is the study upon which the SFST's were based.  If you look closely on page 30, you will see that rather than having an accuracy of 77% or 80%, as police claim, the "false positive" rate, or percentage of sober drivers who were arrested was 46.5%!  In other words, it's basically a coin flip.

The Florida Study-Often cited by the police for an accuracy of 95% for the SFST's.  If you read it, it does nothing of the sort.

The San Diego Study-If you check pages 27 and 28, you'll see how even the NHTSA never intended the SFST's to measure "impairment."

The 1995 Colorado Study-Another field study that shows a high false positive rate for the SFST's in actual practice.

The NHTSA Marine Environment Guide to the SFST's-They claim that they can be used for BUI cases, but the numbers don't bear them out.