On May 13, at approximately 1:45 p.m., a 4-year-old child was struck by a vehicle on Halstead Avenue. The driver told police that she pulled into a driveway, parked her vehicle, and as she was on the passenger's side of the vehicle taking something out of the back seat, the vehicle began to roll backwards, the front passenger's side door pinning the child's leg. The incident caused laceration and bleeding, and the pedestrian was taken to Westchester County Medical Center for further medical evaluation and treatment. The vehicle was towed for a safety inspection and it was later determined that the automatic transmission and parking system had no problems, police said.
Building Struck
On May 14, at approximately 4:30 p.m., one vehicle struck another and a building near the intersection of North Barry and Halstead avenues. The driver said he was traveling westbound on Halstead Avenue and, as he approached the intersection, could not see what color the traffic light was. He tried to stop as he saw the second vehicle entering the intersection, but was unable to. After striking the second vehicle, the first vehicle continued moving south and struck a building at the intersection. Both drivers were taken to Sound Shore Medical Center.
Source
Monday, June 28, 2010
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Man gets five years in DUI crash that killed his friend
TAMPA — Eleven days before his wedding, Justin Jones took his groomsmen to a Buccaneers football game. The guys, whom he'd known since junior high school, packed into his Ford SUV afterward, excited.
It was Oct. 19, 2008. The Bucs had won. The Rays were beating the Boston Red Sox for their first American League pennant. The game blasted on the radio.
Jones ran a red light and slammed into a semitrailer truck, killing his 27-year-old college roommate Dustin Alderman and injuring others.
He would later swear to his attorney Paul Duval Johnson that he didn't know he was impaired. Amid the commotion of postgame traffic, he saw the car in front of him turn right and proceed into the intersection. He thought the light had turned green.
Jones, whose blood-alcohol level was 0.13, was charged with DUI manslaughter, three counts of DUI with serious bodily injury and two counts of DUI with property damage.
State motor vehicle records show he'd been cited five times for speeding — mostly rushing to and from class at the University of Central Florida, his attorney said.
Earlier this year, Jones pleaded guilty to the DUI charges. He would have faced up to life in prison had a jury convicted him.
On Thursday, he was sentenced according to a deal with the prosecution: five years in prison followed by 10 years' probation.
Family members on both sides watched the sentencing. Many cried. None spoke in open court.
Before he was handcuffed and taken away, Jones kissed his fiancee goodbye.
Source
It was Oct. 19, 2008. The Bucs had won. The Rays were beating the Boston Red Sox for their first American League pennant. The game blasted on the radio.
Jones ran a red light and slammed into a semitrailer truck, killing his 27-year-old college roommate Dustin Alderman and injuring others.
He would later swear to his attorney Paul Duval Johnson that he didn't know he was impaired. Amid the commotion of postgame traffic, he saw the car in front of him turn right and proceed into the intersection. He thought the light had turned green.
Jones, whose blood-alcohol level was 0.13, was charged with DUI manslaughter, three counts of DUI with serious bodily injury and two counts of DUI with property damage.
State motor vehicle records show he'd been cited five times for speeding — mostly rushing to and from class at the University of Central Florida, his attorney said.
Earlier this year, Jones pleaded guilty to the DUI charges. He would have faced up to life in prison had a jury convicted him.
On Thursday, he was sentenced according to a deal with the prosecution: five years in prison followed by 10 years' probation.
Family members on both sides watched the sentencing. Many cried. None spoke in open court.
Before he was handcuffed and taken away, Jones kissed his fiancee goodbye.
Source
Monday, March 15, 2010
Ignition locks deter DUI, official says
More then 4,000 drivers in Massachusetts have been forced to use an ignition interlock device on their cars since tougher drunken driving laws went into effect in 2006, according to state statistics released yesterday for a program that has been called one of the most effective strategies to help curb repeat drunken driving.“In two years of data, few could argue that it’s not having a sincere deterrent effect and changing lives,’’ said Rachel Kaprielian, registrar of motor vehicles.
The devices, known as IIDs, were part of a more expansive package of tougher measures that became part of Melanie’s Law in 2005. Repeat drunken drivers now face mandatory jail sentences and longer license suspensions.
Under the interlock program, those who have been convicted of a second offense must have the device installed in their cars once they seek to have their licenses reinstated, or if they received a license immediately under a hardship appeal.
Of the hundreds of drivers who have completed the minimum two-year program, only 30 have been arrested and convicted a third time, the statistics show, a recidivism rate of less than 2 percent.
The way the program works is the driver has to breathe into the device whenever starting the car and would have to breathe into the device again every 20 minutes. A person can drive a car only if it has the interlock device. Anyone who breathes into it on behalf of the driver could face penalties.
The driver’s license would have restrictions to notify police of the requirements. The program runs at least two years, but a judge can require a longer sentence.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving has endorsed the program, calling it one of the most effective parts of Melanie’s Law.
While a third of the people arrested for drunken driving each year, or about 18,000, are repeat offenders, the devices have become a new control for law enforcement.
“Whenever you can separate the drinking from the driving, it’s kind of doing the job,’’ said David DeIuliis, a spokesman for MADD’s Massachusetts chapter.
He said supporters are pushing for a measure that would have the devices installed for anyone convicted of a first offense. Nationwide, more than 20 states require devices on the first offense, while other states let judges decide. Three states do not have provisions for ignition devices.
James M. Milligan, a Norwell defense lawyer who handles drunken-driving cases, said the devices have become an integral part of the state’s judicial system. He said defense lawyers continue to question the overall accuracy of the devices, noting that different substances have been known to trigger false readings. He said the devices should be reserved for the most serious of repeat offenders.
But Milligan also said the devices have become an appropriate measure of the justice system, allowing defendants to have their licenses reinstated while assuring they stay sober.
Source
The devices, known as IIDs, were part of a more expansive package of tougher measures that became part of Melanie’s Law in 2005. Repeat drunken drivers now face mandatory jail sentences and longer license suspensions.
Under the interlock program, those who have been convicted of a second offense must have the device installed in their cars once they seek to have their licenses reinstated, or if they received a license immediately under a hardship appeal.
Of the hundreds of drivers who have completed the minimum two-year program, only 30 have been arrested and convicted a third time, the statistics show, a recidivism rate of less than 2 percent.
The way the program works is the driver has to breathe into the device whenever starting the car and would have to breathe into the device again every 20 minutes. A person can drive a car only if it has the interlock device. Anyone who breathes into it on behalf of the driver could face penalties.
The driver’s license would have restrictions to notify police of the requirements. The program runs at least two years, but a judge can require a longer sentence.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving has endorsed the program, calling it one of the most effective parts of Melanie’s Law.
While a third of the people arrested for drunken driving each year, or about 18,000, are repeat offenders, the devices have become a new control for law enforcement.
“Whenever you can separate the drinking from the driving, it’s kind of doing the job,’’ said David DeIuliis, a spokesman for MADD’s Massachusetts chapter.
He said supporters are pushing for a measure that would have the devices installed for anyone convicted of a first offense. Nationwide, more than 20 states require devices on the first offense, while other states let judges decide. Three states do not have provisions for ignition devices.
James M. Milligan, a Norwell defense lawyer who handles drunken-driving cases, said the devices have become an integral part of the state’s judicial system. He said defense lawyers continue to question the overall accuracy of the devices, noting that different substances have been known to trigger false readings. He said the devices should be reserved for the most serious of repeat offenders.
But Milligan also said the devices have become an appropriate measure of the justice system, allowing defendants to have their licenses reinstated while assuring they stay sober.
Source
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Ignition locks deter DUI in Mass
BOSTON — Massachusetts Registrar of Motor Vehicles Rachel Kaprielian says a 4-year-old law that requires ignition locks on convicted drunken drivers’ cars has been successful in reducing the number of repeat offenders.
Kaprielian tells The Boston Globe that more then 4,000 Bay State drivers have been required to use an ignition interlock device on their cars since tougher drunken driving laws went into effect in 2006.
The law requires those who have been convicted of a second offense to have the device installed in their cars. They must breathe into the devices before the car will start.Registry statistics show that of the hundreds of drivers with the devices, only 30 have been arrested and convicted a third time.
Defense lawyers question the accuracy of the devices.
Source
Kaprielian tells The Boston Globe that more then 4,000 Bay State drivers have been required to use an ignition interlock device on their cars since tougher drunken driving laws went into effect in 2006.
The law requires those who have been convicted of a second offense to have the device installed in their cars. They must breathe into the devices before the car will start.Registry statistics show that of the hundreds of drivers with the devices, only 30 have been arrested and convicted a third time.
Defense lawyers question the accuracy of the devices.
Source
Monday, February 15, 2010
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Decides for Driver In DUI Question
In Massachusetts, if you are pulled over under suspicion of DUI or OUI, you will be given the option to take a breathalyzer test, during which two breath samples are taken. Two samples are taken so the accuracy of one can be checked against the other.
If the two breath samples differ by more than 0.02 percent, the results are deemed to be inaccurate and inadmissible in court. If the samples are within 0.02 percent of each other, then they may be considered to be accurate -- but only the lower reading is used as evidence in court.
Earlier this year, Dennis Steele was pulled over under suspicion of drunk driving. He was tested with a breathalyzer -- blowing 0.09 percent blood alcohol content (BAC) on his first try and 0.10 just a moment later. In accordance with Massachusetts statute, the lower reading was admitted into evidence.
However, prosecuting attorneys representing Franklin and Hampshire Counties attempted to include the higher BAC reading during the trial, citing its importance as evidence. After Mr. Steele's conviction, the case found itself before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
In Commonwealth vs. Dennis P. Steele, the highest court in the state found on behalf of Mr. Steele, upholding the original statute and rendering the higher BAC reading inadmissible.
There has been some dissatisfaction among law enforcement agencies with this ruling, but it's important to remember why two readings are taken in the first place. Two readings are required to ensure the accuracy or "validity" of the breathalyzer test -- not to attain additional evidence. If too large a gap is found between the first and second reading, a more accurate reading should be sought to be used as evidence.
Further, many questions have been raised recently on how well breathalyzer tests report actual BAC. The accuracy of breath tests largely depends on the officer administrating the test and the overall quality of the testing device itself. A higher reading may not be the result of under-estimated BAC, but improper use of the breathalyzer and/or a miscalculation.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court based its decision on a desire to uphold the current state statute already in place and to avoid courtroom confusion. While the ruling does, technically, benefit drivers, it does not seem to do so at the expense of public safety.
Source
If the two breath samples differ by more than 0.02 percent, the results are deemed to be inaccurate and inadmissible in court. If the samples are within 0.02 percent of each other, then they may be considered to be accurate -- but only the lower reading is used as evidence in court.
Earlier this year, Dennis Steele was pulled over under suspicion of drunk driving. He was tested with a breathalyzer -- blowing 0.09 percent blood alcohol content (BAC) on his first try and 0.10 just a moment later. In accordance with Massachusetts statute, the lower reading was admitted into evidence.
However, prosecuting attorneys representing Franklin and Hampshire Counties attempted to include the higher BAC reading during the trial, citing its importance as evidence. After Mr. Steele's conviction, the case found itself before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
In Commonwealth vs. Dennis P. Steele, the highest court in the state found on behalf of Mr. Steele, upholding the original statute and rendering the higher BAC reading inadmissible.
There has been some dissatisfaction among law enforcement agencies with this ruling, but it's important to remember why two readings are taken in the first place. Two readings are required to ensure the accuracy or "validity" of the breathalyzer test -- not to attain additional evidence. If too large a gap is found between the first and second reading, a more accurate reading should be sought to be used as evidence.
Further, many questions have been raised recently on how well breathalyzer tests report actual BAC. The accuracy of breath tests largely depends on the officer administrating the test and the overall quality of the testing device itself. A higher reading may not be the result of under-estimated BAC, but improper use of the breathalyzer and/or a miscalculation.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court based its decision on a desire to uphold the current state statute already in place and to avoid courtroom confusion. While the ruling does, technically, benefit drivers, it does not seem to do so at the expense of public safety.
Source
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)