Volvo S60 T6

Download Volvo S60 T6 photo. Find Volvo S60 T6 images.

Wallpaper Volvo S60 T6

E mais uma das atrações do Salão do Automóvel desembarca oficialmente no país. Por R$ 169.900, o novo Volvo S60 chega logo na versão de topo, turbo T6, para brigar com rivais de muito peso por aqui. E podemos afirmar que arsenal para isso ele tem.

Suas linhas externas são fascinantes, com uma fluidez que traz uma espécie de esportividade elegante, inimaginável nos Volvo de não muito tempo atrás. E na cabine ele continua com a ótima impressão, apresentando materiais que evocam a modernidade, mas sem nunca perder o bom gosto, como o console de aço escovado, no já conhecido “formato de cadeira” visto no C30.

Toda essa aura nervosa combina perfeitamente com o 3.0 de seis cilindros exclusivo da versão T6 (mais tarde chegam os S60 mais simples e com motores menores). Seus 304 cv e 44,8 kgfm de torque garantem uma aceleração de 6,5 segundos para ir de 0 a 100 km/h, e velocidade máxima de 250 km/h, segundo a marca.

Como era de se esperar, sua lista de equipamentos é grande, trazendo teto solar e direção elétricos, ar-condicionado digital, piloto automático, rodas de 18 polegadas e sistema de GPS, entre muitos outros. Já o pacote de segurança mantém o clássico padrão Volvo, trazendo vários airbags e sistemas de auxílio à frenagem.

Alguns dos destaques são os sistemas de segurança adicional do S60, como o que detecta presenças nos pontos cegos do carro, o de frear sozinho caso o carro esteja a até 35 km/h e detecte um pedestre à frente, ou o piloto automático adaptativo, que mantém as velocidade e distância ao carro da frente previamente selecionadas pelo motorista.

Like? Volvo S60 T6 for wallpaper? Shar this image to Volvo S60 T6 for your friend.

DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - No Collateral Estoppel says S. Ct. Wyoming

Download DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - No Collateral Estoppel says S. Ct. Wyoming photo. Find DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - No Collateral Estoppel says S. Ct. Wyoming images.

Wallpaper DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - No Collateral Estoppel says S. Ct. Wyoming

In Elliott v. State of Wyoming, --- P.3d ----, 2011 WL 662662 (Wyo.), 2011 WY 32, NCDD member Michael Vang obtained a ruling in the implied consent hearing, that the arresting officer lacked probable cause to charge his client with DWI. Vang sought to enforce this fining in the separate criminal action. The matter came before the Supreme Court of Wyoming as a certified question. As rephrased by the Court, the question to be decided was:

Does collateral estoppel apply to an Office of Administrative Hearing [examiner's] ruling that found an officer lacked probable cause to arrest a defendant under Wyoming's implied consent statute, for the same incidents resulting in the defendant's conditional plea for DWUI?

[Elliott] and his attorney were the only participants in any of the implied consent hearings resulting in the findings of no probable cause to arrest for DWUI that [Elliott] was attempting to use as collateral estoppel and res judicata as a basis to dismiss the underlying DWUI charge that was the basis of the conditional plea and if the issue is resolved in favor of [Elliott] it is a dispositive issue that will result in dismissal. The Supreme Court acknowledged that the preclusion doctrine of collateral estoppel applies in the administrative context. Citing to the Restatement, the court noted:

Even if the elements of collateral estoppel are met, several exceptions may apply:



Although an issue is actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment, and the determination is essential to the judgment, relitigation of the issue in a subsequent action between the parties is not precluded in the following circumstances:



(1) The party against whom preclusion is sought could not, as a matter of law, have obtained review of the judgment in the initial action; or



(2) The issue is one of law and (a) the two actions involve claims that are substantially unrelated, or (b) a new determination is warranted in order to take account of an intervening change in the applicable legal context or otherwise to avoid inequitable administration of the laws; or



(3) A new determination of the issue is warranted by differences in the quality or extensiveness of the procedures followed in the two courts or by factors relating to the allocation of jurisdiction between them; or



(4) The party against whom preclusion is sought had a significantly heavier burden of persuasion with respect to the issue in the initial action than in the subsequent action; the burden has shifted to his adversary; or the adversary has a significantly heavier burden than he had in the first action; or



(5) There is a clear and convincing need for a new determination of the issue (a) because of the potential adverse impact of the determination on the public interest or the interests of persons not themselves parties in the initial action, (b) because it was not sufficiently foreseeable at the time of the initial action that the issue would arise in the context of a subsequent action, or (c) because the party sought to be precluded, as a result of the conduct of his adversary or other special circumstances, did not have an adequate opportunity or incentive to obtain a full and fair adjudication in the initial action.



Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 28 (1980).

In declining to apply collateral estoppel, the Court pointed out the following:

"[W]e disagree that privity similarly exists between WYDOT and the offices of the county and district attorneys involved. “Privity is not established ... from the mere fact that persons may happen to be interested in the same question or in proving or disproving the same state of facts.” 47 Am.Jur.2d, Judgments § 589. Here, WYDOT is only granted the authority to suspend a driver's license after an arrest and to thereafter defend that suspension in an administrative context. See Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 16-3-103, 16-3-104, 16-3-112; 31-5-233; 31-6-102, 31-6-103 (LexisNexis 2009). On the other hand, the county and district attorneys are responsible for prosecuting, investigating, and representing the State of Wyoming in all criminal matters." (Editors comment: this 'difference' is farcical: the mere fact that 'one is named Jones, and one is named Smith' really doesn't explain why privity does not exist between two agencies performing the same task while interpreting the same statutes and the same issues and the same case opinions and the same constitutional issues, albeit it they do so in two different proceedings)

Additionally, the court found that the prosecutors were denied the full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue:

"[W]e are persuaded that county and district attorneys, because of the nature of their offices, are denied a full and fair opportunity to litigate any issue in an administrative hearing."

Quoting from an Illinois case and adopting its rationale, the court repeated the holding in People v. Moore:

"The court explained that the legislative purpose of license suspension hearings was to provide an expeditious means of having a defendant's case heard in the context of an extremely limited scope. ( People v. Moore (1990), 138 Ill.2d 162, 169.) In finding that the doctrine of collateral estoppel did not preclude the litigation of certain issues previously decided at the defendant's suspension hearing, the court stated:



“[I]f these proceedings were given preclusive effect, it would render meaningless this legislative purpose. That is, the practical effect would be that the State could not rely on the sworn police report at these proceedings but, rather, would be required to have the arresting officer, and other witnesses, testify. The goal of conducting swift hearings for the sole purpose of determining whether a court has sufficient reason to rescind summary suspension of a motorist's driving privileges will be thwarted. Given this probable result, and the fact that no injustice will be done to either party by declining to give preclusive effect to these license suspension hearings, we decline to do so.”

All is not lost, however. The Montana Supreme Court's ruling explained why collateral estoppel could not flow from an administrative hearing to the criminal case. On the other hand, the rationale for so doing leaves it clear that collateral estoppel from the criminal case to the administrative hearing could still be applied, in those unusual circumstances where the criminal ruling goes first. On a personal note, I wish to commend Mr. Vang for his efforts in this arena, as many of us followed his efforts as this matter unfolded...





Visit Americas Top DUI and DWI Attorneys at http://www.1800dialdui.com or call 1-800-DIAL-DUI to find a DUI OUI DWI Attorney Lawyer Now! Like? DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - No Collateral Estoppel says S. Ct. Wyoming for wallpaper? Shar this image to DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - No Collateral Estoppel says S. Ct. Wyoming for your friend.

River wallpaper

Download River wallpaper photo. Find River wallpaper images.

Wallpaper River wallpaper

Like? River wallpaper for wallpaper? Shar this image to River wallpaper for your friend.

Disbarred Lawyer Allegedly in Court with Client Is Jailed; Chicago Case Is 2nd in 2 Months - News - ABA Journal

Download Disbarred Lawyer Allegedly in Court with Client Is Jailed; Chicago Case Is 2nd in 2 Months - News - ABA Journal photo. Find Disbarred Lawyer Allegedly in Court with Client Is Jailed; Chicago Case Is 2nd in 2 Months - News - ABA Journal images.

Wallpaper Disbarred Lawyer Allegedly in Court with Client Is Jailed; Chicago Case Is 2nd in 2 Months - News - ABA Journal

Disbarred Lawyer Allegedly in Court with Client Is Jailed; Chicago Case Is 2nd in 2 Months - News - ABA Journal

Visit Americas Top DUI and DWI Attorneys at http://www.1800dialdui.com or call 1-800-DIAL-DUI to find a DUI OUI DWI Attorney Lawyer Now! Like? Disbarred Lawyer Allegedly in Court with Client Is Jailed; Chicago Case Is 2nd in 2 Months - News - ABA Journal for wallpaper? Shar this image to Disbarred Lawyer Allegedly in Court with Client Is Jailed; Chicago Case Is 2nd in 2 Months - News - ABA Journal for your friend.

DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Illegal Inventory Search of Vehicle

Download DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Illegal Inventory Search of Vehicle photo. Find DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Illegal Inventory Search of Vehicle images.

Wallpaper DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Illegal Inventory Search of Vehicle

In Kilburn v. State of Florida, --- So.3d ----, 2011 WL 589686 (Fla.App. 1 Dist.), the defendant was arrested for DUI. Pursuant to placing the driver and sole occupant into custody, and because the vehicle was in an unsafe place, the vehicle was impounded and towed. As part of the impoundment process, the deputy conducted an “inventory search” of the truck. The deputy testified that Sheriff's Office policy required an inventory search to be done whenever a vehicle is towed, but that there were no standardized criteria or procedures for conducting such a search. During the search, the deputy found marijuana (less than 20 grams) and pills that turned out to be alprazolam and hydrocodone. Kilburn was charged with possession of these drugs in addition to the felony DUI charge. On appeal, the defendant claims that his motion to suppress based upon an illegal search should have been granted. The appeals court agreed. The court first found that the impoundment itself was legal. The court discussed the general law applicable to inventory searches:

A warrantless search is per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment subject to a few well-defined exceptions. See Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 454-55 (1971). The state has the burden to prove that an exception to the warrant requirement applies. See Hilton v. State, 961 So.2d 284, 296 (Fla.2007). Here, the state relied on the exception that allows law enforcement to conduct an inventory search of an impounded vehicle. See Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 371 (1987) (observing that “inventory searches are now a well-defined exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment”); South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976) (discussing the justifications for inventory searches of impounded vehicles and explaining that federal and state courts have consistently held that inventory searches conducted pursuant to standard police procedures are reasonable).



In order for this exception to apply, the inventory search must be “conducted according to standardized criteria.” FN3 State v. Wells, 539 So.2d 464, 468 (Fla.1989) (quoting Bertine, 479 U.S. at 374 n. 6), aff'd by Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (1990). The requirement for standardized criteria serves to limit police discretion in determining the scope of the search and ensures that the police will not abuse the exception and use the inventory search as a subterfuge for a criminal investigatory search. Id. at 469; see also Rolling v. State, 695 So.2d 278, 294 (Fla.1997) (explaining that the test for determining the validity of an inventory search is one of reasonableness and “[t]he reasonableness of a purported inventory search is dependent upon it being a true good-faith inventory search and not a subterfuge for a criminal, investigatory search”).

However, even though impoundment was lawful, the court found the actual search invalid. The court stated:

"Here, the trial court did not make any findings regarding the existence of, or the deputy's compliance with, standardized criteria in conducting the inventory search of Kilburn's truck. Although the deputy testified that it was standard Sheriff's Office policy to conduct an inventory search whenever a vehicle was towed, he also testified that there were no standardized criteria for performing such a search. Additionally, the state did not present any evidence that it was standard Sheriff's Office policy to open closed containers found during the search, such as the pill bottle in Kilburn's truck where the drugs were found. Accordingly, under these circumstances, the trial court erred in denying Kilburn's motion to suppress the drugs found in his truck. See Wells, 539 So.2d at 469 (reversing denial of motion to suppress based upon the absence of a standardized policy requiring the opening of closed containers found during a legitimate inventory search); Beezley v. State, 863 So.2d 386 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (reversing and remanding for discharge because trial court should have granted dispositive motion to suppress where no indication that police conducted inventory search according to standardized criteria); Patty v. State, 768 So.2d 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (directing granting of motion to suppress where state failed to present evidence of standardized criteria used in inventory search); Roberson v. State, 566 So.2d 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (holding that search of closed can was illegal where evidence did not show that it was standard procedure to open closed containers)."

Because the motion to suppress was dispositive to the drug possession charges, the appeals court remanded with directions for the trial court to discharge the defendant on that count.



Visit Americas Top DUI and DWI Attorneys at http://www.1800dialdui.com or call 1-800-DIAL-DUI to find a DUI OUI DWI Attorney Lawyer Now! Like? DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Illegal Inventory Search of Vehicle for wallpaper? Shar this image to DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Illegal Inventory Search of Vehicle for your friend.

DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Frustration of Purpose Doctrine and Refusals

Download DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Frustration of Purpose Doctrine and Refusals photo. Find DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Frustration of Purpose Doctrine and Refusals images.

Wallpaper DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Frustration of Purpose Doctrine and Refusals

In Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Xander, --- A.3d ----, 2011 WL 576094 (Pa.Super.), 2011 PA Super 33, the defendant was found guilty following a jury trial of DUI, and a also a penalty enhancement after the jury answered an interrogatory fining that the defendant had also refused to give a sample for testing. The trial court threw out the refusal, finding that the driver was not read the statutory warning. A DVD recording of Appellee's interaction with Officer Kaintz and the phlebotomist was presented at trial as a Commonwealth exhibit. The video and audio recording shows Appellee repeatedly asking for her “attorney rights” and informing Officer Kaintz and the phlebotomist that she will not answer any questions. See Certified Record (C.R.) at 36; Commonwealth Exhibit 1. Officer Kaintz attempts to explain to Appellee that she does not have the right to an attorney during processing, as they are not asking guilt-seeking questions, and are only attempting to book her and conduct a blood draw. Id. Appellee informs Officer Kaintz and the phlebotomist that “you ain't f* * *ing taking no blood test on me.” Id. Throughout the DVD recording, Appellee indicates her unwillingness to proceed any further, and at the conclusion of the video, Appellee is instructed “this concludes the processing of Alice Xander, we are done.”



The Commonwealth appealed, arguing that the statutory warning was not a mandatory prerequisite to an enhanced refusal penalty. Further, the Commonwealth relied on the “frustration of purpose” doctrine for the proposition that Appellee's behavior prevented Officer Kaintz from being able to warn Appellee of her rights, and therefore the warnings were 'excused'. The state cited to several cases where the defendant's behavior rendered the warning



First, the appeals court found that the necessity of reading the warnings was not explicitly stated in the statute, but that it was necessarily implied. The appeals court agreed with the trial court's statement that "because the General Assembly specifically included a requirement in § 1547(b)(2)(ii) that the police warn arrestees of the enhanced penalties for a refusal, a ‘refusal’ for purposes of § 3804(c) necessarily requires a knowing refusal insofar as the police must have provided the arrestee with the warnings beforehand.”



Second, the trial court found that the State's other case involving conduct that amounted to a refusal was dissimilar:

"Notably, in almost every instance, the officers try, in many circumstances repeatedly, to explain the consequences of refusing chemical testing on an uncooperative motorist. The trial court herein notes, however, that the facts before it are distinguishable from this line of cases in three ways. First, Officer Kaintz never attempted to read Appellee the § 1547(b) warnings and request a blood draw, as Appellee would not ever answer the basic booking questions asked of her. Trial Court Opinion, 6/29/10, at 21-22. This finding is supported by the DVD offered by the Commonwealth and viewed by the trial court as well as this Court. Second, “there [was] nothing about [Appellee]'s behavior that was so disruptive that the officer could not have read her implied consent warnings[.]” * * * Third, “the entire process lasted only three minutes and thirteen seconds” and that “[a]lthough [Appellee] (again, wrongly) claimed she was entitled to counsel before responding to the routine booking questions, she appeared to listen to the officer's questions and respond thereafter, albeit with an incorrect concept of the law.”

Thus, the trial court's judgment of acquittal was affirmed.







Visit Americas Top DUI and DWI Attorneys at http://www.1800dialdui.com or call 1-800-DIAL-DUI to find a DUI OUI DWI Attorney Lawyer Now! Like? DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Frustration of Purpose Doctrine and Refusals for wallpaper? Shar this image to DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Frustration of Purpose Doctrine and Refusals for your friend.

The present and the future direction of J-10

Download The present and the future direction of J-10 photo. Find The present and the future direction of J-10 images.

Wallpaper The present and the future direction of J-10

As readers of this blog probably know, I have been a fan of J-10 for a long time. In many ways, the J-10 project marked a turning point in Chinese military aviation industry. When its development first started in 1986, the Chinese aviation industry was constantly abandoning new development projects due to lack of funding, technology and development experience. China was forced to go the conservative route and continue to develop J-7 and J-8 variants. Many J-7 and J-8 variants were delayed due to delays in avionics, engine and missile projects. With the exception of J-8, China had not successfully developed a fighter jet since the Soviet split. The J-10 projects succeeded in large part because China finally opened up itself to the West. The help that China received from Israel is well documented. However, I would say that another important help to J-10 and all recent aviation projects is the improved manufacturing capability, improved funding, access to advanced civilian technology and improved project management that came through the trade liberalization. For example, how would companies like NRIET be able to develop radar and avionics for PLA if China did not become competitive in the electronics industry? After 18 years of hard work by CAC, J-10 finally achieved operational status in 2004. With the success of the J-10 projects and advancement in civilian industry, we have seen a lot more stories of successes in Chinese military aviation industry in the recent years. I have read some real praises recently toward the aerospace engineers at CAC about their youthfulness and energy. I don't think we would've seen something like J-20 come out this soon, if CAC did not gain so much experience from the J-10 program.

Back when J-10 first came out, there were a lot of skepticism about its capabilities and deployment status. Even though the first J-10 regiment achieved operational status by 2004, many people questioned its status until it was officially declassified in late 2006. At the same time, I read many reports about its successes in exercises against different flanker variants. Most people were rightfully skeptical toward such reports. As time went on, it became more and more obvious that J-10 was taken over the reign as the backbone of PLAAF from flankers. Even now, we still often read reports about J-10s crushing flankers and J-8s in different training exercises. Even with all of its successes, the J-10 program still has experienced some stumbles along the way. I think most people would agree that propulsion is the biggest bottleneck for J-10. Due to lack of available domestic options and the Western arms embargo, China was forced to select AL-31FN as the powerplant. After the initial batch for J-10 prototypes, China has since placed orders for batches of 54, 100 and 122 AL-31FN engines for production variants. Many of us thought WS-10A might be available after the second batch of engines, but its production problems in the past 2 years have been well documented. As a result, China had to make that third purchase in 2009 for 122 AL-31FN costing $500 million. Due to the delays in WS-10A, J-10 production basically came to a standstill for most of 2008 and early part of 2009. Although, it is believed that some of the first product batch of J-10s delivered to 44th division were brought back to CAC to be upgraded to the latest configurations. From the first 154 AL-31FNs, CAC delivered J-10s for FTTC (60x8x), 131st regiment of 44th division (50x5x), 8th regiment of 3rd division (10x4x), 5th regiment of 2nd division (10x3x) and 2nd regiment of 1st division (10x2x). After signing the 3rd AL-31FN contract, CAC produced a 4th batch of J-10s to 70th regiment of 24th division (30x5x) and the special August First flight demonstration squad of 24th division. In this past year of 2010, CAC produced a 5th batch of J-10s of 37 single seaters + a good number of twin-seaters to fully convert the 25th regiment of 9th division (20x0x) and a good portion of the 12th regiment of 4th PLANAF division (83x4x). Since late last year, we have started seeing test trials of a 6th batch of J-10s from CAC. This batch will most likely be delivered to fill the 12th regiment of PLANAF and also convert a new PLAAF regiment. I think this will be the last batch of J-10s that can be produced from the third AL-31FN contract. Here is a breakdown of production J-10s at the moment:

• 6 PLAAF regiments (28 J-10s each  6 x 28 = 168)
• 12 J-10s serving in the August First demonstration squad
• Around 16 J-10s serving in the FTTC aggressor squad
• 10 to 20 J-10s serving in the 12th regiment of PLANAF

So, my guess is that there are around 200 to 220 J-10s in service at the moment for different branches of PLAAF and PLANAF.

So, where does the J-10 program go from here? Some fans are already gushing over the first flight of J-20 and about ready to stop J-10 production very soon. Some question whether or not J-10B is needed at all. I definitely think those talks are crazy. China will have many J-7 regiments retiring in the coming years. I think some regiments will not be replaced, but PLAAF also does not want the fleet to shrink that much. I have brought up the talk of using JF-17 to fill a good number of the third tier regiments, but J-10s are still needed to replace more strategically located J-7 regiments. CAC has shown that it can mass produce J-10s at relatively low cost of less than 200 million RMB. Until J-20 joins service, J-10 and J-11 will form the core of PLAAF. Even though J-10 is smaller and cheaper than J-11, it has been the more capable air defense fighter jet. Therefore, even after J-20 becomes available, J-10 should still be continually produced. As we saw with J-7, CAC kept producing newer variants for PLAAF until at least 2007 even though J-10 was already operational with several regiments. So I think different variants of J-10s will be produced for the foreseeable future. In the immediate future, CAC will finish the 6th batch of J-10s to fully convert the 12th regiment of PLANAF and possibly fully convert another PLAAF regiment. I think this should be the end of J-10/A production run (about 240 to 250 using 276 AL-31FNs).

After this point, I think the production should shift to J-10Bs. We’ve seen the Y-8 radar test bed recently testing with what appears to be the nose of J-10B, so all signs are pointing toward J-10B production starting sometimes late this year or early next year. As stated before, J-10B should represent quite an improvement over J-10A when it comes to new avionics architecture, latest range of sensors (AESA radar, IRST and MAWs), new generation of MMI and more integrated EW installations. It should also have better multi-role capability and be able to fire all of the latest generation of AAMs, AGMs and PGMs (many shown in Zhuhai Airshow). The other question with J-10B and future J-10 variants is how it will move into the future world of stealth fighters. Clearly, future J-10 variants can be designed to have reduced signature like hornets to super hornets or eagle to silent eagle, but it cannot be redesigned into a LO aircraft. In fact, we are already seeing some greater consideration for stealth on J-10B when it comes to greater usage of composite material, integrated IRST/ECM, LPI radar and adoption of DSI inlet (although this could be more of a weight/subsonic performance vs supersonic performance tradeoff). There are also plenty of claims on Chinese forums that J-10B has also adopted plasma stealth, but I do not know how I can verify that. The other question is what engine will be used by future J-10s. Will China make a new large order for AL-31FN or will WS-10 series finally reach acceptable performance/reliability level to be installed on J-10B? We will have to keep the wait and see approach to find out. I would say that at least one more order of AL-31FNs is needed before WS-10 can become ready for both J-10 and J-11.

And finally, we should also see more export deals with J-10 in the coming years. As we’ve seen in numerous reports, PAF will be the first export customer for J-10, although we don’t know the exact configuration yet. After Pakistan, J-10 will probably be offered to most countries around the world. It will actually be interesting to see how that will affect JF-17’s export prospects, since most potential export customers would only select one of the two fighters. China will also not be able to export to many countries until WS-10 becomes a viable engine option. Like? The present and the future direction of J-10 for wallpaper? Shar this image to The present and the future direction of J-10 for your friend.

Turtle wallpaper

Download Turtle wallpaper photo. Find Turtle wallpaper images.

Wallpaper Turtle wallpaper

Like? Turtle wallpaper for wallpaper? Shar this image to Turtle wallpaper for your friend.

Virginia's breath test machines are unreliable and produce inflated resu...

Download Virginia's breath test machines are unreliable and produce inflated resu... photo. Find Virginia's breath test machines are unreliable and produce inflated resu... images.

Wallpaper Virginia's breath test machines are unreliable and produce inflated resu...

Visit Americas Top DUI and DWI Attorneys at http://www.1800dialdui.com or call 1-800-DIAL-DUI to find a DUI OUI DWI Attorney Lawyer Now! Like? Virginia's breath test machines are unreliable and produce inflated resu... for wallpaper? Shar this image to Virginia's breath test machines are unreliable and produce inflated resu... for your friend.

DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD)- Pretextual Inventory Search Causes Suppression

Download DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD)- Pretextual Inventory Search Causes Suppression photo. Find DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD)- Pretextual Inventory Search Causes Suppression images.

Wallpaper DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD)- Pretextual Inventory Search Causes Suppression

This case involves a search of a vehicle. In US v. Taylor, --- F.3d ----, 2011 WL 561979 (C.A.8 (Mo.)) Officer Gillespie and her partner responded to a request by a fellow officer to follow a truck and initiate a traffic stop if the driver, who officers later identified as Taylor, committed a traffic violation. Officer Gillespie was informed that Taylor was suspected of involvement in a narcotics transaction and that the narcotics were believed to be in his vehicle. Officer Gillespie observed Taylor fail to signal before changing lanes, and she initiated a traffic stop. When Taylor could not produce a valid insurance card, she arrested him and took him into custody.





Police towing policy dictated that when an individual is arrested for a traffic violation, the officer should give the individual the option to release the vehicle to another driver, allow the vehicle to be left at the scene, or drive the vehicle to the police station. Officer Gillespie did not provide Taylor with these options, however, because of another KCPD policy requiring the impoundment of a vehicle “when the vehicle is known or believed to have been used in the commission of a crime and has evidentiary value.” Based on this policy, Officer Gillespie decided to tow and search the vehicle.







Regardless of under what portion of the policy an impoundment occurs, KCPD policy further requires officers to complete a tow-in report when a vehicle is being towed. The tow-in report must include a “content inventory,” which is a “detailed inventory and listing of items located inside of the vehicle being towed.” When a towed vehicle contains “valuable property in large quantities,” officers must nevertheless generate a detailed inventory, using an additional form if more space is needed to list the contents of the vehicle. Upon searching Taylor's vehicle, Officer Gillespie discovered hundreds of tools, several pieces of equipment, as well as a plastic bag containing approximately 74 grams of powder cocaine, clothing, toiletries, and paper. In completing the tow-in report, Officer Gillespie did not itemize or list the hundreds of tools, but wrote “misc. tools” in the relevant section of the form.



On appeal, the court found that the inventory search was pretextual, especially in light of the officer's failure to specifically itemize all of the contents in the vehicle. It suppressed the evidence. The appeals court noted that:

The search of a vehicle to inventory its contents must nevertheless be reasonable under the totality of the circumstances, United States v. Hall, 497 F.3d 846, 851 (8th Cir.2007), and may not be “a ruse for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence.” Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1, 4 (1990). The reasonableness requirement is met when an inventory search is conducted according to standardized police procedures, which generally “remove the inference that the police have used inventory searches as ‘a purposeful and general means of discovering evidence of a crime.’ “ Marshall, 986 F.2d at 1174 (quoting Colorado v.. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 376 (1987) (Blackmun, J., concurring)).

The court noted that "[g]iven the hundreds of tools in Taylor's truck, Officer Gillespie's description of “misc. tools” does not constitute a detailed, itemized inventory. Continuing, the court concluded:



Even if police fail to adhere to standardized procedures, the search is nevertheless reasonable provided it is not a pretext for an investigatory search. Hall, 497 F.3d at 852; see also Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 812 (1996) (noting that an officer's motive may invalidate objectively justifiable behavior in the context of an inventory search). “[S]omething else” must be present to suggest that the police were engaging in their criminal investigatory function, not their caretaking function, in searching the defendant's vehicle. Rowland, 341 F.3d at 780-81. Here, the “something else” is found in the officer's testimony at the suppression hearing. Officer Gillespie testified that the basis for the traffic stop, the arrest, the towing of the vehicle, and the inventory search was the officer's belief that Taylor had narcotics in his vehicle. She also testified that she would not have arrested Taylor, impounded his vehicle, or inventoried the contents of the truck if not for her belief that the vehicle contained evidence of a narcotics crime. This testimony leads us to conclude that the search was conducted because police believed they would find evidence of narcotics in Taylor's truck, and thus the inventory was merely a pretext for an investigatory search.



The dissent stated as follows:

I would hold that Officer Gillespie's good faith generic description of the contents of Taylor's van dispels any suggestion that it was an after-the-fact attempt to insulate the inventory search from a constitutional challenge. Accordingly, I would affirm the order denying the motion to suppress.

Fortunately, this justices 'blind' opinion was outnumbered.





Visit Americas Top DUI and DWI Attorneys at http://www.1800dialdui.com or call 1-800-DIAL-DUI to find a DUI OUI DWI Attorney Lawyer Now! Like? DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD)- Pretextual Inventory Search Causes Suppression for wallpaper? Shar this image to DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD)- Pretextual Inventory Search Causes Suppression for your friend.

Holland DWI court now nationwide model | WOOD TV8

Download Holland DWI court now nationwide model | WOOD TV8 photo. Find Holland DWI court now nationwide model | WOOD TV8 images.

Wallpaper Holland DWI court now nationwide model | WOOD TV8

Holland DWI court now nationwide model | WOOD TV8

Program began in 2004

Updated: Monday, 14 Feb 2011, 6:35 PM EST
Published : Monday, 14 Feb 2011, 4:37 PM EST
By Steve Kelso



HOLLAND, Mich. (WOOD) - When Holland's DWI Court began in 2004, it was met with skepticism, Ottawa County Prosecutor Ron Franz said his office wasn't quite sure how it would work.

Now, this court in the 58th District has been chosen to serve as a training ground for other DWI courts around the country.

The idea behind DWI court is to curb repeat offenses since jail was not serving as a deterrent. The court treats repeat offenders through programs that attack the underlying addiction and coordinates law enforcement, prosecutors, judges and treatment providers.

Michigan now has over 40 such courts and is seen as a leader nationwide.

"It means that Michigan is trying to make a difference in these people lives," said David Wallace, the director of the National Center for DWI Courts . "Trying to make the community safer so that we can drive on the roads without having to worry about getting killed by a drunk driver and recognizing that jail alone does not change an alcoholics behavior."

DWI courts seem to be working. A two-year study by the Michigan Supreme Court found DWI court defendants were:
•three times less likely to be arrested committing any crime
•19 times less likely to be arrested for drunk driving.

And the National Center for DWI Courts claims the system saves taxpayers money by reducing accidents, court costs and jail sentences.

Franz, the Ottawa County prosecutor, is now a big supporter of DWI courts.

"If someone were to relapse while they were in the program or to fail one of the requirements, you do not toss them out, you work with them, you sanction them and you keep them in the program," he told 24 Hour News 8. "As a prosecutor, you like things to be black and white. If you fail, you go back to jail. And that isn't the way this works."

The 58th District's DWI court is one of only four academy sites in the country that will serve as a training and education location for hundreds of other courts nationwide.


Visit Americas Top DUI and DWI Attorneys at http://www.1800dialdui.com or call 1-800-DIAL-DUI to find a DUI OUI DWI Attorney Lawyer Now! Like? Holland DWI court now nationwide model | WOOD TV8 for wallpaper? Shar this image to Holland DWI court now nationwide model | WOOD TV8 for your friend.

DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Margin of Error Defense Rejected

Download DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Margin of Error Defense Rejected photo. Find DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Margin of Error Defense Rejected images.

Wallpaper DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Margin of Error Defense Rejected

In Borger v. Dep't of Motor Vehicles, --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2011 WL 541131 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.), the driver challenged his suspension after giving two breath tests on an Intoxilyzer 5000 of .09 and .08. His expert, Jay Williams, testified that all “Intoxilyzer 5000” machines have an inherent margin-of-error of plus or minus .02 percent. He said that respondent's BAC could be “anywhere between a .06 and a .10” and could not say with reasonable scientific certainty that his BAC was .08 percent or higher. The DMV hearing officer did not credit Williams' testimony and found that respondent was lawfully arrested for DUI and driving with a BAC of .08 percent or more. (§ 13557, subd. (b)(2).) However, the trial court credited Williams' testimony. It impliedly found that respondent's BAC was less than .08, granted the writ petition, and ordered DMV to set aside the suspension of respondent's license. This appeal followed.

Rejecting the defense, the appeals court stated:

The trial court's terse analysis does not inspire confidence. Williams testified that an “Intoxilyzer 5000” that is in working order meets “the Adams requirements” ( People v. Adams (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 559) but has an inherent margin-of-error of “plus or minus .02” percent. There is no disagreement that the “Intoxilyzor 5000” is an “approved instrument” within the meaning of Title 17, article 7, section 1221.3. Williams did not examine the machine used to test respondent's BAC on March 18, 2009, and he offered no opinion that the machine was not in working order. The trial court inexplicably credited Williams' theoretical lowest possible BAC and ignored the theoretical highest possible BAC. The logic of the trial court ruling concerning an impossibility to determine respondent's BAC is unknown. In reality, Williams' conclusion would “overrule” every “Intoxilyzer 5000” reported result unless it is .10 or more. This would change the California Code of Regulations, title 17, article 7, sections 1221 through 1221.5 and effectively remove this breath testing device from the Department of Motor Vehicle's “approved instrument” list. Other than testifying that he owned “Intoxilyzer 5000” machines, Williams offered no reasoning to support his conclusion. He offered no evidence of any scientific tests that he conducted with any such machine let alone the one used here. The record does not show that any other experts in the scientific community have reached similar conclusions or that any scientific literature supports Williams' conclusion. To say that his conclusion is bald is an understatement.

Further unnecessary ripping of the expert then occurred:

“Where an expert bases his conclusion upon assumptions which are not supported by the record, upon matters which are not reasonably relied upon by other experts, or upon factors which are speculative, remote or conjectural, then his conclusion has no evidentiary value. [Citations.] In those circumstances the expert's opinion cannot rise to the dignity of substantial evidence. [Citation.]” ( Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Zuckerman (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1113, 1135.) ‘ “ ‘ “The chief value of an expert's testimony in this field, as in all other fields, rests upon the material from which his opinion is fashioned and the reasoning by which he progresses from his material to his conclusion....” ‘ (Quoting Carter v. v. United States (D.C.Cir.1957) 252 F.2d 608 617 [102 App. D.C. 227].)” ( People v. Coogler (1969) 71 Cal.2d 153, 167.) Williams' bald conclusion is speculative and cannot be fairly characterized a “substantial evidence.”

Editor's note: Obviously, this was a political decision - not an evidentiary one. Although couched in scientific terms (i.e. "how do we know that the expert really knows what he is talking about unless he teaches us to know it too?") the judges on the appellate court were simply unwilling to accept a simple unrefuted proposition, that the machine has a margin of error of =/- 0.02. Normally, case law states that the trier of fact cannot disregard unrefuted testimony. And sometimes, a scientific proposition is so simple, that nothing further need be said. An example might be that "two objects of the same shape will fall to earth at the same rate." Even though a judge might not know that to be true until it is told to him by an expert, the law doesn't require that Galileo re-climb the Tower of Pisa all over again, just to placate the ignorant and/or obstinate.





Visit Americas Top DUI and DWI Attorneys at http://www.1800dialdui.com or call 1-800-DIAL-DUI to find a DUI OUI DWI Attorney Lawyer Now! Like? DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Margin of Error Defense Rejected for wallpaper? Shar this image to DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Margin of Error Defense Rejected for your friend.

DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Revocation Period for Out-of-State DUI Conviction

Download DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Revocation Period for Out-of-State DUI Conviction photo. Find DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Revocation Period for Out-of-State DUI Conviction images.

Wallpaper DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Revocation Period for Out-of-State DUI Conviction

In DiGregorio v. registrar of Motor Vehicles--- N.E.2d ----, Mass.App.Ct. , 2011 WL 522063 (Mass.App.Ct.), the defendant was a Massachusetts driver who frequently visited Connecticut. He has a long history of driving infractions in both States. In 1997, he was convicted in Massachusetts of OUI, his first such conviction. He was then convicted of OUI in Connecticut on April 18, 2000. For this conviction, Connecticut suspended his driving privileges in that State, and on May 24, 2000, Connecticut placed a notice of that suspension in the National Driver Register (NDR), an interstate repository for the sharing of driving records. The Massachusetts registrar did not learn of the out-of-State conviction or suspension at that time. He was again arrested in Connecticut for OUI in June of 2004. He was convicted of that offense on October 4, 2004 (his second OUI conviction in Connecticut and his third overall). However, the registrar apparently had no occasion to check the NDR database at this time and instead first learned of the 2004 Connecticut incident from her review of NDR records in April of 2007.

Because DiGregorio had been convicted for a third time of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI), the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (registrar) was prohibited by statute from restoring his driving privileges until after 8 years. The main issue on appeal had to do with when the 8 years began - from the date of conviction, or from the date the DMV learned of the out-of-state conviction.

Ultimately, the case was resolved based on the specific language of the state statute; under the express terms of that subsection, the registrar is prohibited from restoring the driving rights of a third time offender “until eight years after the date of conviction.” The principal argument of the DMV was that relying on the date of conviction for out-of-State violations would create serious adverse policy consequences, because the registrar retains no control over the timeliness of the information that other States enter into the NDR system. Specifically, they suggested that relying on the “date of conviction” would allow hazardous drivers back on the road sooner or allow them to escape due punishment. As the opinion stated:

"This argument ignores the maxim that “[w]here ... the language of the statute is clear, it is the function of the judiciary to apply it, not amend it.”

As it is likely that other states have similar delayed notice and/or reporting issues, this case may come in handy in shortening the length of a suspension or revocation therein.





Visit Americas Top DUI and DWI Attorneys at http://www.1800dialdui.com or call 1-800-DIAL-DUI to find a DUI OUI DWI Attorney Lawyer Now! Like? DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Revocation Period for Out-of-State DUI Conviction for wallpaper? Shar this image to DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Revocation Period for Out-of-State DUI Conviction for your friend.

Fiat Uno 2p

Download Fiat Uno 2p photo. Find Fiat Uno 2p images.

Wallpaper Fiat Uno 2p

Que a chegada do novo Palio é iminente, muita gente já sabe. Ele vai ter porte e preços para ser o representante da Fiat no segmento formado por VW Fox, Chevrolet Agile e Renault Sandero, que é o dos compactos logo acima do segmento de entrada. É a categoria que já possui luxos mas ainda sem o preço dos premium. Sendo assim, cabe ao novo Uno firmar-se como o mais acessível da marca, tarefa para a qual ele se vale do aclamado estilo para cumprir muito bem.

É justamente por isso que o carrinho finalmente traz a versão de duas portas, que só tem o mínimo necessário de diferente em relação ao original. E suas laterais ficaram interessantes, com as duas amplas janelas de cada lado. O interessante foi que a Fiat surpreendeu ao oferecer a configuração logo para todas as versões do carro de uma só vez, sempre com um desconto de menos de 2 mil reais em relação ao de quatro portas.

Com isso o modelo já chega à linha 2012, cuja tabela de preço para as novas versões fica a seguinte: Vivace em R$ 26.490, Attractive em R$ 29.840, Way em R$ 27.670 para o 1.0 e R$ 30.650 para o 1.4, e Sporting em R$ 32.170. O modelo conserva os mesmos adereços externos e internos, e pode ter toda a gama de adesivos inaugurada pelo quatro-portas.

Like? Fiat Uno 2p for wallpaper? Shar this image to Fiat Uno 2p for your friend.

DUI Appeal of the Day - When Car Mistakenly Pulls Over There is No Illegal Stop and Seizure

Download DUI Appeal of the Day - When Car Mistakenly Pulls Over There is No Illegal Stop and Seizure photo. Find DUI Appeal of the Day - When Car Mistakenly Pulls Over There is No Illegal Stop and Seizure images.

Wallpaper DUI Appeal of the Day - When Car Mistakenly Pulls Over There is No Illegal Stop and Seizure

In State of Kansas v. Reiss, --- P.3d ----, 2010 WL 5129859 (Kan.App.), Rex Reiss had the misfortune to be driving one of two vehicles directly behind a blue pickup that had no lights. When an officer pulled behind the three vehicles to stop the one with no lights on, Reiss stopped directly behind the blue pickup. When the officer pulled his car right behind Reiss (there was no room between Reiss' truck and the blue pickup), Reiss immediately got out of the truck and began walking toward the police car, vehemently questioning what he'd done wrong. The officer then directed Reiss to go back to his car. When the officer finally approached, the interaction led to a drunk driving arrest. The district court held that Reiss had not been seized, even when the officer ordered Reiss back to his truck, because the officer was merely taking normal steps that a reasonable and cautious officer would take for safety when a single officer was on hand and more than one vehicle had stopped.



The Kansas court of Appeals discussed the law of search and seizure:

"In a voluntary encounter between a citizen and a police officer, the officer is free to ask questions even in the absence of any suspicion the citizen is up to no good. See State v. McGinnis, 290 Kan. 547, 552-53, 233 P.3d 246 (2010). But to stop a person traveling on the roadway, even briefly for the purpose of investigation (an “investigatory detention”), the officer must have reasonable suspicion that something's amiss, meaning an objective and specific basis for believing that the person being detained is involved in criminal activity. See State v. Pollman, 286 Kan. 881, Syl. ¶¶ 3-5, 190 P.3d 234 (2008). And to arrest someone, the officer must meet an even higher standard: probable cause, which exists when a person of reasonable caution could conclude from the known facts that an offense has been or is being committed. State v. Fewell, 286 Kan. 370, Syl. & 4, 184 P .3d 903 (2008); Barriger, 239 P.3d at 1291."

Whether a person inadvertently stopped by police has been seized was a matter of first impression for Kansas. That issue, however, had been discussed extensively in a recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States v. Al Nasser, 555 F.3d 722, 725-32 (9th Cir.2009). The Ninth Circuit concluded that a driver was not seized-and therefore no Fourth Amendment violation had occurred-when the driver stopped his vehicle because of police activity but the officers did not intend for that driver to stop. 555 F.3d at 731-32. The defendant in Reiss continued to argue that whether or not he was seized when he first pulled over, the encounter became a seizure when Officer Ritter ordered Reiss to return to his truck. The appeals court herein agreed with Reiss on this point:

"A seizure occurs when there is a show of authority by the officer that would communicate to a reasonable person that he or she is not free to leave and that person submits to the show of authority. Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 254-55, 127 S.Ct. 2400, 168 L.Ed.2d 132 (2007); State v. Morris, 276 Kan. 11, Syl. ¶ 5, 72 P.3d 570 (2003). Officer Ritter's forceful commands led Reiss to return to his truck. Because Reiss was clearly seized at that point and no incriminating evidence was obtained before then, we need not determine whether he had been seized when he initially pulled over, even though the officer hadn't intended to stop him."

In finding the seizure reasonable, the Kansas court stated as follows:

"Ritter said he was “concerned on what [Reiss'] purpose was” when Reiss approached the officer, and this caused the officer to proceed cautiously. When Ritter approached Reiss' truck, Ritter asked why Reiss had gotten out of his truck and for identification rather than simply telling Reiss he was free to leave. On these facts, however, we see nothing unreasonable about that. Given the aggressive approach Reiss had taken at the scene, Ritter was properly concerned about his safety and asking for identification in this circumstance was itself only a minimal intrusion. See Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434-35, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991); United States v.. Diaz-Castaneda, 494 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir.), cert. denied 552 U.S. 1031 (2007).

Sometimes the fish jumps into the boat. Such was the case for Rex Reiss.





Visit Americas Top DUI and DWI Attorneys at http://www.1800dialdui.com or call 1-800-DIAL-DUI to find a DUI OUI DWI Attorney Lawyer Now! Like? DUI Appeal of the Day - When Car Mistakenly Pulls Over There is No Illegal Stop and Seizure for wallpaper? Shar this image to DUI Appeal of the Day - When Car Mistakenly Pulls Over There is No Illegal Stop and Seizure for your friend.

Honda Civic SE

Download Honda Civic SE photo. Find Honda Civic SE images.

Wallpaper Honda Civic SE

A cada dia que passa surgem mais informações sobre o Civic de última geração, e isso não tem como ser bom para o modelo que vemos hoje nas lojas, de oitava geração. Mas o nono ainda deve demorar a chegar porque precisa passar por burocracias como a adaptação do conjunto mecânico às particularidades da América Latina, então a Honda “se vira com o que tem”. Ou seja, procura realçar o apelo do Civic 8 com uma série especial, baseada na versão LXL.

Seu atrativo não está em um visual diferente, mas sim no custo/benefício: a lista de itens de série do SE é mais generosa, porque a mais que o LXL ele traz ar-condicionado digital, sensor de estacionamento traseiro, volante em couro, rodas aro 16’’, repetidores de pisca nos retrovisores, airbag duplo, direção elétrica, freios com ABS e EBD, e sistema de com comandos satélite.

Já sob o capô não há novidades: ele traz o 1.8 16v de 138/140 cv, e que pode ser comandado por câmbio manual ou automático, este trazendo também as borboletas atrás do volante para a opção de trocas manuais. O modelo começa em R$ 67.430 com câmbio manual, e em R$ 72.165 com automático, sendo que a cabine revestida em couro agrega cerca de R$ 2.600.

Like? Honda Civic SE for wallpaper? Shar this image to Honda Civic SE for your friend.

Illinois Adds Mandatory Interlocks Laws to New DUI Arrests

Download Illinois Adds Mandatory Interlocks Laws to New DUI Arrests photo. Find Illinois Adds Mandatory Interlocks Laws to New DUI Arrests images.

Wallpaper Illinois Adds Mandatory Interlocks Laws to New DUI Arrests

Governor Quinn has just signed into law Public Act 96-1526. This law will require all drivers accused of DUI (with no priors in the past 5 years) to install a breathalyzer in their car unless they file documents in court opting out! Therefore, it is imperative that persons arrested for DUI consult an attorney immediately, or they will get an order in the mail to install the device before it is too late.



Visit Americas Top DUI and DWI Attorneys at http://www.1800dialdui.com or call 1-800-DIAL-DUI to find a DUI OUI DWI Attorney Lawyer Now! Like? Illinois Adds Mandatory Interlocks Laws to New DUI Arrests for wallpaper? Shar this image to Illinois Adds Mandatory Interlocks Laws to New DUI Arrests for your friend.

DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Mistake of Law, Broken Stop Lamps, Illegal Seizure

Download DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Mistake of Law, Broken Stop Lamps, Illegal Seizure photo. Find DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Mistake of Law, Broken Stop Lamps, Illegal Seizure images.

Wallpaper DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Mistake of Law, Broken Stop Lamps, Illegal Seizure

In Goens v. State of Indiana, --- N.E.2d ----, 2011 WL 490848 (Ind.App.) an officer stopped the defendant for a non-operating stop lamp. At the hearing on the motion two suppress, the judge determined that the right rear lamp was not working, but the left rear and high mount were operable and working. Finding that two out of three of the vehicle's stop lamps were operating at the time of the stop, the trial court denied Goens's motion to suppress after concluding that it was reasonable for the officer to stop the vehicle for one inoperable stop lamp, if for no other reason than to inform the driver that the light was burned out.





On appeal, the court first reviewed the Indiana statute on stop lamps. Applying the rule of statutory construction tat "[p]enal statutes should be construed strictly against the State and ambiguities should be resolved in favor of the accused.", it found that the statute only required one working tail lamp.







Then, it found that the officer's mistake of law (as opposed to mistake of fact) did not justify the stop of defendant's vehicle, and granted the motion to suppress, stating:

“Although a law enforcement officer's good faith belief that a person has committed a violation will justify a traffic stop, an officer's mistaken belief about what constitutes a violation does not amount to good faith. Such discretion is not constitutionally permissible.” State v. Rager, 883 N.E.2d 136, 139-40 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (citations omitted); see also Meredith v. State, 906 N.E.2d 867, 870 (Ind.2009). As well as having a constitutional dimension, this limitation is one of common sense. While we as citizens desire and expect law enforcement officers to enforce the requirements of state statutes as they pertain to motor vehicles, if the condition of our motor vehicles clearly and visibly meets these requirements, we should not be subject to a traffic stop on suspicion of an alleged violation thereof. Because the condition of Goens's vehicle could not reasonably appear to violate applicable Indiana statutes at the time it was observed by Officer Lengerich, the vehicle's condition could not and did not support reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop. We therefore conclude that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Goens's motion to

suppress.



Note: Interestingly, the opinion acknowledged that federal law requires a vehicle of this nature to be equipped with 3 stop lamps. However, it did employ this regulation in interpreting their own state's statute......







Visit Americas Top DUI and DWI Attorneys at http://www.1800dialdui.com or call 1-800-DIAL-DUI to find a DUI OUI DWI Attorney Lawyer Now! Like? DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Mistake of Law, Broken Stop Lamps, Illegal Seizure for wallpaper? Shar this image to DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Mistake of Law, Broken Stop Lamps, Illegal Seizure for your friend.

Katie holmes wallpaper

Download Katie holmes wallpaper photo. Find Katie holmes wallpaper images.

Wallpaper Katie holmes wallpaper

Like? Katie holmes wallpaper for wallpaper? Shar this image to Katie holmes wallpaper for your friend.

DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Destruction of Blood Sample, In-Court Identification and Due Process

Download DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Destruction of Blood Sample, In-Court Identification and Due Process photo. Find DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Destruction of Blood Sample, In-Court Identification and Due Process images.

Wallpaper DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Destruction of Blood Sample, In-Court Identification and Due Process

In Iowa v. Kardell, Slip Copy, 2011 WL 441961 (Table) (Iowa App.) the defendant was convicted of two counts of homicide by vehicle by operation while intoxicated. Amongst other issues on appeal, NCDD member and Iowa OWI attorney Matt Lindholm complained that the destruction of the blood sample violated the defendant's due process rights. In the case, the blood was analyzed and the result was 0.07 BAC. Notice of the result was not sent to the defense until after the blood sample was routinely destroyed (Iowa has a 90 day retention and destruction policy). The defendant claimed that the destruction a) violated state laws regarding the safekeeping of personal property b) interfered with his statutory right to independent testing and c) violated his due process rights under both the federal and state constitutions. The defense was unsuccessful on all 3 grounds.



Specifically, the court held that the argument that state law on disposition of personal property required him to receive notice prior to destruction was not capable of being raised for the first time on appeal, so they refused to address it. (This was a clever and great argument by the defense!) Second, they held that the right to an independent test was not violated by the destruction of the sample before notice was given to the defendant, holding that section 321J.11 does not impose a sua sponte duty to provide the defendant with the test results; rather, the only statutory duty is to provide the results upon Kardell's request.



Finally, regarding the due process claim, the court stated:

The Youngblood court was unwilling to “read the ‘fundamental fairness' “ due process requirement to impose on the State an “absolute duty to retain and to preserve all material that might be of conceivable evidentiary significance in a particular prosecution.” Id. at 58, 109 S.Ct. at 337, 102 L.Ed.2d at 289. Accordingly, “unless a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police, failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not constitute a denial of due process of law.” Id. (emphasis added). The Iowa Supreme Court adopted this standard in State v. Dulaney, 493 N.W.2d 787, 791 (Iowa 1992), a drunk driving case in which the defendant sought to suppress test results from a blood withdrawal.Like Kardell, the Dulaney defendant argued the State violated his United States and Iowa due process rights by destroying his blood sample before he was able to have it independently tested. Dulaney, 493 N.W.2d at 790. The Dulaney court discussed and applied the standards established in Trombetta and Youngblood. Id. at 790-91. The Dulaney court specifically recognized the requirement a criminal defendant show bad faith on the part of the State and found “there is no evidence the State intentionally destroyed the sample in an effort to deprive Dulaney of evidence as required by Trombetta and Youngblood. The DCI lab simply destroyed the sample pursuant to its usual procedure....” Id. at 791. The court ruled: “[T]he State's blood sample merely could have been subjected to tests, and the results merely might have exonerated Dulaney. This is not enough under Trombetta and Youngblood to find a violation of Dulaney's due process rights.” Id. Similarly, Kardell's blood sample “merely could have been subjected to tests” with results that “merely might have exonerated” Kardell. See id. This is not enough to find a violation of Kardell's due process rights. See id.; see also State v. Steadman, 350 N.W.2d 172, 175 (Iowa 1984) (stating “the failure of the State to automatically furnish an accused with a sample ... for independent testing is not a denial of due process”).

The defendant also raised claims involving identification of the defendant as the driver in open court. The defendant argued that the court should have granted his motion for judgment of acquittal because there was insufficient evidence “to provide a sufficient nexus between the person who was driving the vehicle and the person who was charged in the trial information.” Kardell contended that the arresting officer's positive identification of Kardell on direct exam was “rendered useless” on cross-examination because he admitted his identification was based upon the on-scene statements of Trooper Pigsley and Trooper Pigsley did not testify at trial. Among the reasons why the court found sufficient identity had been proven, the court said:

While “proof of the identity of the person who committed the offense is essential to a conviction ... identification may be established and inferred from all of the facts and circumstances in evidence.” Butler v. U.S., 317 F.2d 249, 254 (8th Cir.1963) (citations omitted). * * * “[T]he failure of any ... witnesses to point out that the wrong man had been brought to trial [can be] eloquent and sufficient proof of identity.” Id. (quoting United States v. Weed, 689 F.2d 752, 755 (7th Cir.1982))* * * [P]roper identity can be inferred when the defendant does not complain the wrong person has been brought to trial. See Butler v. United States, 317 F.2d 249, 254 (8th Cir.1963). The Derek Kardell seated in the courtroom never complained he was not the same Derek Kardell whose truck crashed in October 2007."

Visit Americas Top DUI and DWI Attorneys at http://www.1800dialdui.com or call 1-800-DIAL-DUI to find a DUI OUI DWI Attorney Lawyer Now! Like? DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Destruction of Blood Sample, In-Court Identification and Due Process for wallpaper? Shar this image to DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Destruction of Blood Sample, In-Court Identification and Due Process for your friend.

Mitsubishi L200 Triton XB

Download Mitsubishi L200 Triton XB photo. Find Mitsubishi L200 Triton XB images.

Wallpaper Mitsubishi L200 Triton XB

Ao lado da linha de utilitários Pajero, a L200 é o utilitário mais famoso da nossa Mitsubishi. Seu projeto de linhas modernas e agressivas chega à linha 2012 com poucas novidades mas de importância grande. Começa pela adição de alguns itens, passa pela gama de cores revista, e termina com a adição de uma nova versão. É a XB, que intitula este artigo e parte de R$ 101.990 para oferecer uma configuração de picape nunca antes vista por aqui, mas que será uma mão-na-roda para muitos usuários desse tipo de veículo.

Esta picape segue a clássica configuração de cabine e caçamba construídas separadamente para depois se encaixar, de forma que toda a cabine e compartimento do motor permaneceram intactos. A mudança da XB está realmente na caçamba, que foi prolongada em 180 mm, totalizando 1505 mm de comprimento por 1470 mm de largura e 460 mm de altura. Por mais que seu desenho tenha seguido as linhas originais com cuidado, era impossível que uma mudança desse estilo ficasse harmônica demais. Mas a XB é o tipo de picape que será vista quase que o tempo todo carregada justamente pelo tipo de cargas que apenas ela pode levar, e então isso compensa tudo: é possível colocar bicicletas sem dobrar ou retirar as rodas, e até um quadriciclo.

A tampa traseira ficou mais alta, e a caçamba conta com seis ganchos para ajudar na fixação dos objetos transportados. Sua única opção de motor é o 3.2 diesel de 165 cv e torque de 38,1 kgfm com câmbio manual. Quanto ao resto da linha 2012, as versões a gasolina e HPE diesel recebem novo volante, com comandos de áudio e piloto automático. E esta última traz um novo GPS desenvolvido pela marca exclusivamente para o nosso mercado, com 1200 localidades mapeadas e 350 navegáveis, com instruções em português. A oferta de motor/transmissão e versões da Triton comum continua intacta, e a paleta de cores agora inclui oito opções, com branco, cinza, preto, verde e duas tonalidades de cinza e de vermelho.

Like? Mitsubishi L200 Triton XB for wallpaper? Shar this image to Mitsubishi L200 Triton XB for your friend.

Breathalyzers Read 20-40% Higher in DUI Cases; Cover-up Revealed

Download Breathalyzers Read 20-40% Higher in DUI Cases; Cover-up Revealed photo. Find Breathalyzers Read 20-40% Higher in DUI Cases; Cover-up Revealed images.

Wallpaper Breathalyzers Read 20-40% Higher in DUI Cases; Cover-up Revealed

DC Breathalyzer Calibration Questioned



WASHINGTON - A man hired to supervise the Breathalyzer unit of the D.C. Police Department is blowing the whistle on what he says are a decade of questionable test results.

Writing in a memo to the D.C. Attorney General he said the officers running the program rarely, if ever, performed accuracy tests on the machines used to measure the blood-alcohol content of drivers suspected of D-W-I.

Two and a half months after taking over the Breath Alcohol Testing Program, Ilmar Paegle, a retired U.S. Park Police officer, wrote a detailed four page memo in which he claims the protocol to ensure the machines were properly calibrated has not been followed since at least 2000. That’s a claim the D.C. Attorney General Office calls just an "opinion."

But Paegle lays out his case in a memo now in the court file of a man convicted of D-W-I. That man wants a new trial.

In the memo addressed to Assistant Attorney General Kimberly Brown, Paegle wrote,

"From my inspection of the instrument files (the machines) have never been checked for accuracy even though an accuracy test is the only legal requirement a breath testing instrument must meet in the District of Columbia."

Paegle continued, "The calibration has to be verified by accuracy tests, and these legally mandated tests of (the machines) apparently have never been done."

David Benowitz represents Sultan Epaye, the man who wants a new trial.

"The ramifications are enormous,” said Benowitz in an interview Tuesday outside D.C. Superior Court. "It goes back for years, there are plenty of people who served jail time based on what may very well be false tests or inaccurate tests, the civil liability could be huge, it just has a huge impact on the integrity of the entire criminal justice system."

Included in the court case jacket are internal D.C. Police documents showing no accuracy tests were performed on the machines after they were calibrated. Those records go back to at least 2006.

But Sarah Branch, the Prosecutor in the case, takes issue with Paegle's claims, writing in a motion for dismissal of conviction, "Mr. Paegle's opinion is based on a review of documents that were created and kept by his predecessor, Officer Kelvin King, the former Chemical Testing Program Manager for MPD. Therefore, Mr. Paegle's opinion consists of nothing more than conjecture and assumptions."



"We strenuously disagree with that characterization," said Benowitz, "It's clear what Mr. Paegle's is saying is based on fact."

In the memo, Paegle also criticizes D.C. Police for the lack of oversight and supervision.

Back in February the Attorney General admitted his office was looking into dozens, if not hundreds of cases, after learning from Paegle the machines were improperly calibrated in the fall of 2008 and were not tested for accuracy.

What Paegle is saying today raises questions about test results as far back as 2000 or longer.

Paegle declined to comment, as did D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier.

Attorney General Peter Nickles referred us to the motion filed in court.







Visit Americas Top DUI and DWI Attorneys at http://www.1800dialdui.com or call 1-800-DIAL-DUI to find a DUI OUI DWI Attorney Lawyer Now! Like? Breathalyzers Read 20-40% Higher in DUI Cases; Cover-up Revealed for wallpaper? Shar this image to Breathalyzers Read 20-40% Higher in DUI Cases; Cover-up Revealed for your friend.

Peugeot 408

Download Peugeot 408 photo. Find Peugeot 408 images.

Wallpaper Peugeot 408

O segmento de sedãs médios do Brasil está ganhando uma importância que impressiona cada vez mais. Quase todo tipo de marca já faz questão de ter seu representante nele, desde as mais tradicionais até as menos conhecidas, e com isso tentam se diferenciar cada uma à sua maneira, trazendo modelos mais esportivos ou os que apostam no conforto. É por isso que a Peugeot quer apagar o début ruim que teve com o apagado 307 Sedan ao trocá-lo pelo fascinante 408.

Produzido na Argentina, ele simplesmente fascina pelo desenho externo. A frente traz os traços felinos de praxe na Peugeot com os faróis grandes mas sem exageros, que fluem suavemente para laterais modernas e que transparecem imponência com a linha de cintura alta, terminando numa traseira menos rebuscada, mas que manteve a harmonia de linhas sem perder a sobriedade. Sob o capô, pelo menos por enquanto ele vem apenas com o 2.0 16v flex, de 143/151 cv, com câmbio manual ou automático.

Como era de se esperar, seu interior segue o luxo sóbrio. Seja pelo acabamento cuidadoso ou pelas duas cores, os materiais fazem jus à excelente lista de equipamentos do modelo que é vendido em três versões. Começando em R$ 59.500, a Allure já traz ar-condicionado, airbag duplo, computador de bordo, freios ABS e rodas aro 16’’. A Feline parte de R$ 74.900 e incorpora, entre outros itens, os seis airbags, dois frontais, dois laterais e dois de cortina.

Mas a estrela da linha é a versão de topo, Griffe. Incorpora cambio automático, freios com ESP, saídas de ar-condicionado para o banco traseiro, bancos de couro com regulagens elétricas e independentes, ar-condicionado digital, sensores de estacionamento, sistema de GPS e até teto solar, por R$ 79.900. Excelente pacote para combater os futuros arquirrivais Toyota Corolla e Honda Civic.

Like? Peugeot 408 for wallpaper? Shar this image to Peugeot 408 for your friend.

The other side of PLAN

Download The other side of PLAN photo. Find The other side of PLAN images.

Wallpaper The other side of PLAN

When people talk about PLAN in the West, the modernization and the naval shipbuilding program are often the focus. There is no question that the current shipbuilding program for both PLAN and the Coastal Guard agencies are impressive. However, China began this streak from a very low starting point. What people often miss is how PLAN keep really old and ineffective ships in service to save cost.

Among the frigates that are still in service, no where is more evident than the 4 Jianghu-I ships that are still in service with East Sea Fleet. The 513 and 514 ship shown below first joined PLAN in the 70s and really have no use other than training and patrols. In fact, 2 Jianghu-I ships have already been converted for the Maritime Police agencies (much to their chagrin I must add).



Another big example of extremely old PLAN ships are the Luda destroyers in service with North Sea Fleet as covered by China-defense blog. The sailors on this 40 years old ship is their newly issued cold weather gears. Some of them are still using silkworm anti-ship missiles, manually controlled AAA guns for air defense and antisubmarine rocket launchers for ASW.

At the same time, the current upgrade program gives us an insight on the extension of the relative old ships still in service with PLAN.

The 052 Luhu class ships (112 & 113) joined PLAN after a full production run of the 3600-ton Luda class. These 4200-ton class ships were the first PLAN surface combatants to use gas turbines. 112, the lead ship of the class, uses LM-2500 (imported before the embargo) and joined service in 1994. 113, the other ship of this class, had to use GT-25000 and joined service in 1996. These two ships were upgraded once in 2003/2004 to use YJ-83 anti-ship missiles and upgraded main guns. However, their current weapon systems are vastly outdated when compared against the similar sized 054A class. They are still using HQ-7 and outdated Type 76A guns for air defense. 112 uses a bunch of imported (and now outdated) sensors and combat system. Due to the arms embargo, 113 was forced to use the downgraded domestic copy of those sensors and combat system. Either way, support for these sensors are unlikely to be too great going forward. At the same time, it's usage of Z-9C helicopters, DUBV-43 VDS and DUBV-23 hull mounted sonar are unlikely to allow it to fully perform its original designed role of ASW destroyer.

As such, it appears that 112 is undergoing a hull scale of changes for the past year at the HuDong shipyard. It is likely that LM-2500 will be replaced by QC-280 after 20 years of service. At the same time, the rest of the ships have been ripped apart. I have not seen this kind of upgrade with any other PLAN ships. When looking at the amount of work they are performing on this ship, it makes me wonder why they do not just use that money to build more 054As. Either way, it looks like 112 will remain in service for another 20 years after this kind of mid-life rebuild.



Also as stated in a recent China-defense blog entry (originally from fyjs forum), the Jianghu-V ships are getting an extensive refitting. These 6 ships were built for the South Sea Fleet from 1992 to 1995. They were the result of an emergency program at that time due to the worsening situation in South China Sea. Today, it is hard to see PLAN needing such a program these days to protect its waters, but China did have tough time against the Vietnamese there in 1988. Compared to other Jianghu ships, these ships had more modern and reliably sensors/weapons and much better living quarters. It's certainly not easy for sailors to stay out for long patrols in South China Sea without air conditioning. Even so, these ships are really archaic in terms of hull design, sensors and weapon systems. From the photos below, we can see that they have installed two quadruple YJ-83 launchers, PJ-33A dual-100mm guns, new air search radar and decoy launchers.








From these recent photos of the inside of the ship, it looks like they have also installed new control terminals and combat systems.



The last two photos were taken from 562 conducting New Year's patrols. It is clear that these ships still play a very important part in patrolling the coastal waters. With the extensive refitting we are seeing, they are likely to be in service for quite sometime. So even with the induction of many 054As, PLAN still consist of a large number of old ships. Like? The other side of PLAN for wallpaper? Shar this image to The other side of PLAN for your friend.

DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Improper Seizure at Closed Business

Download DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Improper Seizure at Closed Business photo. Find DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Improper Seizure at Closed Business images.

Wallpaper DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Improper Seizure at Closed Business

In Sosa v. Texas, Not Reported in S.W.3d, 2011 WL 346215 (Tex.App.-Texarkana), the defendant was convicted of DWI after her motion to suppress was denied. Her sole issue on appeal was the propriety of the investigative detention. While on patrol, the arresting officer (Hill) observed the defendant (Sosa) parked at the entrance to DC Self Storage in Marshall, Texas, at approximately 10:45 p.m. Based on Hill's experience when Hill's mother had previously rented a unit from that storage facility, Hill believed the normal business hours of the storage facility were from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Hill proceeded past the storage facility and stopped on the side of the road. When Sosa did not enter after thirty to forty seconds, Hill turned around, activated his lights, and pulled in “behind her.” While conversing with Sosa, Hill detected the odor of alcohol on Sosa's breath and noticed that Sosa's speech was slurred. Subsequent investigation determined Sosa to be intoxicated. The first issue that needed resolution was whether the contact was a 'seizure' or whether it was an 'encounter', as the term was used in the opinion. The court found that the use of the lights, the blocking of the defendant's vehicle, and the officer's admission that the defendant was not free to leave were enough to establish that the contact was a 'detention':

In this case, Hill's show of authority was sufficient to communicate to a reasonable person that he or she was not free to leave the scene. Hill testified Sosa was not free to leave. Although the classification of an interaction is determined based on an objective standard and, therefore, the police officer's subjective opinion is not determinative, Hill's subjective opinion can be evidence that a reasonable person would not feel free to terminate the interaction. See Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996) (reasonable suspicion evaluated from objective perspective). The manner in which Hill parked his vehicle and the use of overhead emergency lights suggest the interaction was an investigative detention. Since Sosa was parked in front of the storage facility's gate, the position of Hill's vehicle effectively prevented her vehicle from moving. Sosa's vehicle seems to have been trapped between the storage facility's gate and Hill's vehicle. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has considered the fact that a police officer “ ‘boxed in’ Appellee's parked truck” in determining whether a seizure had occurred. See State v. Garcia-Cantu, 253 S.W.3d 236, 246 n. 44 (Tex.Crim.App.2008) (concluding trial court did not err in concluding reasonable person would not feel free to leave).

Although “[a]ctivation of overhead lights on a police vehicle does not necessarily make an encounter non-consensual,” the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has noted: “The use of ‘blue flashers' or police emergency lights are frequently held sufficient to constitute a detention or seizure of a citizen, either in a parked or moving car.” Id. at 245 n. 43 (spotlight different from overhead lights); see Crain v. State, 315 S.W.3d 43, 52 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (activation of overhead lights factor in concluding pedestrian was detained); Hudson v. State, 247 S.W.3d 780, 785 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2008, no pet.) (activation of patrol car lights and police officer's order caused appellant to yield to show of authority); see Franks v. State, 241 S.W.3d 135, 142 (Tex.App.-Austin 2007, pet. ref'd) (mere activation of overhead lights at dark rest park was insufficient, by itself, to make initial interaction a detention). Franks is distinguishable in that, there, no evidence suggested that the position of the police car impeded Franks' ability to terminate the encounter. Franks, 241 S.W.3d at 142. Further, the police officer in Franks testified he activated the overhead lights to illuminate the rest area. Id. There is no evidence in this case that Hill activated his overhead lights to illuminate the storage facility's entry area. When asked whether the area “is fairly well lit,” Hill responded, “I'd say fairly. It's not as well lit as you get going on into town.”

Thereafter, the court then grappled with whether the detention was supported by reasonable suspicion. The State argued that the vehicle's remaining at the entrance of a closed business for 30-40 seconds, coupled with the officer's knowledge that thefts and break-ins had previously occurred there, gave rise to reasonable suspicion, and the court sub judice had agreed. However, the appellate court disagreed:

The noncriminal, not terribly unusual, nonrepetitive behavior observed in this case was insufficient to objectively support a belief that criminal activity was or soon would be afoot. The specific, articulable facts relied on by Hill are insufficient to create reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was occurring. All the facts indicate is that Sosa was present in front of a business late at night, after normal business hours, and that storage buildings are occasionally broken into. Hill failed to provide, under the totality of the circumstances, sufficient specific, articulable facts to create an objective manifestation that Sosa was, or was about to be, engaged in criminal activity. Hill's suspicion amounted to nothing more than a mere hunch. Deferring to the trial court's determination of historical facts, it was error to overrule Sosa's motion to suppress.

Visit Americas Top DUI and DWI Attorneys at http://www.1800dialdui.com or call 1-800-DIAL-DUI to find a DUI OUI DWI Attorney Lawyer Now! Like? DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Improper Seizure at Closed Business for wallpaper? Shar this image to DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Improper Seizure at Closed Business for your friend.