Peugeot 207 2012

Download Peugeot 207 2012 photo. Find Peugeot 207 2012 images.

Wallpaper Peugeot 207 2012

O grupo PSA começou a fazer alterações muito interessantes na linha brasileira, como a chegada do novo sedã médio 408, mas infelizmente os segmentos compactos ainda não são os destaques. Enquanto a Citroën já apela para o custo/benefício para manter as boas vendas do C3, a Peugeot tenta repaginar o 207 mais uma vez. Ou seja, só poderemos esperar um sucessor para daqui a uns dois anos – provavelmente já será o 208 europeu.

A mudança exterior mais chamativa foi que as barras de proteção dianteira e traseira agora vêm na cor do veículo exceto para a Escapade, solução que pode causar estranhamento em algumas cores. Afinal de contas, peças tão grandes como estas geravam melhor efeito visual com o contraste do preto fosco. Fora que ao estarem com a mesma pintura da carroceria elas acabaram perdendo a função de proteger os extremos do carro…

As versões mais caras também ganharam leves retoques nas lanternas. A cabine de todos recebeu instrumentos com fundo branco e novos revestimentos para os bancos. Os motores, como sempre, ficaram intactos. E como a Peugeot não cansa de tentar refinar seu combalido modelo, a versão de entrada X-Line saiu de linha, ficando como mais barata a XR hatchback de três portas, por R$ 35.790.

Falando em versões, a XRS está presente nos hatch, Passion e SW e ganhou vidros elétricos dianteiros, computador de bordo e sensores crepuscular e de chuva, tudo de série. As versões com câmbio manual agora também podem ter airbag duplo e freios ABS. E a versão de topo, XS, incorporou de série o sistema de som multimídia. Quanto à picape Hoggar, sua básica X-Line agregou direção hidráulica e protetor de caçamba, entre outros, e sua Escapade ganha computador de bordo.

Like? Peugeot 207 2012 for wallpaper? Shar this image to Peugeot 207 2012 for your friend.

OWI Appeal - Iowa Bars Use of Prior Arrests Unless Convicted

Download OWI Appeal - Iowa Bars Use of Prior Arrests Unless Convicted photo. Find OWI Appeal - Iowa Bars Use of Prior Arrests Unless Convicted images.

Wallpaper OWI Appeal - Iowa Bars Use of Prior Arrests Unless Convicted

In State of Iowa v. Figueroa, Slip Copy, 2011 WL 2090020 (Table) (Iowa App.), the defendant was charged as a 3rd time offender and pleaded guilty. A pre-sentence report revealed multiple charges and offenses for which she had been arrested but not convicted. The trial court, specifically stating that it took into account the arrests, sentenced the defendant to 5 years in jail. In vacating the sentence and remanding, the appeals court stated:



"In imposing her sentence, the district court stated that it reviewed the PSI and addendums attached and that Figueroa had been arrested twenty-two times in the past ten years. See State v. Barker, 476 N.W.2d 624, 627 (Iowa Ct.App.1991) (finding the sentencing court “considered matters which it legally should not have considered, such as the defendant's record of arrests without convictions”). Where a sentencing court makes a specific reference to unprosecuted and unproven charges it is an affirmative showing the district court considered those charges. State v. Jose, 636 N.W.2d 38, 43 (Iowa 2001). Consequently, we find the district court abused its discretion by considering unprosecuted and unproven charges. Compare id. (“When considered in context with the remainder of the court's explanation for imposing sentence, the reference to ‘additional crimes' is not ‘an affirmative showing’ that the court considered unproven charges.”), with State v. Ashley, 462 N.W.2d 279, 282 (Iowa 1990) (“The fact that the sentencing judge was merely aware of the uncharged offense is not sufficient to overcome the presumption that his discretion was properly exercised.”). We are required to vacate Figueroa's sentence and remand for resentencing. State v. Thomas, 520 N.W.2d 311, 314 (Iowa Ct.App.1994). We note that the district court also considered permissible factors, such as Figueroa's extensive record of convictions, probation violations, and being found in contempt. By vacating and remanding, we do not imply that permissible factors would not support the sentence imposed and make no judgment as to what the sentence should be."



Editor's notes: Most states prohibit the use of bald arrests as a factor for sentencing. Instead, these states require the prosecutor to 'prove up' the arrests with reliable evidence, before they can be used.





Looking for a Top DUI DWI Attorney? 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? OWI Appeal - Iowa Bars Use of Prior Arrests Unless Convicted for wallpaper? Shar this image to OWI Appeal - Iowa Bars Use of Prior Arrests Unless Convicted for your friend.

DUI Appeal - Florida Blood Draw Violates Search Warrant Law

Download DUI Appeal - Florida Blood Draw Violates Search Warrant Law photo. Find DUI Appeal - Florida Blood Draw Violates Search Warrant Law images.

Wallpaper DUI Appeal - Florida Blood Draw Violates Search Warrant Law

The below case involves a blood draw that was taken after a search warrant was issued following a DUI arret. In State of Florida v. Geiss, --- So.3d ----, 2011 WL 2097694 (Fla.App. 5 Dist.), the trial court suppressed the blood draw because it believed that the draw violated the Florida Right of Privacy, the Implied Consent Statute, and the Search Warrant provisions of Florida law.





On appeal, the court found that the Florida constitutional right of privacy was to be read as concomitant to the 4th amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. Since a blood draw was acceptable under the 4th amendment (see Schmerber) the court held that it did not violate the right of privacy either.







However, the court did find that the search warrant violated the statutes on search warrants. At the time of the application for the warrant, the defendant was only charged with a misdemeanor (his full background was unknown):

"The trial court also found that the blood draw was not authorized by the warrant statute, section 933.02, Florida Statutes, because blood is not “property” used as a “means to commit” a crime. In addressing this issue, we should first clarify that although this case was ultimately filed as a felony case based upon Geiss's prior DUI record, the affidavit for the search warrant did not set forth Geiss's complete record, and only averred that Geiss possessed one prior DUI conviction. So, the affidavit alleged probable cause to believe that Geiss had violated the misdemeanor DUI statute. This is significant because section 933.02, Florida Statutes, only allows the state to secure a warrant to seize “property ... used as a means to commit” a misdemeanor. § 933.02(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2010). By contrast, the statute also authorizes the state to secure a warrant for “property [that] constitutes evidence relevant to proving that a felony has been committed.” § 933.02(3), Fla. Stat. (2010); see also, Bordo, Inc. v. State, 627 So.2d 561, 562–63 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (“Thus, property used to commit any crime—whether felony or misdemeanor—may be seized under a warrant; while property merely constituting relevant evidence of a crime may be seized only if the suspected crime is a felony.”). Because the affidavit below only alleged facts supporting probable cause for a misdemeanor DUI, the original issuing magistrate and the trial court reviewing the warrant in the case below properly considered only whether blood constituted “property ... used as a means to commit” the crime of DUI in this case. See, e.g., Martin v. State, 906 So.2d 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (limiting review to four corners of search warrant to determine whether sufficient probable cause existed). We agree with the trial court that it was not."

Continuing with its analysis, the appeals court then explained why blood was not an item that can be seized for a misdemeanor (as opposed to a felony) DUI:

"[W]e agree that blood is not “used as a means to commit” driving under the influence. Instead, blood is seized for its evidentiary value. And, no one uses his or her blood “as a means to” do anything, as those words are commonly used or understood. Given that statutes should be construed in accordance with their “plain and ordinary meaning,” Osborne v. Dumoulin, 55 So.3d 577, 581 (Fla.2011) (citations omitted), and that search warrants must strictly conform to the statutes and constitutional provisions which authorize their use, State ex rel. Wilson v. Quigg, 17 So.2d 697, 701 (1944); Crain v. State, 914 So.2d 1015, 1020 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (en banc), we agree with the trial court that blood cannot be drawn based upon probable cause that a suspect has committed misdemeanor DUI in light of the plain language of section 933.02, Florida Statutes.

Thus, the appellate court found the search warrant was improvidently granted. Nevertheless, the Florida court refused to suppress the blood draw, finding that the draw was 'in good faith':

"The good faith exception holds that the exclusionary rule need not be applied when the officer conducting the search acted in objectively reasonable reliance on an invalid warrant. State v. Watt, 946 So.2d 108, 110 ( Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (citing Leon ). The test for good faith is “whether a reasonably trained officer would have known that the search was illegal despite the magistrate's authorization.” Leon, 468 U.S. at 923 n.23.

"Geiss argues that in Isley, Judge Silverman acknowledged that an appellate determination that a warrant is not authorized under the warrant statute or is barred by the implied consent statute “may render the warrant so facially deficient as to preclude application of the Leon exception.” However, at the time the warrant was issued in this case, there was no such appellate decision barring such warrants. To the contrary, Isley was an appellate opinion from the same circuit which allowed them.

"Applying the Leon good faith exception, we find that the blood test results in this case should not have been suppressed. Accordingly, we reverse the order on appeal and remand for further proceedings."

Editors Note: The court's analysis of Florida's Right of Privacy, implies that the this Right of Privacy grants Florida citizens no more protection than what they already have under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. and state constitutions. This interpretation, suggesting that it is only as great as the 4th Amendment, is contrary to most rules of statutory construction that bar an interpretation that would render a law meaningless.







Looking for a Top DUI DWI Attorney? 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 - Florida Blood Draw Violates Search Warrant Law for wallpaper? Shar this image to DUI Appeal - Florida Blood Draw Violates Search Warrant Law for your friend.

Llizard wallpaper

Download Llizard wallpaper photo. Find Llizard wallpaper images.

Wallpaper Llizard wallpaper

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

Wallpaper CARROS 2

Download Wallpaper CARROS 2 photo. Find Wallpaper CARROS 2 images.

Wallpaper Wallpaper CARROS 2

Like? Wallpaper CARROS 2 for wallpaper? Shar this image to Wallpaper CARROS 2 for your friend.

Chevrolet Vectra Collection

Download Chevrolet Vectra Collection photo. Find Chevrolet Vectra Collection images.

Wallpaper Chevrolet Vectra Collection

Estamos prestes a perder um ícone do mercado brasileiro. O moderno Cruze vai chegar em poucos meses para tomar o lugar do sedã que já foi sonho de consumo da classe média. Com esta grande mudança a Chevrolet finalmente começará seus planos de modernizar a gama nacional, que por efeitos da crise econômica da matriz precisou ter seus projetos colocados em segundo plano, o que a deixou bem defasada em relação à concorrência.

Sua primeira geração chegou em 1993 e já impressionava. O desenho da filial alemã transpirava modernidade com as linhas limpas, responsáveis também pela aerodinâmica bem-cuidada que ajudava no ótimo desempenho já nas versões de motor 2.0 8v, o do antecessor Monza. Mas a vedete dessa linha foi a esportiva GSi, que com seu visual diferenciado e seu eficiente 2.0 16v arrancava suspiros por onde passava. Infelizmente não chegou a durar três anos no mercado.

Foi na segunda geração que o modelo se consagrou. Idêntico ao Opel Vectra B europeu, ele conseguiu ser ainda mais eficiente que o primeiro (seu excelente Cx de 0,29 baixou para 0,28), mas com um desenho tão elegante e bem-feito que parece vistoso até hoje. E foi esta aura de requinte que o fez vender muito bem por muitos anos, até que começou a pedir um sucessor. Nesta época surgiu o primeiro Vectra Collection, em 2005, em cinza Mayon e muito bem-equipado.

Mas o excesso de custos limitou a nova evolução do sedã. Um sucessor todo novo geralmente fica muito mais sofisticado, portanto bem mais caro. Com isso, a forma de manter sua faixa de preço foi trazer o modelo menor, o então novo Astra europeu, e vendê-lo aqui como Vectra. E isso o fez passar a apelar ao desenho mais esportivo, retilíneo e imponente como mandavam os anos 2000. Uma vantagem foi ter trazido também o hatchback, que veio como Vectra GT.

E depois do leve face-lift de 2009, o chamado Vectra Next Edition faz sua despedida. O verde Lótus exclusivo já chama a atenção assim como os logotipos da série, enquanto a cabine traz bancos de couro diferenciados e manual do proprietário com capa de couro com o número do carro, de uma tiragem limitada a duas mil unidades. Como era de se esperar, seu pacote de itens é completo, e traz o 2.0 de 140 cv com câmbio automático de quatro marchas, por R$ 65.400.

Like? Chevrolet Vectra Collection for wallpaper? Shar this image to Chevrolet Vectra Collection for your friend.

DUI Appeal - Idaho Denies Suit After Forced Catheterization

Download DUI Appeal - Idaho Denies Suit After Forced Catheterization photo. Find DUI Appeal - Idaho Denies Suit After Forced Catheterization images.

Wallpaper DUI Appeal - Idaho Denies Suit After Forced Catheterization

In Miller v. Idaho State Patrol, --- P.3d ----, 2011 WL 1881954 (Idaho) the officers performed a forced catheterization of the plaintiff for a drug test of her urine. The facts of the underlying case were reported as follows:

"In May of 2007, a trooper with the Idaho State Police was driving by a gas station in Priest River, Idaho, when he saw Jason Miller, Respondent, staggering around as he entered his car. The officer contacted Idaho State Trooper Christopher Yount, who arrived to see Miller sitting in the driver's seat of his car. Yount observed that Miller's pupils were dilated and requested that he perform some field sobriety tests, which Miller failed.



Yount put Miller under arrest for DUI, after which Yount discovered scissors in Miller's pocket that he used for cleaning a marijuana pipe. Miller also admitted to smoking marijuana “every day.” Yount took Miller to a hospital in Sandpoint, Idaho, for a urine test. At the hospital, Miller refused to provide a urine sample, saying “I will not fight you, but I will not give you a sample voluntarily.” A registered nurse at the hospital then catheterized Miller at Yount's request and extracted a urine sample. Afterward, Yount found a pipe in Miller's shirt pocket containing methamphetamine residue. Yount also administered a drug-recognition evaluation on Miller at the jail that indicated Miller was under the influence of marijuana and a central-nervous-system stimulant. Miller later pled guilty to felony possession of methamphetamine, possession of drug paraphernalia, and misdemeanor DUI.



There is no indication that Miller struggled while the hospital nurse inserted the catheter. The record is silent as to how or where the nurse extracted the sample or who was present in the room. There is nothing in the record to indicate whether the urine sample tested positive for any controlled substances. It is also unclear why Yount chose to have Miller catheterized rather than performing a blood draw."

Miller eventually sued the police for a violation of her civil rights. The court first acknowledged that suspicionless forced catheterizations are undoubtedly illegal:

"Even though courts nationwide have not had many opportunities to address forced catheterizations, there are some areas where cases appear to be coalescing into universal rules. For instance, it is objectively well-established that a suspicionless catheterization, like any suspicionless bodily search, would be unconstitutional. Ellis v. City of San Diego, 176 F.3d 1183, 1192 (9th Cir.1999); Ohio v. Funk, 177 Ohio App.3d 814, 896 N.E.2d 203, 207–08 (Ohio Ct.App.2008); see also Hammer v. Gross, 932 F.2d 842, 844 (9th Cir.1991) (stating that a warrantless blood draw requires probable cause). If the police have probable cause to search for something that is not likely to dissipate from the body, then a warrantless search for bodily fluids would be unconstitutional. See Barlow v. Ground, 943 F.2d 1132, 1138 (9th Cir.1991) (discussing blood draws); Graves v. Beto, 424 F.2d 524, 525 (5th Cir.1970) (similar). On the other hand, a forced catheterization performed on arrestees solely for medical screening or treatment, and not for investigatory reasons, is constitutional. Sullivan v. Bornemann, 384 F.3d 372, 377 (2004) (addressing catheterizations done by hospital personnel for medical clearance before accepting a suspect into county jail); Meyer v. Woodward, 617 F.Supp.2d 554, 565 (E.D.Mich.2008); Tinius v. Carroll Cnty. Sheriff Dep't, 321 F.Supp.2d 1064, 1075–76 (N.D.Iowa 2004) (upholding a catheterization performed by hospital personnel on a person detained under the police community-caretaking function); see also United States v. Attson, 900 F.2d 1427, 1433 (9th Cir.1990) (stating that a blood draw performed by medical personnel for purely medical reasons was permissible).

Idaho also acknowledged that blood draws and catheterizations are qualitatively different:



"[B]lood draws and catheterizations also have significant differences[:]

"First, catheters impinge on a person's dignity much more severely than a blood draw. “[T]he forceful use of a catheter is a ‘gross personal indignity’ far exceeding that involved in a simple blood test.” Ellis, 176 F.3d at 1192 (quoting Yanez v. Romero, 619 F.2d 851, 855 (10th Cir.1980)). A person being catheterized must pull his or her pants down to expose the genitalia, potentially in front of members of the opposite sex, and allow a stranger to handle very private parts of his or her body, not for consensual medical treatment, but at the behest of the State. See Hooper v. Pearson, No. 2:08–CV–871, 2010 WL 2990809, at *5 (D.Utah 2010) (describing how male officers restrained a female suspect while two women pulled her pants down and catheterized her). Blood draws, by contrast, occur not just in private doctors' offices but also at public blood drives. They typically do not require the person being tested to remove sensitive articles of clothing or otherwise be subjected to private or embarrassing activity.



Second, catheters involve a significantly greater amount of physical trauma. Unlike a needle, which punctures the skin to reach a blood vessel just below the surface, a catheter is a tube that must pass all the way through the urethra and enter the bladder. Even though catheterization is fairly commonplace, it can certainly hurt more than inserting a small needle into the arm. See LeVine v. Roebuck, 550 F.3d 684, 689 (8th Cir.2008) (noting that catheterization is a painful procedure). A catheter may also carry a greater risk of infecting the recipient. See Go Med. Indus. Pty., Ltd. v. Inmed Corp., 471 F.3d 1264, 1267 (Fed.Cir.2006) (“Urinary catheters typically increase the risk of urinary tract infections because inserting a catheter can push bacteria into the normally sterile bladder.”). It would be reasonable for many people to experience anxiety while enduring such an experience.

According to federal caselaw, such a lawsuit cannot stand unless the law was clear and settled that such a process was in fact illegal. The Supreme Court of Idaho, seizing on that principle, dismissed the plaintiff's claim against the police, noting that the law on the subject was unsettled. In so writing, the court mentioned several out of state cases previously deciding similar issues:



"The New Jersey Superior Court refused to grant § 1983 immunity to two police officers who catheterized a DUI suspect after taking a blood draw, holding instead that a factual issue existed as to whether any exigent circumstances justified the procedure. Jiosi v. Township of Nutley, 332 N.J.Super. 169, 753 A.2d 132, 140 (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div.2000). Similarly, in a § 1983 case decided after the events in this case, a federal district court found that a forced catheterization, if proven, would be impermissible even though the police had obtained a warrant to extract bodily fluids because the test is so intrusive and a blood draw had already been performed. Elliott v. Sheriff of Rush Cnty., 686 F.Supp.2d 840, 859–60 (S.D.Ind.2010). The court further held that the case fell in the “obvious” category of well-established law, preventing the officers from receiving qualified immunity under § 1983. Id. at 863; see also Elliott v. Rush Mem'l Hosp., 928 N.E.2d 634, 643–44 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (finding no immunity under a state medical-malpractice statute for a hospital that forcibly catheterized a DUI suspect because there was a material fact issue as to whether catheterization was a reasonable medical procedure for obtaining a urine sample).



"Compare these cases with a different decision in which another federal district court upheld a forced, warrantless catheterization that was supported by probable cause. Ellis v. Cotten, No. 3:06–CV–283–K, 2008 WL 4182359, at *6 (N.D.Tex. Sep.9, 2008). The court held that the test was permissible under the Fourth Amendment despite the fact that the police simultaneously drew blood because probable cause existed. Id. The court there even stated that the involuntary catheterization was “remarkably similar” to the blood draw in Schmerber. Id. That this small but significant division of authority has continued to develop since the events in this case simply illustrates how difficult it would have been for Yount to know what his legal obligations were.

In dismissing the charges, the court concluded:

"Because American search-and-seizure law is undeveloped as to when an officer may administer an involuntary warrantless catheterization on a suspect, Officer Yount was entitled to qualified immunity for the § 1983 claim. Further, Yount did not act with malicious or criminal intent, so he was entitled to immunity from Miller's tort claims under the Idaho Tort Claims Act."

Looking for a Top DUI DWI Attorney? 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 - Idaho Denies Suit After Forced Catheterization for wallpaper? Shar this image to DUI Appeal - Idaho Denies Suit After Forced Catheterization for your friend.

OUI Appeal - Driveway Not Public Way Says Mass Court

Download OUI Appeal - Driveway Not Public Way Says Mass Court photo. Find OUI Appeal - Driveway Not Public Way Says Mass Court images.

Wallpaper OUI Appeal - Driveway Not Public Way Says Mass Court

Some states only apply drunken driving laws to 'public ways' or 'highways' or 'public places'. Massachusetts restricts their law to a way to which members of public have access as invitees or licensees. In Commonwealth v. Virgilio, --- N.E.2d ----, Mass.App.Ct. , 2011 WL 1988395 (Mass.App.Ct.) the defendants vehicle was located on the driveway that is used by only two houses to reach their respective parking places. The court found that such a driveway was not a 'public way' within the meaning of the statute, and reversed the conviction:

"In no case brought to our attention has mere physical accessibility by one operating a motor vehicle and who is not a trespasser been deemed minimally sufficient, as matter of law, to qualify as a “way or place to which members of the public have access as invitees or licensees.” G.L. c. 90, § 24(1)( a )(1). See Smithson, supra (where the court found that the characteristics of the road on a holiday weekend were not such that members of the public could reasonably infer they had an invitation to travel despite the fact the public had physical access to the road). Here, in our view, the facts beyond its physical accessibility by nontrespassers, namely, that the driveway and parking area were shared by and accessible to the occupants and guests of two residential buildings, are not sufficient to bring these places under the statute's reach. To decide otherwise would be to essentially overrule the requirement that, in cases such as this, members of the public must be able to reasonably conclude, from the physical circumstances of the way, that it is open for travel to invitees or licensees. Doing so would read the word “public” out of the statute or treat as superfluous this word of limitation included by the Legislature, or add words to a statute beyond those the Legislature has chosen to include."

Looking for a Top DUI DWI Attorney? 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? OUI Appeal - Driveway Not Public Way Says Mass Court for wallpaper? Shar this image to OUI Appeal - Driveway Not Public Way Says Mass Court for your friend.

Police Driving Mistakes Force Dismissal of DUI

Download Police Driving Mistakes Force Dismissal of DUI photo. Find Police Driving Mistakes Force Dismissal of DUI images.

Wallpaper Police Driving Mistakes Force Dismissal of DUI

The above video was used to show that Sarasota police drive as bad (or worse) than the defendant that they accused of drunk driving.



Looking for a Top DUI DWI Attorney? 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? Police Driving Mistakes Force Dismissal of DUI for wallpaper? Shar this image to Police Driving Mistakes Force Dismissal of DUI for your friend.

Movie wallpaper

Download Movie wallpaper photo. Find Movie wallpaper images.

Wallpaper Movie wallpaper

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

Wallpaper DIVERSOS 1

Download Wallpaper DIVERSOS 1 photo. Find Wallpaper DIVERSOS 1 images.

Wallpaper Wallpaper DIVERSOS 1

Like? Wallpaper DIVERSOS 1 for wallpaper? Shar this image to Wallpaper DIVERSOS 1 for your friend.