Recent modifications to the criminal code has resulted in a few variances to former sentencing ranges available to a respective criminal court. Please contact me to discuss how these variances differ from former statutes and whether such alterations may be significant within your specific arrest and prosecution.

Codified in statutes. IC-30-5, the criminal code puts forth the laws that regulate and relate to impaired operation prosecutions. As in other states, consequences in this state are severe. In all cases, your license will be suspended for a period of time. In addition, there are aggravating circumstances that can increase the seriousness of your OWI.

By and large misdemeanor options in drunk driving cases remain the same. A person’s first OWI is either an A Misdemeanor or Class C Misdemeanor dependent on bac reading and/or the presence of potential endangerment to others. Jail time can be up to one year with as high as a two year court imposed license suspension.

It is in the area of codified felony laws that have seen appreciable variances from how former offenses will be labeled.

Formerly called a Class D Felony, you will now be charged with a Level 6 Felony if you have had any other convictions within the five years prior to the current charge. You can also be charged with a Level 6 Felony if you are driving under the influence, are over the age of 21, and you have a passenger in the car who is under eighteen years old, or if you kill a law enforcement animal while driving under the influence. A Level 6 Felony imposes up to two and one half years imprisonment and often comes with serious consequences beyond jail time. For example, convicted felons in Indiana lose the right to lawfully possess firearms as well as their right to drive for as much as two years by court order in addition to potential suspensions imposed by the bureau of motor vehicles based upon driving record.

If you have already been convicted of an OWI causing death or serious bodily injury, and you commit a second OWI where there is no death or serious bodily injury, then you will be charged with a Level 5 Felony. A Level 5 Felony, (formerly analogous to a C Felony classification) is more serious than a Level 6. If you are convicted of a Level 5 Felony, the judge can sentence you to at least one year in prison and can sentence you to up to six years. In addition, the judge can assess up to $10,000 in fines against you.

If you kill someone due to driving under the influence, that is a Level 5 Felony. The severity of the charge can be increased to a Level 4 Felony if you have had an OWI in the five years prior to the killing or if you knowingly drove while your license or driving privileges were suspended or revoked for a previous OWI offense. A Level 4 Felony carries a punishment of a minimum of two years in prison and up to twelve years and a fine of up to $10,000.

It is imperative that one converse with legal counsel as to the many factors that can certainly come into play when assessing these new criminal classifications. Although I believe that these classifications may have a nominal effect on the outcomes within the vast majority of impaired operation cases, they are noteworthy in grasping a better comprehension on all present legal possibilities.

Within the context of drunk driving prosecutions, it is most common for those within the general public to associate impaired driving with the use of alcohol.

Conditioned by decades of legal practice and public relations campaigns warning citizens as to the dangers of, “drinking” and driving, it is quite understandable to expect confusion among many people as to the role that impairment from drugs can have when assessing potential dui punishments.

Not only can a driver in Indiana be arrested for owi through impairment as a result of drug use, but can also be prosecuted for merely having traces of a particular illegal drug in one’s bloodstream during the course of any alleged driving activity. As evidence of drugs such as Marijuana can remain within the body for weeks after a traffic stop, evidence of impairment is not required of Indiana prosecutors to initiate criminal proceedings.

It is this fact that is most unsettling to many assessing criminal legal practices within the state of Indiana. For what our laws essentially say on the subject of driving with drugs is that if caught operating a motor vehicle with any evidence of drugs in one’s system, criminal charges can be initiated.

To be clear, this reality means that even if state county prosecutors cannot prove any evidence against a driver to infer impaired driving activity, the mere evidence of a driver’s usage of drugs is legally sufficient to prosecute and move for the suspension of the individual’s driving privileges.

Consequently, dui prosecutions can now ensnare both drinking and driving as well as drug use when operating a motor vehicle. Where impairment is not alleged, the criminal offense of operating a motor vehicle with a drug/metabolite within one’s system will allow for an alternative form of prosecution that will also potentially restrict and/or suspend an Indiana driver’s license.

This reality is especially relevant to a discussion as to the widespread legalization and/or decriminalization of Marijuana seen within more and more states each year. As a licensed defense lawyer within this state only, I cannot speak to the existence of other metabolite non impairment type criminal offenses presently existing within states that have seen fit to liberalize laws in regard to use of Marijuana.

However, many nationwide must be particularly mindful that legal use of Marijuana in one state does not preclude prosecution for merely driving with pot within one’s system within another state’s criminal jurisdiction. Although I would find it to be completely irrational, (although not an uncommon undertaking to confront irrational laws passed each year) it should be a required effort among those engaged in medical marijuana usage or legal recreational usage to understand whether any non impairment/metabolite legislation has presently been imposed within one’s respective state.

In so doing, one who partakes in Marijuana in what he or she may believe to be in a legal fashion will not find themselves subject to a potential criminal prosecution as a result of the legal ingestion of Marijuana uncovered by virtue of a lawful traffic stop.

Using a somewhat comparable analogy, remember that the possession and use of alcohol is lawful for adults within all fifty states; it is the presence of alcohol above certain levels within the bloodstream when driving that is illegal.

Not unlike the ability to be prosecuted in Indiana for merely testing at or above a .08 bac level irrespective of proven impairment, do not expect an out of state tolerance and/or legality for Marijuana to insulate one from criminal prosecution within an Indiana courtroom.

I have recently had occasion to be interviewed as to my thoughts on the potential for law enforcement abuse in regard to the indiscriminate use of traffic stops within Johnson County.

Referenced was the history of misconduct leveled against those within the Greenwood Police Department and elsewhere throughout Johnson County as a whole. Specifically, mentioned was the resignation of a police officer in Greenwood with connections to the Mayor who had been compelled to relinquish his police powers.

I had responded that I do not believe that Johnson County is any worse or better in regard to the retention on its respective police forces of individuals not cut out to hold police powers. It is my belief that the more instructive issue to be examined is the response of respective police or other law enforcement agencies upon discovering any unlawful conduct on the part of its membership.

In years past, counties throughout the state have been rightly scrutinized in relation to the specific classes of individuals who have been targeted for police stops. Specifically, the targeting of African Americans, Hispanics or other minority groups had been examined and in some instances proven unjustified.

I believe today, in response to the prejudicial application of laws within the context of traffic stops, Indiana counties have done an adequate job in significantly reducing such misconduct through police hiring practice as well as enunciated policies that have expressed a no tolerance policy in regard to discretionary police practices that had allowed prejudicial police stops to continue unabated through the years.

In today’s world I believe that indiscriminate police misconduct is still a pervasive problem. However, I believe that the majority of unlawful traffic stops today are not nearly as readily motivated through prejudice against particular ethnic groups but by inadequate screening practices that have allowed unfit individuals to have the power to conduct lawful traffic stops among any and all members of the general public.

Whether through personal vendetta, envy or jealousy of a vehicle coming across their path, or intolerance for a taxpayer’s questioning of why a stop was initiated, unfit police officers have the power to affect anyone and significantly erode public confidence in our local judicial system.

Whether through the hiring and/or retention of those psychologically not qualified for public service, to those who have demonstrated a pattern of abusive conduct fueled by alcohol and/or drug addiction, law enforcement on the whole is no better or worse than society at large in possessing members within its ranks capable of demonstrating actions that run counter to the public interest.

Recognizing this reality is a critical component to effectively maintaining the most ethical police practices possible. It is my belief that only through the ongoing leadership by example among those in charge of law enforcement practice within both the prosecutor’s office as well as respective police agencies will Johnson County allow itself to be spared from newsworthy reports that cast the law enforcement community here in an unenviable light.

Most importantly, it is the role of experienced defense counsel to fully discredit the credibility of such officers with a history of misconduct through the defense of prosecutions that they have caused to be initiated. In this manner, lost prosecutions can become the most effective public weapon in extracting a legal cost among prosecutors who are willing to vouch for the testimony of officers with a history of misconduct.

At 11:40 p.m. on March 16, 2014, Indianapolis Colts Owner Jim Irsay was arrested in Carmel, Indiana for operating a vehicle while intoxicated and operating a vehicle with a controlled substance in the body.

 At the time of his arrest, prosecutors alleged he had “oxycodone and/or hydrocodone” in his system.  Following his arrest, however police had filed four preliminary charges of felony drug possession, but they were not included in the prosecutors’ formal charges at an earlier hearing.  Mr. Irsay’s hearing on the remaining counts is currently set for August 28, 2014.

 Pursuant to Indiana Code IC-9-30-5, each charge that Irsay faces carries a maximum penalty of 60 days in jail, a fine of $500, and a 2-year license suspension as a Class C Misdemeanor. He could have been charged with the higher Class A Misdemeanor, which carries a higher fine (up to $5,000 per charge), but it appears that he had enough cash on hand when he was arrested to cover any fines assessed. But whether you are worth billions of dollars and own an NFL team or not, the DUI laws in our state apply to everyone.

As this high-profile case demonstrates, DUI charges are quite common in the state, and many local residents find themselves dealing with a possible drunk driving conviction.

More significantly, early intervention by competent legal counsel could have played a significant role in the prevention of felony drug possession charges based upon the prescription drugs found within Irsay’s vehicle during the arrest in question. As events unfold I suspect the facts will come to light as to whether any and all medications(s) found within Irsay’s control were, in, fact, prescribed by a licensed medical provider.

In the state of Indiana, to be charged with a DUI you must have a blood alcohol content of at least .08%. The charges and penalties increase with any subsequent DUIs, with up to $10,000 in fines, 10-year license suspensions, and 3 years in jail. Penalties can be far worse when the drunk driving leads to an accident or injury.

Considering the harsh penalties, if you face a DUI charge it is critical to seek out professional help to defend yourself. Law enforcement officers make mistakes and cut corners on many occasions, often leading to unfair arrests. Never forget that being charged with a crime is far different than being convicted.

If you are arrested for DUI, the first step in the process should be an attempt to get the charges dropped completely. Your attorney can evaluate the circumstances of your arrest and evidence against you to determine if beating the charge completely is a prudent option.

At other times the best approach is to attempt to get any proposed jail time removed from consideration and focus on various alternative forms of “rehabilitative” treatment in order to make a case resolution more of an inconvenience than an everlasting nightmare.

Your attorney can also help to blunt some aspects of any punishment. For example, one of the most crippling aspects of a DUI conviction is a license suspension, as we use our vehicles to get to work, school, or to transport our kids. State law gives the courts the discretion to issue probationary licenses to individuals convicted of DUI. This can prove critical in allowing you to keep your job and otherwise move past the DUI with less disruption in your life.

DUI charges can be overwhelming at first, but they do not have to be debilitating. With the right combination of experienced, skilled, and compassionate legal representation, many citizens are able to overcome the obstacles of a DUI conviction and are able to get on with their lives. And they don’t have to be billionaires to do it.

I understand the pressures that comes along with facing a DUI conviction, the embarrassment, the fear of the unknown, the fear of loss of standing, employment, and sometimes the loss of freedom. I understand and guarantee to fight on your behalf and in your best interests so that your rights are protected and you can get back on with your life.

Frequently we hear of a medical provider’s inability to sympathize with a patient in his or her care. This lack of compassion in conversing and understanding a patient’s needs is considered a poor “bedside” manner.

A worthwhile professional whether in the legal or medical field must know how to adequately discuss the problems their clients or patients face with their trusted caregiver. In fact a great deal of debate within the academic community nationwide is whether the topic of client/patient dialogue should be addressed in the form of necessary coursework prior to obtaining a legal or medical degree.

We in the public too often take for granted that one who has been educated through a post secondary education will have the required ability to simply speak with those in their care in a way that is both easily understood and in a way that conveys needed compassion.

It seems contradictory that one would spend years in law or medical school to become a lawyer or doctor if not for a desire to come to the aid of one in need of professional care.

However, too frequently our professional ranks have become populated by those who may have other priorities foremost in their thoughts. Those objectives could include financial goals, a need for status or a need to scale back on a work schedule they feel inhibits an enjoyment of personal life needs.

It usually is fairly easy to identify those professionals who have become either “burnt out” from their profession or never had the required passion to begin with.

Such lawyers or doctors are those that are prone to make one feel as if a nuisance if calling them. They may act put out and defensive if questioned as to the course of medical treatment or legal strategy. Most importantly, one can typically identify these people as those who have only demonstrated a desire to help if that aid came with a price tag.

When put within the clutches of such a “caregiver” many people feel trapped. They don’t know whether they truly have alternatives or if the next doctor or lawyer will act in a similar manner.

They may feel as though they will be passed on to another provider with the reputation as a troublemaker for whom no other legal or health care professional will wish to work with.

None of this is the case. It is important to know that a legal or medical professional’s inability to promote proper dialogue with a patient or client whether intentional or not is unacceptable.

Fortunately, there are many professionals available within all communities who have the desire to help those within their care as well as the willingness to converse adequately in pursuit of that care.

It seems odd to suggest that many lawyers in particular must become versed in the art of simply speaking properly to a trusting client. However, speaking words of legalese to judges or showing respect to those within a public courtroom is often far different from taking the time to enable a client to understand one’s legal options when no one is observing the professional’s conduct.

It is often declared that character is how one behaves when no one is watching or how one treats another who can be of no benefit to the individual.

In the case of professional dialogue it is necessary to place character above all else when selecting or staying with an attorney who may have demonstrated that it is financial gain that has been valued above a passionate pursuit of justice.

A new and sometimes regrettable trend on the rise within Indiana is the growing number of lawyer solicitation letters mailed to those arrested for criminal offenses. Formerly isolated to counties outside of Johnson, those arrested within the Johnson County limits are no longer immune to such potential abuse.

In past years and continuing today the mailing of such correspondence seeking to profit from another’s misfortune has been deemed “unethical” by respective state legal bar associations and consequently prohibited. However, recently, despite universal distaste for such a practice among most lawyer groups nationwide, the practice has reluctantly been permitted within the field of criminal law under the guise of 1st amendment free speech considerations.

The distinction made to allow such potentially abusive mailings to vulnerable people arrested is made due to the limited time frame those accused of criminal offenses have to assert legal rights and defenses. Based upon these legal deadlines it has been asserted that although the potential abuse exists among criminal lawyers seeking to take advantage of recently arrested individuals through lawyer mailings for employment, a rational basis exists in support of the practice under the first amendment so as to prevent legal challenge.

Following an arrest most people come home bewildered at the turn of events in their lives that can potentially alter the course of their future. For those not experienced or well versed in how to best select an attorney for their legal defense, the first mailing found within their mailbox may result in the first and only call made to an attorney. In such circumstances it is not at all uncommon to later discover an attorney more concerned with ensnaring employment from such unsuspecting individuals than working to best defend criminal cases.

From the big glossy mailed brochure to the lawyer letter seemingly created by a used car dealer, one need not base a decision on a defense lawyer from the appearance or quick delivery of such a letter for employment. Rather, take a moment to consider the potential legal representative who has taken the significant time and investment not in furthering the cause of those arrested, but rather in detecting who has been arrested and how to best get such an individual to retain them for employment.

The practice of legal defense is not and should never be operated as a business with profit motive the priority above all other considerations. Unfortunately, I have often been looked upon to rectify the case defenses of good and unsuspecting people who made the costly decision to base their decision on legal representation from the first or most appealing mailed correspondence that arrived at their place of residence.

Many quality lawyers have now taken the position that they must engage in this practice in order to provide what meaningful dialogue that they can offer. In so doing, it is the hope among many lawyers that they can do what is possible to combat the possibility of allowing a poor attorney to be retained without a meaningful alternative presented to a person in need.

Although more top flight lawyers have now reluctantly joined the direct mail world, I would suggest that one be extremely cautious and thorough when reviewing the credentials of all potential attorneys offering their services by way of mail.

Again, I can assert that many experienced and qualified defense lawyers are now engaged in the process of direct mail in order to provide competent and effective legal representation. However, far too many people arrested often wake up to the reality that the lawyer they have chosen is not one most concerned with your legal defense but is one who has made sending employment letters the first and foremost priority of their legal practice.

When it comes to the retention of the most effective legal counsel, never entrust your legal defense to the lawyer with a reputation for the most efficiently delivered attorney employment letters. Rather, please take the necessary time within which to adequately research and converse with the most qualified lawyers who have built a reputation for effectiveness within a court of law.

In the real world a key element as to successful dui defense involves an understanding of not only the facts of a given prosecution, but also the individuals who will play a part in a case resolution.

When defending a criminal case no matter whether it may be a dui prosecution or other criminal matter, it would be naive to think that a determination of justice will be the same no matter what court, judge or potential jury is to hear a case.

As a result it is critical for a lawyer practicing in Johnson County to not only have a sense for the community values and policy stances of the general public who could potentially be called as a juror, but even more importantly, a defense lawyer must have the experience and understanding to know how to proceed before a given judge either in Franklin or Greenwood.

From my perspective as a defense lawyer for more than twenty years, justice is not blind. Despite the famous statute of the lady liberty type figurine with a blindfold over the eyes, it would be foolish to believe that a judge who could play a part in either determining a suitable punishment or deciding on guilt or innocence does not come into a case proceeding with certain beliefs and life experiences with which to help guide his or her judgement.

I believe that the citizens of Johnson County are fortunate in that the majority of jurists seated to hear criminal cases are not only fair, but have also attained a sufficient amount of legal experience to properly decide legal issues put before them.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, recent years have allowed political elections to seat judges who have not been the most capable. The allowance for political elections in Indiana to seat judges has enabled those with the most money and/or resources to become the final say as to guilt or innocence in far too many cases in need of a jurist with suitable real world legal experience.

With this reality in mind, an effective defense attorney cannot simply throw up one’s hands in surrender as to the potential inexperience or lack of wisdom of a judge empaneled to oversee a client’s prosecution.

Rather, the best of defense lawyers must have the experience and temperment with which to navigate a client’s defense effectively no matter the judge before them.

I have had the good fortunate of not only working beside judges presently seated within the courtrooms of Greenwood and Franklin in my capacity as a former dui prosecutor, but I have also had years of experience practicing before all of the judges of Johnson County that may potentially be assigned a client’s given dui prosecution.

As stated earlier, this legal experience has proven to be invaluable to me in the successful resolution of dui cases put before each respective judge who may be potentially assigned to a specific case prosecution.

When consulting with a prospective defense lawyer with with whom you may be considering retaining, I urge you to discuss the lawyer’s specific experience before the specific judge assigned to your case.

More importantly, question your potential lawyer as to the legal strategies best suited for success before the assigned judge that will oversee your dui prosecution or that of one you care for. Only then can you secure the needed confidence necessary to move ahead with the assurance that your legal defense is in the right hands.

I believe that at the present time, as in years past, the majority of judges in Johnson County are capable and well suited to fairly decide on evidentiary matters put before them for legal consideration.

With that in mind, it would be foolhardy to think that despite their desire for impartiality, it is not important to have a fundamental understanding of the track record and biases of the Johnson County jurist we will appear before.

Call me at any time and allow me to share what insight I can offer as to the any and all judges within Johnson County. Such a discussion can prove to be invaluable in securing a case resolution that enables you or someone important to you to safeguard a bright future.

Conventional wisdom for those operating motor vehicles is that so long as all traffic rules and regulations are being followed, a motorist should be at no risk for police stop.

While for the most part in theory such an assessment is accurate, this thought process is not always correct. For those deciding to take a chance when operating a vehicle after drinking, any misunderstanding as to the rules of traffic stops and apprehension can have significant consequences.

Many among us take the position that we know our own individual tolerances for alcohol and can best be in position to assess our physical coordination and ability to operate a vehicle safely. In this way we each justify the operation of our own motor vehicles based upon our respective beliefs and understanding of our physical abilities and/or restrictions following use of alcohol.

Although such an opinion might be politically incorrect, I simply believe that that there are many of us who after a night of drinking are still more capable of operating a motor vehicle more capably than some among us who are sober.

With that being the case, it is essential for such skilled people to recognize that merely operating a motor vehicle in a capable manner after drinking will not always prove a shield to police stop and ultimate detainment for drunk driving.

As more and more counties throughout the state of Indiana adapt police policies through which to apprehend suspected drunk drivers, the former civil liberties that citizens have come to expect have been significantly eroded.

Most notably, what the driving public must be aware of when driving within Indiana is the legal basis upon which probable cause for the stop and detention of a driver can be initiated. For those driving capably following the ingestion of drugs or alcohol it is critical to take note that you are not immune to a lawful police stop irrespective of no demonstrated physical impairment or commission of a traffic violation based upon the driving activity.

This increased restriction on the civil liberties directed against the driving public in Indiana has come with the increased usage of mobile police checks that “run” license plate checks indiscriminately.

No matter whether the targeted driver has acted in any way suspiciously or demonstrated driving activity that poses a threat to the others around the individual, law enforcement in Indiana can unilaterally decide to seek out ways upon which to stop a vehicle where conventional probable cause is not existent.

Through the usage of such mobile police check practices, driving with a suspended license, expired plates or any other omission that has caused a drivers license to become invalidated has served as a powerful tool upon which traffic cops in Indiana now use to detain properly driven motor vehicles.

Stakeouts where police will run license plate checks within the parking lots of taverns, sporting events or other public assemblies where drinking commonly occurs has unfortunately become increasingly prevalent.

During the course of such police practice do not be surprised to find the vehicle your are driving stopped the moment it hits a public roadway where the traffic patrolmen in question is already on notice as to the deficiency with your driving license or vehicle registration.

Of course at all times police can validly endorse and rationalize practices to track the vehicle identification of a driver based upon individualized suspicion that the motorist in question has been suspected in the ongoing commission of a criminal offense or is wanted for a crime within another jurisdiction.

However, in this new age of elevated political pressure to ensnare potential impaired motorists, this former concept of individualized probable cause to stop based upon demonstrated driving impairment is no longer commonplace in the justification for an Indiana dui arrest.

Despite numerous court appeals that have formerly been initiated to cease or curtail ongoing police practice in the indiscriminate running of license plates to serve as a pretext with which to stop a motorist, our courts of appeal have seen fit to uphold the practice.

The lesson to be learned is as follows; if one feels physically capable of driving following the consumption of alcohol, please take all necessary steps to ensure that your drivers license and/or vehicle registration does not provide a means by which to allow law enforcement to initiate a traffic stop that could ultimately result in your dui prosecution.

For those unfamiliar with the working process of the criminal justice system, it could be surprising to discover that the significance of one’s constitutional rights is often dependent on the crime one has been arrested for.

This is never more true than in the legal circumstances typically found within drunk driving prosecutions and constitutionally protected “Miranda” warnings.

Such required rights advisements have been made known to generations of Americans conditioned through television and movies as commonplace during the course of police arrest procedure.

The Miranda decision was decided in the 1970’s by the United States Supreme Court and has been instrumental in the suppression of incriminating statements within state prosecutions nationwide.

The decision focuses upon the danger for abuse inherent when unchecked police authority allows for those arrested to feel compelled to make incriminating statements that can later be utilized in prosecutions against them.

Pre Miranda, those put within police custody often suffered both physical and mental abuse at the hands of police agencies who believed the ends of police misconduct justified the means of securing incriminating confessions that could be used to imprison those who they decided were guilty of a given crime.

As a result, in criminal prosecutions where the motive of the targeted individual for prosecution plays a crucial element of the crime charged, an obtained confession standing alone could often serve to shortchange justice and imprison a coerced individual based upon the compelling evidence of an admission seemingly against one’s legal interest.

In such cases, without the knowledge that one being interrogated has rights and the ability to cease police interrogation where not put under arrest, innocent people would tragically be fooled or coerced into making false confessions as a means by which stop further, often relentless, questioning.

Absent being placed in custody for a crime that has been committed, the Miranda decision compelled police to advise all questioned suspects of their respective rights to remain silent as anything said to police under questioning could be used in a prosecution against them.

Through the additional safeguard that all such suspects have the right to consult with an attorney prior to such questioning, the Supreme Court has fashioned a judicial opinion that has withstood the test of time in attempting to ensure that all Americans are free of police misconduct during the course of a potential police investigation.

However, with that said, the nature of the dui arrest is not one that often lends itself to contested Miranda litigation within a court of law. The reason: because within dui prosecutions the most compelling evidence typically utilized by state prosecutors is not that which is spoken, but by the actions of the alleged offense committed.

The customary legal attack in the area of dui arrests are therefore not centered on whether legal rights were explained by an arresting dui officer. Rather, legal attention focuses upon probable cause for the stop, performance of field sobriety testing and most importantly, the results of breath or blood alcohol testing; none of which relies upon the spoken word of the suspect, but the credibility of police observation and the admissibility of test results.

Since the above referenced prosecutorial requirements to convict within dui cases are not based upon evidence uttered by the accused, nor motive, whether or not Miranda warnings were enunciated to a dui suspect is not nearly as vital as in other criminal cases. For even if statements of the accused motorist can be excluded from evidence within a dui prosecution, such a statement’s potential significance is minimal against the weight of proposed breath/blood draw and/or field sobriety test results.

Significantly, many people during the course of an Indiana dui investigation unfortunately mistake their legal rights to an attorney in refusing to submit to breath tests prior to consulting with legal counsel.

Because such a test is not based upon any spoken word or verbal utterances, the right to an attorney under Miranda does not attach to a legal compulsion to submit to breath tests in drunk driving cases.

Further, in Indiana the ability to operate a motor vehicle is not deemed a constitutional right, but a privilige to which constitutional rights do not necessarily attach. Because of this, the ability to maintain an operational license in Indiana is conditioned upon all applicable motorists abiding by all administrative laws of the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles.

One of these administrative requirements of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles is that a driver who fails to submit to a breath test when investigated for drunk driving will suffer a mandatory drivers license suspension. This is so no matter whether the driver is later found not guilty of an alleged drunk driving accusation charged against them.

Over the years one common question people have when arrested for owi has been the location of the arrest and its impact on whether a case can be tossed out of court.

People who have taken the time to understand the law prior to a call are often optimistic at the chances of beating a case in court when an arrest occurs on private property. Most often such a fact pattern centers on a police officer who follows a person for suspected drunk driving for a certain period of time, but doesn’t initiate the arrest until the alleged driver has gone home to a private residence.

Within such a fact pattern the person investigated and later arrested is often hostile to the notion that an officer can violate his or her rights by initiating a criminal arrest on one’s own private driveway.

Most people, familiar with constitutional rights and protections grow frustrated at an arresting officer during such a circumstance. This frustration usually causes emotions to escalate that have on many occasions prompted the filing of additional charges associated with such an arrest, namely resisting law enforcement and/or disorderly conduct against people who believe that they have the right to resist an unlawful arrest.

Unlike other case circumstances where an arrest warrant and/or search warrant must usually be obtained prior to police action on private property, such is often not the case when considering an owi arrest occurring on the private property of an individual suspected of drunk driving in Johnson County.

This is so due to the legal term known as “exigent circumstances.” Exigent circumstances classify excusable police conduct that allows for a legal arrest to take place on private property (or other circumstances) without the requirement for a warrant to be obtained.

The rationale for this is that one who has the capability for escape while within a motor vehicle in a potential state of intoxication has the capability to cause great risk to the safety of the general public.

As a result, the “exigency” or emergency during such a suspect event of drunk driving allows for the arrest and detainment of such a person who otherwise could become a flight risk able to cause immediate harm to those around them. To rule otherwise could potentially cause this expressed harm to take place during the time taken to secure a judicial warrant approval from a Johnson county judge.

Of course people in many such instances could question the true exigency of such a fact pattern where someone could easily be monitored so as to not allow for the operation of a motor vehicle when parked in one’s driving following an observed stop.

However, Indiana law as in most if not all state jurisdictions will allow for such a stop, detainment and arrest of suspected drunk drivers where probable cause for such an arrest has been established that the vehicle has been operated in a state of intoxication on a public road in Johnson County.

In far fewer case patterns yet equally important is the suspected operation of a motor vehicle on one’s private property in a state of intoxication during the totality of the driving activity. Such cases in Johnson County are often those associated with ATV or other recreational motorized vehicles that are used by riders on farms with vast acreage that can support such driving activity.

In such cases the discussion is far different as no cited public roadway illegality can be supported to justify the exigent circumstances of an arrest for activity wholly committed on one’s own private property. Other than danger to oneself, intoxicated driving activity on one’s own property for the duration of the driving activity causes no intended or actual danger to the general public.

As such, a competent defense lawyer should fight for the preservation of a citizen’s constitutional rights in all such circumstances even in drunk driving prosecutions that almost always otherwise relate to driving activity that in some way touches upon the use of public roadways.