It has come to my attention that in recent weeks more attorneys than ever have apparently been requesting payment from those who have called for their help.

Although not limited to dui or criminal defense cases, this legal trend is disturbing and sends exactly the wrong message to the public as to the true motivations of far too many lawyers practicing within the area.

No matter what area of need one must contend with at a certain time of one’s life, it is no doubt comforting to know that their is a trusted professional to turn to whose foremost priority is not determining how much money can be solicited from you in return for their assistance.

In almost all of the cases where I have been notified of such practices to seek payment for an initial telephone discussion, the lawyer in question has not been devoted to one legal specialty of law.

This is important because many people have the reasonable though misguided belief that if they pay money for an initial consultation that they will somehow receive more wise and thorough legal advice to address their legal issue.

In reality, those attorneys who demand payment for their counsel either through a phone call or initial meeting are more often than not of the general practice variety. The advice relayed for payment from such lawyers is often subpar and a purposefully lengthy waste of time in an effort to prolong the billing clock.

Further, for such attorneys more time spent in their office serves as a tactic in which to bind you to the services of that particular legal practice or law firm. After the needless investment of time and effort to schedule a appointment to actually meet with such a lawyer, any reasonable person who needs legal defense services may assume that all lawyers engage in such practices. As a result, people needing legal help will not look elsewhere for fear of repeating this frustrating waste of time and money.

By making a visit time consuming and inconvenient such lawyers not only allow their fees to mount, but more importantly discourage such folks from seeking the advice of other more qualified and ethical counsel who I can assure you will never make you pay money for asking questions.

The lesson to be learned is that not all lawyers will bill you for seeking their legal help. You should always feel free to call an experienced lawyer without fear that your call will prompt an unreasonable demand for payment in your mailbox.

I take great pride in doing whatever I can, whenever I can, to help people in their time of need with their legal questions in the area of Johnson County DUI and Criminal Defense at no cost to them.

In fact, unlike the practices of other lawyers I have touched upon, I have found that a good majority of people would actually prefer to have their questions answered by an informative free phone call as opposed to a time consuming office meeting during the work week.

Please know that paying for the initial advice of a dui defense attorney is not only unnecessary but a great indication that you are dealing with precisely the wrong attorney to meet your legal defense needs within Johnson County.

In this part of the state and I would assert anywhere in the country, the most qualified defense attorneys take pride in offering initial cost free discussions to good people confused as to the next step to take in their legal protection following an arrest. Do not allow an unethical attorney to take advantage of this confusion in demanding payment for advice that will usually be poor.

it is my sincere hope that with this brief amount of insight you can now turn such an unpleasant experience with an attorney into a positive by recognizing that you have the wrong attorney. At such time you will be able to select a more ethical attorney of your choosing at an early enough stage of your case to prevent more longer lasting legal damage to be done.

If you need any further detail as to what I have spoken about in this posting or have any questions following an owi arrest in Johnson County I am always here and always available at no cost to respond to your questions.

For a person who is not in position to have his or her dui case dismissed in Johnson County, the potential differences in how probation terms are imposed can be a source of frustration. This is so due to the different sentencing requirements imposed upon a first time dui offender depending upon whether a case has been decided within the Greenwood City Court or the Franklin City Court.

First time misdemeanor cases heard within Johnson County will be heard within either the Franklin or Greenwood town courts. Usually based upon where the dui arrest took place a case will be filed within the applicable arresting jurisdiction.

Although always subject to change in the future, as it presently stands there is often different treatment in the way the subject of probation is treated wholly dependent upon which jurisdictional town court has been assigned the particular dui prosecution in question.

Presently, within the Greenwood City Court, those individuals found guilty of a first time misdemeanor dui offense will be ordered to perform specific rules and conditions of probation terms that must be completed. Failure to perform any and all designated terms negotiated by an attorney and deputy prosecutor will be cause for revocation of what is called a “suspended” sentence.

The suspended sentence refers to the amount of jail time incarceration that will later be made available to the judge should any and all conditions of imposed probation not be performed. For example, a future arrest during the course of a probation, consuming alcohol or drugs, not performing community service requirements, not paying applicable fines and/or fees in a timely manner or not showing up or cooperating with alcohol treatment are just a few of the most common areas for which a violation of one’s probation can be imposed.

More significant to this discussion is the fact that most cases in Greenwood, absent special circumstances, will result in a period of probation for one year, representing the term of the suspended potential incarceration time in the best of circumstances.

In other words, should jail time be avoided, the person found guilty will be placed on probation for a period of one year subject to potential future jail time of one year dependent upon completion of all terms of designated terms of probation.

Unlike Greenwood, at the present time as in years past within Franklin City Court, one found guilty for the same first time owi misdemeanor will not usually be subject to the same rules governing probation as within Greenwood.

For example on many occasions I will be in position to allow for a compliance date to be scheduled with the court governing when fines and court costs must be paid so as to allow for a client to forego the standard and individually specified rules of probation that would be ordered for the same offense in Greenwood.

As an attorney I recognize wholeheartedly the frustration that can occur to one who has found an outcome that may be different not based upon the merits of the case but rather due to the court jurisdiction.

However, one must recognize that whether a case is heard within different courts in the same county or a different Indiana county altogether, your attorney must know the court procedures of the specific court assigned so as to secure the best options for a client who is reliant upon achieving the best outcome possible.

The term, “Judge Pre Tempore” is a latin term and basically refers to one who presides over a factual dispute in place of another. To put in other words, a “substitute judge.” The impact of these types of cases to a criminal prosecution can vary depending upon how the presiding judge within the dui case jurisdiction chooses to utilize these judges. In Indiana, the laws related to the utilization of these individuals is rather flexible. Where some presiding judges will rarely if ever make use of such persons, others will have them brought on the bench far more extensively.

In most cases, the Pro Tem judge will be a lawyer from the community who will agree to preside over a court docket on a moment’s notice. Such an attorney will not uncommonly be a friend of the presiding judge or a lawyer who practices extensively within the specific court.

In more established use of these judges, a Pro Tem will be called upon in a more orderly fashion as the individual designated to hear cases when the judge will be either unavailable or to be part of the legal process itself. For example, such a judge may be assigned to hear most pre trial matters brought before the court that may carry little legal consequence as to the resolution of the factual dispute in question. The decided issue may simply be the scheduling and assignment of future court and trial dates. As a result, in more populous counties in Indiana, reasonable use of such individuals can have a positive effect on the efficient administration of justice. Where a Pro Tem is asigned to tend to basic administrative functioning of the court, the presiding judge has the ability to focus on more consequential matters such as the ruling on pre trial motions and review of legal briefs filed within other cases before the court.

More problematic and of substantial importance to defense lawyers of criminal cases in Indiana is and should be the use of such judges in matters related to the disposition of a client’s dui case. Depending upon the county and judge within the county, it is important for the defense attorney to have a firm grasp of the judicial philosophy of the presiding judge hearing a client’s dui case in regard to the use of pro tem judges. In my view, some presiding judges use pro tems far more responsibly and within the spirit of their intended use than others.

By point of reference, I recently concluded a trial with a pro tem empowered to hear the case. Through my knowledge of this particular individual I had made a determination that this jurist would be to my client’s advantage to rule on the case and therefore made no effort to remove the judge within prescribed time limits. This decision was significant, for in my opinion had this judge not been put in place I believe rulings in the matter may have been different with the presiding judge on the bench. The prosecutor had allowed the time limit to remove this pro tem judge lapse, eliminating his ability to demand that the presiding judge hear the case to his detriment as my client was found not guilty.

Within the above referenced example  it is essential to become aware of who will potentially be the final word on the dui case before the court. Not recognizing the reality that a presiding judge is not necessarily the ruling judge can become a costly decision for one not otherwise informed.

Dui convictions for those with out of state drivers licenses in Johnson county poses yet another administrative challenge as related to the reinstatement of a license. One convicted of a dui in Indiana and holding an out of state drivers license must always be advised that as an administrative agency, an out of state department governing the issuance of drivers licenses is not required to obey the court ordered license suspension imposed by Indiana.

For example, although a judge in Johnson County may order a minimum 90 day license suspension for a first offense as governed by laws in Indiana, a state such as Illinois will impose a minimum one year suspension upon a conviction and notice no matter the order of the Indiana court

This is so because the terms governing the potential length of a driver’s license suspension are not ultimately determined by a court, but by the administrative licensing authority of the driver’s state of residence issuing the license.

Although most states will accept the Indiana order as related to the suspension of one’s license, unless holding an Indiana driver’s license, there is no guarantee that the court ordered term of suspension will be honored.

For this reason, it is always best that an experienced dui attorney in your issuing license state be consulted while your dui case is pending in Johnson county or anywhere in Indiana. This consultation can be critical in establishing the likelihood of any proposed Indiana license suspension being accepted by the licensing state.

If there exists any doubt that the Indiana suspension will be accepted and the possibility exists for residency to be established prior to the conclusion of such a dui prosecution, any and all steps must be taken to secure an Indiana license before the case is resolved.

Once the order of license suspension has been directed to the other state and processed, one convicted of an Indiana dui is at the mercy of that state’s administrative law and procedure as related to reinstatement terms and the ultimate length of any future license suspension.

Therefore if any opportunity exists to lawfully secure an Indiana license prior to any Indiana case resolution, one affected must pro actively be advised so as to take any and all steps necessary to allow a judicially imposed length of license suspension following an Indiana dui to be honored.

In Johnson County and throughout the nation there is a new focus on texting while driving. For those who may have had some drinks before driving, this reality suggests that mobile communication within a vehicle carries the increased prospect of a texting while driving stop turning into a dui arrest.

Increasingly I have been defending cases where a dropped cell phone, or focus on one’s i phone has caused a vehicle to cross the center line or cause other indicators of potential  impairment. Specifically, texting while driving has become an ongoing source of intense law enforcement scrutiny. I would contend that the impairment caused by texting while driving rivals if not surpasses the alleged threats that are claimed to be caused by drunk driving.

By sheer numbers, the majority the driving public now have some form of access to mobile devices. As a legal purchase and a lawful consumer item, at present law enforcement has had a difficult time quantifying how to meet the ongoing threat of texting within motor vehicles by lawful means. Unlike the manner in which law enforcement officials have come to investigate impaired drivers from alcohol or drug related activity, attempting to establish probable cause for impaired texting has been more problematic.

Objective modes of detection presently exist for police officers to measure the existence of alcohol or drugs within the bloodstream of a driver targeted for an impaired driving arrest and ultimate prosecution. With the use of mobile devices, the use of search warrants to seize suspected phones or other means of communication have not been implemented.

I would suspect that the public outcry directed at governmental officials by those who have had these valuable devices confiscated would be too much for the driving public and legislators to readily accept. Further, should the confiscation not in fact produce a potential time frame within which to tie up the alleged impaired driving with texting activity, those confiscating police officials would be sure to feel the heat of ridicule.

As a result, I believe the difficulties in proving texting while driving will not allow for an increase in convictions for such activity under the present state of Indiana law. However, what this increased scrutiny will do is provide traffic cops the legal excuse they need to stop and question those engaged in texting while driving activity. From there, the questioning and on scene investigation will be not to focus on a texting while driving citation but the prized dui arrest.

For the above referenced reasons it is my contention that the easy target of apprehending motorists for drunk driving through objective evidence on scene is allowing the proliferation of texting while driving to continue unabated.

Often political realities are permitted to pervade the workings of law enforcement priorities. Although texting while driving has become an emerging problem, continued and increased pursuit of drunk driving activity will be continued with ever increasing public expense simply because of the ease of determining probable cause.

In my opinion, it is this probable cause for a dui stop that will prove to be the greatest risk for those engaged in texting while driving activity. Despite my personal belief that texting while driving has become a more present danger to roadway safety than dui, the difficulty in proving such cases will allow its true risk to become the legal invitation it provides a traffic cop to stop your vehicle and question your activities.

Despite the low risk of texting while driving resulting in a penalty in Indiana, the lesson must be made clear; if drinking prior to driving your vehicle please be mindful not to text or engage in other social media activity. By doing so you or one you care for will be depriving the police of an easy lawful opportunity to pull you over in search of an arrest that could have been otherwise avoided.