Skip to main content

It Runs in the Family, Lindsay Lohan’s Mother Charged with DUI

Written by David O
Leave a Comment
It Runs in the Family, Lindsay Lohan’s Mother Charged with DUI

Mother Dina Lohan like daughter Lindsay Lohan or is it daughter Lohan like mother Lohan?  Who knows, but one thing is for sure; alcohol and a Lohan do not mix well … a bad recipe resulting in DUI (driving under the influence).

Thursday night, 50-year-old Dina Lohan was charged with DUI in Long Island, New York after being pulled over for speeding 77 mph in a 55 mph zone.  Allegedly during the stop, police observed visible signs of intoxication and asked Dina to take the DUI breath test to determine her BAC (blood alcohol content).  Dina should have refused this DUI test on the basis it is a voluntary test, however, she screwed up, took the test, and blew a .20 BAC result, twice the legal DUI limit of .08.

Li Lo’s mom was taken to jail where she was charged with speeding and DUI.  She was later bailed out of jail, but it wasn’t Lindsay to the rescue, an unknown source came to the aid of mama Lohan.

Rumor has it Dina has been drinking heavy and partying too much.  Still being a poor role model for daughter Lindsay, who also struggles with alcoholism and has a criminal history of DUI charges.

Dina has court next month and hopefully she will be able to find a good DUI lawyer, Lindsay won’t be able to refer her past criminal defense attorney since she fired her attorney while still owing $300,000.00 in legal fees, see my blog “Defense Attorney Saves Lindsay Lohan Despite Being Fired” for more details on Li Lo’s legal mishaps.

 

Written by S.O

heleyna holmes photography 003

BuzzWorthy Celebs, DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI, Legal Blog, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

New Driving Under the Influence (DUI) Laws

Written by David O
Leave a Comment
New Driving Under the Influence (DUI) Laws

Unfortunately every year there are fatal car accidents caused by drunk drivers.  However, this year has been different, Washington State lawmakers filed over a thousand pages of new driving under the influence (DUI) legislation within the months of March through June.

This mad rush of lawmaking was the aftermath of two tragic DUI related cases in the Seattle area.  Governor Inslee, lawmakers, and the “public” have been demanding tougher laws against drunk drivers ever since.

Many of the ideas proposed in early drafts had a lot of public and lawmaker support but were completely unrealistic as actual policies.  A popular proposal was to require special licenses or ID cards for people with DUI history to prohibit their purchase of alcohol.  This proposal appeared quite ineffective considering current Washington State law allows the use of various forms of identification for the purchase of alcohol, including passports and military ID’s.

Another popular proposal that went nowhere was the requirement for all drivers arrested for DUI to have an ignition interlock device installed in his/her vehicle while contained at the impound lot.  The vehicle would remain impounded until the ignition interlock devices was installed properly.  This proposal quickly didn’t pass because of testimony provided by representatives from ignition interlock companies that it was not feasible to install devices off site.

The two mentioned proposals did not pass into law this session.  However, new DUI law, Engrossed Second Substitute Bill 5912, passed and will become effective September 28, 2013.

As a result of 5912 there will be additional mandatory jail time for a DUI driver who had a child passenger.  A court sentencing under the new DUI law must consider whether or not a driver had a passenger under the age of 16 years in the vehicle at the time of the incident and impose additional jail time if they did.  For a DUI driver with no DUI history, this additional mandatory jail is 24 hours.  For a DUI driver with prior DUI history the additional mandatory jail is five days (one prior DUI) and ten days (two or more prior DUI offenses).

Also, 5912 impacts drivers with DUI history at the time of arrest and during pre-trial conditions of release.  During a DUI arrest, if the officer has knowledge of the individual having a prior DUI offense within 10 years, 5912 requires that driver to be booked into jail and held until released by a judge.  Any judge setting pretrial conditions of release for a person with a prior DUI is required by 5912 to impose an installation of an ignition interlock device.  The law does not allow for removal of the device until acquittal or dismissal of the DUI charge.

Driving under the influence laws are ever-changing.  If you or anyone you know is accused with DUI call David O Defense Criminal and DUI Litigation to schedule a free consultation.

DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI, Legal Blog, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

DUI Case Dismissed in May 2013 – Criminal Defense Attorney, David O

Written by David O
Leave a Comment
DUI Case Dismissed in May 2013 – Criminal Defense Attorney, David O

In this DUI case, my client (“MC”) was arrested for driving under the influence in Snohomish county.  The state trooper stopped MC’s vehicle for allegedly “not having working license plate lights” and nothing else.  After a brief DUI investigation, the trooper arrested MC for DUI (driving under the influence).

RCW 46.37.020 mandates vehicles to display lighted headlights and other lights after sunset or before sunrise and at any other time when persons and vehicles on the highway would not be clearly discernible at a distance of one thousand feet.  This statute is relevant because it would determine by law when lights are required on a vehicle while driving and in what type of conditions.

RCW 46.37.050(3) states: “Either a tail lamp or a separate lamp shall be so constructed and placed as to illuminate with a white light the rear registration plate and render it clearly legible from a distance of fifty feet to the rear…”  This statute is relevant because it specifically relates to a vehicle’s license plate and some facts related to my case.

My evaluation of MC’s DUI case; the trooper had no basis to stop MC’s car.  However, the state prosecutor didn’t agree with me.  I never take it personal when a prosecutor does not agree with me because, at times, I know they are just doing their “duty.”  So, I set MC’s DUI case for a motion hearing.  A motion hearing is a hearing similar to a trial but without a jury. There is no waiver of a jury trial for this type of hearing.  It’s a hearing where testimony will be provided by witnesses and legal issues presented to a judge.  After hearing all the issues the judge will decide and make certain rulings.

Fortunately for MC, the judge agreed with my argument and dismissed MC’s DUI case!  The judge decided the trooper did not have a reasonable basis to stop MC’s vehicle.  As MC criminal defense attorney, I put a lot of time and energy reviewing police reports, Washington State laws, interviewing witnesses and presenting my findings to the judge in a persuasive manner.  MC was very pleased his DUI was dismissed!

 

 

DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI, Legal Blog, Seattle Defense Attorney, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,