Bob Battle adds new Virginia DUI Blogs

Bob Battle has added a new Virginia DUI blog at a new web address- the new website is hosted by the amazing internet geniuses at ClarisLaw.com. Click here to visit "Virginia DUI Lawyer"

MADD Uses Donations to Buy Beer for Virginia DUI Defense Lawyer!

Yesterday, I received a fundraising letter from the Mothers Against Drunk Driving Richmond Area Annual Fund Campaign. The letter was sent from their headquarters in Irving, Texas. The letter was filled with lots of hyperbole and exclamation points and urged me to join the fight against "America's drunk driving nightmare." (Despite what the letter implicates, I have previously posted that drunk driving deaths have decreased in Virginia.)

The letter included a real check for $2.50 with the following advertising copy, "You can cash it if you choose, but I'm counting on you not to. To be honest I needed to get your attention and I felt the check was a good way to do that. It may not seem like much- $2.50- but you wouldn't simply overlook that sum, would you?" The letter went on to state that MADD is going to send a petition to Governor Kaine asking for "increased sobriety checkpoints, stiffer penalties for providing alcohol to minors, and prosecuting repeat offenders to the extent provided by law." I believe the well-paid copywriter meant to say, "prosecuting repeat offenders to the full extent provided by law."

The letter then states: "You see, we've seen a serious decline in contributions and were worried that some of our life-saving programs will suffer in the months ahead." There may be a very good reason for the decline in contributions. The public is becoming increasingly aware that MADD has a very poor rating for its extremely high costs of administration and fund raising versus the amount of money that actually goes to charity. California DUI guru Lawrence Taylor, a long-time critic of MADD, was kind enough to let me share with you his post on this issue, originally reported in his blog- www.duiblog.com.

As I've posted repeatedly in the past, Mothers Against Drunk Driving is a self-serving beaurocracy focused equally on Prohibition and cash. According to their own IRS statements, the U.S. organization alone brings in over $50 million a year in contributions -- and, according to watchdog Charity Navigator, has a low 2-star efficiency rating out of 4 (the Director of Program and Development, for example, is paid $152,408 a year).
It would appear that MADD's sister organization to the north is similarly oriented:

MADD Rejects 'Disgruntled' Critics

Charity's CEO dismisses volunteers' complaints that so little of donations go to programs

Toronto, Dec. 10 -- MADD Canada's top official has called a group of relatives of drunk driving victims who complained about his charity "disgruntled" and lashed out at the Star for exposing its high fundraising and administrative costs...

A story published in the Saturday Star revealed that Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada has such high costs that only about 19 cents of every dollar goes to victim services and the fight against drunk driving.

In addition to a detailed analysis of MADD's financial records, the story was based on interviews with leading volunteers of MADD who all work with the charity because they lost a loved one to a drunk driver.
The volunteers believe in the counselling and public awareness work of their local chapters but agreed to speak out against the charity's administration to force a change and restore confidence in what was once a low-cost, grassroots charity.
In his news release, (MADD CEO Andrew) Murie dismissed their complaints and said they are "obviously disgruntled with the organization."...

Yesterday, more than 100 MADD donors contacted the Star to say they had been suspicious of MADD's fundraising practices due to the high volume of telemarketing calls and other fundraising contacts they receive, sometimes monthly. MADD has numerous paid fundraising campaigns, using paid telemarketers, a company that sends people knocking on doors, a direct mail company and a company that distributes chocolate mint boxes around the province.
"I am absolutely furious at reading what MADD is doing with donors' dollars," said Joyce Williamson, 77, a widow who has made frequent $25 donations to MADD for many years.
When she learned from the Star article that so little of her cheque was going to charitable works, she decided not to give to MADD again.
She said MADD's paid door and phone canvassers used "emotional blackmail" by pressing her on the phone or at the door with numerous stories of drunk driving fatalities. The Star's story revealed that telemarketers work off a script that encourages them to press prospective donors three successive times after the person has said "no."

The Star's investigation found the paid fundraisers take most of the money, and send the remainder to head office.

And the "War on Drunk Driving" goes on...

-Lawrence Taylor

So, I know you are wondering-what did I do with the check for $2.50? Of course, I cashed it and used it to buy a beer at 7-11 and raised a toast to people like Larry Taylor who are willing to tell the truth and are willing to request that the public and legislatures use a little more common sense and a lot more Constitution in examining what is an extremely complicated issue.

I would never contribute a dime to a charity that doesn't rate at least 3 stars on Charity Navigator. For those of you who may have contributed to MADD- you know that $2.50 went to whet my whistle, now you should demand an explanation why so much of the remaining $49,999,997.50 was spent on salaries and fundraising.

Virginia DUI-Related Deaths Down for Third Straight Year

The 2005 Virginia Traffic Crash Facts report shows a decrease in alcohol-related traffic fatalities for the third straight year. Additionally, fatalities and injuries resulting from teen alcohol-related crashes both saw double digit decreases in the past year. The document is the result of cooperative efforts of the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), the Virginia Department of State Police (VSP), and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT).

The DMV press release also points out that "(n)ew legislation over the past several years makes Virginia home to some of the toughest DUI laws in the country. Increased DUI checkpoints, higher fines and mandatory jail terms have helped heighten awareness of drunk-driving enforcement in the Commonwealth."

To read more about this report, click here.

Ex-Prosecutor Bob Battle Reveals: 8 Secrets Your Prosecutor Doesn't Want You To Know About Your Virginia DUI

1. If everyone insists on their constitutional right to go to trial, the prosecutor will be in court all day.

2. In most cases, the mandatory minimum sentences for DUI are so harsh that a defendant in a DUI trial risks absolutely nothing by going to trial. Many clients ask me if a judge will penalize them with a harsher sentence if they assert their right to trial. The Virginia legislature has now raised the minimum sentence for all DUI cases to such a high level, that, if you decide to go to trial on your case, in most instances, as a practical matter, you are going to get the same sentence as the person who pleads guilty.

3. The prosecutor doesn’t want to be there. No one takes a job at a prosecutor’s office because they fantasized about prosecuting in traffic court! In most jurisdictions, the prosecutors would rather be prosecuting their felony cases than handling a traffic court docket. Furthermore, the prosecutor has 20 to 30 other cases with attorneys on the traffic court docket that they must handle that day. When I was a prosecutor in Fairfax County, there would be at least five traffic courts with five different prosecutors going on every day. The first prosecutor to arrive would get to pick which courtroom they would be in. The only consideration on every prosecutor’s mind was to pick the judge that was known to be the fastest, so they could be through with court as soon as possible.

4. The prosecutor is unprepared. In the vast majority of jurisdictions in Virginia, prosecutors do not look into traffic cases ahead of time. Most of my clients are shocked when I tell them that it is impossible for me to contact a prosecutor with knowledge about their case prior to the court date to discuss their case, because the prosecutors do not look into the cases ahead of time. In most jurisdictions, if someone shows up without an attorney, the prosecutor does not get involved. Thus, it is impossible for someone attempting to represent himself in these jurisdictions to discuss a possible plea bargain with the prosecutor, because the prosecutor will not speak to them. In some jurisdictions, such as Virginia Beach, there is not even a prosecutor for any traffic case, even a DUI with an attorney!

5. The police officer is unprepared.Your case is just one of an entire docket full of cases that the officer has on that date. It is not unusual for an officer to have 5 to 10 DUI cases on one date in addition to dozens of other traffic tickets. The officer often has little if any recollection of your arrest. That becomes apparent time and time again in court when I object to an officer testifying by reading from his notes and, after my objection is sustained by the judge, the officer clearly has no independent recollection of the arrest.

6. Most prosecutors know very little about the science (or lack thereof) behind field sobriety testing. At no time during law school does the professor ever say, “Today we’re going to learn about standardized field sobriety testing.” A thorough knowledge of these tests would actually hurt their cases and prevent them from making arguments that I routinely hear prosecutors make to judges while trying to argue that the results of these tests should be given more weight than they were ever intended to. For example, the three standardized field sobriety tests were only used to predict a BAC of .10 or above. Since the legal limit is now .08, there is almost no weight that a judge could give to these tests on someone with a BAC of .08 or .09.

7. The police officer did not follow proper procedures for the field sobriety tests. If a police officer receives proper training about field sobriety tests, they will be told the proper standards and procedures according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”). However, for example, on the “follow the pen with your eyes” test (the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, or HGN), the manual says that if the suspect moves his head during the test, the officer should use his flashlight or his free hand as a chin rest of the suspect. In 22 years of practicing law, I have never seen an officer use anything as a chin rest for a suspect, even though in the vast majority of those cases the officer testifies that the suspect was swaying and unsteady on his feet! The manual also states that the walk-and-turn and one-leg stand test should not be done if the suspect is over 50 pounds overweight or has physical impairments that could affect his balance. The manual also states that the walk-and-turn test “requires a line that the suspect can see.” This is rarely done.

8. The breath testing equipment is inaccurate. The breath testing machine is just that- a machine. The machine uses an assumption to calculate the amount of alcohol in a person's blood based on the amount of alcohol that is released into a person's breath. The amount can vary from between 1100 and 3200. However, the machine uses a standard ratio of 2200, the average between the two. If you exchange alcohol at the 1100 rate, the machine gives a reading twice as high as it should. On the other hand, if you exchange at the 3200 rate, it gives a reading half as high as it should. In any event, the principle is flawed and readings can vary up to 50% from the actual breath content. The manufacturers of the Intoxilyzer 5000 have flat out refused to reveal their source codes to defense attorneys. The source codes are basically the mathematical formula that the machine uses to convert a small sample of breath to a blood alcohol content number. Courts in Florida have already ruled that this refusal is a basis to dismiss DUI prosecutions. Virginia appeals courts have yet to rule on this issue.