A DUI is a felony or misdemeanor criminal offense, not just a traffic ticket. If you are convicted of a DUI, there are mandatory penalties.
Your driver's license is automatically suspended upon conviction.
Your auto insurance rates may skyrocket, and a conviction may be added to your credit report.
If you hold a professional license, a conviction may be reported to your licensing or professional agency.
If you are in college, you could lose your scholarship or be expelled, even without a conviction.
In short, you have a lot to lose. So it makes good sense to hire an attorney to defend you against these charges. An experienced DUI defense attorney can review the facts of your case to find legal defenses to your charges.
I was arrested for a DUI in Georgia. I don't know if I want to contest the charges. How do I determine if I have a case?
I definitely don't want to pay an attorney to "hold my hand," but what do I need to do to handle this on my own?
Should I hire a lawyer or can I plead guilty by myself?
What is the maximum income/debt-to-income ratio that would allow me to obtain a public defender?
If I decide to not get a lawyer, is there any pre- or post-trial things I need to know?
Will everything be self- evident as to how I get a work permit, etc?
Instead of surfing all over the Internet trying to find this kind of information and hoping what information you do find is good, try calling a local attorney and offering a fee for a consultation instead of getting a "free consultation." Lawyers cannot give someone who's not a client advice.
In a free consultation, you can try and ask questions like these, but they really can't be answered specifically for your situation. Instead, you should ask questions such as how many of the attorney's current cases are DUI, how many he's handled before in the past, and his general approach. The information you gather in a "free consultation" is crucial information to have when deciding which attorney to hire.
When you pay money for a consultation, you will get answers that are specific to your situation. In fact, you may get all of your answers in that consultation and decide not to hire an attorney. Remember, cases are specific to the arrest area, so you need someone within a 50-mile radius of where you were arrested.
Would you let your real estate attorney handle your DUI case?
I'm a DUI attorney with over 20 years experience yet I don't dare advise myself about tax laws. I hire a tax attorney for that. When I bought my house, in the eyes of the law I could have handled the closing documents myself, but I didn't. I hired a "closing" attorney with years of practice in real estate law. If a good friend comes to me looking for a lawyer to defend his child who was a arrested for a violent crime, I connect him with the best criminal attorney I know who defends that kind of case. That is not my area of expertise.
So why would anyone hire a real estate lawyer to handle their DUI case? Because the real estate lawyer is hungry. His specialty has dried up. No one is buying houses anymore and he has his own mortgage to pay. So he invests in some new stationary, re-brands his website and viola - he is a DUI attorney. True story. Just ask my tax attorney colleague who shares office space with an amazing chameleon lawyer.
Here are some tips to make sure you hire the right attorney:
• Interview your potential lawyer in person if possible; • Ask how many of the attorney's current cases are DUIs; • Some firms use paralegals or secretaries to interview clients. Be sure you meet with a competent DUI defense attorney; • Determine if you feel comfortable with the attorney and confident in his or her ability in your case; • Make sure all your questions are answered to your satisfaction.
Your tax dollars at work
U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y is proposing a bill to give the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration $60 million to spend over five years to see IF they can develop an alcohol-detecting ignition lock that is both reliable and affordable. This is not what your tax dollars need to be doing.
Yes, absolutely, a device that will prevent drunk driving is a marvelous idea and could help save lives. That is not my problem with this proposal. My problem is with the government getting into R&D - R&D that is currently being done by all the major car manufactures already! I blogged about this a few months:
"Currently MADD (you know who they are) is pushing for federal legislation to require ignition interlock devices to be installed in cars whose drivers have been convicted of a single DUI. These gadgets prevent a car from being started if the driver (or whomever) blows too high a blood alcohol content breath into the testing device. What MADD really wants is for all cars to come already equipped with similar devices, straight from the car lots. Nissan, in fact, is testing several systems that detect drinking in other ways including tiny cameras that observe facial expressions, shifter sensors that check blood alcohol content, and even onboard computers that judge steering." See How Far Will It Go?
Sounds to me like the car manufactures have this already under control, never mind the outrageous breech of privacy these devices will bring. Do you suppose that MADD is bank rolling Charles Schumer? Do we really need to be spending any more on this? How could a senator afford to vote "no" on this? Not funding something that will prevent DUI accidents will look terrible on any senator's record. Even if they are completely right to do so.
An Interview with David Clark
David Clark is the Executive Director of the Georgia branch of the National Organization for Reforming Marijuana Laws, or NORML, and is working to legalize marijuana for medicinal use in the state. He has already drafted two bills to be used to legalize medicinal marijuana which could make Georgia the 15th state that allows for the legal use of medicinal marijuana. He just needs a sponsor. So far, not one of Georgia's state senators are willing.
I believe that we need fewer laws in general, including the one passed just a few weeks ago that bans texting while driving. I'm not a fan of it: It's impossible to enforce, and frankly, we have plenty of laws already on the books that take care of reckless driving. However, there is one law I would like to see: I'd like a law requiring video cameras in every single police car.
Many traffic officers think videos wreck their cases. The truth is that what an officer writes in his report is not necessarily what's captured on the video. With DUIs, it's very difficult to see whether a driver's eyes are bloodshot, and we certainly can't smell the odor of alcohol. But we can see someone who's unsteady on their feet, and hear when slurred speech. If a report is exaggerated, it's exaggerated and that's that. When I know a video exists of my client's arrest, I go over it in detail. Occasionally, I find that an officer has exaggerated, but I have yet to find anything as ridiculous as what happened last week in Texas.
Police cameras are useful in more than just DUI stops. For instance, many officers have been cleared of false accusations just by making sure that their video runs when there's a female arrestee in their car. In one case, video was crucial to the outcome of an incident years ago where a Texas trooper was killed on a traffic stop; no one would have ever been prosecuted for his murder if it were not for the video that captured the entire thing.
Many other states require cameras in every police vehicle; it wouldn't be all that exceptional for Georgia to require this as well. It doesn't even have to be a law!
1. 
Many traffic officers think videos wreck their cases. The truth is that what an officer writes in his report is not necessarily what's captured on the video. With DUIs, it's very difficult to see whether a driver's eyes are bloodshot, and we certainly can't smell the odor of alcohol. But we can see someone who's unsteady on their feet, and hear when slurred speech. If a report is exaggerated, it's exaggerated and that's that. When I know a video exists of my client's arrest, I go over it in detail. Occasionally, I find that an officer has exaggerated, but I have yet to find anything as ridiculous as