Wednesday, September 7, 2011

Texting while driving increases crash risk 23-fold

It isn't exactly breaking news that texting while driving is a bad idea. But a study released Monday night reveals just how dangerous it really can be.

After examining the behavior of truck drivers covering more than 6 million miles of road, the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute concluded that people who send text messages while driving are 23 times more likely to be in a crash (or what they call a near-crash event) than nondistracted drivers.

To conduct the study, researchers mounted cameras inside drivers' vehicles. They studied where drivers' eyes were looking as they did various things, such as texting, dialing a cell phone, talking on a phone, and reaching for an object. Not surprisingly, the numbers (PDF) showed that the tasks that took people's eyes off the road caused the greatest amount of danger.

In crashes or near-crashes, texting took a driver's focus away from the road for an average of 4.6 seconds--enough time, the report point out, to travel the length of a football field at 55 mph.

By contrast, talking on a cell phone, which allows drivers to keep their eyes on the road, represented an increased risk of only 1.3 times that of a nondistracted driver.

The study's authors called into question past research that indicated driving while talking on a cell phone is as dangerous as driving drunk. While those results may have been found in lab tests and driving simulations, they say, the same was not true in real-world situations. They also noted that, contrary to popular belief, talking on a cell phone with a wireless headset is not substantially safer than talking on a regular handset. This is because the most significant factor as far as safety is concerned is to keep one's eyes on the road, the report said.

The institute says any task that takes a driver's eyes off the road should be avoided and suggests that all cell phone activity should be banned for newly licensed teenagers because they're more prone to using their phones.


By: Jennifer Guevin

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305 548 5020.



Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Got a traffic ticket in Miami -Dade? go now to www.miamionlinetrafficattorney.com


Tuesday, September 6, 2011

Alleged assault victim in Haiti is receiving care

An 18-year-old Haitian man allegedly assaulted by troops serving as U.N. peacekeepers in the Caribbean nation is traumatized and receiving medical care, according to a spokesman for Haitian President Michel Martelly.

The alleged assault came to light in recent days with a cell-phone video being circulated in Haiti, and a confirmation from the Uruguayan Ministry of Defense that it was investigating its troops in connection with the video.

The investigation has expanded to include a United Nations inquiry, as the Uruguayan navy troops allegedly involved were in Haiti as part of the U.N. peacekeeping mission.

Haitian officials are cooperating with U.N. and Uruguayan investigations into the alleged incident, and the situation has not harmed relations between Haiti and Uruguay, Herold Israel, communications director for Martelly, told CNN Monday night in a brief telephone interview. He did not elaborate on the alleged victim's condition or what care the man was receiving.

Israel said authorities were not sure whether the 18-year-old alleged victim was sexually abused, but investigations are ongoing.

Uruguay peacekeepers face assault probe


The one-minute video, obtained by CNN, shows a young man with his shorts down being subdued by several men in military uniforms. The alleged victim is on a mattress, facing down, while several men hold his arms and hands behind his back. The uniformed men speak Spanish, but it is garbled on the tape and not understandable.

At the beginning of the video the alleged victim is slapped in the face. He screams several times while the alleged perpetrators laugh. The laughter grows louder as a seemingly naked man approaches the alleged victim from behind. The young man is subsequently released and the video ends. The video obtained by CNN does not show a sex act.

Leonardo Galante, a spokesman with the Uruguayan defense ministry, confirmed to CNN Sunday that top Uruguayan military officials had already received two internal reports regarding the incident and are waiting for results of an investigation launched by the U.N.

U.N spokeswoman Soung Choi told CNN Sunday that "the U.N. is investigating the matter," but would not elaborate on preliminary results or actions to be taken by the international organization.

The Uruguayan defense ministry said in a statement: "Immediately after the existence of the video became known, the armed forces ordered an urgent investigation. ... The National Defense Ministry has relieved of his duties the chief of the Naval Contingent and began the repatriation of the (armed forces) members from Haiti."

Galante confirmed that Uruguayan Defense Minister Eleuterio Fernandez Huidobro has recalled to Uruguay the navy commander in charge of the troops being investigated.

It was not clear Monday whether the Uruguayan troops being investigated were still in Haiti or had been taken back to Uruguay.

The statement did not give a date for the alleged incident or further identify the alleged victim, but some news reports have said the incident occurred in July.

                                                       By, Kamal Ghattas

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305 548 5020.



Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Got a traffic ticket in Miami -Dade? go now to www.miamionlinetrafficattorney.com





The Top Five Things You Should Know About Breathalyzers

f you've never been stopped on suspicion ofDUI, you will likely be unfamiliar with the specifics behind breathalyzers and blood alcohol content (BAC).

While you'll likely know what a breathalyzer test is and maybe even that it's illegal to drive with a blood alcohol content of 0.08% in all 50 states, you may not know how a breathalyzer works and what test results may mean in a case.

This lack of knowledge could be a good thing because it probably shows that you've never been pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving. Vice versa, this lack of knowledge could be bad if you ever have to submit to a breathalyzer since these test results are now the most common and powerful form of evidence in most DUI cases.

Whether you're facing DUI charges or just want to learn more about the testing process, you'll find this list below to be an important source of information to help educate yourself on drunk driving.

And for even more guidance on breathalyzers, the DUI laws in your state and other DUI information, be sure to speak with a DUI attorney in your area.

1) A Breathalyzer Is An ESTIMATION and NOT A READING of Your BAC!

Many people think that breathalyzers read your blood alcohol content when in fact, they actually estimate your BAC levels. A breathalyzer attempts to convert your breath alcohol content to BAC by measuring blood alcohol in your breath from the lungs. While a reading suggests more validity, an estimation is what it is: an educated guess.

2) Breathalyzer Calculations May Make FALSE Assumptions about You!

Since breathalyzers estimate BAC, their results may be open to interpretation. This fact is especially evident when understanding how breathalyzers convert breath alcohol content to blood alcohol content.

In order to make this conversion, breathalyzers assume a standard ratio of 2100:1 between BAC and breath alcohol content. This ratio assumes that the man or woman being tested is an "average person" in terms of weight, health and other factors relating to his or her age group.

It has been shown that this ratio can vary anywhere from 1700:1 to 2400:1 within individuals. In other words, a breath test result of 0.08% may actually vary from 0.65% (under the legal limit) to 0.09% (above the legal limit); further demonstrating how breathalyzers are far from perfect.

3) You May STILL BE CONVICTED of DUI Despite a Legal BAC Test Result!

Assuming that the breathalyzer made an accurate estimation of BAC, some people may be of the opinion that they can not be convicted of DUI if the breath test result is below 0.08%. This is not always true. You may still be charged and later convicted of DUI if you fail field sobriety tests in spite of your breath test result.

And if you're under the age of 21, merely having any alcohol on your breath may be enough for a DUI charge and conviction. All 50 states have strict zero tolerance policies which make it illegal for underage drinkers to operate a motor vehicle with a BAC at 0.02 or even lower.

4) Just ONE OR TWO Drinks Could Result in an Illegal BAC!

Many people may think that they can have a few drinks and still be able to legally drive. This notion is not always true as BAC can vary within people based on many factors. For example, if you are below the average weight of your age group and haven't eaten all day, a couple of drinks may be enough to push you to 0.08%.

And there's always the issue of what constitutes a drink. As the Paris Hilton DUI arrest revealed, one drink may actually be equivalent to two or more drinks. Here are just a couple of good examples: One Long Island Iced Tea is equivalent to five drinks while one Pina Colada is really three drinks.

5) Know the DUI Laws in your State BEFORE REFUSING A BREATHALYZER!

If you've never been stopped on suspicion of DUI, you may wonder if you should agree to a breathalyzer test. While you may refuse a breathalyzer test, you should be aware of the DUI laws in your state before making such a decision. Many states are beefing up penalties forbreathalyzer refusals, and the risk may not outweigh these additional costs in your situation. Educate yourself about the laws in your state!

By Total DUI

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305 548 5020.




Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Got a traffic ticket in Miami -Dade? go now to www.miamionlinetrafficattorney.com


Monday, September 5, 2011

Ranking Pinal officer never cited in speeding

HomeNewsLocalCrimeCrime

Ranking Pinal officer never cited in speeding

Ranking Pinal officer never cited in speeding
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Arizona highway patrol officers stopped a well-known Pinal County Sheriff's Department lieutenant driving over 90 mph three times without citing her once, says an internal-affairs report on the incidents.

Usually, if a driver is cited three times for criminal speeding within a one-year period, jail time is the result, a local traffic-law expert said.

Criminal speeding is when a driver travels more than 85 miles an hour.

During the three incidents, which occurred between mid-2010 and March 3, 2011, Lt. Tamatha Villar was driving on Interstate 10 or its frontage roads northwest of Tucson in the area between Red Rock and Picacho.

The last time, on March 3, Villar was driving at least 92 mph on the frontage road and had a 10-year-old child in the front passenger seat. Villar, who served as the department spokesman under Sheriff Paul Babeu until June 2010, received a written reprimand in which she was told to "make a conscious effort to observe and obey the posted speed limit."

The Sheriff's Department released the report this week in response to public-records requests.

DPS officers are allowed to issue tickets at their own discretion, but a DPS spokesman said Villar probably should have received a ticket after the second incident.

"Looking at it from an agency standpoint, it would've been the expectation that she had gotten a ticket," said DPS spokesman Bart Graves.

However, the officers were dealing with a high-ranking officer and might not have initially known if she was on or off duty, Graves said.

"In that sector we work with local law enforcement," he said. "It's a difficult call for officers."

Ultimately the disciplinary action Villar received from the Sheriff's Department is likely more severe than a traffic ticket, Graves said.

However, the internal-affairs report, authored by a Pinal County sheriff's captain, notes that in each of the cases, Villar's speeding could have been treated as a misdemeanor crime, not a civil traffic violation. In most cases, if a person gets three criminal speeding violations within one year, they would get a jail sentence, said Tucson criminal-defense attorney James Nesci

"Typically the first time, the judge will probably fine you pretty nastily but not send you to jail. Second time, you might go to jail. Third time? You're going to jail," Nesci said.

The first incident occurred in mid-2010, the report says, but the date isn't specified because the officer who stopped her never documented the stop. A Tucson-based DPS major was driving to Phoenix for a meeting when he noticed a sport-utility vehicle passing him on the frontage road adjacent to westbound I-10, according to the documents.

The officer said he was traveling at 75 mph on the interstate and he estimated the SUV, which was Villar's unmarked patrol vehicle, was going about 90 mph. He stopped her at the Picacho exit and Villar told him she was speeding because she was late for a meeting.

"She was very pleasant to him and he asked her to slow down and they both left the area," the report says.

In the second incident, on Jan. 11, another DPS officer clocked her going in the low 90s on Interstate 10 near Picacho Peak.

After stopping Villar, "He asked her to slow down and drive safely and they both departed the area," the report says.

In the third incident, an officer was traveling between 80 and 85 mph on eastbound I-10 near Picacho on March 4 when he saw the SUV heading east on the north frontage road gaining distance on him.

He sped to more than 100 mph just to catch up to the vehicle and called for assistance from other DPS officers. He estimated the vehicle was traveling at more than 100 mph.

Villar, who had her son with her in the front passenger seat of the SUV, told the authorities she was heading home from work and had just picked up her son from school.

She was not reprimanded for picking up her son from school because county employees with take-home vehicles are allowed to run personal errands if they are commuting between work and home, according to the county's vehicle-use policy.

After the third speeding incident, a DPS captain made a formal complaint to a Sheriff's Department chief deputy, Steve Henry, which led to the internal investigation.

The letter, which was issued by a Sheriff's Department captain, threatened more severe disciplinary action if improvements were not made by Nov. 30.

Nesci said jail time isn't the only threat if a person accumulates three criminal speeding citations in a one-year period. The driver's license also will be revoked for 90 days unless the driver attends a 16-hour traffic survival school, he said.

By, Tim Steller

For more information on these matters, please contact o5020.ur office at 305 548

 


Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Got a traffic ticket in Miami -Dade? go now to www.miamionlinetrafficattorney.com

Saturday, September 3, 2011

Popping a Wheelie Now Costs Over $1,000

Section 316.2085 simply states that when driving a motorcycle (or moped) both wheels must remain on the ground.  It says it is a civil infraction punishable in Chapter 318 of the Florida Statutes.  You don't see any mention of section 316.2085 in section 318.18 (which describes the penalties) so you would think it is a normal, everyday citation.  Wrong. The legislature did something very cryptic here and created another section (316.1926) that simply says section 316.2085 shall be punished under Ch 318.  It is, but not under 318.18 (which is the normal disposition of traffic tickets) but under 318.14 (exceptions).  There it is noted as a $1,000 state fine (which means local costs can be added totaling about another $100).
 

Review the Florida Statutes relating to driving...

We encourage everyone to read through the statutes that regulate driving a vehicle in Florida. These can be found in Chapter 316 of the Florida Statutes.  What you read may surprise you and will definitely inform you of the current laws.

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305 548 5020.

 
 
Twiter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Facebook page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Got a traffic ticket in Miami -Dade? go now to www.miamionlinetrafficattorney.com

Friday, September 2, 2011

LIST: Sexting, bath salts and more new laws in effect in Texas

A host of new laws passed by the 82nd Texas Legislature is set to take effect today. The new laws will affect Texan's lives in various different ways from traffic laws to weapons to criminal offenses.

Criminal laws


HB 2118, SB 331

-- Certain synthetic compounds deceptively labeled as "bath salts" and synthetic marijuana products have been added to Penalty Group 2 of the Texas Controlled Substances Act. Both have been sold in convenience stores and head shops, and have side effects that can be harmful and long-lasting.

SB 40

7 -- The electronic transmission or possession of visual material depicting a minor engaging in sexual conduct ("sexting") has been added as an offense in the Penal Code. The penalty can range from a Class C misdemeanor to Class A misdemeanor, depending on the circumstances. This does not apply to minors involved in a dating relationship or spouses.

Traffic laws

HB 1353

-- Speed limits will now be the same during night and day driving, and separate speed limits for trucks have been eliminated. The maximum speed limit on state highways may be raised to 75 miles per hour if approved after a finding by the Texas Department of Transportation showed the increased speed would be reasonable and safe following an engineering and traffic investigation.

HB 378

-- Tow trucks have been added to the slow-down or move-over laws, which require drivers to slow down 20 miles per hour below the speed limit, or to vacate the lane closest to the stopped emergency vehicle that has emergency lights activated if the road has multiple lanes traveling in the same direction.

Drivers license

SB 14

-- Voters will be required to present a drivers license, personal identification certificate, military identification, election identification certificate, United States citizenship certificate passport or concealed handgun license to participate in an election. The Texas Department of Public Safety must create an election identification certificate to be issued for registered voters who do not have any of the other acceptable forms of photo identification. The election identification certificate will be distinguishable from a driver license or personal identification certificate, and will be issued free of charge to persons only if they do not hold any other acceptable form of identification, as listed in Election Code 63.0101.

HB 90

-- Hardship drivers licenses will be suspended if the holder is convicted of two or more moving violations during a 12-month period. DPS may no longer waive the driver education requirement to issue a 60-day hardship license.

HB 1148

-- Veterans will be exempt from the fee for a personal identification certificate if they can show honorable discharge and at least 60 percent service-related disability. Disabled veterans are exempted from driver license fees under current law.

HB 1514

-- A veteran designation will be displayed on a driver license for applicants who provide proof of military service and honorable discharge.

SB 1330

-- A four-hour driving safety course was approved for drivers under 25 years old. Drivers under 25 who are cited for a moving violation may be required to take this course.

Weapons

SB 321

-- Employers may not prohibit employees with a concealed handgun license from having firearms or ammunition in their personal cars in the employer's parking lot. This does not apply to employees of public, private or charter schools or employees of chemical manufacturers or oil and gas refiners.

Crime labs

SB 1616

-- Crime laboratories are required to preserve biological evidence used in the investigation or prosecution of a felony for at least 40 years, or until the applicable statute of limitations has expired if there is an un-apprehended actor associated with the offense.

SB 1636

-- Law enforcement agencies are required to submit DNA evidence in active sexual assault cases to an accredited laboratory within 30 days of receipt. Once the evidence has been analyzed, the DNA must be compared by DPS to state and federal DNA databases. The bill requires law enforcement agencies to submit unanalyzed DNA evidence collected after Sept. 1, 1996, to DPS for analysis.

Missing persons

HB 1075

-- A new category of missing person alerts may be issued for missing persons with intellectual disabilities. Activation of this alert includes a requirement of documentation of a qualifying intellectual disability.

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305 548 5020.





Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Got a traffic ticket in Miami -Dade? go now to www.miamionlinetrafficattorney.com




Thursday, September 1, 2011

NYC MV inspectors charged with fraud

NEW YORK – Four New York City motor vehicle inspectors are charged with issuing more than 7,000 fraudulent inspection certificates to untested vehicles. Each defendant was charged with numerous felony counts for violations of New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law, Penal Law and Environmental Law, which could carry millions of dollars in fines and years in prison. 

According to the complaints, the defendants bypassed these procedures by performing "clean scans," a fraudulent process that substitutes data from a secondary vehicle. The inspector first entered the identification number, model information and license plate number for the vehicle in need of certification. The inspector then connected the DMV computer to a secondary vehicle, and used its data to "pass" the safety and emissions tests for the vehicle in need of certification. A fraudulent inspection certificate was issued for the untested vehicle, which would potentially have failed an inspection or was not even present. 

The complaint indicates that the defendants charged additional fees for "clean scans." Motor vehicle inspections are set at $37, but the "clean scans" brought in anywhere from $60 to $100, more than twice the legally authorized amount. 

The Attorney General's office along with the DMV and Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) conducted an undercover operation at the four stations. An undercover investigator took a vehicle that was rigged to fail a legitimate motor vehicle inspection to each station, and each station provided passing inspection results to the vehicle even though the inspectors performed minimal or no actual inspection on it.    

The following individuals will be charged today:

  • Arnulfo Echavarria, 61, of New York, a licensed DMV inspector and owner of GT Enterprises Auto Repair Shop ("G.T. Enterprises"), a licensed New York State motor vehicle inspection station located at 3644 Jerome Avenue, Bronx;
  • Wil Ramon Manzueta, 21, of Bronx, a licensed DMV inspector and employee of All Prestige Muffler Inc. ("All Prestige"), a licensed New York State motor vehicle inspection station located at 1705 Jerome Avenue, Bronx;
  • Reynaldo A. Medina, 41, of New York, a licensed inspector at A.R. Tire Center & Services ("A.R. Tire"), a licensed New York State motor vehicle inspection station located at 2895 Jerome Avenue, Bronx;  
  • Cirilo Ventura, 45, of New York, a licensed DMV inspector and employee of 1995 First Avenue Station Inc. ("First Avenue Station"), a licensed New York State motor vehicle inspection station located at 1851 Park Avenue, New York.

The defendants are all being charged with Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Second Degree, a class D felony that carries a maximum sentence of 2 1/3 to 7 years in prison.  Other charges include Issuing a False Certificate, a class E felony carrying a maximum sentence of 1 1/3 to 4 years in jail, and Illegal Issuance of an Emission Certificate of Inspection, an unclassified misdemeanor that carries a fine of $15,000 per count, which could subject defendants to millions of dollars in fines if they were to be convicted of all counts.  

"These individuals were trusted to perform state-required inspections that keep unsafe cars off the road, but instead they took advantage of their expertise to cheat the system," Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said. "My office has zero tolerance for misconduct that puts New Yorkers at risk, and will continue to hold accountable those who commit these crimes."

For more information on these matters, please call our offices at 305 548 5020.




Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Got a traffic ticket in Miami -Dade? go now to www.miamionlinetrafficattorney.com