Program Strengths

The primary strength of the Austin Police Department’s efforts are attributable to having a special unit of officers dedicated to DWI enforcement. This practice allows those officers to increase their detection and roadside assessment skills and to become more confident in their abilities. As a consequence, officers who serve in the DWI Unit are more likely to interpret SFST results in strict adherence to the NHTSA guidelines and to make correct arrests decisions that other officers might not make, especially in borderline cases. Officers of the DWI Unit also become familiar with the judicial process and comfortable providing testimony in court. DWI Unit officers testify frequently and from this experience learn which aspects of the arrest process that defense attorneys are likely to challenge. The officers convey this information to their colleagues and adjust the established operating procedures, when necessary. Additional strengths are sum­marized below.

Managers of the Austin Police Department have been very supportive of the DWI Unit, especially by providing training opportunities. The support has benefited the department by (1) improving the performance of individual officer’s in the detection and assessment of impaired drivers; (2) allowing DWI Unit officers to assist other officers in the department to improve their skills; (3) increasing the level of professionalism of the force; and (4) enhancing the credibility of officers’ testimony in court.

Currently, the Austin PD’s DWI Unit uses patrol cars configured specifically for DWI/DUI Enforcement. Officers believe that the public can become desensitized to the sight of a police car; however, the DWI Enforcement decals on the special unit’s vehicles distinguish their patrols from all others, elevate awareness of the unit’s activities, and sometimes provide opportunities for pleasant interactions. Officers of the DWI Unit report seeing drivers at intersections mouth “DWI Enforcement” as they read the decals on the patrol cars and many citizens have made positive comments to the officers concerning their special duty. The officers believe that the distinctive lettering on their vehicles contributes immensely to the successful performance of their mission.

The DWI Unit’s DREs expand the APD’s abilities to detect drivers whose performance is impaired by substances other than alcohol, including recreational drugs and prescribed medication. The unit’s DREs also help educate the public and other officers concerning the performance-degrading effects of specific drugs and of drugs and medications when taken in combination with alcohol.

Officers of the DWI Unit occasionally borrow unmarked vehicles from other units to aug­ment their regular, high visibility DWI patrols. Similarly outfit­ted unmarked patrol cars are on order for use by the DWI Enforcement Unit. The new patrol vehicles will be equipped with moving radar and digi­tal video systems to provide additional capabilities. Suggestions From the Program Organizers

Judicial Issues

Work with prosecutors and judges. Advise them that their DWI case loads will increase dramatically as a result of a special enforcement program. After that, educate the judicial personnel about impaired driving issues and the enforcement effort. Begin with information about the SFSTs and DWI detection, then move to discussion of other drugs and medications that impair driving.

SFSTs and DWI Detection

The NHTSA’s DWI Detection guidelines and the SFSTs must be the central components of the DWI enforcement program. The agency’s managers must support the use of the SFST battery to help officers make roadside arrest decisions. Like many members of the public and judicial personnel, law enforcement managers might not fully understand the systematic procedures that have been developed by NHTSA. Some judicial personnel and law enforcement managers will require education concerning alcohol and other drugs that impair driving performance.

Training

Officers selected for special duty with a DWI unit must be willing to seek continuing education and training to preserve their understanding of proce­dures and case law regarding DWI detec­tion and the SFSTs. A well-trained and disciplined DWI unit will quickly earn a reputation for professionalism and reli­ability among judges, prosecutors, and even defense attorneys.

Officer Motivation

Managers of the Austin Police Department allow the members of the DWI Enforcement Unit to use their patrol vehicles for transportation between shifts. This unusual privilege recognizes the importance of the officers’ special duty, mitigates the burden imposed by lengthy and inconvenient court appearances, and contributes to general awareness of the special enforcement program by exposing the public to patrol vehicles announcing “DWI Enforcement” during daylight hours.

Evidence of Program Effects

A recent NHTSA study of the Austin Police Department’s DWI Unit found that the number of DWI arrests made by the department doubled as a consequence of the reassignment of general patrol personnel and the command emphasis on impaired driving enforcement. The authors of the report also suggest that the 25 percent decrease in alcohol-involved fatal crashes in Austin between 1997 and 2001, and the 10 percent increase in the conviction rate during the same period are attributable to the special enforcement efforts of the APD’s DWI Unit.

Changes Attributed to DWI Unit Between 1998 and 2001

DWI Arrests	+100%
Drivers in Fatal Alcohol-Involved Crashes	-25%
DWI Conviction Rate	+10%

Source: Wiliszowski, C.W. and Jones, R.K, Evaluation of the Austin Police Department DWI Enforcement Unit, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC, DOT-HS-809-641, 2003.

Too much time is consumed by court appearances.

too much time is consumed by court appearances.

The exclusive daytime scheduling of court appearances for DWI and Administra­tive License Revocation ( ALR) cases results in a considerable burden for officers who work the night shifts required by DWI enforcement duty. The inconvenience and the effects on officers’ sleep schedules are frequently mentioned as reasons for avoiding assignments with the DWI Unit. Also, the durations of the court appearances seem excessive to officers and contribute to their sleep deficits. For example, it is reported that most ALR judges allow even simple hearings to become mini-trials that take as long as 90 minutes. In response to this problem, the managers and officers of the DWI Unit have requested establishment of a night court for DWI and ALR cases.

Prosecutors and judges were unfamiliar with roadside assessment procedures.

It became apparent that many prosecutors and judges did not understand the purpose of NHTSA’s SFST battery and were unfamiliar with the procedures, scientific background, and related legal issues. The prosecutors have limited time and oppor­tu­nity to remain informed of issues, such as the SFSTs, and the judges often find them­selves having to make decisions based on the facts presented by the prosecutors and the obfuscation offered by defense attorneys.

In response to this problem, officers of the DWI Unit organized a training session to provide information about the SFSTs and DWI detection techniques to municipal court judges and prosecutors. The training was conducted in a class­room environment, away from the chess game of the witness stand, and provided hands-on experience similar to the training that officers receive. The session increased judicial understanding of SFST procedures and educated prosecutors and judges concerning the scientific and legal issues.

New recruits lacked confidence regarding DWI enforcement.

Police cadets received instruction in DWI detection techniques and administration of the SFSTs at the Austin Police Academy. However, it was found that many new offi­cers had lost the essential skills and knowledge learned at the academy and lacked con­fidence in their DWI enforcement abilities by the time they received their first patrol assignments. The policy of requiring all new officers to serve a two-week tour of duty with the DWI Unit was implemented to provide the refresher training and supervised on-the-job experience necessary to create competence under operational conditions. The positive comments of defense attorneys concerning the abilities of rookie officers who have completed their tours with the DWI Unit provide anecdotal evidence of the policy’s merit.

Prosecution is difficult when a DWI suspect refuses all chemical tests.

In Austin, the probability of a successful prosecution of a DWI case is diminished when the suspect refuses to provide any form of chemical sample for analysis of BAC. Many law enforcement agencies have worked with their local judicial personnel to establish procedures for obtaining the warrants necessary to forcibly draw blood when a motorist refuses to provide a breath sample. Austin Police Department managers intend to meet with a committee of local judges to begin working on a plan for obtaining search warrants to allow the forcible drawing of a blood sample when a person who has been arrested for DWI refuses all chemical tests.

Also, the Texas Transportation Code prohibits paramedics from drawing blood for the purpose of blood alcohol or drug analysis, even with the consent of the person arrested. Officers of the DWI unit have submitted legislation that would allow paramedics to draw blood upon consent of the arrested person or at the direction of a search warrant.

Frequency of Operations / Duration of Program

The Austin Police Department’s DWI Enforcement Unit has conducted patrols dedicated to DWI enforcement as routine, standard operating procedure since the unit was formed in September of 1998. Normal duty hours are 10 p.m. to 6 a.m., with schedules modified during holiday weekends and special events to increase the level of enforcement effort in response to predicted increases in impaired driving, based on historical patterns of behavior. Impact Initiatives are conducted from 10 p.m. until 4 a.m. hours.

Participation

The DWI patrols are conducted by officers of the Austin Police Department’s DWI Enforcement Unit, which presently consists of nine officers, one corporal, and one sergeant. All personnel assigned to the unit have received formal training in on-the-road DWI detection and SFST administration and scoring. Also, all members of this special unit are required to attend annual SFST Update classes, a further indication of the APD’s commitment to reducing the incidence of alcohol-involved crashes by ensuring uniformly high skills and abilities, and fostering professionalism, motivation, and pride among the department’s DWI enforcement specialists. Every officer is a certified Intoxilyzer operator, seven are certified drug recognition experts (DREs), and four are NHTSA-certified SFST Instructors.

Public Awareness / Program Visibility

The Austin Police Department’s DWI Unit recently acquired a late-model special transit service bus from the local transit district and converted it to serve as a command vehicle, using funds also provided by the transit district. The bus is equipped with an Intoxilyzer 5000, a report writing area, and video taping capabilities. The command vehicle is used during all high visibility impaired-driving enforcement

operations, in­cluding the weekly impact Initiatives, holiday mobilizations, and special events.
The vehicle increases public awareness of the spe­cial enforcement activi­ties, facilitates the processing of DWI arrests, and reduces DWI processing time for arresting officers.

Beginning in 2001, the APD has conducted “Operation Summer Heat” in addition to the routinely deployed DWI patrols. This special enforcement program runs from June through August and triples the number of officers on the street who are enforcing impaired and aggressive driving laws. Redirecting officers from their normal assignments to traffic enforcement duty provides further evidence of the department’s commitment to DWI enforcement.

The Austin Police Department received a commen­dation from MADD for the agency’s performance during the annual “Operation Summer Heat.”

The Austin Police Department has not yet developed a publicity campaign to support the special DWI enforcement program, nor has the DWI Unit established community partnerships to help elevate public awareness. However, the department has obtained substantial coverage of its periodic press conferences con­cerning the DWI Unit’s spe­cial enforcement activities and in response to high profile arrests.

Funding

The DWI Enforcement Unit is funded as a normal Austin Police Department budget item, augmented by grants, when possible.

Lessons Learned

The principal lessons derived from the experiences of the Austin Police Depart­ment are presented in three categories. The first concerns some of the obstacles that were encountered and the actions taken in response, followed by a discussion of the features that are believed to contribute to the success of the APD’s efforts. Specific sug­gestions from the officers who created the Austin Police Department’s DWI Unit are presented third.

Special Enforcement Methods

The DWI Enforcement Unit continues the practice of frequent, sustained, highly visible, impaired driving patrols that was established by the task force during its seven months of operation in 1998. The Unit devotes the first two days of each week to con­ducting what is called an “Impact Initiative,” during which all members of the DWI Unit deploy to the same APD Area

Command to search for and arrest DWI violators, and to deter others from driving while impaired by their high-visibility enforcement. The offi­cers of the DWI Unit deploy city­wide during the remainder of the week when not con­ducting an Impact Initia­tive for a spe­cific Area Command. The special unit’s vehicles are equipped with win­dow-mounted video cameras and the words “DWI Enforcement” are con­spicuously displayed to elevate public awareness of the special enforcement effort. The curriculum of the Austin Police Academy includes NHTSA’s DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) course. However, the task force’s success in providing general patrol officers with operational experience with DWI enforcement procedures has led to an innovative approach to teach DWI enforcement skills to novice officers. That is, the Austin Police Department implemented a policy in 2002 that requires all new officers entering the force to train with the DWI Enforcement Unit for two weeks during their probationary periods. The first day of the special training consists of the eight-hour SFST Update Class, which is taught by the four SFST Instructors who are members of the DWI Unit. After completion of the SFST Update Class, probationary officers accompany officers of the DWI Unit on patrol. The intention is to improve the novice officers’ detection and testing skills under operational conditions while coached by an expert. When probationary officers have demonstrated proficiency to the satisfaction of their mentors, they are permitted to patrol on their own and conduct DWI enforcement under the supervision of DWI officers for the remainder of the temporary assignments. This policy ensures that all new recruits to the Austin Police Department understand the importance of DWI enforcement and possess the skills and knowledge necessary to perform the associated tasks. It is likely that the experience gained during their two-weeks with the DWI Unit will benefit the new officers, the department, and the citizens of Austin for the durations of the officers’ careers.

City Of Austin DWI Enforcement Team

Creating a DWI Unit

Distinguishing Features

Creating a special-purpose unit within a large law enforcement agency can be difficult and time-consuming. Political and institutional barriers and the inertia of traditional approaches can defeat even the best of intentions. The Austin approach is distinguished by an innovative policy intended to ensure that new officers are skilled in all aspects of DWI enforcement. This description of the process by which the Austin Police Department planned, implemented, and now is perfecting, a dedicated DWI Unit provides useful advice to the managers of law enforcement agencies who are contemplating similar initiatives.

Setting

The City of Austin is located on the banks of the Colorado River at the eastern edge of the Texas Hill Country, at approximately the geographic center of the State. San Antonio is to the south, Dallas and Fort Worth are to the north, and Houston is to the east. The City of Austin encompasses 238 square miles and includes portions of Travis and Williams Counties; two of the seven Highland Lakes are located within the city limits. Austin is home to more than 674,000 residents, with approximately one million people living in the Austin metropolitan area. Austin is the site of the main campus of the University of Texas, with more than 50,000 students and 21,000 faculty and staff. In addition to serving as the political capital of the State, Austin is recognized as the intellectual, cultural and entertainment center of the region, and home to a diverse music community with a tradition of live per­formances and active nightlife at the many bars, restaurants, and music clubs in the city.

Background / Planning Process

Prior to 1998, all traffic enforcement by the Austin Police Department (APD) was con­ducted by general patrol officers, but only when they were not busy responding to calls for service. Concerned about increasing numbers of alcohol-involved crashes in the city, the chief ordered development of an operations plan in January 1998 that led immediately to the formation of a DWI Task Force. The primary goal of the task force was to reduce the number of alcohol-related fatalities in 1998 by 15 percent from the previous year’s total. The principal method would be for task force officers to focus their patrol effort almost exclusively on DWI enforcement and to assist non-specialist patrol officers by relieving them of the DWI processing and arrest procedures. A schedule was established that assigned officers to the task force from their normal duties in the various divisions, with division commanders determining the individual assignments.

Special enforcement by the DWI Task Force was conducted daily from 10 a.m. to 4 a.m. hours, with two teams of two officers deployed on Sundays through Wednesdays and four two-officer teams on Thursdays through Saturdays. Saturday deployments were augmented by five officers from the department’s DWI Selective Enforcement Program (STEP); the STEP officers were not required to operate in pairs. The numbers of officers and hours of operation varied slightly during the initial seven-month special enforcement program.

Task force officers focused on the enforcement of impaired driving laws, but also were encouraged to make enforcement stops for the full range of traffic offenses. The officers were expected to process their own DWI arrests and to relieve general patrol officers of the processing tasks by either driving to the scene of the arrest or arranging to meet the patrol officers at the police station. Patrol officers completed the written supplement to the incident report, which provided a description of the probable cause for the originating enforcement stop. The patrol officers also were responsible for administering the tests necessary for a DWI arrest before handing off the process to a task force officer. DWI Task Force officers then completed the incident reports, affi­davits, and booking sheets for the patrol officers’ arrests. Task force officers also com­pleted nightly activity reports to which they attached copies of their dispatch sheets. A supervising lieutenant analyzed the reports to calculate the time required to process arrests.

The DWI Task Force operations familiarized many Austin PD officers with DWI assessment and arrest procedures. As a consequence of this exposure, many general patrol officers developed the skills and confidence necessary to make and process their own DWI arrests, without assistance from the task force’s DWI specialists. The combi­nation of formal and on-the-job training resulted in general patrol officers being responsible for handling 75 percent of the Austin Police Department’s DWI arrests.

A special DWI Enforcement Unit was formed in September 1998 as a permanent replacement for the DWI Task Force and operates under the direction of the Traffic Administration Section of the Austin Police Department. The purpose of the new unit was (and remains) to increase the levels of effort and professionalism of DWI enforce­ment, to reduce the incidence of alcohol-involved crashes, and to send a clear message to motorists that impaired driving is not tolerated in Austin. The DWI Enforcement Unit was composed initially of eight specially trained officers and one sergeant.

Austin, Texas Burn Injury Attorney

Burn Injuries

While you might not give too much thought to it, burn injuries affect nearly 3 million people a year in the United States alone, with a high percentage of those burns affecting at least 25% of the victim’s body. Astonishingly, burn injuries are second to car crashes as a leading cause of death.

While most people think of burn injuries as being related to fire, radiation, heat, chemicals and electricity may also cause burn injuries. For instance, a person may suffer a thermal burn from boiling water or a chemical burn from acid. Radiation burns result from over exposure to UV lamps and electrical burns result from electrical shocks.

The most important thing to remember about a burn injury, no matter how it was caused, is that treating it is extremely costly. Thus, settlements in this area of the law tend to be closely linked to the extent of the injury, which relates to the area burned and the depth of overall tissue damage. Other factors that figure into a burn injury settlement are scarring, the psychological pain, infections, disability and hearing loss or blindness, shock, and respiratory distress.

All burns are classified by degrees – first degree, second degree, third degree, fourth degree, fifth and sixth degree burns, which refer to the depth of tissue damage involved. First-degree burns usually involve damage to the outer skin layer and heal rapidly. Second-degree burns cause damage to the outer and inner layers of skin and third-degree burns cause significant damage to blood vessels and muscles.

Fourth-degree burns have gone right through the skin into muscles and tendons and have resulted in charring and extreme damage to the hypodermis, usually requiring skin grafting. Fifth-degree burns indicate the hypodermis is completely gone and the ligaments, muscles, tendons and bones may be damaged. Sixth-degree burns are frequently fatal and often burn the bones. If a victim survives this level of suffering, they may face amputation.

Often burn survivors have emotional scarring as a result of their altered physical looks. It’s not an easy process for anyone to go through, and most courts recognize the anguish these souls face on a daily basis. For this reason, and others, many burn injury awards tend to be fairly large.

In most instances, a burn victim is entitled to receive compensation for their personal injury if the burns were the result of negligence on the part of someone else, some kind of wrongdoing or a defective product.

If you or a loved one has faced a serious injury like this, speak to us about your case. We know the value of loyalty, honesty and honor, something our clients deeply appreciate.

On the Job Injuries

Construction, Workplace and “On-The-Job” Accidents, Third Party Claims

On the job injuries are sometimes difficult for the injured worker to deal with, largely because of the fear of retaliation or of losing their jobs. The thing to remember though is that if an accident is not reported, then you cannot make a legal claim against the employer to recover damages.

If you are concerned about retaliation and job termination for making workman’s compensation claims, most states have laws designed to protect you. If you have any doubts about this, speak to a skilled attorney who will advise you of your rights and protections. In most case the companies involved in a workers’ compensation claim situation will not retaliate against you for a claim. If they do however, you have the option of taking legal action against them.

There are procedures to follow if you have been injured on the job, and the first thing to do is make sure your employer is aware of the accident. You must also notify Workers’ Compensation immediately. If you don’t report the accident to your employer, you may also have a lot of Trouble getting Workers’ Compensation later bdc`use in order to qualify for cmmpenration, the details of the accident need to be documented.

Make sure your employer writes up the report relating to the accident, and that you also get the required forms to fill out for the insurance company and state workers comp. These need to be filled out immediately, not taken home and retqrned later. If they are late being filed, you run the risk of being denIed coverage and benefits from the insurance company and Workers’ Comp.

There are some instances where an employer will not agree to cover the accident you had on the job. This means you cannot file a separate suit against your employer. These situations are tricky, and each case is different based on their particular set of facts. It is best if you consult with a knowledgeable attorney to find out about your legal rights.

There may be many reasons why an employer won’t cover an on the job accident, starting with they may not feel the accident was job related. In situations like this, demand an arbitration hearing from the Board of Workers Compensation. If for some reason the Board agrees with the employer, you have the right of appeal.

If you have suffered an injury on the job, seek legal help immediately. Workers’ Compensation claims are noted to be quite complex and your attorney will assist you with filing a claim in the proper manner to ensure you receive benefits.

Speak to us about your case. We know the value of loyalty, honesty and honor, something our clients deeply appreciate.

Attorney Profile

Robert W. Lee – an Austin, Texas Personal Injury Lawyer

Robert W. Lee
Austin, Texas

phone: 512.478.8080
fax: 512.478.8081
email: rwlee@releelaw.com

As an attorney, I have practiced personal injury law since 1999. But I’ve handled these cases since 1995, when I first started work as a paralegal in a personal injury law firm. During those four years, I developed a strong desire to try cases in the courtroom – which may explain why I took 13 cases to trial during my first year as a licensed attorney.

Before attending college, I served as a mechanic in the U.S. Army for four years. This included a six month tour of duty during the first Gulf War.

As an Army soldier, I gained a strong sense of duty and learned the value of loyalty. These values have accompanied me throughout my years of legal practice. As an Army mechanic, I learned how vehicles work. This is an uncommon skill among attorneys, and it gives me great insight into cases involving auto defects.

I have been married to my beautiful wife, Isabel, for 20 years (time flies!), and have two wonderful sons, Alex, age 17, and Tommy, age 10.

Professional Experience

Areas of Practice:

• Personal Injury — Plaintiff
• Motor Vehicle Accidents — Plaintiff
• Products Liability Law
• Trucking Accidents
• Fire & Explosion Accidents
• Premises Liability
• Construction Accidents
• Wrongful Death
• Catastrophic Injury

Bar Admissions:

• Texas, 1999
• U.S. District Court Eastern District of Texas, 2006
• U.S. District Court Southern District of Texas, 2006
• U.S. District Court Western District of Texas, 2006

Education:

• South Texas College of Law, Houston, Texas, 1999, J.D.
• Southwest Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, 1994, Political Science

Professional Associations and Memberships:

• Texas Trial Lawyers Association, 2000 – 2008
• American Association for Justice, 2003 – 2008
• American Bar Association
• Pro Bono College of America

Past Employment Positions:

• Rosenthal & Watson, Associate, 2004 – 2007
• Ruiz & Associates, Associate, 1999 – 2004

Languages:

• Spanish

Firm Overview

Personal Injury Representation in Central Texas

The Lee Law Firm would not exist if I, Robert W. Lee, did not believe it was necessary. Working in larger law offices, I found that the culture of service and ethics often didn’t fit with my own beliefs about how clients deserve to be treated.

Free Consultations …
Call 512-478-8080 or contact us online

In my practice, I try to form truly meaningful relationships with my personal injury clients. In fact I do my best to treat them like I would treat my family. By the time they call me, they’ve been through so much trauma that it’s the least I can do.

Apart from sharing barbecue on occasion, here’s what that means:

• I won’t accept a settlement unless it’s truly fair to you
• I’ll never back down from a trial if it’s not in my client’s best interest
• I will always go the full distance in pursuit of just compensation
• I won’t charge excessive fees that eat into your settlement
• … learn more by reading my client testimonials!

Sometimes, a Lawyer Has to Roll the Dice
Insurance companies often try to intimidate injured claimants into accepting unfair settlements. The threat goes like this: “take what we’re offering, or go to court and risk getting zero.” Because of this, some so–called “trial lawyers” never go to trial!

But to the client, there may not be much difference between a settlement of zero and a settlement that’s woefully inadequate. Either way, he or she will likely file for bankruptcy and rely on government benefits to cover expenses in the future.

An Attorney Who Will Share Your Risk
Attorneys’ paychecks come from their clients’ settlements. For a lawyer, accepting a “sure thing” settlement – even an inadequate one – at least ensures that he or she be paid for all the hours of work.

That’s why an attorney who truly has the client’s interest at heart must be willing to “roll the dice” when necessary. Lawyers have to share the client’s risk. At The Lee Law Firm, that’s what I do for every client who comes in my door. Your best interest comes first.

Austin Personal Injury Lawyer

After a serious accident, you may feel like you’re short on allies. The doctors and hospitals send you bills. The insurance company tries hard not to pay them. In this uncertain time, how do you know who’s really looking out for you?

Free Consultations …
Call 512.478.8080 or contact us online

The fact is, you need a personal injury lawyer. Find one with a reputation you can trust. Find one who will aggressively pursue your compensation to the farthest possible extent. Most importantly, find one who will be loyal and cares about your future.

I’m attorney Robert W. Lee, an Austin, Texas personal injury attorney. I constantly strive to represent my clients with the highest level of skill, persistence and integrity. I never give up on my clients’ claims without a fight – it’s my duty.

At The Lee Law Firm, I handle many kinds of personal injury claims, from car wrecks to construction accidents. I handle injuries at every level of severity. I’ve also developed a unique niche representing burn victims, including:

* Home and Building Fires
* Motor Vehicle Fires
* Defective and Dangerous Products

Prepared and Willing to Do What It Takes

My goal in every case is to obtain fair and reasonable compensation for my clients, either by settlement or by trial. I enjoy the challenge of taking a case to trial. Indeed, I tried 13 cases in my first year as a lawyer. But the main thing is to do what is right for my each of my clients. Depending on the unique facts of your case, that may mean settlement or it may mean trial. Either way, I will do what it takes to put forward the strongest case possible for the compensation you deserve.

As an Army veteran, I know the value of loyalty, honesty and honor. I encourage you to explore this site to learn more about myself and my law firm. Find outwhat my clients say about my devotion, skills and results.

For a free consultation, call 512.478.8080. You can also contact my firm online, and I’ll get back to you shortly.

United States signs U.N. Convention that UT Professor Michael Sturley played a key role in negotiating and drafting

Ambassador Fay Hartog Levin formally signs the Rotterdam Rules on behalf of the United States. State Department lawyer Mary Helen Carlson and University of Texas law professor Michael Sturley stand behind Ambassador Levin while Arancha Hinojal, the deputy director of the U.N. Treaty Section in New York, looks on.

On September 23, 2009, the United States and fifteen other governments signed a new U.N. convention to govern international shipping that University of Texas law professor Michael Sturley played a key role in negotiating and drafting. Although formally titled the “United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea,” it will be widely known as the “Rotterdam Rules” because the signing ceremony was held in the Dutch port city of Rotterdam.

It will not only update international regimes written decades ago but also unify aspects of transport law that international agreements never addressed. In the United States, it will supersede a 1936 federal statute known as the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act and impact the operation of three even older federal statutes.

For more than seventeen years, Sturley has worked to update the legal regimes that govern international shipping. For the last eight years, he has been the senior advisor on the U.S. delegation to the U.N. Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Working Group that negotiated and drafted the Rotterdam Rules. He was also tapped by the UNCITRAL Secretariat to serve on a small “expert group” that assisted and advised the Secretariat during that process. And during the four years before that, he was the “rapporteur” and common-law draftsman for the committee established by the Comité Maritime International (CMI) to prepare a preliminary draft of the instrument for UNCITRAL.

During the UNCITRAL negotiations, Sturley generally served as the U.S. spokesperson on substantive maritime law issues. “Everyone I asked said that Michael Sturley was the leading U.S. (and perhaps the world) expert in this area, and that he would be a key member of the delegation. They were right,” said Mary Helen Carlson, a State Department attorney who assembled and led the U.S. delegation.

“This is a highly complex, technical subject with a long history. Many countries’ delegates did not have much background in this area. Everyone came to rely on Michael,” Carlson explained. Carlson added that she often called Sturley the “intellectual spark plug” of the convention.

Sturley’s efforts on this project took him to meetings around the world. Formal UNCITRAL sessions were held at U.N. headquarters in New York and UNCITRAL’s home base in Vienna, while the CMI’s preliminary work took Sturley to such diverse places as London, Singapore, Madrid, Vancouver, Antwerp, Bordeaux, and Margarita Island, Venezuela. Finally, all of that hard work culminated at the formal ceremony in Rotterdam, Europe’s largest port and one of the largest ports in the world.

Sixteen countries signed the convention at the formal ceremony, as soon as the General Assembly declared it “open for signature.” Ambassador Fay Hartog Levin, the U.S. ambassador to the Netherlands, signed on behalf of the United States. The convention now remains open for signature at U.N. headquarters in New York. Indeed, a seventeenth country signed in New York on September 25, two more countries have already announced their intention to sign there during the coming days, and several others have signaled that they will sign as soon as they complete their domestic review process. The new convention will enter into force after twenty countries have ratified it.

A number of academic events were held in conjunction with the formal signing of the Rotterdam Rules. During the week immediately before the signing, Sturley spoke at a colloquium in Madrid at Carlos III University on freedom of contract under the new regime. He delivered the keynote address on the convention’s general principles at a symposium sponsored by Erasmus University in Rotterdam immediately after the ceremony. Between the two, he addressed jurisdiction issues at the CMI’s conference that constituted the opening day of the formal event.

An English reporter covering the event asked Sturley if he plans to take a long vacation now that so many years of work are finally completed. Sturley smiled and replied, “Today’s signatures represent a significant achievement and I am very pleased that we have come so far. But the work is not yet complete. This is a significant milestone on the road to bringing the Rotterdam Rules into force throughout the maritime and commercial world. We still have much to do before this convention will be a success.”

Indeed, Sturley is already hard at work with coauthors from Japan and the Netherlands to write a treatise that will serve as a guide to the convention. And he is juggling invitations to speak at conferences around the world that will address the meaning and impact of the new regime.

National Security Clinic obtains release and resettlement for Guantanamo client

A client of the National Security Clinic at the University of Texas School of Law, Moammar Dokhan, was freed after more than seven years of detention at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and successfully resettled in Portugal last month. Dokhan is a Syrian citizen who was never charged and who was afraid to return to his home country for fear of persecution. On September 23, 2009, Judge John Bates of the D.C. District Court dismissed Dokhan’s habeas petition in light of his release, bringing to a close the advocacy work done by law students in the Clinic on behalf of Dokhan.

The National Security Clinic filed a habeas petition on behalf of Dokhan in the spring of 2008. A number of students pursued his habeas case over several semesters and ultimately won his release through a combination of litigation and advocacy under the supervision of Clinic faculty. After being released from detention and arriving in Portugal, Dokhan expressed tremendous gratitude for the Clinic’s efforts on his behalf.

In addition to drafting the habeas petition, the Clinic students worked on numerous motions and briefs and prepared for hearings, including one of great significance on the U.S. Government’s authority to detain foreign nationals at Guantanamo. That hearing led to a decision by Judge Bates viewed as favorable to the detainees and relied upon by other district court judges.

Representing a Guantanamo detainee was a uniquely challenging experience,” Clinic student Laura Peterson said. “We tackled cutting-edge legal issues, interacted with governmental agencies, and maintained client relations. It is incredibly rewarding to know that our efforts made an impact, and I am proud to have been a part of the furtherance of justice."

In January 2009, President Barack Obama established an Inter-Agency Review Team (IART) to review the case of each Guantanamo detainee in order to determine whether he should be released. After the Clinic submitted materials to the IART arguing that Dokhan had been wrongly accused and should be released but that he could not be returned to Syria, he was approved for transfer from Guantanamo. The Government of Portugal then agreed to accept Dokhan, who was transferred there and released in late August.

“The students have achieved an important legal and human victory in this case,” said Clinical Professor Ranjana Natarajan, director of the National Security Clinic. “Not only have they defended the rule of law and fundamental human rights, but they have won our client’s freedom from prolonged detention without charge or trial.”

The Clinic legal team representing Dokhan included UT Law Clinical Professors Kristine A. Huskey and Natarajan and students Joe Conley, David Currie, Mario Franke, Bridgett Mayeux, Peenesh Shah, Suzanne Sivertsen, Ben Freedland, Michael Minea, Laura Peterson and Kelly Stephenson.

Teaching Law Students about Ethics

While teaching a professional responsibility course at DePaul University College of Law, Howard M. Rubin uses a recent case to demonstrate tricky ethical dilemmas.

The case involves Alton Logan, who was released from prison in 2008, after more than 25 years. Two former Cook County assistant public defenders kept silent for 26 years about Logan’s wrongful conviction in a murder case to protect the confidences of their client.

“It really gets them to focus on things thinking as a lawyer, not as members of the public,” said Rubin, who also serves as DePaul’s associate dean for lawyering skills.

The students’ immediate reaction is that they would never keep such a secret, Rubin said.

“It’s a matter of working so that they understand we have obligations in our profession,” Rubin said. “They’re going to have to do things as a member of the profession that are contrary to what their friends and members of the public will tell them is the right thing to do.”

The Alton Logan case is an extreme example of professional obligation, but for legal educators, bridging that gap of understanding is growing into a significant piece of the work of law schools. Despite the growth of clinical education, law schools remain, to a marked degree, aloof from the daily demands of the profession.

But a book published two years ago by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, “Educating Lawyers: Preparation for the Profession of Law,” has created a buzz about improving legal education, including the teaching of ethics.

The premise of the report is that American law schools are good at teaching students to become smart problem solvers, but are not doing enough to develop “the capacity for judgment guided by a sense of professional responsibility.”

“This is a pretty powerful critique of American legal education,” Clark D. Cunningham, director of the National Institute for Teaching Ethics and Professionalism, a consortium of ethics centers at five universities, said of “Educating Lawyers: Preparation for the Profession of Law,” commonly called the Carnegie report.

That report recommends an integrated program of legal education that would begin in the first year with “well-designed lawyering courses … taught as intentional complements to doctrinal instruction. Ideally, this experience of complementarity would continue in the second and third years as a gradual development of practical knowledge and skill, beginning in simulation and moving into actual responsibility for clients.”

Many law professors say the teaching of legal ethics to law students is undergoing an evolution at some law schools in the wake of the Carnegie report, and another book, “Best Practices for Legal Education: A Vision and a Road Map,” also published in 2007.

“There has been an increased focus both internationally and in the United States on teaching legal ethics and developing professionalism,” said Cunningham, a professor at the Georgia State University College of Law. “In the last three years, I’ve seen dramatically more interest and more across-the-board reform than I’ve seen in my prior 20 years of teaching, especially related to legal ethics issues.”

Cunningham said the reforms include the Carnegie report recommendation about an integrated legal education program.

“I think the Carnegie report said the right thing at the right time and has had a catalytic effect,” Cunningham said. “That book has been very, very widely discussed, both in law schools and the legal profession. I think it’s an incredible development.”

Attorney's Fees & Other Expenses

Many times, a client wants to know up front how much it will cost him or her to hire me to represent them. I do not have a "one size fits all" rate for any service that I provide, because it depends on the complexity of the case and what services will be provided. However, I always strive to provide reasonable flat fees and hourly rates. But, I always offer STUDENT RATES with a valid student identification.

When we talk, I will explain in greater detail about my fee structure and provide you with options. Most people were not planning on setting aside money for hiring an attorney, and I understand this. That is why I offer payment plans and flat rate fees to help you work this unexpected event into your overall cost of living. In some instances, I will provide a service at an hourly rate, but I try to discourage that as clients often do not realize that simply calling me or sending an email that I respond to may increase their overall cost.

However, the initial consultation with me is FREE, whether you are meeting me to discuss a criminal case, family law matter, or something transactional, like preparing a Will or other basic estate planning documents. I will explain to you what options you have and help you understand your rights. After this meeting, you may leave my office with absolute no obligation and no out-of-pocket expense, if you do not believe that I will provide the best service that rises to your complete satisfaction.

Payment Options:
1) Cash or personal check;
2) Visa, Mastercard, Discover, or American Express;
3) Payment plans using a combination of the above options. This will be customized in accordance with your needs and abilities. Remember, my goal is to provide you with a service, not to bankrupt you.

Remember, if you hire me to perform a jail release in Travis County, the amount paid will be applied to the total cost of hiring me to represent the person released. This saves you money by not paying a bond company first and later a lawyer.

Call me at 512.482.0900 to learn what services I may provide to you. This number is answered 24 hours daily / 365 days of the year for jail releases.

Standardized Field Sobriety Testing Information

The Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) battery is composed of three tests: Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN), Walk-and-Turn (WAT), and One-Leg Stand (OLS). The tests were developed by the NHTSA in the late 1970's. In 1981, law enforcement officers began using NHTSA's Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) battery on the roadside to help determine whether motorists who are suspected of DWI have blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) greater than 0.10 percent. Since 1981, however, many states including Texas have implemented laws that define DWI at BACs below 0.10. Texas is now using the 0.08 standard.

The validity of SFST results is dependent upon officers following the established, standardized procedures for test administration and scoring. According to NHTSA when properly administered and scored, under laboratory conditions, SFSTs accurately identify intoxicated drivers as follows:

• HGN - 77%

• WAT - 68%

• OLS - 65%

This means that even under laboratory conditions, the HGN was wrong 23% of the time, the WAT 32% and the OLS 35 times out of 100. Additionally, NHTSA's own research emphasizes that test results are valid only when administered in strict compliance with NHTSA protocol. If any one of the standardized field sobriety elements is changed, the validity is compromised. It is therefore imperative to have your attorney review the manner in which the SFSTs was administered. Your lawyer may be able to suppress the results of an improperly administered test which would reduce the State's chance of convicting you of DWI.

Remember, Dax worked in law enforcement for over 2.5 years and actually administered SFSTs on the side of the road. Based off those results, he made arrests. He has testified in cases and been a witness in DWI ALR hearings. Few other attorneys have this experience, so Dax really knows what to look for and can help you!

HGN - Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus

"Nystagmus" means an involuntary jerking of the eyes. HGN refers to an involuntary jerking occurring as the eyes gaze toward the side. In addition to being involuntary, the person experiencing the nystagmus is unaware that the jerking is happening. The theory behind the test is that nystagmus becomes readily noticeable when a person is impaired.

In administering the test the officer has the subject follow the motion of a stimulus with the eyes only. The stimulus may be the tip of a pen or penlight, an eraser on a pencil or a fingertip. As the eyes move from side to side each eye is examined for three specific clues:

• Lack of Smooth Pursuit - does the eye move smoothly or does it jerk noticeably?

• Distinct Nystagmus at Maximum Deviation - when the eye moves as far to the side as possible and is kept at that position for several seconds, does it jerk distinctly?

• Onset of Nystagmus Prior to 45% - as the eye moves to the side, does it start to jerk prior to a 45% angle?

Officers frequently fail to properly administer the HGN. It is crucially important for your attorney to review the video, if available, to ascertain whether the test was properly administered or whether suppression of the results is possible.

Walk and Turn

The WAT is a divided attention test consisting of two stages: Instruction Stage; and Walking Stage. In the instruction stage, the subject must stand with their feet in heel-to-toe position, keep their arms at their sides, and listen to instructions. The subject must maintain the heel-to-toe position and may not begin walking until all instructions are given. In the Walking Stage the subject takes nine heel-to-toe steps, turns in a prescribed manner, and takes nine heel-to-toe steps back, while counting out loud and watching their feet. Officers observe the subject's performance for eight clues:

• can't balance during instructions

• starts too soon

• stops while walking

• doesn't touch heel to toe

• steps off line

• uses arms for balance

• loses balance on turn or turns incorrectly; and

• takes the wrong number of steps

A subject who exhibits two or more clues will fail the test. Scoring is entirely subjective and within the officer's discretion, but this is where the video is very important because it allows your attorney and anyone else to view your performance and see what the officer is testifying to regarding your performance.

One Legged Stand

The OLS is also divided into two stages. In the Instruction Stage, the subject must stand with feet together, keep arms at side and listen to instructions. In the Balance and Counting Stage, the subject must raise the leg of his choice approximately 6 inches off the ground, toes pointed out, keeping legs straight. While looking at the elevated foot, count out load in the following manner: "one thousand and one", "one thousand and two", etc, until told to stop. The officer will instruct the subject to stop after 30 seconds. The subject is observed for the following clues:

• sways while balancing

• uses arms to balance

• hops

• puts foot down

A subject who exhibits 2 or more clues, as determined by the officer, will fail the test.

Romberg Balance Test

Person is instructed to stand with feet together, head tipped back, eyes closed, arms at side. Position is demonstrated. The officer is observing anterior-posterior sway for approximately 30 seconds.

This is not one of the "Standardized" Field Sobriety Tests. Typically estimating 30 seconds within 5 seconds either way is considered good, anything outside of a 5 second margin of error will be counted as a sign of intoxication. The officer will also look for swaying during this time.

Breath Test - Chemical Test

Under Texas law an individual is legally intoxicated if his/her alcohol concentration is .08 or greater. A person's alcohol concentration can be determined by testing the blood, urine or breath. "Alcohol concentration" means the number of grams of alcohol per:

a. 210 liters of breath;

b. 100 milliliters of blood; or

c. 67 milliliters of urine.

Blood testing is generally considered to be the most reliable and accurate, while urine tests are regarded as the least precise. If you are arrested for DWI in Texas you will most likely be asked to give a sample of your breath. Breath testing is the most commonly utilized method because it is the least expensive to administer. The scientific community is sharply divided over the accuracy and reliability of breath testing procedures. The police do not save the sample of breath tested. Thus it is not available for re-testing by an independent laboratory. When asked to provide a sample, you should REFUSE, even though you will lose your driving privilege without obtaining an occupational license.

DPS Surcharge Information

In addition to criminal penalties, a person convicted of a first DWI and other offenses will be required to pay a DPS surcharge for three years, as a condition to maintaining a driver's license. Failure to pay the surcharge or enter into an installment payout agreement will result in suspension of the license until all payments are made.

Driver's License Points

DPS will assess a surcharge when the driver accumulates a total of six points or more on their record during a three-year period. The driver must pay a $100 surcharge for the first six points and $25 for each additional point.

Annual Surcharges for Certain Convictions

Drivers who receive a conviction for any of the following offenses that occur on or after September 1, 2003 are required to pay an annual surcharge for three years from the date of conviction.

Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), or a DWI-Related Offense

• First Conviction - $1,000 Annual Surcharge
• Second Convicton - $1,500 Annual Surcharge
• Any Conviction with a BAC of .16 or Greater - $2,000 Annual Surcharge

Failure to Maintain Financial Responsibility (No Insurance) & Driving While License Invalid

• $250 annual surcharge

Driving without a Valid License

• $100 annual surcharge

Surcharges are automatically assessed for these convictions and do not accrue points. All surcharges assessed for this program are in addition to all other reinstatement fees required for other administrative actions and do not replace any administrative suspension, revocation, disqualification or cancellation actions that results from these same convictions.

Occupational Driver's License Information

If you have not requested an Administrative License Revocation (ALR) hearing, your driver’s license will be suspended 40 days after the notice of suspension (usually the date of arrest). This is on the DIC-25 paperwork that the officer gave you and is usually a yellow piece of paper that serves as your temporary driver's license. If you properly request an ALR hearing, your license will not be suspended unless and until the Administrative Law Judge signs the order of suspension. If your license is suspended, you may apply for an occupational license in the county or district court of 1) the county of your residence or 2) the county of arrest if you qualify. The statutes below outline the general requirements for occupational licenses:

1) Demonstrate an essential need for the license (work/health), which can only authorize you to drive up to twelve hours a day on six days of the week.

2) Obtain a special kind of insurance (SR-22) that may be more expensive than your regular insurance. If you have insurance through USAA, you do not even want them to know about your suspension or they may cancel your coverage. Make sure you are on good terms with your provider before requesting SR-22 through them, or you probably want to shop somewhere else.

3) Pay the filing fees for the petition and fees to the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) for issuance of the occupational license. This could be a few hundred dollars. If the judge issues you an occupational license, the judge’s order must be submitted to DPS to actually obtain the occupational license. You must keep the Order, occupational license, and SR-22 proof with you at all times to present to officers on demand, and the judge may require that you keep a travel log to present to officers if requested. Failure to abide by these rules may result in additional charges being filed against you and complete suspension of your driving privilege.

Common Police Mistakes in a DWI Case

Search of detainee.

Police work is tough and busy work, and as a result busy officers often make mistakes in stopping persons and arresting them for DWI. Just one of these mistakes could make a major difference in your case. The most common mistakes are:

1. Making an illegal stop.
An officer needs reasonable suspicion that a law has been broken to pull you over. Many stops are made without legal reasonable suspicion, i.e. no violation of the law, which allows any evidence obtained from the illegal stop to be kept out of court.

2. Failing to properly administer field sobriety tests.
Officers are trained according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration standards how to properly administer these tests. But, because there are many steps in properly applying the tests, many officers fail to learn to administer them properly or forget their training and wrongly arrest the driver based on scientifically invalid test results. This means there is no basis for “probable cause” that a person is driving while intoxicated, and the sobriety test results could be kept out of court.

3. Failing to properly administer breath tests.
Texas law regulates the application of breath testing to DWI suspects, and many officers simply fail to follow this law. Such failure could cause the results to be kept out of court.

4. Not preparing for the ALR hearing, suppression hearing, or trial.
Officers who are busy on the streets do not often have the time to prepare properly as a witness in their case. In fact, many meet with the prosecutor one time before trial. This could cause them to not be prepared to explain mistakes they have made during your arrest.

5. Failing to properly provide and maintain evidence.
Videos and affidavits get lost, affidavits are filled out at the wrong time or improperly, and many other mistakes can be made along the way concerning the evidentiary trail the state needs to prove up at the ALR hearing, the suppression hearing, or trial. Police departments are busy entities and paperwork etc. gets lost.

Austin DWI attorney

As an experienced criminal defense attorney in the Austin, Texas, metro area, Dax Garvin knows how to defend you against allegations made by the State for DWI and other criminal offenses.

Hiring a qualified DWI defense attorney is critical because of the extensive costs that a conviction may have on your life, including both financial and other negative consequences (examples: driving history, cost of insurance, driver's license loss, employment [in some instances], and most importantly your liberty). Likewise, having an attorney that you trust and can talk to is very important.

Receiving a DWI in Austin is no laughing matter. A first DWI conviction may result in a fine up to $2000 and/or possibly six months in the county jail. The penalties only increase with subsequent offenses. In addition, there are surcharges that will be assessed against your driver's license if convicted and these may total up to $6000 over three years.

For more information on these areas, review this website and contact Austin DWI defense attorney Dax Garvin at 512.482.0900. Speaking with Dax about your pending DWI charge is FREE, and you only have 15 days from the day you were arrested to file for an administrative hearing to protect your driver's license....

DWI Enforcement Team

Motorists who drink and drive are involved in approximately 50% of fatal collisions and an equal percentage of serious injury collisions. After 2 a.m., it is estimated that two of every four motorists on the road are driving under the influence of alcohol. These disturbing statistics reflect a dangerous trend on our roads that the Austin Police Department is determined to reverse.

To increase enforcement of DWI laws and send a message to motorists who drink and drive, APD launched the DWI Enforcement Team in August 1998. The unit, which is under the direction of the Highway Enforcement Command, is comprised of 14 patrol officers, two corporals and two sergeants. As a dedicated DWI enforcement unit, the Enforcement Team is able to concentrate its patrol efforts on apprehending drunk drivers. Patrol officers focus on areas where DWI offenses are most likely to occur (entertainment areas featuring bars and nightclubs) during times when most drunk drivers are on the roads (evenings, weekends and holidays). In addition, members of the Enforcement Team are able to provide support to regular patrol officers during peak offense times, relieving patrol officers by handling the lengthy processing of arrests.

The working relationship between regular patrol and the Enforcement Team increases the efficiency of the Department as a whole in removing drunk drivers from our roads. First, the Enforcement Team increases the number of patrol units on the streets, making apprehension of DWI offenders more likely. At the same time, regular patrol officers who make DWI arrests are able to turn suspects over to the Enforcement Team for processing through the system, allowing them to resume patrol duties and apprehend other DWI offenders. As a result, both the numbers of Enforcement Team and regular patrol DWI arrests have increased.

Changes in DWL law in TEXAS

As of today, September 1, two new laws go into force that deal with DWIs in Texas. Section 724.017 of the Transportation Code is now expended to allow more situations where police can do a forced blood draw without a warrant. Mandatory warrantless blood draws are now allowed if a person is arrested for DWI, or BWI, the person refuses to submit to the taking of a specimen volutarily, and: 1) an individual other than the person arrested has suffered bodily injury and was transported to a hospital or other medical facility for medical treatment; 2) the person is arrested for DWI with a child passenger under 15; 3) the officer has reliable information that the person has been previously convicted of DWI two or more times; or 4) the officer has reliable information that the person has been previously convicted of DWI with a child passenger under 15, intoxication assault, or intoxication manslaughter.

The Legislature also tried to give some assurance to the health care providers that actually draw the blood persuant to a blood warrant, or mandatory blood draw. Section 724.017 of the Transportation code was amended to provide protection to those who take blood specimens according to "recognized medical procedures." However, this change in the law DOES NOT relieve a person from lability for negligence in the taking of a blood specimen. And there lies the danger to anyone that takes blood under these intrusive warrant/warrantless blood draws

Continuing Legal Education: DWI for Civil Lawyers

I assumed that meant I should speak on how to defend a DWI, and so I talked about the initial interview process, the different types of court settings, the ALR process, various defenses to DWI charges and tried to throw in a few other nuggets before my time ran out.

Afterwards I stuck around and talked with people at the bar. I mean the serving-alcoholic -beverages type of bar, not “The State Bar of Texas” by the way. Yes the CLE was held in a bar, and yes, I was just about the only one without a drink in my hand.

At any rate, I discovered quickly that while my short presentation was roundly complimented by those I visited with in fact most attendees had another reason for coming. Of course a divorce lawyer doesn’t really need to know how to defend a DWI; a good one will refer the case out to someone who knows how to handle that kind of case. (See: jack of all trades, master of none.)

I think every single lawyer there asked me some variation of the regular set of questions a DWI lawyer hears:

• Should I take a breath test?
• Should I do the field sobriety tests?
• What do I tell an officer who stops me after I've been drinking?

I told everyone who would listen a few of my standard lines: (1) In Austin, a traffic violation and the odor of an alcoholic beverage on your breath earns you a trip to Travis County Jail. It’s an arrest everybody and charge them with DWI now, and sort it out later kind of world. And (2) It’s cheaper to rent a helicopter to fly you home than it is to get arrested for DWI in Texas, and that can be true even if your lawyer gets the charge dismissed before trial.

Not that it did any good. It was after 5 p.m. when the presentation started, so presumable no one had to return to work but then again I didn’t see anyone calling for a cab when they left. I’m certain I wasn’t the only one to drive home.

Do Cops Get To Make Up New DWI Laws?

That's the word from local law enforcement and the Texas Department of Transportation which launched its anti-drunk driving campaign in the Dallas/Fort Worth area Friday morning…

"Drunk driving is a serious issue, and we intend to come down especially hard on drunk drivers during the two weeks leading up to Labor Day holiday," said North Richland Hills police Sgt. Neal Maranto. "If you are drinking and driving, you will be pulled over and you will be arrested.”

Two commenters immediately noticed the substitution of “drinking and driving” for “DWI”. (They are not the same thing.)

Posted by TexasYellowDog @ 4:33 PM Sat, Aug 22, 2009

"If you drink and drive during the Labor Day holiday, you will go to jail."

Why's that? Drinking and driving aren't illegal. Do the cops get to make up new laws because it's a holiday?

and

Posted by retry @ 10:21 PM Sat, Aug 22, 2009

...also- as YellowDog correctly points out, there is a HUGE difference between "Drinking and Driving" and "Driving While Intoxicated."

DWI is illegal. Drinking and driving is not. Confusing these two does not help anyone.

I don’t begrudge the police spokesperson trying to discourage DWI or drinking/driving, although the second is not always unlawful. But these two comments from public readers show why conflating the two is ineffective, possibly even counterproductive.

When you obviously lie to folks about part of your message, the truthful parts are more likely to be ignored. Then again, DWI lawyers might tell you that the police are inadvertently being truthful; that is, they do indeed arrest everyone who drives with an odor of alcohol on their breath, even though that is not against the law. It’s just a bad idea.

Special Enforcement Methods

The DWI Enforcement Unit continues the practice of frequent, sustained, highly visible, impaired driving patrols that was established by the task force during its seven months of operation in 1998. The Unit devotes the first two days of each week to con­ducting what is called an “Impact Initiative,” during which all members of the DWI Unit deploy to the same APD Area

Command to search for and arrest DWI violators, and to deter others from driving while impaired by their high-visibility enforcement. The offi­cers of the DWI Unit deploy city­wide during the remainder of the week when not con­ducting an Impact Initia­tive for a spe­cific Area Command. The special unit’s vehicles are equipped with win­dow-mounted video cameras and the words “DWI Enforcement” are con­spicuously displayed to elevate public awareness of the special enforcement effort. The curriculum of the Austin Police Academy includes NHTSA’s DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) course. However, the task force’s success in providing general patrol officers with operational experience with DWI enforcement procedures has led to an innovative approach to teach DWI enforcement skills to novice officers. That is, the Austin Police Department implemented a policy in 2002 that requires all new officers entering the force to train with the DWI Enforcement Unit for two weeks during their probationary periods. The first day of the special training consists of the eight-hour SFST Update Class, which is taught by the four SFST Instructors who are members of the DWI Unit. After completion of the SFST Update Class, probationary officers accompany officers of the DWI Unit on patrol. The intention is to improve the novice officers’ detection and testing skills under operational conditions while coached by an expert. When probationary officers have demonstrated proficiency to the satisfaction of their mentors, they are permitted to patrol on their own and conduct DWI enforcement under the supervision of DWI officers for the remainder of the temporary assignments. This policy ensures that all new recruits to the Austin Police Department understand the importance of DWI enforcement and possess the skills and knowledge necessary to perform the associated tasks. It is likely that the experience gained during their two-weeks with the DWI Unit will benefit the new officers, the department, and the citizens of Austin for the durations of the officers’ careers.

Disgusting Features

Creating a special-purpose unit within a large law enforcement agency can be difficult and time-consuming. Political and institutional barriers and the inertia of traditional approaches can defeat even the best of intentions. The Austin approach is distinguished by an innovative policy intended to ensure that new officers are skilled in all aspects of DWI enforcement. This description of the process by which the Austin Police Department planned, implemented, and now is perfecting, a dedicated DWI Unit provides useful advice to the managers of law enforcement agencies who are contemplating similar initiatives

Setting

The City of Austin is located on the banks of the Colorado River at the eastern edge of the Texas Hill Country, at approximately the geographic center of the State. San Antonio is to the south, Dallas and Fort Worth are to the north, and Houston is to the east. The City of Austin encompasses 238 square miles and includes portions of Travis and Williams Counties; two of the seven Highland Lakes are located within the city limits. Austin is home to more than 674,000 residents, with approximately one million people living in the Austin metropolitan area. Austin is the site of the main campus of the University of Texas, with more than 50,000 students and 21,000 faculty and staff. In addition to serving as the political capital of the State, Austin is recognized as the intellectual, cultural and entertainment center of the region, and home to a diverse music community with a tradition of live per­formances and active nightlife at the many bars, restaurants, and music clubs in the city.