Cambodia court denies bail for jailed opposition leader

Cambodia's Supreme Court on Tuesday authorized the continued detention of opposition leader Kem Sokha, who faces treason charges that critics have denounced as part of a ruling party campaign to crush political rivals before elections next year. Sam Sokong, a lawyer for Sokha, said the Supreme Court upheld a lower court's refusal of bail on the grounds that Sokha's release would be detrimental to national security and his own safety. Sokha was not at the court hearing. He was arrested Sept. 3 on charges of conspiring with the United States to topple the government of long-ruling Cambodian strongman Hun Sen and faces up to three decades in prison if convicted. Sokha and the U.S. Embassy in Phnom Penh say the accusations are false. Rights groups and Western governments are concerned by Hun Sen's increasingly draconian measures against the media and opposition. But their ability to exercise a restraining influence has been undermined by China's greater role in Cambodia, including investment and generous financial aid. On Nov. 16, the Supreme Court will start hearing a case that seeks the dissolution of Sokha's Cambodia National Rescue Party, the only opposition party with seats in Cambodia's parliament.

Challenge filed in court to Australian gay marriage ballot

Gay-rights advocates filed a court challenge Thursday to the government's unusual plan to canvass Australians' opinion on gay marriage next month, while a retired judge said he would boycott the survey as unacceptable. The mail ballot is not binding, but the conservative government won't legislate the issue without it. If most Australians say "no," the government won't allow Parliament to consider lifting the nation's ban on same-sex marriage. Lawyers for independent lawmaker Andrew Wilkie and marriage equality advocates Shelley Argent and Felicity Marlowe, applied to the High Court for an injunction that would prevent the so-called postal plebiscite from going ahead. "We will be arguing that by going ahead without the authorization of Parliament, the government is acting beyond its power," lawyer Jonathon Hunyor said. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said the government had legal advice that the postal ballot would withstand a court challenge. "I encourage every Australian to exercise their right to vote on this matter. It's an important question," Turnbull said. Gay-rights advocates and many lawmakers want Parliament to legislate marriage equality now without an opinion poll, which they see as an unjustifiable hurdle to reform. Retired High Court judge Michael Kirby, a gay man who supports marriage equality, dismissed the ballot as "irregular and unscientific polling." "It's just something we've never done in our constitutional arrangements of Australia, and it really is unacceptable," Kirby told Australian Broadcasting Corp. Kirby would not comment on the legality of the government proceeding with the 122 million Australian dollar ($96 million) ballot without Parliament's approval, but said: "I'm not going to take any part in it whatsoever." Plebiscites in Australia are referendums that don't deal with questions that change the constitution. Voting at referendums is compulsory to ensure a high voter turnout and that the legally-binding result reflects the wishes of a majority of Australians.

Several leading community groups filed a class-action lawsuit against the city of Chicago Wednesday in a bid to bypass or even scuttle a draft agreement between the city and the U.S. Department of Justice that seeks to reform the nation's second largest police force without federal court oversight. The more than 100-page lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago argues that an overhaul of Chicago's 12,000-officer force in the wake of a damning civil rights report in January can't work without the intense scrutiny of a court-appointed monitor answerable to a judge. "Absent federal court supervision, nothing will improve," the lawsuit says. "It is clear that federal court intervention is essential to end the historical and on-going pattern and practice of excessive force by police officers in Chicago." While President Donald Trump's attorney general, Jeff Sessions, has expressed skepticism about court involvement, President Barack Obama's administration saw it as vital to successful reforms. Obama's Justice Department typically took a city reform plan to a judge to make it legally binding in the form of a consent decree. Wednesday's lawsuit — which names Black Lives Matters Chicago among the plaintiffs — asks for a federal court to intervene and order sweeping reforms to end the "abusive policies and practices undergirding the alleged constitutional and state law violations." Mayor Rahm Emanuel's administration said earlier this month that a draft deal negotiated by the city and the Justice Department — one that foresees a monitor not selected by a court — is being reviewed in Washington. Justice Department spokesman Devin O'Malle cautioned last week that "there is no agreement at this time." A lead attorney in the new lawsuit, Craig Futterman, a University of Chicago law professor and outspoken advocate for far-reaching police reforms, said in a telephone interview that reports about the draft influenced the decision to sue now.

Trump visiting Supreme Court as justices weigh travel ban

President Donald Trump is making his first Supreme Court visit at a moment of high legal drama. The justices are weighing what to do with the president's ban on travelers from six mostly Muslim countries. But the reason for his high court trip Thursday is purely ceremonial, to mark Justice Neil Gorsuch's ascension to the bench. Trump has no role in the courtroom ceremony, but presidents often make the trip to the court from the White House to honor their nominees. While the dispute over the travel ban and other controversies have simmered during Trump's first few months in office, his choice of the 49-year-old Gorsuch for the Supreme Court won widespread praise in the legal community as well as unanimous Republican support in the Senate. A federal judge first blocked Trump's initial travel ban in early February. The president issued a revised version in March. It never took effect after judges in Maryland and Hawaii put it on hold. Two federal appeals courts have since upheld those lower court orders. The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to allow the ban to take effect immediately. Gorsuch actually has been a member of the high court since April, and he even issued his first opinion on Monday. The investiture ceremony typically takes place before a new justice's first day on the bench, but Gorsuch was confirmed and sworn in on a tight schedule. He filled the seat that had been held for nearly 30 years by Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February 2016. The high court seat was vacant for nearly 14 months after Senate Republicans refused to take up President Barack Obama's nomination of Judge Merrick Garland.

Candidate filing begins Monday for appeals court seat

Another election will be on the November ballot in North Carolina because an appeals court judge recently resigned to take a job in private practice.

The candidate filing period for the seat on the state Court of Appeals vacated by Martha Geer begins at noon Monday at the State Board of Elections and continues until midday Friday.

Every candidate who files will appear on the fall ballot. Since Geer left her seat a couple of months ago, there won't be a primary.

The candidate with the most votes will win an eight-year term on the court, which is comprised of 15 judges who hear intermediate appeals while sitting in panels of three. Candidates already are determined for three other Court of Appeals elections set for November.

Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents

A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that Homeland Security officials must quickly release immigrant children — but not their parents — from family detention centers after being picked up crossing the border without documentation.

The San Francisco-based 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said that lengthy detentions of migrant children violated a 19-year-old legal settlement ordering their quick release after processing. Government lawyers had argued that the settlement covered only immigrant children who crossed the border unaccompanied by adult relatives. But the three-judge panel ruled that immigration officials aren't required to release the parents detained along with the children, reversing U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee's ruling last year.

Advocates seeking stricter immigration controls said they hoped the ruling would discourage adults crossing the border illegally from exploiting children as a way to stay out of custody in the United States.

Mark Krikorian, Center for Immigration Studies executive director and an advocate for stricter border controls, said allowing the parents to be released may have encouraged illegal immigration of adults traveling with children.

Court denies hospital's bid to perform brain death test

The Virginia Supreme Court has denied a hospital's request to allow it to immediately perform a test to determine whether a 2-year-old who choked on a piece of popcorn is brain dead.

The court Friday denied a petition from Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, which wants to perform an apnea test on Mirranda Grace Lawson. Mirranda's family has refused to allow it.

The Richmond Circuit Court ruled against the Lawsons last month but allowed them to pay a $30,000 bond barring the hospital from conducting the test while they appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court.

The hospital asked the state Supreme Court to throw out the circuit court's bond order. The Supreme Court didn't explain why it rejected the hospital's petition.

The Lawsons' appeal is due to the state Supreme Court in September.

Kyrgyzstan sends case of jailed journalist back to court

The Supreme Court in the Central Asian nation of Kyrgyzstan on Tuesday refused to release an ethnic Uzbek journalist and activist serving a life sentence after being convicted of stirring up ethnic hatred, but instead sent his case to a regional court for review. International rights groups consider Azimzhan Askarov a prisoner of conscience.

The U.N. Human Rights Committee in April urged Kyrgyzstan to release Askarov, recognizing that he had been arbitrarily detained, tortured and denied his right to a fair trial. This opened the way for a reconsideration of his case, and Kyrgyzstan's Supreme Court began hearings on Monday.

The charges against Askarov relate to ethnic unrest in the south of Kyrgyzstan in 2010 when more than 450 people, mostly ethnic Uzbeks, were killed and tens or even hundreds of thousands were displaced. He is accused of inciting the mob killing of a police officer.

Amnesty International sharply criticized the court's decision on Tuesday to keep 65-year-old Askarov in prison while a lower court reviews his case.

"It's a missed opportunity for Kyrgyzstan to do the right thing by finally releasing a man who should never have been jailed in the first place. Today's decision by the Supreme Court ignores Kyrgyzstan's obligations under international human rights law," Amnesty International senior research director Anna Neistat said in a statement.

Appeals courts agree on concealed weapons ban restrictions

A federal appeals court's decision upholding California's restrictions on carrying concealed weapons gives lawyers a fourth chance to try to get the U.S. Supreme Court's attention on a subject directly affecting eight states and the nation's capital.

Thursday's ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld a law requiring gun applicants to show good reason beyond mere safety. It was consistent with rulings since 2012 in three other circuits upholding similar restrictions in New York, Maryland and New Jersey. The Supreme Court did not take up the issue after those rulings. Alan Gura, an Alexandria, Virginia-based lawyer, has represented plaintiffs in each case. He did not immediately return a request for comment Friday.

UCLA Law School professor Eugene Volokh said he thinks there is less chance that the high court will hear the California case than the three that came before it because there are currently only eight justices.

The Supreme Court has never addressed directly whether an individual has the right to bear arms outside the home for the purpose of self-defense.

"It's an important question, the most important of the remaining questions on gun rights" that the Supreme Court has not addressed, Volokh said.

He predicted that the Supreme Court might eventually take up the subject if an appeals court in Washington, D.C., strikes down the city's strict gun law. Two lower court judges have issued conflicting opinions about the constitutionality of the district's law requiring that a firearm applicant demonstrate a "good reason to fear injury to his or her person or property" before being licensed to carry a pistol.

James B. Jacobs, a professor of constitutional law at New York University School of Law, noted the Supreme Court had decided two previous gun cases by a 5-4 vote. He said the court might be reluctant to tackle the issue until there are nine justices.

High Court won't hear dispute over birthright citizenship

The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from a group of American Samoans who say the United States should grant full citizenship to people born in the U.S. territory.

The justices on Monday let stand a lower court ruling that said the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship does not extend to the islands that have been a part of the country since 1900.

Current law considers American Samoans to be "nationals," not full citizens like those born in Puerto Rico, Guam and other U.S. territories. Nationals are allowed to work and live anywhere in the United States, but unlike citizens, they can't vote or hold elective office.

The challengers said that the law violates the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to anyone born in the United States. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled last year that birthright citizenship does not automatically apply to the nation's unincorporated political territories.

The lawsuit was filed by a small group of American Samoans who did not have the support of the islands' government officials. The government of American Samoa has argued that automatic U.S. citizenship could undermine local traditions and practices, including rules that restrict land ownership to those of Samoan ancestry.

Court Vacates $1.8M Ventura Award in 'American Sniper' Case

A federal appeals court on Monday threw out a $1.8 million judgment awarded to former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura, who says he was defamed in the late author Chris Kyle's bestselling book "American Sniper."

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the jury's 2014 award of $500,000 for defamation and $1.3 million for unjust enrichment against Kyle's estate. Kyle, a former SEAL who was the deadliest sniper in U.S. military history with 160 confirmed kills, died in 2013.

The majority of the three-judge panel reversed the unjust-enrichment award, saying it fails as a matter of law. The majority also vacated the defamation award, but sent that portion of the case back to court for a new trial.

Messages left with Ventura's publicist and attorney were not immediately returned Monday. A message left with an attorney for Kyle's estate also did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

Kyle claimed in a subchapter called "Punching Out Scruff Face," to have decked a man, whom he later identified as Ventura, during a fallen SEAL's wake at a California bar in 2006. He wrote that "Scruff Face" had made offensive comments about the elite force, including a remark that the SEALs "deserve to lose a few" in Iraq.

Ventura, a former Underwater Demolition Teams/SEAL member and ex-pro wrestler, testified at trial that Kyle's story was a fabrication. Ventura said he never made the comments and that the altercation never happened. He said the book ruined his reputation in the tight-knit SEAL community.

Alabama Supreme Court sets Jan. 21 execution for Brooks

The Alabama Supreme Court has set a Jan. 21 execution date for a man convicted of raping and murdering a woman more than 20 years ago.

If carried out, the death sentence against Christopher Brooks would mark Alabama's first execution in more than two years.

Justices handed down the order Monday setting the execution date. A federal judge on Monday also allowed Brooks to join a lawsuit filed by death row inmates challenging the state's new lethal injection drug combination as cruel and unusual punishment.

U.S. District Judge Keith Watkins said that Brooks has until Dec. 4 to file for a stay of execution.

Brooks was convicted for the 1993 murder and rape of Deann Campbell of Homewood.

Houston Auto Accident Lawyer

Auto accidents account for the vast majority of personal injury claims in the US. After being involved in an auto accident most people aren’t sure what steps they should take immediately following the accident and in the days after.

The first thing to consider if you’ve been involved in an auto accident is the statute of limitations. This will vary among states and in Texas specifically, you have two years to file a case related to your accident. This two-year time limit begins the date of the accident, but it only applies to cases filed in court. For this reason it is important to file insurance claims as soon as possible – if negotiations or settlements break down along the way, you still have time to pursue damages through court. This two-year limitation doesn’t apply if a government entity was involved in the crash – for auto accidents which involve the government (say, an accident involving a public bus or unsafe public property) you have as little as 60-90 days to file an “administrative claim”. Even in a situation where a government entity was involved but didn’t seem to be at fault, it is important to file a claim as they might be more liable than you realize.

It’s important to consider who is at fault, as there are likely more parties involved than you realize. Perhaps there was a mechanical failure of the car which hit you; this would assume the automaker, and possibly auto part maker, are also at fault. Perhaps there was a large pothole which caused the other car to lose control; a situation like this might determine the government partially at fault for not maintaining road safety. It’s difficult to know who’s involved if you don’t have extensive knowledge of personal injury cases involving auto accidents and seeing the outcomes; this is why it’s always wise to consult with an attorney immediately following an accident.

The way fault is determined in Texas is also important to understand, as each state’s Comparative Fault laws will differ. Texas uses a modified comparative fault rule to determine how damages are awarded to injured parties, assuming that there isn’t only one party who is 100% responsible. For example, if you are seeking $100,000 in damages but the court determined the accident was 10% your fault, you will be awarded $90,000 (damages- %fault =award). Texas’s modified comparative fault law doesn’t apply if you are found to be 50% or more at fault, however; if you are 50% or more at fault, you won’t receive any award at all. This is why it is a “modified” comparative fault rule, as opposed to a “pure” comparative fault rule.

There is a lot to consider if you’ve been involved in an auto accident. Knowing when to file certain types of claims, how to file them, who all the involved parties are, and everything to include in your case can be very confusing, and is often done wrong. For example, administrative claims filed against the government are often dropped because the claimant didn’t include some necessary information. For these reasons it is always wise to consult with an experienced attorney. Contact The Salazar Law Firm for a free case evaluation if you or someone you know has been involved in an auto accident.

Breathalyzer Tests and DUI in Florida

Breathalyzer tests have become a standard way that officers measure the blood-alcohol level of a suspect. While the traditional tests are still used alongside a breathalyzer, the breathalyzer results are going to be one of the strongest pieces of evidence against you when evaluating your DUI case. Let’s start covering how you can possibly fight this by exploring how these results are even determined.

A breathlyzer’s goal is to determine the amount of alcohol in your blood stream. For obvious reasons, it is impractical to draw and test blood at a traffic stop, which would give the most direct results. However, breathalyzer technology actually measures the concentration of alcohol in the alveolar air and uses this figure to determine the concentration in a suspect’s blood stream. As the alcohol you’ve consumed passes through the lungs, some is evaporated into the air sacs (alveoli) and this is referred to as alveolar air, and has a direct correlation with the blood-alcohol level.

There are 3 main types of breathalyzers that are used, and each will measure the amount of alcohol present in different ways. There is the standard breathalyzer, the intoxilyzer, and the alcosensor. The breathalyzer and alcosensor rely on chemical reactions to make a determination, whereas the intoxylizer uses infrared light. Most areas in Florida will use the intoxylizer to administer breathalyzer tests. Generally speaking, all three are accepted as standard breathalyzer devices and are recognized as reliable. However, the smaller devices that are used at traffic stops need to be calibrated and administered in certain ways, and often times courts will reject these occurrences as evidence. Instead, because of the multiple ways an officer can incorrectly administer a test at a traffic stop, a more reliable breathalyzer is often used at the jail, and the results of this are thought to be far more trustworthy when determining a conviction.

There are ways to invalidate a DUI offense that most people haven’t considered. Was there a legal reason the officer stopped you? Did the testing procedure follow Federal guidelines? Do you have a medical condition that might cause a false reading? Was the breathalyzer equipment used functioning properly? Was the test analyzed properly? Cases have been overturned through exposing errors in record keeping or the computer programs which run breathalyzer tests. Cultivating this kind of defense can be tricky and confusing for many people, so we always recommend discussing your case with a certified attorney. A skilled defense attorney might even subpoena the maintenance & calibration records of the device used, if applicable to your unique situation. To discuss your case and the possibility of dismissal, contact The Law Office of Jerry Jenkins and fill out a free case evaluation request. Read more about breathalyzer tests and DUI in Florida here.

Supreme Court to review European suit against R.J. Reynolds

The Supreme Court will decide whether the European Union can pursue its lawsuit claiming that tobacco company R.J. Reynolds sponsored cigarette smuggling in Europe as part of a global money-laundering scheme with organized crime groups.

The justices agreed Thursday to review an appeals court ruling that said the EU and 26 of its member states were within their rights to sue in U.S. courts under federal racketeering laws.

The suit alleges that RJR directed, managed and controlled the scheme that involved laundering money through New York-based financial institutions.

A federal judge threw out the claims, but a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that racketeering laws can apply to crimes committed in foreign countries.

The EU alleges that RJR orchestrated the scheme with the help of Colombian and Russian criminal groups and that the company laundered money through New York-based financial institutions. The EU claims the company's actions hurt the economies of EU member nations by depriving governments of tax revenues.

The suit alleges several violations of racketeering laws, including mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, violations of the Travel Act and laws banning material support to foreign terrorist organizations.

The company calls the claims baseless. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. is a subsidiary of Winston-Salem, North Carolina-based Reynolds American Inc.

Securities Attorneys Representing Clients in Florida and Nationwide

Securities are the financial instruments that represent a form of ownership or stake in a company. Securities allow individuals to own asset(s) without taking possession of them. Because of this, securities can be exchanged easily. In addition to this, pricing securities is not difficult which is why they are a strong indicator of the value of the asset. In order to purchase or sell securities, a trader must obtain a license to ensure they have been trained to follow a set of laws established by the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission). Despite the regulatory agencies and laws in effect, fraud is still widespread. Fraud is an “umbrella term” that encompasses a wide range of deceptive and manipulative practices utilized by perpetrators to profit at the expense of the investor(s).

 

Types of securities:

Bonds, which can be issued by corporations or the government (Federal/Local).

A corporate bond is essentially a loan to a corporate entity in which you receive interest annually until the loan is paid off. Corporate bonds offer stability and are considered safer than stock in a company. Bondholders do not get dividends or voting rights which is why in the long haul, stocks have the potential for larger returns.

A bond issued by the federal government is very low in terms of risk and most frequently issued by the US Treasury. The potential for return is significantly lower than stocks or bonds issued by corporate entities.

A municipal bond is issued by state and local government. These include a city, county, town or school district. Typically,the rate of interest is lower than that of a bond issued by a corporation.

Mutual Funds , which are composed of a variety of securities.

A mutual fund can be stock options, bonds or both. In most cases, the investment is placed in a pool with monies from other investors. The fund is managed by an investment company, who selects the securities. The risk of the investment is reduced due to the diversity of the portfolio.

Stock Options

The right to purchase or sell stock in a company, at a specific rate for a window of time. The right to purchase stock is referred to as a call, the right to sell is called a “put”.

Futures Option

A futures contract is an agreement to sell a certain security in the future for a pre-determined rate. An option is the right to purchase or sell a contract at a certain price for a specified period of time. Since it used to reduce risk, a futures option is utilized by many investors.

 

History of Regulation

The regulation of Securities in the United States dates back to the 1930’s when the New Deal was passed. In the 1930’s & 40’s, five major laws were put into place by the Federal Government.

• Securities Act of 1933 a regulation on the distribution of new securities
• Securities Exchange Act of 1934- regulation of trading securities , brokers & exchanges
• Trust Indenture Act of 1939- regulation of debt securities
• Investment Company Act of 1940- regulating mutual funds
• Investment Advisers Act of 1940- regulation of investment advisers

Since the 1940’s a number of amendments have been made to these regulations in order to promote fair trade and enforce illegitimate/illegal practices. These major laws also serve to protect investors, ensuring they are adequately informed at the time of purchase.

While many measures are in place to reduce risk, it is still inherent, especially when dealing with non-governmental entities. Educating yourself on the common practices of Fraudsters can help you identify red flags when it comes time to invest your hard earned money. While often, fraudsters target vulnerable investors, savvy, educated people are still victimized.

Florida Based Law Firm Place & Hanley have represented thousands of clients nationwide and represent individual investors in claims for securities and stockbroker misconduct. If you’ve suffered monetary loss due to misconduct or believe your investment was mishandled, contact us for a Free Case Evaluation. View the original article at The Law Offices of Place and Hanley.

US court upholds Oklahoma death row inmate's sentence

A divided federal appeals court panel upheld the murder convictions and death sentence Tuesday of a 54-year-old man who went on a multistate crime spree in 2003.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to affirm the death sentence of Scott Eizember, who received the punishment after his first-degree murder conviction in the Oct. 18, 2003, bludgeoning death of A.J. Cantrell, 76. Eizember was also found guilty of second-degree murder in the shooting of Patsy Cantrell, 70, for which he received 150 years in prison, as well as a variety of other charges.   

On appeal, Eizember alleged that the trial court allowed two jurors who he alleged were "impermissibly biased in favor of the death penalty," thus "depriving him of trial by an impartial jury and due process in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments."

The court agreed with the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals and a federal district judge in rejecting Eizember's claims.

Eizember was the focus of an intense manhunt following the shootings in rural Depew but eluded authorities for 37 days. He was discovered that November by a 75-year-old volunteer at a church, but then stole the volunteer's vehicle, which he abandoned near Waldron, Arkansas.

He was captured later that day outside Lufkin, Texas, after kidnapping an Arkansas physician and his wife, holding them at gunpoint for six hours and forcing them to drive. The physician eventually shot Eizember four times. Eizember was convicted of kidnapping, carjacking and using a firearm in a crime of violence in Arkansas and was sentenced 25 years in federal prison.

In a 30-page dissenting opinion, Chief Judge Mary Beck Briscoe wrote that she would affirm Eizember's convictions "but reverse his death sentence and remand for resentencing before a fair and impartial jury."

DUI Penalties in Orlando and Florida

A DUI in the State of Florida is defined as an offense in which the operator of a motor vehicle has a blood alcohol level greater than or equal to .08. The manner in which the offense is proven may vary, but once convicted, offenders are subject to the same penalties.

 

First Time DUI Offenders

A 1st conviction results in the impoundment or immobilization of the vehicle. The exception, being if the defendant's family has no other means of transportation. The impoundment or immobilization shall not occur at the same time as incarceration. If the vehicle is operated solely by the employees of the defendant or by a business owned by the defendant, the court may dismiss the order of impoundment.
Additionally, the drivers license of the offender will be revoked for a minimum period of 180 days and a maximum of 1 year.
The minimum fine imposed is $500 and the the maximum, $1000. For offenders whose blood alcohol level is equal to or greater than .15, a minimum fine of $1000 is imposed and the fine should not exceed $2,000. In addition to the fine, offenders receive 50 hours of mandatory community service or an additional fine of $10 for each hour of service required.
The total period of incarceration or probation for first time offenders shall not exceed 1 year. The sentence can be served at a residential alcohol and drug abuse treatment program at the discretion of the court. This is credited towards the term of imprisonment. For offenders with no prior convictions and a blood alcohol level less than .15, imprisonment shall last no longer than 6 months. Offenders with no prior convictions whose blood alcohol exceeds .15 or had a minor in the vehicle at the time of the offense, imprisonment shall not exceed a period of 9 months.

 

Second DUI Conviction

If the Second Conviction is within 5 years of the first, the drivers vehicle shall be impounded for a period of 30 days. The person may be imprisoned for up to 9 months and if their blood alcohol level was greater than .15 or they had a minor in the vehicle, no more than 12 months. Regardless, a second conviction within 5 years of the first results in mandatory imprisonment for 10 days in which 2 days of the imprisonment must be served consecutively. As with first time offenders, the court has the discretion to credit time at an abuse treatment program towards time served. Additionally, a conviction within 5 years of the first the license of the offender is revoked for a minimum of 5 years with possible eligibility for hardship reinstatement after 1 calendar year. Fines for 2nd Convictions are as follows: minimum of $1,000 and maximum of $2,000 . If blood alcohol level exceeded .15 or a minor was in vehicle, the minimum and maximum fines are doubled to $2,000 and $4,000 respectively.

 

Third DUI Conviction

If the Third Conviction is within 10 years of the second, the drivers vehicle shall be impounded for a period of 90 days. The driver is also charged with a Felony DUI. As with 1st and 2nd Convictions, impounded must not occur simultaneously with incarceration, in which a mandatory imprisonment of 30 days is served, with 2 days of consecutive time served. Additionally, the license of the offender is revoked for a minimum of 10 years, with the eligibility for hardship reinstatement after 2 years. If the conviction was more than 10 years after the previous conviction, imprisonment shall not last more than 12 months. The fines for 3rd convictions more than 10 years from the 2nd conviction are no less than $2,000 and no more than $5,000. If the blood alcohol level was greater than .15 or a minor was in the vehicle at the time of the offense, a minimum fine of $4,000 is imposed.

 

Fourth and Subsequent DUI Convictions

Offenders are categorized by the State of Florida as habitual/violent offenders and the penalties are significantly steeper, with the mandatory permanent revocation of the license and the possibility of up to 5 years of incarceration.

 

Additional Charges

There a number of circumstances in which additional charges are brought upon the offender, for which additional punishment is probable. Cases involving accidents that result in property damage, bodily injury or death, carry stiffer penalties. Offenders being charged with vehicular homicide or manslaughter can be sentenced to up to 15 years in prison and 30 years in prison if they left the scene of the accident. The fines under these conditions shall not exceed $10,000.

 

Summing it Up

DUI Penalties are dependent on a number of conditions including but not limited to:

• The record of the driver
• Whether any other crimes were committed in the process
• The blood alcohol level of the driver
• Compliance with hardship reinstatement policies (ie: Fines,Alcohol Programs, Interlock Device)
• The presence of a minor in the vehicle
• The age of the Driver: Were they of legal drinking age?

 

DUI offenses are time consuming and require immediate action. Visit The Law Office of Jerry Jenkins to learn more about DUI penalties in Florida.

Alaska Supreme Court won't block Medicaid expansion

Thousands of lower-income Alaskans will become eligible for Medicaid after the Alaska Supreme Court on Monday refused to temporarily block the state from expanding the health care program.

The win capped a big day for Alaska Gov. Bill Walker, who earlier flew with President Barack Obama from Washington, D.C., to Anchorage.
"The Alaska Supreme Court's ruling today brings final assurance that thousands of working Alaskans will have access to health care tomorrow," Walker said in a statement issued Monday evening.

Walker earlier this summer announced plans to accept federal funds to expand Medicaid coverage after state legislators tabled his expansion legislation for further review.

The Legislative Council, acting on behalf of lawmakers, sued to stop expansion.

Thirty other states and the District of Columbia have expanded Medicaid, or plan to do so, to include all adults with incomes at or below 138 percent of the federal poverty level.

The federal government agreed to pay all costs for the new enrollees through 2016, but it will begin lowering its share in 2017. States will pay 10 percent of the costs by 2020.

Some Alaska legislators have expressed concern with adding more people to a system they consider broken. Administration officials have acknowledged the current Medicaid program isn't sustainable, but they see expansion as a way to get federal dollars to help finance reform efforts.

On Friday, Superior Court Judge Frank Pfiffner denied the request from lawmakers to halt expansion while a lawsuit moves forward. The Alaska Supreme Court on Monday agreed, saying lawyers for the lawmakers failed to show Pfiffner erred when denying the motion for a preliminary injunction.

Why hire a lawyer after a truck accident?

After being involved in an accident with a truck, you may wonder what the next step is, and if you should contact an attorney. Whether you were the driver of the truck, a driver of another vehicle, or a bicyclist/pedestrian, its important to know that you may actually be eligible to receive compensation for your injuries. Accident liability can be a very complicated area, so we recommend hiring an attorney. One of the first steps to take is to determine everyone who was involved in the accident. This includes all people who were physically there and affected by the accident, including drivers, passengers, pedestrians, bicyclists, etc. What is surprising, however, are the parties involved you may not have taken into consideration. This includes insurance companies, employers, vehicle manufacturers, government entities, trucking companies, or contractors. One advantage of using an attorney is that using their legal resources, they can quickly help you identify any parties involved in the litigation. Armed with this knowledge, you’ll be able to recover the maximum amount of damages for your injury. Next, make sure to receive medical treatment for your injuries. Keep up with all doctor/hospital visits, prescriptions, care plans etc. and don’t forget to keep copies of all related documentation. If your financial situation makes this a difficult step to take, please contact Hurt in Houston at 281.857.6770 to discuss how we can help. You’ll also likely be contacted by insurance companies who are trying to offer you a settlement – just remember, they are more than likely offering a far smaller sum than you are actually entitled to. It’s also prudent to understand how damages are rewarded, and these laws vary between states. Your case could fall under pure contributory negligence, pure comparative fault, or modified comparative fault (the latter has multiple provisions depending on the state). For example, in a state that rules under modified comparative fault with a 51 percent bar rule, any involved party is not entitled to damages if it is determined they are 51% or more responsible for the accident. If you’re in a state that practices pure contributory negligence, you won’t get any payout if you are even 1% at fault. Sound confusing? It becomes even less comprehendible when you take into consideration the multiple statutes attached to these laws – statutes that could, ultimately, affect your individual case in a way you don’t anticipate. Most importantly, don’t waste any time. Auto accidents often take into consideration many external factors like weather, road conditions, etc., and these external factors can be considered evidence. Often times and there is also a statute of limitations regarding these cases (which means if you wait too long to take action, you won’t be entitled to any reward at all). Hurt in Houston offers free case evaluations, so don’t waste in any time in contacting us. You can fill out a short form here, or call us at 281.857.6770. Read more on truck accidents on our truck accidents page.