SHOP UBB

What to do if pulled suspecting a DUI

Okay, you have been pulled over by a police officer. The officers have already asked for your license and registration, which you are needed to provide, and begins to make inquiries about your recent alcohol consumption. If the officer suspects that you might be intoxicated what you will do?

As the Fifth Amendment protects you from self-incrimination, you can refrain from answering any questions that the police officer asks you. This won’t mean that you need not have to tell the officer how many drinks you had. You no need to answer the interrogating questions. If you are scared that you may slur your words will cause your speech to stumble, you have the right to stay completely silent.

Do not get out of your car if not the officer asks you. Field sobriety tests are not the same as chemical testing. In most states, it is not compulsory by law to complete these tests and refusal to obey cannot be held against you. The breathalyzer is a device used by the police to decide your blood alcohol content. The correctness of these tests is suspect. They always will not present correct information about one’s level of intoxication. The government has determined that when you obtain a driver’s license, it is a privilege that comes with certain obligations. By obtaining a license, you have agreed to submit to chemical testing of your blood, breath, or urine, at the request of a police officer. If you refuse to obey chemical testing, such as the Breathalyzer, you will get automatic vehicle sanctions. Usually your license will be automatically suspended for not complying with chemical testing.

Currently all states, automatically revoke a person’s license if refusing to submit to chemical testing. Some states enacted very harsher penalties- with jail time and revoke registration—for refusal of chemical testing. So you may submit to chemical testing. While there are benefits and drawbacks of chemical testing, breath tests tend to be the least reliable method. Blood tests are the most fair and accurate tests, although these are not always offered to a suspect. If chemical test shows that you have blood alcohol level of 0.08 or greater, it is enough to prove that you are officially intoxicated and you may be under arrest on criminal DUI/DWI/OUI charges. There are circumstances where a lower BAC may draw out a DUI arrest.

As you must submit to chemical testing, these tests are not perfect and do not necessarily mean you will be convicted of a DUI. So if you are charged with a drunken driving crime, it is essential that you speak with a skilled and experienced attorney soon. In some cases a DUI attorney can have the documentation of your chemical testing covered up so that it is not even presented as proof in your case. Your DUI lawyer may be able to explain that your chemical test was not accurate and have the results deemed not allowed in your case. In any of the case, it is wise to have an expert and experienced DUI attorney on your part. To study more on drunk driving and DUI laws in your area, please contact an experienced DUI attorney near you.
Elizabeth is a expert author for Los Angeles DUI attorney and Riverside DUI attorney. He has written many articles in various topics like California criminal defense attorney, Orange county criminal defense attorney, Orange County DUI attorney . For more information visit our site http://www.criminaldefenseteamusa.com Contact me at elizabeth.abcd@gmail.com

What to do if pulled suspecting a DUI / Author: elizabeth

• Comments Off

Being Made To Settle For Less

Accident victims are vulnerable after the event not just in the physical sense but also mentally. One of the negatives of the mental aspect is that these victims are often quietly pressurised into accepting payouts before they can obtain legal advice. This seems to be a worrying new trend and it has got the attention of the Financial Services Authority (FSA).

Indeed the FSA has just recently been given a dossier of evidence against unscrupulous insurers by Trade unions and claimant lawyers. Their concern regards the behaviour of said insurers who deal directly with accident victims and the allegations that they are putting pressure on victims to waive their right to compensation or to settle claims for a lesser amount that they actually should.

This pressure and behaviour is known in the industry as ‘third-party capture’ whereby insurers try to settle the claims of injured people before they had the chance to take independent legal advice. The trade union, Unite, included a case in the dossier where where insurance company Zurich offered £4,000 in ‘full and final settlement’, only for the case to be settled last November for £35,000.

Also in the dossier are findings by The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers’ (Apil) and amongst their more worrying cases is one in particular- where a claim on behalf of bereaved parents who lost their three children in a road traffic accident was settled last year for £60,00 but was originally offered to be settled by Quinn Direct for £21,000.

Unite and Apil are but only two companies that have expressed concern in the dossier about insurance company representatives’ cold-calling ‘third-party’ victims after an accident. In some cases, the representatives go a step further and even visit an accident victim’s house in the aftermath of a car crash. Insurance companies however will rebut the allegations by claiming that their services are designed to be proactive which would mean getting in contact with potential claimants as soon as possible after an accident. Clearly however, going one step beyond and urging settlement as soon as possible without thorough legal advice is unacceptable.

In light of the dossier, the FSA will have to decide if accident victims are truly losing out and the evidence seems to suggest that they are. Unite in particular has provided cases where victims do not know the true value of the claims and that they are being told they do not have a good case when in fact they do.

The entire investigation may prove to be a vicious circle with the insurance industry raising its hands to practicing ‘third-party capture’ on a frequent basis, but only as part of a logical business model. In their defense, the pro-active response is simply a way to address escalating costs of processing claims. They are in effect bypassing the expensive intermediary-the lawyer.

Saurav is an author of several articles pertaining to No Win No Fee, Compensation Claims, Personal Injury Claims and other legal articles.

Being Made To Settle For Less / Author: Saurav Dutt

• Comments Off

New Research May Affect Whiplash Claims In Future

Rear-end collisions and resulting whiplash are commonplace in the UK. A driver just has to be travelling too closely to the vehicle in front of them, and all that is needed is for the driver in front to make an emergency stop and a costly crash and claims for car accident compensation result.

Whiplash itself can lead to a range of indications from headaches and dizziness to severe neck and back pain and has been one of the most prolific claims handled by personal injury lawyers in recent history.

But new research is being steadily introduced and investigated to ensure that whiplash injuries are reduced in future and also that victims can get the car accident compensation that they deserve. The latest new measure is the introduction of Black Box Recorders which are being fitted to young driver’s cars in an attempt to minimise the number of accidents. These devices use motion sensors to record when drivers brake late, take a corner too quickly or swerve. Importantly this may impact car insurance companies who are considering cutting premiums for drivers who demonstrate they drive carefully.

The scheme aims to put the recorded data on a website, which will itself analyse the motorist’s driving style. Not only is this online information available for drivers to assess their own faults, but it is also visible to their parents. Potentially it could be of great interest to car insurance companies, particularly in light of the fact that more and more younger drivers are hitting the streets and where Police figures show 20% of drivers aged under 21 have an accident in their first year on the road-almost all of these cases involving cases of whiplash.

The scheme is being piloted in Staffordshire at present.

Another potentially evidentiary find for injury lawyers may come about from research into accidents in the US. Car insurance companies there have carried out new crash tests mainly to uncover why cases dealing with whiplash are so numerous. According to the research, almost two thirds of head restraints in sport-utility vehicles, pickup trucks and vans provide inadequate protection against neck injuries. Tests were carried out on 87 different models and an alarming 54 2007 models, including BMW, DaimlerChrysler AG and Ford Motor Co, were rated well below average.

Whether in the US or UK, there are many personal injury claims companies that can help those that have been subject to crashes in vehicles with poor safety ratings to gain the car accident compensation that they deserve on a no win, no fee basis.

Saurav is an author of several articles pertaining to No Win No Fee, Compensation Claims, Personal Injury Claims and other legal articles.

New Research May Affect Whiplash Claims In Future / Author: Saurav Dutt

• Comments Off

No Win No Fee Claims: More trouble Than They Are Worth?

‘Compensation Culture’ is a term often banded around in the insurance and legal sectors, but the increasing use of personal injury solicitors and their enticing ‘No Win No Fee’ schemes may be impacting these sectors in a far more negative light than we would expect.

The picture is not all doom and gloom however, despite an increase the number of literal ‘door knockers’ trying to scavenge business, the initial ethos behind ‘No Win No Fee’ is still as relevant as when the idea was encouraged in 1995.

In a ‘no win, no fee’ agreement your solicitor will only be paid if the claim is successful. He or she will also be entitled to an extra fee (known as a success fee). Both the basic fee and this extra fee are normally paid in whole or part by the losing party.

The main problem is that this potentially useful means of making claims after an accident, is in danger of being even more abused than it currently is. In particular, it is the fault of some claims firms which lead people to believe they can claim compensation simply because they suffer an injury. The ‘have a go’ mindset adopted by such firms has had a detrimental effect. For example, clients have been pushed into pursuing claims. In such cases, perhaps these clients had not fully understood what they were signing and perhaps in the past there have been occasions where individuals have been encouraged to pursue claims against their own interests.

However this should not cloud the fact that the scheme has brought about much more peace of mind for consumers. Particularly, client services have been developed since the proliferation of ‘No Win No Fee’. The vast majority of lawyers can now obtain loans for their clients to cover costs, for example medical reports and even the cost of insurance to protect the client from the risk of losing. With the current insurance schemes available genuine no win no fee arrangements can be provided. With the right case, the right lawyer and the right insurer the client can have true access to justice without the worry that should they lose their case they will have to sell their assets in order to pay their opponents costs.

Consumers should not be frightened of no win no fee agreements, as the legal and insurance professions realised quickly just how much harm adverse news stories about the agreements can do to a consumer weighting up their options after an accident. Many admirable organisations such as the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers(APIL), Accident Line and Injury Lawyers for You(IL4U) can now advise on whether a case truly has merit, as many of the less professional proponents of the scheme have often raised a clients hopes only to then dash them. Organisations like this ensure that clients’ interests are put first and that fanciful claims are not put first but only the legitimate ones.

Saurav is an author of several articles pertaining to No Win No Fee, Compensation Claims, Personal Injury Claims and other legal articles.

No Win No Fee Claims: More trouble Than They Are Worth? / Author: Saurav Dutt

• Comments Off

About Ukraine Scam. Criminal Responsibility for Scam

In accordance to the Criminal code of Ukraine Scam falls under Article # 190:

Article 190. Fraud
1. Taking possession of somebody else’s property or obtaining the property title by deceit or breach of confidence (fraud), -
shall be punishable by a fine up to 50 tax-free minimum incomes*, or correctional labor for a term up to two years, or restraint of liberty for a term up to three years.
2. Fraud, if repeated, or committed by a group of persons upon their prior conspiracy, or where it caused a significant damages to the victim, - shall be punishable by a fine of 50 to 100 tax-free minimum incomes**, or correctional labor for a term of one to two years, or restraint of liberty for a term up to five years, or imprisonment for a term up to three years.
3. Fraud committed in respect of a gross amount or by unlawful operations involving computerized equipment, -
shall be punishable by imprisonment for a term of three to eight years***.
4. Fraud committed in respect of an especially gross amount, or by an organized group, -
shall be punishable by imprisonment for a term of eight to fifteen years and forfeiture of property.

* The Authorities of Ukraine are interested in replenishment of the treasury of the State. This way scammer will pay a fine up to 50 tax free minimum income (170.00 USD) if the court brought in a verdict of guilty.

** As it’s mentioned above The Authorities of Ukraine are interested in replenishment of the treasury of the State. This way scammer will pay a fine of 50 to 100 tax-free minimum incomes (170.00-340.00 USD) if the court brought in a verdict of guilty.

***Here’s justice is more severe. Scammer can be punishable by imprisonment for a term of three to eight years. Anyway scammer will get suspended sentence if the scammer returns money to the victim, begs victim’s pardon and regrets about his crime.

Scammer can be also discharged from criminal liability:

Article 44. Legal grounds and procedure for discharge from criminal liability
1. A person, who committed a criminal offense, shall be discharged from criminal liability in cases prescribed by this Code, and also on the grounds of the Law of Ukraine of amnesty or an act of pardon.
2. The discharge from criminal liability in cases prescribed by this Code shall be exercised exclusively by court. The procedure of discharge from criminal liability in shall be established by law.

Article 45. Discharge from criminal liability in view of effective repentance
A person who has committed a minor criminal offense for the first time shall be discharged from criminal liability if, upon committing that offense, he/she sincerely repented, actively facilitates the detection of the offense, and fully compensates the losses or repairs the damage inflicted.

Article 46. Discharge from criminal liability in view of reconciliation of the offender and the victim
A person who has committed a minor criminal offense for the first time shall be exempt from criminal liability if he/she reconciled with the victim and compensated the losses or repaired the damage inflicted.

Article 47. Discharge from criminal liability in view of admission by bail
1. A person, who has committed a minor criminal offense or an offense of medium gravity for the first time and sincerely repented, may be discharged from criminal liability for admission by bail on request of the collective body of an enterprise, institution or organization on condition that such person, within one year of his/her admission by bail, will not fail the trust of the collective body, avoid measures of correctional nature or break public peace.
2. If conditions of the admission by bail are not satisfied, the person shall be subject to criminal liability for the offense committed.

Article 48. Discharge from criminal liability due to a change of situation
A person who has committed a minor criminal offense or an offense of medium gravity for the first time may be discharged from criminal liability if it is found that at the time of investigation or trial, due to a change of situation, the act committed by that person has lost its socially dangerous nature or that person has ceased to be dangerous to the public.

Article 49. Discharge from criminal liability due to limitation period
1. A person shall be discharged from criminal liability if the following periods have elapsed from the date of the criminal offense to the effective date of the judgment:
(1) two years where a minor offense has been committed and the prescribed punishment is less severe than the restraint of liberty;
(2) three years where a minor offense has been committed and the prescribed punishment is the restraint of liberty or imprisonment;
(3) seven years where an offense of medium gravity has been committed;
(4) fifteen years where a grave offense has been committed;
(5) twenty years where a special grave offense has been committed.
2. The statute of limitations shall be saved where a person who committed a criminal offense evaded investigation or trial. In such cases the running of the statute of limitations is resumed as of the date of the person’s surrender or apprehension. In this case the person shall be discharged from liability if twenty years elapsed after the commission of the offense.
3. The statute of limitation shall be forfeited where a person, before the terms specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this Article have expired, commits another medium grave, grave or special grave offense. In this case a limitation period starts on the date on which such new crime is committed. Each offense gives rise to its own period of limitation.
4. Where a person has committed a special grave offense punishable by life imprisonment, the issue of limitation shall be decided by a court. Where a court rules out the possibility to apply a period of limitation, a sentence of life may not be imposed and is commuted to an imprisonment for a determinate term.
5. The statute of limitation shall not apply where any crime against the peace and humanity, as provided for in Articles 437 through 439, and paragraph 1 of Article 442 of this Code.

Ukraine Private Detective
Ukraine Scam Investigations

About Ukraine Scam. Criminal Responsibility for Scam / Author: Ukraine Private Detective

• Comments Off