Houston, Texas (PRWEB) April 04, 2012

The Texas legislature recently amended several driving while intoxicated laws by enhancing penalties for driving while intoxicated with a high blood alcohol concentration (BAC) level and for intoxication assault. Matt Horak, a criminal defense lawyer in Houston, discusses the effect the new laws will have on residents throughout the Houston area.

Matt Horak, a Houston DWI defense lawyer, stated “The Texas legislature has routinely attempted to change DWI laws in Texas over the past several years. Although the new laws became effective in September 2011, many of the state’s citizens are not aware of these changes. If drivers knew they could face increased penalties for certain DWI offenses, they may choose to drink and drive less.”

House Bill 1199 provided for two changes to Texas laws regarding driving while intoxicated (DWI) offenses. The first change affected section 49.04 of the Texas Penal Code, which covers the blood or breath alcohol concentration level required for driving while intoxicated offenses. HB 1199 increased penalties for alleged offenders who had a BAC over a certain limit.

Prior to the change, Texas law did not differentiate between DWI offenses with a high BAC and DWI with a low BAC. Previously, no matter what the driver’s BAC was measured at, they would be charged with the same degree of offense as other drivers in their same situation. Now, an individual who has a BAC of .15% or higher can be charged with greater penalties than a driver charged with DWI while their BAC is under .15%.

Specifically, the newly enacted section 49.04(d) of the Texas Penal Code states that an analysis of the driver’s blood, breath or urine showing an alcohol concentration level of .15 or more at the time of the test can result in a DWI offense with increased penalties.

An individual who is charged with a high BAC DWI under the new law can be convicted of a Class A misdemeanor. This degree of offense is punishable by up to one year in jail and/or a fine up to $4,000. This offense was previously punishable as a Class B misdemeanor, which could result in up to 180 days in jail and/or a fine up to $2,000.

According to Horak, a first DWI attorney in Houston, “Previously, a first DWI offense could result in a Class B misdemeanor conviction, regardless of the driver’s BAC, and a second DWI offense was punishable as a Class A misdemeanor. Under the new DWI laws in Texas, anyone that has a BAC of .15% or higher for a first DWI offense can be punished the same as a repeat DWI offender. Anyone who hasn’t had very much to eat that day, has a low weight, has had very little sleep, or is affected by anything else that can increase their BAC can face much harsher penalties for a first DWI offense.”

Horak added, “The new law does not state when the chemical blood or breath test must be taken in order to determine the driver’s level of the BAC, the new law also does not take into consideration if the driver was in the absorption or elimination state at the time of the chemical test, and the legislature gives no reason as to why .15 was determined to be the measure for high BAC.”

Government officials have argued that Ira Rothken, the lawyer in charge of the company’s defense, and his law firm Quinn Emanuel, should not be allowed to represent Megaupload in court. Schapiro’s past record in copyright cases has come into question and it may pose a possible conflict of interest. The law firm represented Google and YouTube after Viacom filed a copyright suit against them in 2007, and YouTube managers may testify as witnesses against Megaupload.

The government also claimed that in order to reclaim the data, Megaupload will need more of its money that was seized, and officials are opposed to the idea of releasing more of the company’s funds. Rothken argues that all parties are in agreement over Megaupload’s data, however, and they believe it should be preserved. The Electronic Frontier Foundation would like to see the court return the data to its rightful owners and even the Motion Picture Association of America wants to preserve the information for possible legal action in the future.

Sanford police cited the law when they did not arrest neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman, 28, who fatally shot the 17-year-old Martin on Feb. 26 in Sanford.

Lawyers in unrelated cases will undoubtedly have to question potential jurors about the “Trayvon Martin Effect” or the “Trayvon Factor,” said Nellie King, president of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

“The climate could not be worse for those folks who have been arrested, yet have viable self-defense claims. Florida defense lawyers can only hope that jurists, as well as jurors, tasked with reviewing future Stand Your Ground claims will weigh the case-specific facts before them in an impartial manner against Florida’s law, irrespective of the larger issues being debated in this country,” she said.

Florida’s 2005 law eliminated the duty to retreat when confronted by an attacker, while allowing judges – well before a jury trial – to decide whether a defendant is immune from prosecution because he or she acted in self-defense.

Critics, including many police officers, say the law encourages vigilantes to shoot first and ask question later, while some prosecutors think that juries, not judges, should decide the self-defense question.

Zimmerman, who is white, shot and killed Martin, who was black, during a sidewalk scuffle inside a gated housing community just north of Orlando. Gov. Rick Scott appointed a special prosecutor to review whether there is enough evidence to charge Zimmerman in the racially charged case.

The U.S. Justice Department is also examining the case and the police investigation for potential civil rights violations. The governor is also reviewing the law, as is a panel of elected officials.

Vincent P. Nertavich alleges that on September 23, 2007, he fell 40 feet from an electric transmission tower he was painting, according to the Reading Eagle. The accident caused him to suffer back injuries that left him with  broken legs, a brain injury that led to anxiety and short-term memory loss, and left him three and a half inches shorter.

Nertavich claimed that it was the negligence of the company in failing to provide and require the use of appropriate safety equipment when workers ascended the 90-foot transmission tower.

The jury returned a $4.6 million verdict, but found PPL to be responsible for 51 percent of the accident, which reduced Nertavich’s award to $2.3 million. Partial blame was placed on Nertavich’s employer, which PPL hired for the job.

In an unusual display of personal views in a court ruling, Justice Patricio Serna wrote, “I cannot remain silent about something that matters and seems unfair to me.”

A state Corrections Department policy, adopted in 2005 during the Richardson administration but still in place, calls for workers to submit written reports if they are arrested or convicted of drunken driving. They lose their jobs after a second offense and are suspended for at least five days for a first offense.

Rudy Sais, a guard at a prison in Los Lunas, lost his job in 2008 although his DWI charges were dismissed—after his first arrest in 2006 as well as his second arrest in March 2008.

During an administrative hearing to appeal his firing, Sais offered evidence of other workers who weren’t fired despite multiple DWIs. One guard never reported his arrests—potentially as many as four—and kept his job.

Serna said it was unfair that Sais was fired after following the rules. However, the full court ruled Thursday that the department had properly justified its action and why there might be differences in the treatment of some employees with drunken driving arrests or convictions.

Representatives from The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the Service Employees International Union and the National Korean American Service and Education Consortium attended the meeting in Seoul, South Korea as shareholders.

Leadership Conference president Wade Henderson said he gave a presentation to Hyundai shareholders and plans to visit Daimler AG in Germany and Honda in Japan for their shareholder meetings in the coming months.

“We would hope Hyundai, Daimler and Honda would engage leaders in discussion to repeal the law,” Henderson said. “We hope that Hyundai would press Alabama state officials to immediately suspend enforcement of the law and encourage the state’s legislature to reconsider the impact of the law in light of the evidence of its consequences.”

The wide-ranging law requires police to determine citizenship status during traffic stops and calls for government offices to verify legal residency for everyday transactions like obtaining a car license, enrolling a child in school, getting a job or renewing a business license.

Republicans in control of the state legislature and governor’s office have said they plan on making minor adjustments to the law, but have no intention of repealing it.

In an email statement, Hyundai spokesman Chris Hosford expressed puzzlement as to the delegation’s actions.

Efforts to reform the PIP laws are designed to lower insurance premiums by reducing fraud in the system.

The Legislature is scheduled to complete its work for the season by the end of the week. State Chief Financial Officer Jeff Atwater wrote in his weekly newsletter that passing PIP reforms is a top priority for his office.

“As we approach the final days of the 2012 Legislative Session, it is time for our legislative leaders to come together and agree on real solutions to our state’s ever-growing PIP fraud problem,” he wrote. “Absent reforms, we will continue to see organized fraud rings and more Floridians who simply can’t afford their auto insurance premiums.

The state House passed its version of PIP reform March 2. Bradenton Republican Rep. Jim Boyd wrote the House version, HB 119. It would require accident victims to visit an emergency care office or a family doctor within seven days of a motor vehicle crash. This rule is designed to cut down on fraud from health clinics that are set up to game the system, which allows $10,000 in personal injury protection.

That measure was included in a package of four bills signed into law last year by Governor Gary R. Herbert in a legislative package he called “the Utah solution” to illegal immigration.

The U.S. has asked U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups in Salt Lake City for an order temporarily blocking the status- verification law and two other measures it says conflicts with powers reserved to the federal government. Justice Department attorney Joshua Wilkenfeld told Waddoups today that the law also risks damaging federal prosecution of more serious crimes, such as drug trafficking.

“Just asking aliens for information can interfere with government’s ability to pursue high priorities of federal law enforcement,” he said.

Barry Lawrence, a lawyer in the office of Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, said the purpose of the statute is to identify people who are arrested and to determine how many crimes are committed by those who are not lawfully in the U.S.

“An officer cannot walk up and say, ‘Show me your papers,’” Lawrence said. “What we are doing is identifying people who are committing crimes. If there isn’t an arrest, we don’t get to the verification.”

Subject to Removal

The U.S. is also asking Waddoups to block enforcement of measures authorizing police to arrest without a warrant people they believe are subject to the removal order of an immigration judge and making it a felony to encourage or induce an illegal alien to enter or settle in Utah.

“In our constitutional system, the power to regulate immigration is exclusively vested in the federal government,” the U.S. argued in court papers. “The state of Utah has crossed this constitutional line.”

The U.S. sued to block the law in November, six months after a challenge was first lodged by a Latino civil rights advocacy group, Utah Coalition of La Raza. Waddoups has consolidated the cases.

The state argues the U.S. is mischaracterizing the legislation, known as HB 497, and says it’s consistent with congressional mandates and is constitutional.

Not ‘Complicated’

“This issue is neither difficult nor complicated,” the state’s attorneys told Waddoups in a Jan. 17 submission.

Utah spends almost $8 million a year to keep about 300 illegal immigrants in prison, according to the state’s filing, while more than $55 million is spent on public education of undocumented children.

“There are those who will say these bills may not be perfect, but they are a step in the right direction and they are better than what we had,” Herbert said in a statement after signing the legislation on May 15.

Utah’s act and immigration measures enacted by the governors of Arizona, Alabama and South Carolina have all been challenged by the U.S. government.

The U.S. Supreme Court in December said it would review a San Francisco-based federal appeals court’s 2011 ruling that barred enforcement of an Arizona law requiring police to check immigration status when they stop or arrest a person they have reasonable suspicion to believe is in the country illegally.

Arizona Neighbor

Utah lies in a different federal appellate circuit than Arizona, its neighbor to the south.

An Atlanta-based appeals court on March 1 will hear arguments on state and federal government challenges to a September ruling by U.S. District Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn in Birmingham, Alabama, blocking parts of package of immigration control measures signed into law by Alabama Governor Robert Bentley.

A federal judge in South Carolina, Richard M. Gergel, in December blocked enforcement of a law in that state which would require police officers suspecting somebody of unlawfully being in the U.S. to check their legal status.

South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley’s administration is appealing Gergel’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia.

Empowered States

Congress has empowered the states to communicate and cooperate with one another and with the federal government on immigration enforcement efforts, Utah said in court papers opposing the U.S. bid for a court order blocking the law.

“HB 497 reflects Utah’s attempt to undertake its supporting role in the fight against illegal immigration, within the parameters set by Congress,” Utah told Waddoups. “HB 497 does not conflict with Congress’ mandate, but is entirely consistent with it.”

According to the ABI, the move means faster compensation pay-outs for an additional 55,000 people injured in road crashes each year.

Around 97% of motor personal injury claimants will now be able to use the fast track process, which was introduced in April 2010 and involves stringent time limits for insurers and legal representatives in establishing liability, plus standardised claim forms and fixed legal costs.

The Association’s director of general insurance, Nick Starling, says: “In less than two years evidence shows that this process is leading to the average pay-out time being more than halved and lower legal costs.”

He adds: “The Government must now press on with its wide-ranging and long overdue reforms to civil litigation to ensure that steps such as reducing fixed legal costs lead to a more cost efficient compensation system.”

Ministers are proposing to introduce a similar fast-track scheme for workplace-related injury claims and public liability claims.

The court will review a federal appeals court decision that upheld a judge’s ruling blocking key provisions of the Arizona law.

One of those provisions requires that police, while enforcing other laws, question a person’s immigration status if officers have reasonable suspicion the person is in the country illegally.

Other blocked provisions would require immigrants to obtain or carry immigration registration papers and make it a state criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job.

The U.S. Justice Department sued to challenge the law after it was enacted in 2010.