Photo Credit Flickr.com

According to MahaloLearnMore.com “In January 2012, Youtube was hitting over 4 billion views a day, more than double the number of daily views they had just 18 months prior. According to its press statistics, YouTube receives approximately 800 million unique visitors each month, with more than 4 billion hours of video watched monthly. In terms of social media, Facebook users watch 500 years of YouTube videos daily. One of the reasons for Youtube’s popularity is that it makes everyone a filmmaker; anyone at all can create a user account and upload to youtube, and anyone with internet access can watch video content for free, with or without a login.” Singers have gotten their big break, anamials have made us laugh and we can look up how to do almost anything on Youtube. And now Youtube can be used as evidence in criminal charges. Social Media is the newest form of criminal evidence. Information gleaned from Facebook postings and other social media communications have been allowed as evidence, providing a judge believes the information is directly relevant to a case and not a blatant violation of someone’s privacy. Even if you are not knowingly the subject of a criminal investigation you should be aware that your Facebook postings are not private. Obviously whoever you have “friended” is privy to your postings depending on your privacy levels. Any of these people may easily take a screen shot of any posting you make. The same is true for text messages. The textee can take a screen shot of your text message and it is no longer yours to control. Postings on other social media networks such as Twitter are similarly subject to criminal prosecution if the content is deemed threatening or otherwise suspected to be of a criminal nature. Last week USA TODAY reported the following story about Matthew Cordle who confessed to vehicular homicide on You Tube. To see the entire article and view the confession click here. Matthew Cordle, 22, admits getting drunk and driving the wrong way on I-670 near Columbus, crashing into a jeep and killing its driver. “My name is Mathew Cordle and on June 22, 2013, I hit and killed Vincent Canzani,” Cordle says in the video posted Friday. “This video will act as my confession. When i get charged, I will plead guilty and take full responsibility for everything I’ve done to Vincent and his family… I won’t dishoner Vincent’s memory by lying about what happened.” Cordle says in the video that after the crash he spoke with “some high-powered attorneys” who told him that it might be possible to get his blood test thrown out. He said they told him of “about similar cases where the drivers got off. “All I would have to do is lie. I won’t go down that path.”

Photo Cridit Flickr.com

Canzani’s ex-wife, Cheryl Oates, told fox6now.comthat Cordle’s remorse appeared genuine and that she was encouraged that he took responsibility for his actions. Still, the mother of two sons said she felt Cordle should spend some time in prison. “It’s gut-wrenching coming from a mother looking at that young boy, and he just doesn’t understand the damage that he did,” she told the website. George Breitmayer III, a Columbus lawyer representing Cordle, told The Columbus Dispatch that he was unaware his client was posting the confession. “This video he released demonstrates his character, bravery and integrity, and I know he fully intends to cooperate with law enforcement and Franklin County prosecutors throughout the course of any future criminal proceedings,” Breitmayer told the Dispatch. Franklin County Prosecutor Ron O’Brien told the Dispatch he watched Cordle’s video three times. “It’s the most compelling video I think I have seen. He strikes me as remorseful and sincere,” O’Brien said. O’Brien said he will ask grand jurors on Monday to indict Cordle on a charge of aggravated vehicular homicide. The second-degree felony carries a prison sentence of two to eight years. O’Brien told fox6now that the video has not influenced him to recommend a lighter sentence. “We had a case against him based on the evidence as I know it before the video was filmed,” he told the website. Breitmayer said the video was not posted in an effort to gain a shorter prison sentence. On the recording, Cordle says he “can’t bring Mr. Canzani back. I can’t erase what I’ve done,” but says “I beg you, and I say the word beg specifically, I’m begging you, please don’t drink and drive.” John Bacon, USA TODAY When you are in need of a criminal defence attorney, in Bergen County, New Jersey, Aretsky & Aretsky Attorneys at Law are equiped to defend you. They have successfully prevented charges from being filed, negotiated for lesser charges, and obtained acquittals in a wide range of criminal defense matters. From cases involving DUIs, traffic violations and driving while suspended, to cases involving drug offenses, shoplifting, and assaults, their criminal defense attorneys have the skill, experience, and tenacity necessary to secure positive outcomes for their clients. Aretsky & Aretsky Attornenys can be reached at the Ridgewood Office 257 E. Ridgewood Ave., Suite 303 Ridgewood, NJ 07450, Phone: (201) 996-0234 or https://www.aretsky-law.com/.

The well-known MADD group is upset about an app that tells Southern California motorists where the DUI checkpoints are every night.

Sennett Devermont, who created the free app MrCheckpoint, told LA Weekly that he thinks he’s providing a public service by providing daily updates on police DUI checkpoint locations scheduled throughout Southern California. The app has nearly 42,000 followers and more than 20,000 text subscribers.

MADD Opposes MrCheckpoint

But MADD doesn’t see it that way. The group whose acronym stands for Mothers Against Drunk Driving doesn’t equate MrCheckpoint with good deeds. “While we support the publication of checkpoints as a deterrent to drunk driving,” LA Weekly quoted Pat Rillera, MADD’s executive director in Los Angeles and Ventura counties, “sites like MrCheckpoint alert drunk drivers so they can evade arrest. It’s not meant as a positive.”

New Jersey DUI checkpoints

There are several ways New Jersey motorists could find out about local DUI checkpoints, including the media and public service announcements made by law enforcement. MADD has long been known as a zero-tolerance organization and keeps a tally of annual deaths due to drunk driving. The group says someone in the United States dies every 53 minutes due to a drunk driving accident. In New Jersey, 31 percent of traffic deaths are related to drunk driving, according to MADD. For more statistics about drunk driving in New Jersey, go here.

Drunk Driving Enforcement

MADD’s drunk driving enforcement fact sheet includes the following facts about sobriety checkpoints:

• Forty states and DC conduct sobriety checkpoints
• Highly publicized, highly visible, and frequent sobriety checkpoints reduce drunk driving crashes and deaths by an average of 20 percent, according to research
• Arresting people is not the main goal of a DUI checkpoint. However, the perceived risk of getting caught, keeps many drunk drivers off the roadways when the checkpoints are highly publicized.
• Sobriety checkpoints have the support of 87 percent of Americans
• Sobriety checkpoints, which can be done with as few as three to five officers, can save communities between six dollars and 23 dollars in costs from alcohol-related crashes for every dollar invested in the checkpoint.

Photo credit: Nick.Fisher

Would you know how to behave if you were pulled over? It may be helpful to know that there are things you can do from avoiding a DUI arrest if you are stopped by a police officer for investigation of drunk driving.

Don’t panic.

First of all, do your best to stay calm. Officers will be watching you carefully for signs of intoxication and any signs of nervousness or agitation will be noted and can be considered a possible symptom of intoxication. Be prepared. Make sure your license, registration and proof of insurance are within easy reach so that an officer doesn’t see you fumbling for the documents when you are asked for them.

Be respectful.

Reese Witherspoon’s arrest perfectly illustrates how the situation can spiral out of control if someone is disrespectful of police, particularly when officers are in the midst of an investigation.

Be brief.

Remember that any information you provide to the officer regarding how many drinks you may have had, where you’ve been, etc. can all be used against you later in court. It is best to be brief when answering an officers’ questions and don’t volunteer any extra information.

Don’t lie.

Any inconsistencies in your statements can compromise your credibility and be used against you. Know your rights and responsibilities before you’re stopped by police. Better yet, don’t give police a reason to stop you. It is always best not to drink and drive, but if you happen to be arrested for suspicion of DUI, contact an experienced DUI attorney who can discuss in detail with you the best way to proceed in defending yourself against DUI charges. Photo credit: Alex E. Proimos

Police officers can no longer force people suspected of driving while drunk to take a blood alcohol test without a warrant. Officers must request a search warrant with corroborating evidence if the motorist declines a blood test during a DUI stop.

In a ruling announced earlier this week, the Supreme Court said that police officers can order a blood test from people they believe have been driving under the influence of alcohol only if they have a search warrant, except in an emergency or other unusual circumstances. The Court found that most DUI stops did not, in and of themselves, constitute an emergency. The decision basically upholds a person’s Fourth Amendment right against unlawful searches, which the court said includes forced blood tests.

A search warrant is not necessary during emergencies

So what constitutes an emergency that would make a warrant unnecessary? The ruling said an emergency must be determined on a case by case basis taking into account all the circumstances surrounding each case. An accident involving a potential death would likely fall in that category. Specifically, the ruling states: “The question presented here is whether the natural metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream presents a per se exigency that justifies an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement for nonconsensual blood testing in all drunk-driving cases. We conclude that it does not, and we hold, consistent with general Fourth Amendment principles, that exigency in this context must be determined case by case based on the totality of the circumstances.” The Supreme Court ruling this week stemmed from a case in which a man, Tyler McNeely, was stopped by a police officer in Missouri for speeding and crossing the centerline. The man declined to take a breath test, then was taken to a nearby hospital where the officer directed a lab technician to take a blood sample while McNeely remained handcuffed. McNeely tested above the legal limit but successfully challenged the legality of the blood test based on his Fourth Amendment rights.

Police officers must obtain search warrants

The Fourth Amendment does make an exception for emergency situations, which the state of Missouri said is the case with DUI stops. The state of Missouri tried to argue that DUI stops can be considered emergencies because blood-alcohol-content dissipates as time goes by, making it necessary to ensure DUI suspects submit to timely blood tests. “Evidence is literally disappearing by the minute,” the state of Missouri said in its brief to the Supreme Court. But the Supreme Court noted that the arresting officer in the case said he had obtained search warrants in a timely fashion before, but that he simply didn’t think it was necessary during the arrest in question. The Court said that, in most cases, prosecuting attorneys and judges are on call anytime to consider issuing warrants. As a matter of fact, at least 30 states provide electronic warrant applications, the Court noted. Whether police officers have enough guidance to decide whether a warrant is necessary is a concern voiced by the state of Missouri. The Supreme Court, however, warned against taking a “broad categorical approach” to the Fourth Amendment. A word of caution on this ruling: Refusal to take a blood test can later be used as evidence against you. Motorists in many states can stand to lose their license if they refuse to take a blood test. We highly recommend that you obtain legal counsel to make sure you know your rights and responsibilities. Photo credit: West Midlands Police