We’ve added flyers for Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
The front of the PA flyer is below. Please click the above links to go to each state page and see the new flyers.
The good news is:
1. Neither state requires tickets be signed.
2. Both states use clear language indicating you have to display or exhibit your license, not hand it over.
But as always, we recommend discussing this with a lawyer in your home state before using the flyer.
Karri Dodson, a Pennsylvania State Trooper, is facing DUI charges after hitting a dog in the road. Read more about it in the Times Tribune.
Here are some pictures of Dodson in action, showing kids how to handle people like herself.
Here’s a fine example of how DUI laws are applied unfairly by judges, in this case in Northampton County Court of Common Pleas:
Jury Says Not Guilty; Judge Finds Otherwise
[T]he jury found Trump not guilty of second-offense drunken driving, after she and two people she was with testified she wasn’t the driver of the car.
But minutes later, the judge who presided over her trial convicted her of a lesser DUI offense that he concluded he, and not jurors, should decide. In so doing, Judge Michael Koury Jr. said he accepted testimony that the panel apparently had rejected when they reached their verdict.
[O]fficer John Lakits conceded on the witness stand that he “could not tell for sure” that Trump had been driving the stopped vehicle. Trump testified the real driver was her friend, Brad Wilcox, who had just gotten out of the car to unlock the back door of his home.
Trump said she was a rear passenger, but had gone to the front to grab some bags of food to take into Wilcox’s house. Her story was repeated by the two other passengers, Andrew Polly and Jessy Norwillo, both of whom said Wilcox was the designated driver that night.
Thanks to the Morning Call for publishing this story.
Here’s an interesting DUI decision, from the Philadelphia area: Judge Suppresses Evidence.
Why is this interesting? Because in a case involving a political insider, the judge found the police officer was “less than truthful.”
The officer testified that he’s arrested 200 people for DUI, and 100 of them were later determined to be under the influence. The judge, finding that means 50% of his arrests were not intoxicated, said this called into question probable cause for the stop.
We are happy the judge ruled this way in this case, but we have to wonder about the other 100 or so who were apparently found guilty. Why was this new rule suddenly applied in a case involving an elected official?
We agree that stops should only be made with reasonable suspicion, and that arrests should only be made with probable cause. That’s the requirement under the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution and a host of Supreme Court cases.
We at FairDUI.org also believe that these rules should be applied by all judges in all cases, not just to protect political insiders.