If you’re like most people, you’ll want to be out with friends relaxing this weekend. For many people a good time in a social setting involves alcohol. Though it’s perfectly fine and safe to drink if you do so responsibly, it can be easy to overdo things and then wind up in legal trouble. The following are some tips that drivers can keep in mind this Labor Day weekend to avoid a drunk driving bust.

First things first, if you know you are going to drink while out and about with friends or family this weekend (or any other weekend for that matter), designate someone to stay sober. It’s important that the designated driver is identified before ever leaving home. If you try and wait until you’re out and having a good time, chances are the decision-making process will become much more difficult and fewer people will be willing (or able) to volunteer. Get the task over with early on so that everyone can relax and have a good time while they’re out.

Second, know your limit and act decisively to cut yourself off when you think it’s time. The legal limit in Minnesota is 0.08 percent and most experts agree that by limiting yourself to one drink per hour you can allow your body enough time to safely process alcohol and stay under the legal limit. If you don’t have a designated driver you have to set a time limit as well as a drink limit before heading out. Before you even take the first sip choose a time that you will stop drinking and make sure it is far enough in advance of your leaving that you will have plenty of time to sober up before hitting the road.   However, the best advice is to to have a sober driver and never put yourself in a position where you have to determine if you feel sober enough to drive.   If you have to think about whether you are sober, then the answer is you probably are not.

Drink plenty of water. Though drinking alcohol is what most people are after when the weather is warm and they’re having a good time, water can be a great way to control drinking. Doctors recommend that for every alcoholic beverage a person consumes they follow it with a glass of water. This helps you stay hydrated and will also reduce your urge to pound cold beers or other alcoholic drinks. Alternating between alcohol and water can help reduce your alcohol consumption and keep you under the legal limit and out of jail.

It’s also important to watch what you’re drinking and keep track of how much alcohol is actually in the drinks you’re consuming. Mixed drinks are usually the most difficult to keep track of because so much can depend on which bartender is pouring your drink. Try and pay attention if the drinks seem unusually potent and account for that difference. If your drinks have been especially strong, then even one drink may be too much.  Again, a designated driver is your best option.

Finally, if you’re out having a good time this Labor Day weekend and you feel like you may have had one too many drinks, do not feel any shame in calling a cab. Some people are reluctant to turn to a taxi, saying they’d rather save the money. Everyone should realize that the few dollars spent on a cab are dwarfed by the thousands of dollars spent handling a typical DUI charge. Between attorney’s fees, court costs, fines and increased insurance costs, a cab is money well spent.

An almost unbelievable series of events took place earlier this week in neighboring Wisconsin when one 63-year-old man from Port Edwards, WI crashed into the same vehicle three times in one afternoon, culminating in his drunk driving arrest.

Police say that the accused man had recently been released from jail and was on probation for a previous incident where he injured another driver while intoxicated. In the most recent case, the man is accused of colliding with the back of a woman’s vehicle at a red light located in Wisconsin Rapids. The woman driving the vehicle apparently got out of her car, yelling at the accused about the accident and demanding that he get his car off her bumper.

The woman then checked her car to be sure it was not damaged, got back inside and prepared to pull away from the light. However, before the woman could drive off the man yet again crashed into the back of her car. The woman, at this point furious, leaped out of her vehicle and began cursing at the accused until he again backed his car up.

The woman told officers that she then jumped back inside of her vehicle and sped away from the intersection in an attempt to put as much distance as possible between herself and the obviously dangerous driver. The woman then drove to a gas station located several blocks away and parked her car, attempting to collect her thoughts.

It was at the gas station, a neighborhood Kwik Trip, where the woman was stunned to see the same man’s vehicle enter the parking lot, jump a curb and proceed to slam into the side of her car, sending the vehicle spinning out of the parking space and into the lane of traffic. The accused apparently parked his car in front of the building and got out, behaving as if everything was fine.

The woman noted in the criminal complaint that at no point did she believe the man had purposely hit her vehicle, instead, she felt he was drunk and unaware of his actions. The accused  was arrested again for a probation violation but was immediately released and told to stay away from alcohol until his court date. Only a few days later, police received a call from a concerned neighbor who asked that authorities check in on the man. When they arrived they found him passed out, ultimately arresting him yet again for having consumed alcohol in violation of his probation. When police performed a chemical test to determine the man’s BAC they were all stunned to discover it was 0.378, nearly five times the legal limit. A judge recently heard man’s case and revoked the man’s license for 18 months and ordered him to pay several thousand dollars in fines, install and ignition interlock device on his vehicle and attend alcohol treatment.

Though the driver was punished for his actions, he got off lucky compared to the much harsher laws in Minnesota. Minnesota law says that because the accused would qualify as a repeat offender, he would be subject to a mandatory minimum penalty of 30 days incarceration, at least two of which must be served in jail. For every day less than 30 not served, the offender would have to perform eight hours of community service. These mandatory sentences would continue to escalate for each subsequent arrest, to the point that a person in Minnesota who is convicted of a fifth DWI offense within 10 years would face one year incarceration, at least 60 days would be required to be served consecutively in jail.

Source: “Drunken driver who struck vehicle 3 times gets jail,” published at WisconsinRapidsTribune.com.

In a headline-making case out of California the illegal actions of one cop are on full display before a panel of stunned jurors. Prosecutors told jurors in the Contra Costa County courthouse that they would hear tales of how one cop essentially sold his badge and engaged in a practice known as “dirty DUIs.” The fact that the practice even has a name will likely alarm many people who would never expect the people hired to protect the public to engage in such amoral behavior.

The trial, which just started this week, accuses Stephen Tanabe of violating a host of federal laws related to his role in making staged drunk driving arrests. Why did Tanabe do it? Prosecutors say that the cop was bought off by a private investigator and agreed to arrest at least three husbands of clients of the investigator.

Prosecutors say the cop was given money, an expensive gun and cocaine in exchange for making the staged arrests. The government says the private investigator approached Tanabe about making the busts so that the wives of the men would be able to strengthen their positions in ongoing divorce and custody cases.

The scheme was a complicated one and occurred when employees of the private investigator would meet the men at bars and coerce them into drinking. The private investigator, Chris Butler, would then text Tanabe and let him know the exact location of the drivers, where he would then pull them over and take them to jail. Tanabe has been charged with making three such staged arrests, but Butler, who is acting as a key witness in the case, has said that he participated in at least 12 such staged DUI arrests.

For his part, Tanabe’s attorneys argue that while their client did arrest several the men for drunk driving, there was nothing illegal about his actions. Instead, Tanabe claims that Contra Costa County is a relatively peaceful area that seldom sees serious crime. As a result, the department heads exert serious pressure on police officers to meet strict performance objectives that include making a certain number of DUI arrests each month.

Tanabe claims that the arrests he is being accused of staging were actually the product of pressure from supervisors to meet strict quotas. Failure to meet the quotas would result in disciplinary action. Tanabe claims that he and other officers in the town were frequently told to wait outside bars to watch for drivers that appeared to be unsteady or otherwise intoxicated.

Regardless of which side is telling the truth, residents of the Contra Costa community are likely disturbed at unsavory practices among local law enforcement officials. If prosecutors are right, that means cops in the area can be bought and paid for, acting as participants in plots to set up unsuspecting individuals. If Tanabe is telling the truth, then that means police officers were under extreme pressure to meet DUI quotas, lying in wait and routinely pulling over anyone seen leaving a bar. Either way, the focus does not appear to be creating a safer community, but instead lining someone’s pockets.

Source: “‘Dirty DUI’ federal trial gets underway,” published at KTVU.com.

A recent case decided by the Minnesota Court of Appeals dealt with a drunk driving defendant who attempted to use heartburn (or GERD) as a defense. In the case, appellant’s attorney argued that his client’s breathalyzer test could not be considered reliable because Murtha was in the midst of an acid reflux episode while the breath test was being administered.

As we’ve discussed here before, GERD (gastro esophageal reflux disease) is a serious condition that has been proven to impact the results of breathalyzer tests. The condition, which causes contents from a person’s stomach be regurgitated up the throat and into the mouth has been found to cause significantly higher BAC readings than are accurate. These readings are off because undigested alcohol or alcohol vapors from the stomach can be pushed up into the person’s mouth which interferes with the breathalyzer’s reading.

Appellant’s attorney called an expert witness to the stand to explain how GERD can lead to inaccurate breath test results due to regurgitation pushing alcohol into the defendant’s mouth. Appellant’s attorney then attempted to ask the expert witness about the reliability of appellant’s actual test, something the district court judge refused to allow given that the question called for speculation on the witness’ part without proper foundation.

After the explanation from appellant’s expert witness had concluded, appellant’s attorney sought to introduce evidence of his client’s GERD diagnosis by submitting appellant’s diagnosis from his doctor found in the medical records was technically hearsay.

Appellant then appealed his case where the Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court judge’s ruling. The Court cited Minnesota Rule of Evidence 803, which explains that a patient’s statements to a doctor found in medical records can be admitted under a hearsay exception at trial. However, a doctor’s diagnosis contained in medical records cannot. The logic goes that the patient’s statement in the medical records would likely be accurate given that the patient has every reason to tell the truth to his or her doctor so that they are properly diagnosed and treated.

So does this mean there would be no way in Minnesota to have the GERD diagnosis introduced into evidence? Of course not, as the Court of Appeals clearly noted all Appellant’s attorney needed to do was bring the man’s doctor in to testify. Because appellant’s doctor failed to testify at trial the evidence concerning his GERD diagnosis was rightfully excluded from evidence. As a result, the decision to revoke appellant driving privileges was affirmed and his attempt to argue that acid reflux unfairly altered his test results was never fully explored.

To read the full opinion, click here.

Kans Law Firm is a Minneapolis, Minnesota criminal defense firm focusing on the representation of individuals charged with alcohol related criminal and driving offenses.