“The National Trial Lawyers: Top 40 under 40 is a new professional organization of America’s top young trial attorneys. Membership into the Top 40 Under 40 association is by invitation only and is extended to those individuals who exemplify superior qualifications, trial results, and leadership as a young trial lawyer.”

McDowell Laybourne & Rodemer is pleased to announce that both Joshua McDowell and Brad Laybourne were selected for this honor.

“The National Trial Lawyers: Top 40 under 40 is a new professional organization of America’s top young trial attorneys. Membership into the Top 40 Under 40 association is by invitation only and is extended to those individuals who exemplify superior qualifications, trial results, and leadership as a young trial lawyer.”

-       During the last month, over ¼ of underage persons used alcohol, and 17.4% engaged in binge drinking.

-       Almost ¾ of teens have consumed alcohol more than once by the time they graduate from high school. Worse, a third of underage persons have consumed alcohol by the eighth grade.

-       21% of underage drinkers received the alcohol from a parent, guardian, or other family member.

-       Annually, almost 1,400 college student deaths can be attributed to alcohol abuse, and drunken driving.

-       Over ½ million college-age persons suffer from alcohol related injuries each year.

Granted, these statistics do not apply to the entire population, but combined with the curiosity, peer pressures, and other tendencies of this age group, the previous facts do provide an illustration of the age group most potentially prone to alcohol abuse and its repercussions. The most alarming fact is that the majority of the previously mentioned age-group is of legal age to drive.

Drinking and driving has possibly the most horrendous dangers for this vulnerable populous. Legal blood alcohol limits are imposed strictly and do not give consideration to an individual’s “tolerance” level (where one person may not be impaired after drinking a certain amount, other people are). It is important to remind yourself and your peers, how much is too much legally, to drink and then drive. The legal limit (for any persons of legal drinking age) is .05 in Colorado. A BAC of a .05 and above is a presumptive DWAI (driving while ability impaired). A BAC of a .08 or higher is a presumptive DUI (driving under the influence). Remember, any alcohol is illegal for persons under the age of 21 and can result in a minor in possession (MIP) charge. Persons under 21 also have a lower legal limit of .02 at which they can be charged with a drinking and driving charge.

Even if someone’s did not exhibit poor driving, and his or her BAC is in excess of a .05, they can be charged with a DWAI. If they register a .08 and above they can be charged with a DUI, or a DEAC (driving with excessive alcohol content). So what exactly is .08 equal to in layman’s terms? Some factors that are believed to effect a person’s BAC include gender, weight, age, and the amount someone has had to eat.

Combined with limited driving experience, and alcohol-related impairment, it is possible that the college age population is the most at risk for alcohol dangers and consequences, and therefore must be the most aware of the consequences of drinking and driving. It is also important to note that a conviction for a drunk driving charge in Colorado will stay on your permanent record for the rest of your life. A DUI conviction is something that could impact future employment, government and/or military service, or other future opportunities.

If you have been charged with a DUI, DWAI, DEAC, DUI drugs, or other drunk driving charge, call the Law Offices of McDowell Laybourne and Rodemer at (719) 227-0022 in Colorado Springs, or (303) 573-1234 in the Denver metro area for a free consultation. Read more about DUI laws in Colorado.

1. Drunk Driving Lawyers.com. “Affects of Alcohol on College Students”. 21 Dec. 2011. <http://www.drunkdrivinglawyers.com/college-drinking-statistics.cfm>
2. Students Against Drunk Driving. 21 Dec. 2011.

<http://www.sadd.org/stats.htm>

Snooks had partnered with SRG Ventures to create a plethora of merchandise with her eh-hem, stamp on it. The company supposedly assumed that they would be Snooki’s one and only partnership. Assuming loyalty from a girl who rose to fame via “The Jersey Shore” seems a little naïve to say the least. Monogamy never has been one of their strong points…. Not even when it comes to bronzers or beaus. Whatever the spark was that lit Snooki’s unhappiness with SRG, she eventually claimed that the company “didn’t fulfill” their side of the deal. The company has since countersued her with a seven million dollar claim, stating that they know she has not been faithful, and as it turns out, has been making deals “behind the company’s back”…. Say it isn’t so.

This little “guidette” isn’t going down without a fight, true to Shore style. She is even excited about their meeting in court, which is reminiscent of all the club-smack-talking and cat fighting we have already seen from her. She wanted out of the deal, and apparently, SRG’s legal team didn’t see the contract as being negotiable, flexible, or at all as being open to polygamous relations with other merchandising companies.

Snooki claimed that SRG wasn’t allotting her the amount of money originally agreed upon, and also didn’t follow through with the certain number of “branding partnerships” that were supposed to be lined up for her, either. Well, if we have learned anything about those Jersey Shore-ites, we know that if they aren’t getting something how they want it, they’ll go right out and take it, fists pumping, poof-wearing and bronzer-ready. But, maybe this poof-wearer has finally encountered an adversary that she can’t tantrum at, or cheat on.

1. Huffington Post. “’Jersey Shore’ Snooki Hit with $7 Million Lawsuit”. 21 Dec. 2011.

<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/snooki >

1. Princ, Lisa. “Snooki Gets Slammed with $7 Million Dollar Lawsuit”.  21 Dec. 2011. Reality TV Magazine.

<http://realitytvmagazine.sheknows.com/2011/12/20/snooki-gets-slammed-with-7-million-dollar-lawsuit/>

New legislation is supposedly even going to have an effect on hands free devices as well. Is there a line declaring anything as being too far? What if an emergent call is coming in, or has to be made immediately. The ban says that “non-emergent” phone calls are to be illegal, whatever that category eventually entails. Granted, there are certain qualities that make it easier (or not) for a person to multi-task, and those abilities are unique to each individual. No doubt that there have been accidents and deaths due to texting while driving, but to rule out and illegalize cellular communication completely seems too far. Surely there have been plenty of accidents attributable to innumerable “negligent behaviors”. Is talking to a passenger the next thing to be deemed illegal? Is reaching back to tend to an infant going to be illegal? Is eating in the car going to be illegal, what about searching for a CD, tuning the radio, or selecting something on your i-pod?

The point here is when a laundry list starts, where does it stop. Other posts on the forum claim that “…reckless drivers are a bigger threat to you than all other criminals put together…”, and “…texting is an insult to humanity”. Mike Ahlers, a CNN affiliate stated, “…because distracted drivers sometimes do not own up to their actions, or because they die during the crash, determining whether distraction was a factor in an accident can be difficult”. Due to this room for doubt, it might be wise to avoid such absolutist terminology. There are features on almost all phones that are virtually hands free, even with regard to texting. Speakers on the phone detect and transcribe messages from the individual or driver, without them having to type anything. In addition to this consideration, maybe the individual driver’s ability ought to be factored in before such statements are thrown out. There is no doubt that texting while driving is distracting and potentially dangerous. It would be interesting, however, to consider how many actions you partake in every single day while driving that are distracting and potentially dangerous, and would you be willing to eliminate them all as well.

1. Ahlers, Mike M. “NTSB: Ban Cell Phone Use While Driving”. KRDO.com. 15 Dec. 2011.

<http://www.krdo.com/news/29987241/detail.html>

1. “No Cell Phones, No Texting by Drivers, U.S. Gov. Urges”. PoliticalForum.com. 15 Dec. 2011.

<http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/221787-no-cellphones-no-texting-drivers-us-govt-urges.html

Kathleen Peterson was located at the bottom of a staircase, dead, in the couple’s home and Michael was sentenced to death after his conviction. Due to his family’s incessant demands, Peterson has been granted a new trial based on the claim that his case was mishandled in the first place. New evidence is implying that the first investigation was not handled correctly and scientific reasoning is suggesting that, of all things, an owl is possibly responsible for killing Mrs. Peterson, not the world famous author. How could this be? Some experts speculate that the wounds on Mrs. Peterson’s head are consistent with those an owl being stuck in her hair, according to M. Alex Johnson, of MSNBC.com. But would an owl have the necessary amount of force to inflict lethal injuries… Almost ten years later, scientists are saying maybe so.

Johnson goes on to say that the evidence found in support of this Owl Defense Theory include a feather being found at the scene, statements from veterinary and neuroscience experts, and speculation that the blood spatters on the wall were perhaps “inconsistent with a blunt force attack”. The prosecution kept referring back to the blood spatters, all the blood everywhere, couldn’t an owl attack produce a lot of blood? The original medical examiner stated post-autopsy that the seven lacerations on the back of Kathleen’s head were indications that she had been bludgeoned to death. Reports go on to say that after a night of drinking and lounging by the pool, Kathleen had gone upstairs to go to bed, while Michael stayed outside. He came in only to find the bloody scene. If the couple were in and out that night, couldn’t it be probable that an owl may have flown in the house? It is bound to have happened before, somewhere.

The case gained international attention, mainly because of Peterson’s success as an author. Some of his best-selling novels include “The Immortal Dragon,” “A Time of War, A Bitter Peace” and “Charlie Two Shoes and the Marines of Love Company”. As of this December nearly ten years later, Michael Peterson has been granted a new trial. You can’t help but see the irony that the owl that now allegedly killed Peterson’s wife could end up saving his.

1. Johnson, M., A. “Author Michael Peterson Wins New Trial in Bizarre Murder Case”. U.S. News MSNBC.com. 15 Dec. 2011.

< http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/14/9448435-author-michael-peterson-wins-new-trial-in-bizarre-murder-case>

1. Murphy, Dennis. “Death at the Bottom of the Stairs”. Dateline NBC. 15 Dec. 2011. <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15894727/ns/dateline_nbc/t/death-bottom-stairs/>

Although it is often difficult to determine what is “careless” and what is “reckless”, the following is a blatant case of criminal driving. Two individuals attempted to steal and then piece out a 1999 Honda in the early morning on Tuesday December 13, 2011 near 1400 Tappan Circle, Colorado Springs. Onlookers caught sight of the individuals taking the car apart, became suspicious, and decided to call the police. After arriving to the scene, the officer’s patrol car was barely missed by a Nissan SUV that came careening through the area, and tore away down the street, instigating a chase. While in pursuit of the Nissan, officers saw one man jump from the SUV and shortly after, the second man abandoned the car completely, causing it to smash into a fence on Sawyer Way. One of the men was later arrested, but the other has yet to be located. Clearly, these individuals had complete, intentional, willful disregard for people and property around them. Their speed remains unknown, but that could be a contributing factor too.

Now, the previous example seems like a far cry from Jack, speeding on an empty highway and cited with reckless driving, or Jill, who while caught in an ice storm, was going below the speed limit and hit a patch of ice, making her panic and roll her SUV – being the only vehicle in the crash. It seems an even further cry from Jamie, who was riding on her bicycle to make it to class in time, and to avoid a crowded sidewalk, veered onto the street momentarily, startling a driver. There is no conscious choice to participate in dangerous behavior behind these and many other situation-specific citations. What makes the delineation all the more confusing, is that many states have different policies on treating these cases, some with much less leeway. Officers’ discretion or not, a reckless driving citation is a class 2 misdemeanor traffic offense, in addition to possible jail time, fines, and spiked insurance rates.

On the other hand, careless driving tacks 4 points to the driver’s record and is a Class 2 misdemeanor traffic offense. If the careless driving was the proximate cause of injury or death of another it becomes a Class 1 Misdemeanor traffic offense. Reckless Driving is also classified as a Class 2 Misdemeanor traffic offense. If you are convicted of a second or subsequent conviction of reckless driving the Statute (C.R.S. 42-4-1401) calls for no less than tens days imprisonment and no more than six months and can carry a fine of up to $1,000.

In any case of careless or reckless driving, contextual delineations and exceptions can help the accused overcome an incorrect allegations of law enforcement. This is where an experienced Colorado traffic attorney can help you defend your careless or reckless driving traffic charges.

Tokyo, Japan: The massive and now infamous car crash in early December, 2011 is an especially painful example. Now deemed the “most expensive ($1 million) crash” in recorded history, three Mercedes sports cars, a Lamborghini, and an unbelievable eight Ferraris piled upon each other, leaving broken and smashed remnants all over the Japanese highway, as stated by the New York Times. Granted, the common person does not have these kinds of vehicular assets, however, the points don’t change. The Times elaborates that “…reports quoted eyewitnesses as saying that at the time of the accident, the procession appeared to be traveling at 85 to 100 miles per hour, well over the speed limit of 60.” To translate what this event may mean in point value in Colorado, forty miles per hour over the speed limit can result in a reckless driving charge: 8 points, and also excessive speeding: 12 points, for a total of 20 points. Remember, in Colorado it only takes 12 points in a year to suspend an adult’s driver’s license. It also appears that improper passing: an additional 4 points, was the “cause” of the pileup. It could be assumed that the driver who instigated the improper passing perhaps failed to signal, or signaled improperly: another 2 points (point values gathered from The State of Colorado Department of Revenue: Division of Motor Vehicles Driver Control). In an accident of this magnitude there are likely many more points that could be assessed to the various drivers in this situation.

The ultimate goal in any accident or traffic charge (for the outrageously wealthy or the common person) is to reduce your liability and exposure in a criminal matter. Further, an attorney can work with you to mitigate your penalties and/or plea bargain to reduce the amount of points applied to your driving record. Typically, the more points on your record, the higher the fines, the worse the penalties, and much more expensive the insurance policies. In this extravagant case, The New York Times illustrates this reality by claiming that “Bloomberg News quoted a traffic official, Mitsuyoshi Isejima, as saying that the driver suspected of causing the pileup, a 60-year-old self-employed man, could face up to three months in prison or a fine of 100,000 yen, about $1,300.” Despite the kinds of cars involved, the goal remains the same. Perhaps there are some external causes that made the crash worse than it was. Perhaps the man lost control of the vehicle before he “changed lanes”. To uncover this kind of information, and limit the repercussions of any one’s automobile accident experience, some legal advice may definitely be necessary… especially in this case because according to the previously quoted traffic official, “It was (just) a gathering of narcissists.”

1. DMV Point System. DMV.org. 13 Dec. 2011.

< http://www.dmv.org/co-colorado/point-system.php>

1. Fackler, Martin. “In Sports Car Pileup, Spotlight on Japan’s Rich”. The New York Times. 14 Dec. 2011.

< http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/world/asia/traffic-accident-wrecks-a-dozen-luxury-cars-in-japan.html>

1. Point Suspensions. State of Colorado Department of Revenue. Division of Motor Vehicles Driver Control. 13 Dec. 2011. <http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1=Content-Disposition&blobheadername2=MDT-Type&blobheadervalue1=inline%3B+filename%3D581%2F305%2F4665.pdf&blobheadervalue2=abinary%3B+charset%3DUTF-8&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1191399214566&ssbinary=true>

The Brady Bill was passed and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. With the bill, came a requirement for a background check to be run by law enforcement for every individual purchasing a gun. Purchasers are run through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and the Interstate Identification Index after filling out Form 4473, a Firearms Transaction Record, and providing a photo I.D. Each state may vary in terms of how background checks are run. Overall, a state may choose to run its own NICS checks, or alert the FBI to do so.

What are the implications of this bill, and who does it absolutely try and prohibit from possessing or buying a firearm? Because it is considered a breach of Federal Law for many on the prohibited list, the ramifications for buying or possessing a firearm are severe. A felon, convicted with possession of a firearm (possession of a weapon by a previous offender) may be sentenced to several years in prison. A person convicted of select misdemeanor crimes, found in possession of a firearm may be charged $1,000.00, have to spend a year in jail, or both, depending. You should also be aware of local and State laws regarding weapon possession. The Lautenberg Amendment also prohibits use possession of firearms by persons with a domestic violence conviction. The following is a list of prohibited buyers/purchasers, summarized from bradybill.org:

•Felons

•Fugitives

•People addicted or illegally using controlled substances

•Dangerous, mentally ill people

•Illegal aliens

•Military/Soldiers with a dishonorable discharger

•Any who have given up U.S. citizenship

•Domestic violence offenders

•Domestic violence offenders convicted of a misdemeanor

•People age 21 and younger cannot buy a fire arm, though a person 18-21 can possess one

•People age 18 and under cannot buy a long gun, and

•A person under indictment for a felony cannot import a gun across state lines

Some interesting points regarding the Brady Bill have been raised, on both opposing and supporting sides. Those in opposition make the valid argument in reference to the Second Amendment (2^nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution): The Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Perhaps rooted in the ideological and patriotic sentiment of the Revolutionary War and how the war was won, the attempt to preserve the possibility of a militia is still alive within many American Citizens, and they consider the right to bear arms, and intrinsic property that constitutes such citizenship. Additionally claims have been made that the background checks and subsequent databases listing every single firearm permit holder (that the government has full access to), is unconstitutional.

Those in support of the bill, site the aforementioned assassination attempts, school shootings that have shocked the nation in recent history, preventable gun related homicides, and more, as more than reason to uphold it. The acclaimed “…blocking (of ) an estimated 2 million attempts by high-risk people to buy a gun from a licensed gun dealer, based on denials recorded through the end of 2009…” as stated by  bradycampaign.org, seems to illustrate some of the bill’s success, but some gray areas remain. Only federally licensed dealers regulate background checks so strictly. That leaves room for unlicensed dealers to allow guns to slip through the cracks background check, and permit free.

1. Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. 13 Dec. 2011.   <http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/backgroundchecks/bradylaw>
2. Background Checks. 13 Dec. 2011.

<http://www.lcav.org/content/background_checks.pdf>

1. “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms”. 13 Dec. 2011. <http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm>
2. Sigal Law Group. Felon in Possession of a Firearm. 13 Dec. 2011.

<http://blog.la-criminal-defense.com/felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm/>

If the police have reason to believe that a driver is under the influence upon contact at the checkpoint, the police will typically follow several steps to evaluate a driver for signs of intoxication. First, the police will ask a driver to participate in voluntary roadsides maneuvers. These roadsides can include: HGN (horizontal Gaze Nystagmus) VGN (vertical gaze nystagmus), one leg stand, walk and turn, counting and alphabet tests. Police will often ask if you would be willing to participate in a preliminary breath test, or PBT. A PBT is inaccurate and not admissible in court, however, law enforcement uses the PBT to determine whether a person has alcohol in their system to gain additional cause to require further chemical testing of one’s blood or breath alcohol content.

If you have been charges with DUI, DEAC (driving with excessive alcohol content), DWAI, DUID, or any other drinking and driving charge, contact our DUI lawyers in Colorado Springs for a free consultation.