George C. Creal, Jr., P.C.
DUI Trial Lawyers
Email Consultation:
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
, or
Phone Consultation: (770) 961 5511, or
Submit an free online DUI case analysis using the "Contact" tab above. |  |
|
George C. Creal, Jr., P.C. is a law firm representing those charged with DUI or driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. We have been representing DUI Defendants for ten years in the City of Atlanta , Acworth, Alpharetta, Athens, Austell, Avondale Estates, Ball Ground, Barnesville, Big Canoe, Calhoun, Canton, Carnesville, Carrollton, Cedartown, Chatsworth, Chattahooche Hills, Clarkston, College Park, Commerce, Conyers, Covington, Dahlonega, Dallas, Decatur, Doraville, Douglasville, Duluth, Dunwoody, East Point, Fairburn, Forest Park, Forsyth, Fort McPherson, Fort Gillem, Gainesville, Grayson, Griffin, Hampton, Hapeville, Helen, Holly Springs, Johns Creek, Jonesboro, Kennesaw, LaGrange, Lake City, Lawrenceville, Locust Grove, Loganville, Lovejoy, Marietta, McDonough, Morrow, Newnan, Norcross, Palmetto, Peachtree City, Powder Springs, Roswell, Sandy Springs, Senoia, Smyrna, Stockbridge, Stone Mountain, Suwanee, Thomaston, Tucker, Union City, Villa Rica, Winder, Woodstock, and Zebulon and their surrounding counties including Fulton, Clayton, DeKalb, Henry, Fayette, Rockdale, Gwinnett, Cherokee, Forsyth, Coweta, Cobb, Douglas and Spalding. We also represent Defendants upon request outside of the Atlanta area through out the State of Georgia.
 The toughest DUI laws in Georgia History went into effect on July 1, 2009. These laws require jail time for all DUI convictions, increased look back for mandatory sentencing from five years to 10 years, felony treatment for a fourth DUI in ten years, license suspensions, twelve months of reporting probation, and extensive community service. Some DUI offenders will have all of their license plates confiscated and be required to perform 30 days or 240 hours of community service! In your DUI, you will face two courts: a criminal court and a driver's license court. Further, if you do not request a hearing with in ten business days, your license shall be suspended thirty days after your arrest for as much as five years in some cases, usually before you even go to court for your DUI.
Our firm has advised thousands of DUI clients primarily in Metro Atlanta: including the City of Atlanta, Fulton, DeKalb, Cobb, Cherokee, Forsyth, Henry, Clayton, Fayette, Rockdale, Spalding and Coweta Counties. We know the Court system, the Judges, the Prosecutors and how they work. I was a staff attorney for a Superior Court Judge in Clayton County in 1993-1994.
Georgia's Tough New DUI penalties make legal representation essential. If you do not contact us, please contact another attorney. Do not go to court unrepresented. If you can't afford to miss work for a year, you can't afford not to hire a DUI attorney. We take all major credit cards and have payment plans for qualified applicants. We are an established law firm here to help you. We will not plead your case guilty unless you tell us you do not want a trial. Call us at (770) 961-5511 for a free consultation, email
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
or fax us a copy of your tickets or police report at (770) 961-5544.
Closing Argument Quotable
 "I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Paine, 1789. ME 7:408, Papers 15:269
"A lawyer without history or literature is a mechanic, a mere working mason; if he possesses some knowledge of these, he may venture to call himself an architect." -Sir Walter Scott
Most Commonly Asked Question: What do I do if I am arrested for DUI
The short answer is it depends. Factors to consider are what jurisdiction have you been arrested in, what law enforcement agency has arrested you, how many drinks have you had. Generalizations are a dangerous thing and there are exceptions. The basic rule of thumb in a DUI case is that a DUI with a "state administered" breath or blood test is harder to win at trial than a case without a test. This is true simply because the "Legal Limit" is amorphus, constantly changing number. In the 1980's. it was 0.12. In the 1990's, it was 0.10. Since 1997, it has been 0.08. Drinking and Driving did not get more dangerous. Rather, the DUI lobby got more powerful, the limit was tied to federal highway funds, and DUI bills are cheap political capital especially for "conservatives." So much for "State's Rights." No one sees themselves as a potential DUI driver and certainly not the typical voter. What is DUI less safe is generally well above 0.08 and maybe as high 0.15. I have had clients that could stand on one foot for more than 30 seconds well above .15 and they were clearly not less safe to drive.
Some good ideas are:
1) Don't take the eye test commonly referred to as the HGN test. It rarely helps you.
2) Speak in short, concise sentences, be clear, and speak only when absolutely necessary. Remember you are probably being both filmed and recorded during the entire process. No rambling diatribes or life stories. If you have alcohol on your breath you are probably going to jail regardless. Start preparing for trial from the beginning. The police are simply getting ready for trial.
3) If you can avoid it don't refuse the one leg stand and walk and turn. It rarely looks innocent to refuse everything. Make the police look unreasonable. Try not to look unreasonable. However, only do the fields evaluations if you have good balance generally, are athletic, and are not noticeably unbalanced from alcohol. If you are really drunk, don't try the tests. You can not pass field evaluations. Field evaluations are mesaured in degrees of failure.
4) You can take the small hand held breath test offered before arrest. It is not admissible as a numerical result only positive or negative for alcohol. You have probably admitted drinking anyway. Many police will let you go if you blow under 0.08 legal limt on the handheld, pre-arrest breath test.
5) Ask lot of questions: Why do you want me to take field evaluations if I promise not to drive anymore, you must have a reasonable doubt? What happens if I below under the legal limit? Will you let me go? Am I going to jail? Can I speak with a lawyer? What happens if I refuse the test? Can I have an additional blood test and breath test from my own doctor?
6) Don't blow into the post arrest, cash register sized breath machine or give blood at the hospital, jail, police station or DUI Recreational Vehicle if you want to win your DUI at trial. However, you may lose your license for a year if you refuse. It is not automatic if you request a hearing within ten days of your arrest. If this is your 2nd DUI in ten years or you are under 21 years of age, or the officer is accusing you of driving under legal or illegal drugs always refuse.
7) Don't tell the police about all the prescription medication your are taking. Presciption pills can equal a DUI. It is no defense that you are following doctors orders.
8) Call a DUI lawyer immediately. Beware of attorney's quoting low fees. Low fees mean pleas. Attorneys charge by the hour. Less money equals less time. We handle a large volume of DUIs and take advantage of economies of scale to offer top quality legal representation at a reasonable price. We think justice should be affordable and offer payment plans to those without access to capital but with a job and established credit.
DUI Myths:
 Myth: Driving at 0.08 is dangerous or a driver is impaired.
Fact: A University of Utah study found that drivers talking on cell phones with and without earbuds were more dangerous than drivers who had consumed enough alcohol to be in excess of the 0.08 legal blood alcohol limit for most states. See blog link Strayer, D. Human Factors, Summer 2006; vol 48: pp 381-391. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety: “DUI/DWI Laws.” News release, University of Utah.
Myth: Mouthwash or breath spray will help you beat a DUI.
Fact: Mouthwash or breath spray is the worst thing you can do when faced with a DUI. Both mouthwash and breathspray will artificially inflate alcohol breath tests.
Myth: Sucking on pennies will fool a dui breath machine.
Fact: Pennies have no effect on alcohol breath test results.
Myth: “Alcohol on the breath” is a reliable sign of alcohol consumption and intoxication.
Fact: Alcohol is odorless. The smell of alcholic beverages is not alcohol on the breath but is actually the odor of the things in or ingredients of the alcoholic beverages. Non-alcoholic beer like Odouls will produce the same smell the as drinking a regular beer. Georgia law even recognizes that a mere odor of alcohol is not enough to convict someone of DUI.
Myth: A Breath test will clear diabetics who exhibit characteristics of alcohol impairment like slurred speech, confusion, stumbling, sleepiness, uncoordinated behavior and red face cause them to fail field sobriety tests.
Fact: Diabetics frequently have acetone in their breath, which Breath Test Machines can confuse with alcohol in the blood stream.
Myth: Field sobriety evaluations are validated by the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration, and accurately identify drunk drivers.
Fact: The three standardized test the HGN(eye jerking test), Walk and Turn and One Leg Stand are 77%, 65% AND 68% when performed under ideal conditions with those under 65 years of age, with no back, leg, knee, ankle or inner ear conditions on a flat, level, dry, debris free surface in heels less than two inches. On the side of a highway at night with strobe lights flashing sometimes in the shivering cold, these conditions are rarely met. Further, Police Officers rarely perform these test as they are trained. The results are stupid people tricks as opposed to field sobriety evalutions.
Myth: Alcohol breath test machines are accurate.
Fact: There are many sources of error in breath tests. Mouth alcohol, acetone, radio frequency interference, certain solvents and chemicals, mouth wash, asthma inhalers which contain albuterol suspended in ethanol or alcohol vapor. Even in the absence of any of these common problems and under ideal conditions, alcohol breath testers simply lack precision. The Georgia Intox. 5000 breath testing manual states that breath testing has inherent sample variability of 0.01 for one sample and 0.02 for two samples.
This means that under ideal conditions, which is a highly unlikely situation, a breath alcohol reading of .08 reflects an actual blood alcohol reading of anywhere from .06 to .1. That is a margin of error of 25 percent of the legal limit. At the under 21 level of .02 the error rating is 100%!
Myth: A person accused of DUI by breath test is presumed innocent. A fact guaranteed by the both the and Georgia Constituion.
Fact: Although the presumption of innocence is guaranteed by law, it is denied in fact with a state administered breath test. The breath test is presumed accurate and you have to prove it doesn’t work by hiring an expert to debunk the test or having an extremely effective cross examination by an experienced DUI lawyer using the Officer's own training materials.
Myth: Law enforcement officers can’t influence the BAC reading of a breath-testing machine.
Fact: Law enforcement officers can and do influence BAC readings. The first part of lung air, after discarding the dead space, has an alcohol concentration much lower than the equivalent Blood Alcohol Content. Whereas, the last part of lung air has an alcohol concentration that is much higher than the equivalent Blood Alcohol Content. The last part of the breath can be over 50% above the alcohol level. Thus, a breath test reading of 0.14% taken from the last part of the breath may indicate that the blood level is only 0.09%." Thus, police often yell at drivers “Blow, Blow, Blow, Blow” much longer and deeper than is necessary for the machine to inflate the result.
Myth: Alcohol breath testers measure the concentration of alcohol in a person’s blood stream (blood alcohol concentration or BAC).
Fact: Alcohol breath machines don’t actually measure blood alcohol content, which can only be achieved with a blood test. They attempt to measure alcohol in the breath in order to estimate the concentration of alcohol in the blood. As a result not all states permit alcohol breath test. Alcohol breath machines detect any chemical compounds that contain the methyl group in its molecular structure. There are thousands of such compounds such as gasoline, glue, acetone, asthma inhalers, paint, paint remover, “new car smell,” celluloid, cleaning fluids, etc.
Breath Machines also assume as constants certain ratios within the human body that actually vary widely from person to person and within the same person over time. For example, many breath-testing machines assume a 2,100-to-1 ratio in converting alcohol in the breath to estimates of alcohol in the blood. However, this ratio varies from 1,900 to 2,400 among people and also within a person over time. Some breath analysis machines assume a hematocrit (blood cells as a percent of blood volume) of 47%. By comparison, Lance Armstrong may have a hemocrit level of 47-49%, but anything over 50% is considering blood doping and would result in a two year ban from professional cycling llike the Tour de France or Tour de Georgia. However, hematocrit values range from 42 to 49% in men and from 37 to 47% in women. These machines appear to discriminate against female suspects. These machines assume a body mass of an average male and do not account for individuals with higher body fat. The machines assume an average body temperature. Can you say junk science?
|
|
|
In Mathis v. State, A09A0962, the Georgia Court of Appeals addressed an appeal from the denial of a request for the DUI Source Code in a DUI case from Douglasville, Douglas County, Georgia. The DUI Driver was arrested for speeding found with open beers in the car, displayed manifestations of alcohol impairment according to the DUI police officer, and was arrested for Georgia DUI less safe charge. He was read Georgia Implied Consent Notice and asked "could I get a blood test?" The Georgia Court of Appeals ruled that when someone ask for a blood test during the implied consent notice that he must mean he wants the officer to designate a blood test as the state administered test and not a state administered breath test on the Intoxylzer 5000. To trigger his right for an additional test, he must use the word additional or independent blood test or ask for a blood test after the implied consent rights are read.
The Court found that the DUI Defendant was not entitled to the source code of the Intoxylzer 5000 from a motion to discover. The Georgia Court of Appeals did not indicated whether the request was made under the Title 17 misdemeanor discovery statute or O.C.G.A. 40-6-392(a)(4) Full Information regarding the state administered test. The Court found that based on Hill v. State that the Defendant must make a prima facie showing that the source code is in the possession of the state. However, the Georgia Court of Appeals ignores that in Hill that there was a stipulation that the source code was a scientific report under OCGA 17-16-23 and thus subject to the "in the possession" or "reasonably available to the state" rule. OCGA 40-6-392(a)(4) contains no such limitations. The Court did find that the proper standard for discovery of the source code was abuse of discretion by the court and the Georgia Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion by Douglas County DUI Court.
The Court finally found that the Defendant's expert, presumably Tony Corroto, a 30 year Atlanta Police Veteran, could not testify about the unreliability of the Intoxylzer 5000 as there was no foundation laid that he had training as to its internal workings but was simply trained to operate the machine.
Query: How can a defendant confront and cross examine an Intoxylzer 5000 Georgia State Administered Breath test without being able to access full information regarding the device including but not limited to the Source Code and who exactly can be qualifed as an expert on the Intoxylzer 5000's internal workings if the source code is a propriety trade secret not subject to release? Can you say burden shifting? Violation of fundamental Due Process? There is a Constitutional problem with guilty by magic box.
|
|
|
The following is an estimate of Metro Atlanta DUI arrests in selected Metro Atlanta Counties for one week based on publicly available records. The information is only as accurate as the public records from which it is obtained.
|
Jurisdiction
|
DUIs
|
DUIs last week
|
Population
|
Arrest Per Population
|
Police Ranks
|
Percent Change
|
|
Atlanta DUI Arrests
|
35
|
44
|
out of 486,411 (7/2006 U.S. Census Est.)
|
0.0000720
|
6
|
-20.45%
|
|
Gwinnett County DUI Arrests
|
90
|
74
|
out of 789499 (2008 U.S.Census Est.).
|
0.0001140
|
4
|
21.62%
|
|
DeKalb County DUI Arrests
|
25
|
44
|
out of 739956 (7/2006 U.S. Census Est.).
|
0.0000338
|
9
|
-43.18%
|
|
Fayette County DUI Arrests
|
21
|
11
|
out of 106465 (7/2006 U.S. Census Est.).
|
0.0001972
|
3
|
90.91%
|
|
Henry County DUI Arrests
|
44
|
41
|
out of 191502 (7/2006 U.S. Census Est.).
|
0.00022976
|
2
|
7.32%
|
|
City of Doraville DUI Arrests(these include Sandy Springs, Johns Creek and Dunwoody DUI arrestees)
|
19
|
19
|
out of 9862 (2000 U.S. Census Est.)
|
0.0019266
|
1
|
0.00%
|
|
Cobb County DUI Arrests
|
32
|
25
|
out of 698158 (2008 U.S. Census Est.)
|
0.0000458
|
7
|
28.00%
|
|
City of Roswell DUI Arrsets
|
10
|
8
|
out of 87802 (2003 U.S. Census Est).
|
0.0001139
|
5
|
25.00%
|
|
Clayton County DUI Arrests
|
10
|
55
|
out of 273718 (7/2006 U.S. Census Est.).
|
3.6534E-05
|
8
|
-81.82%
|
Percent under 1000 means a very low risk of DUI arrest per population. Percent over 2000 means DUI Hot Spot very risky to Drive after Drinking. If you would like your counties statistics shown please contact us with information on obtaining the public records.
|
|
|
On October 7, 2008, THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, decided ARIZONA v. GANT, No. 07–542, Justice Stevens held that the Police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to arrest only if the arrest is recent in time, it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or the vehicle contains evidence of the arrest.
Gant was arrested for driving on a suspended license, handcuffed, and locked in a patrol car. Officers searched his car and found cocaine in a jacket pocket lying in the back seat. The Arizona State Supreme Court distinguished New York v. Belton, 453 U. S. 454 —which held that police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle and any containers therein as a contemporaneous incident of a recent occupant’s lawful arrest—on the ground that it concerned the scope of a search incident to arrest but did not answer the question whether officers may conduct such a search once the scene has been secured. Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752 , requires that a search incident to arrest be justified by either the interest in officer safety or the interest in preserving evidence and the circumstances of Gant’s arrest implicated neither of those interests, the State Supreme Court found the search unreasonable.
The Supreme Court held that Warrantless searches “are per se unreasonable,” “subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.” Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 . The exception for a search incident to a lawful arrest applies only to “the area from within which [an arrestee] might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.” Chimel, 395 U. S., at 763. This Court applied that exception to the automobile context in Belton, the holding of which rested in large part on the assumption that articles inside a vehicle’s passenger compartment are “generally … within ‘the area into which an arrestee might reach.’ ” 453 U. S., at 460. Pp. 5–8.
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a broad reading of Belton that would permit a vehicle search incident to a recent occupant’s arrest even if there were no possibility the arrestee could gain access to the vehicle at the time of the search. The safety and evidentiary justifications underlying Chimel’s exception authorize a vehicle search only when there is a reasonable possibility of such access. Although it does not follow from Chimel, circumstances unique to the automobile context also justify a search incident to a lawful arrest when it is “reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.” Thornton v. United States, 541 U. S. 615 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). Neither Chimel’s reaching-distancerule nor Thornton’s allowance for evidentiary searches authorized the search in this case where Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended license—an offense for which police could not reasonably expect to find evidence in Gant’s car. Cf. Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U. S. 113 . The search in this case was therefore unreasonable. Pp. 8–11.
The U.S. Supreme Court is unpersuaded by the State’s argument that its expansive reading of Belton correctly balances law enforcement interests with an arrestee’s limited privacy interest in his vehicle. The State seriously undervalued the privacy interests at stake in an automobile, and it exaggerates both the clarity provided by a broad reading of Belton and its importance to law enforcement interests. A narrow reading of Belton and Thornton,together with this Court’s other Fourth Amendment decisions, e.g., Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 103 , and United States v. Ross, 456 U. S. 798 , permit an officer to search a vehicle when safety or evidentiary concerns demand. Pp. 11–14.
The Supreme Court held that stare decisis does not require adherence to a broad reading of Belton. The experience of the 28 years since Belton has shown that the generalization underpinning the broad reading of that decision is unfounded, and blind adherence to its faulty assumption would authorize myriad unconstitutional searches. Pp. 15–18.
Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Scalia, Souter, Thomas, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed a concurring opinion. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, J., joined, and in which Breyer, J., joined except as to Part II–E.
|
|
|
The City of John's Creek Police Department announced a John's Creek DUI shakedown for the July 4th, 2009 weekend. The John's Creek Police Department will impliment numerous DUI Roadblocks at random locations throughout the July 4th, 2009 weekend. The John's Creek Police Department has purchased a new mobile Intoxilyzer 5000 DUI breath testing Trailer so they can administer the state administered breath test on scene and arrest more suspected DUI drivers in John's Creek. Be Careful and do not drink and drive. It takes very little alcohol to register over the legal limit. DUI has nothing to do with being Drunk. Remember, it is generally in your interest not to blow if you would like to beat a DUI charge. If you blow over the legal limit the State does not have to prove you are drunk or impaired just that you are over the limit. You maybe able to walk on you hands and do a back handspring but you will still be legally DUI if you blow over the legal limit. |
|
|
Athens-Clarke County Police, the Georgia State Patrol and University of Georgia Police held their fourth DUI Roadblock of the year on June 26-27, 2009 and arrested 48 alleged DUI drivers, 25 pounds of marijuana and a burglar. The Athens DUI Roadblocks were set up to coincide with AthFest weekend. The Georgia State Patrol promised more DUI Roadblocks in Athens for the Fourth of July Weekend. |
|
|
 Can a hospital blood test by used against you after an accident in a DUI? Yes, read Daniel v. State, A09A0226, June 8th, 2009. In Daniel, a woman was driving herself, her child and another child to the store. She claims the tire blew out. Police noted the tires were in bad condition. She was injured and taken to the hospital. The other child in the car was killed from blunt trauma for apparently not wearing a selt belt. The suspected DUI driver admitted to drinking two beers. The tragedy was two fold in this case as not only was someone killed but now you have to refuse medical treatment not to incriminate yourself.
Upon arrival at the hospital, the alleged DUI driver had her blood taken for medical purposes. The medical blood test showed a .223 blood alcohol. Police arrived at the hospital and also obtained a State Administered Blood Test under Georgia's Implied Consent law. The state administered blood test performed at the state crime lab indicated a blood alcohol of .157 a difference of .066 from the medical blood test performed by the hospital lab. This rather large discrepancy was not mentioned by the court. It probably stems from the fact that medical blood alcohol is generally measured from blood serum only and not whole blood which is generally the method used at crime labs and is commonly referred to as "legal blood." Further, O.C.G.A. Sect. 40-1-1 defines, “Alcohol concentration” as "grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood", not serum or plasma. In B.T. Hodgson and N.K. Shajani. Distribution of ethanol: plasma to whole blood ratios. Can. Soc. Forensic Sci. J. 18: 73–77 (1985), the study found that plasma and serum samples had significantly higher concentrations of ethanol than the same whole blood samples. Who says the error is harmless? The Georgia Court of Appeals allowed the medical blood test obtained from the DUI suspects medical records apparently by search warrant as a business records exception to the hearsay rule by the testimony of the medical records custodian from the hospital and the head of the hospital lab who testified that it is routine procedure to test everyone who comes in the ER for blood alcohol. The Officer who obtained the blood sample for the state administered test passed away before the case came to trial but the Court of Appeals found that the deceased officer's telephone conversation to the Officer who testified that he smelled alcohol on the driver was sufficient to support probable cause for DUI sufficient to warrant a blood test. So much for the right to confront witnesses. The Court did leave one door open on the medical blood test indicating that a challenged to the chain of custody of the hospital blood test was not made. DUI Defense is a very technical legal subject. It exists where medical science and the law intersect. That is why it is important to hire an experienced and qualified Georgia DUI Defense Lawyer.
|
|
 The U.S. Supreme Court has dealt a blow to the infamous paper witness. Paper is impossible to cross-examine, so when paper documents are legislated admissible in court it is burden shifting and requires the Defense to hire an expert to rebut the paper witness. It is unclear how far Georgia Courts will allow this case precedent to spread but it appears that certainly Georgia DUI crime lab reports, Georgia DUI certificates of inspection of state breath tests, and possible the dreaded Georgia DUI Intoxilyzer 5000 breath strip and infamous source code may be in jeopardy, but what do I know I'm just an Atlanta DUI lawyer.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
MELENDEZ-DIAZ v. MASSACHUSETTS
certiorari to the appeals court of massachusetts
No. 07–591. Argued November 10, 2008—Decided June 25, 2009
At petitioner’s state-court drug trial, the prosecution introduced certificates of state laboratory analysts stating that material seized by police and connected to petitioner was cocaine of a certain quantity. As required by Massachusetts law, the certificates were sworn to before a notary public and were submitted as prima facie evidence of what they asserted. Petitioner objected, asserting that Crawford v. Washington, 541 U. S. 36 , required the analysts to testify in person. The trial court disagreed, the certificates were admitted, and petitioner was convicted. The Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed, rejecting petitioner’s claim that the certificates’ admission violated the Sixth Amendment .
Held: The admission of the certificates violated petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him. Pp. 3–23.
(a) Under Crawford, a witness’s testimony against a defendant is inadmissible unless the witness appears at trial or, if the witness is unavailable, the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. 541 U. S., at 54. The certificates here are affidavits, which fall within the “core class of testimonial statements” covered by the Confrontation Clause, id., at 51. They asserted that the substance found in petitioner’s possession was, as the prosecution claimed, cocaine of a certain weight—the precise testimony the analysts would be expected to provide if called at trial. Not only were the certificates made, as Crawford required for testimonial statements, “under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial,” id., at 52, but under the relevant Massachusetts law their sole purpose was to provide prima facie evidence of the substance’s composition, quality, and net weight. Petitioner was entitled to “be confronted with” the persons giving this testimony at trial. Id., at 54. Pp. 3–5.
(b) The arguments advanced to avoid this rather straightforward application of Crawford are rejected. Respondent’s claim that the analysts are not subject to confrontation because they are not “accusatory” witnesses finds no support in the Sixth Amendment ’s text or in this Court’s case law. The affiants’ testimonial statements were not “nearly contemporaneous” with their observations, nor, if they had been, would that fact alter the statements’ testimonial character. There is no support for the proposition that witnesses who testify regarding facts other than those observed at the crime scene are exempt from confrontation. The absence of interrogation is irrelevant; a witness who volunteers his testimony is no less a witness for Sixth Amendment purposes. The affidavits do not qualify as traditional official or business records. The argument that the analysts should not be subject to confrontation because their statements result from neutral scientific testing is little more than an invitation to return to the since-overruled decision in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U. S. 56 , which held that evidence with “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness” was admissible without confrontation. Petitioner’s power to subpoena the analysts is no substitute for the right of confrontation. Finally, the requirements of the Confrontation Clause may not be relaxed because they make the prosecution’s task burdensome. In any event, the practice in many States already accords with today’s decision, and the serious disruption predicted by respondent and the dissent has not materialized. Pp. 5–23.
69 Mass. App. 1114, 870 N. E. 2d 676, reversed and remanded.
Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, Souter, Thomas, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion. Kennedy, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Breyer and Alito, JJ., joined.
|
|
|
The following is an estimate of Metro Atlanta DUI arrests in selected Metro Atlanta Counties for one week based on publicly available records. The information is only as accurate as the public records from which it is obtained.
|
Jurisdiction
|
DUIs
|
DUIs last week
|
Population
|
Arrest Per Population
|
Police Ranks
|
Percent Change
|
|
Atlanta DUI Arrests
|
44
|
27
|
out of 486,411 (7/2006 U.S. Census Est.)
|
0.0000905
|
7
|
62.96%
|
|
Gwinnett County DUI Arrests
|
74
|
84
|
out of 789499 (2008 U.S.Census Est.).
|
0.0000937
|
5
|
-11.90%
|
|
DeKalb County DUI Arrests
|
44
|
35
|
out of 739956 (7/2006 U.S. Census Est.).
|
0.0000595
|
8
|
25.71%
|
|
Fayette County DUI Arrests
|
11
|
9
|
out of 106465 (7/2006 U.S. Census Est.).
|
0.0001033
|
4
|
22.22%
|
|
Henry County DUI Arrests
|
41
|
40
|
out of 191502 (7/2006 U.S. Census Est.).
|
0.00021410
|
2
|
2.50%
|
|
City of Doraville DUI Arrests(these include Sandy Springs, Johns Creek and Dunwoody DUI arrestees)
|
19
|
23
|
out of 9862 (2000 U.S. Census Est.)
|
0.0019266
|
1
|
-17.39%
|
|
Cobb County DUI Arrests
|
25
|
37
|
out of 698158 (2008 U.S. Census Est.)
|
0.0000358
|
9
|
-32.43%
|
|
City of Roswell DUI Arrsets
|
8
|
15
|
out of 87802 (2003 U.S. Census Est).
|
0.0000911
|
6
|
-46.67%
|
|
Clayton County DUI Arrests
|
55
|
28
|
out of 273718 (7/2006 U.S. Census Est.).
|
0.000200937
|
3
|
96.43%
|
Percent under 1000 means a very low risk of DUI arrest per population. Percent over 2000 means DUI Hot Spot very risky to Drive after Drinking. If you would like your counties statistics shown please contact us with information on obtaining the public records.
|
|
|
 DUI season has begun. The Annual Operation Zero Tolerance (OZT) kicked off on Friday, August 19, 2009 with a DUI Roadblock near the Fulton and Clayton County line. OZT is a statewide initiative that includes a DUI task force from the Metro Atlanta Traffic Enforcement Network, composed of DUI enforcement units from DeKalb, Fulton, Cobb, Fayette, Clayton, Henry and Gwinnett Police Departments.
The OZT is scheduled to end midnight on July 5, 2009, and is a part of the larger initiative, 100 Days of Summer H.E.A.T., which runs through the end of the Labor Day travel period in September. Expect DUI Roadblocks and concentrated patrols in DeKalb, Fulton, Fayette, Clayton, Henry, and Gwinnett Counties.
|
|
|
Dougherty County Police and the City of Albany are announcing a zero tolerance campaign being June 19th through the 4th of July. Beginning with a roadblock in Camilla, Mitchell County on June 19th and continuing throughout the area through the 4th of July, 2009. Expect DUI saturation patrols and DUI roadblocks throughout the Albany and surrounding areas. Zero Tolerance means more than drunk drivers will go to jail but merely drinking drivers. This means questionable arrests, so remember to hire a qualified DUI lawyer who concentrates in DUI law and not a general practitioner who has does not frequently trial DUI jury trials. Ask any potential attorney when the last time they tried a DUI jury trial.
|
|
|
The following is an estimate of Metro Atlanta DUI arrests in selected Metro Atlanta Counties for one week based on publicly available records. The information is only as accurate as the public records from which it is obtained.
|
Atlanta DUI Arrests
|
27
|
22
|
out of 486,411 (7/2006 U.S. Census Est.)
|
0.0000555
|
7
|
22.73%
|
|
Gwinnett County DUI Arrests
|
84
|
89
|
out of 789499 (2008 U.S.Census Est.).
|
0.0001064
|
4
|
-5.62%
|
|
DeKalb County DUI Arrests
|
35
|
46
|
out of 739956 (7/2006 U.S. Census Est.).
|
0.0000473
|
9
|
-23.91%
|
|
Fayette County DUI Arrests
|
9
|
24
|
out of 106465 (7/2006 U.S. Census Est.).
|
0.0000845
|
6
|
-62.50%
|
|
Henry County DUI Arrests
|
40
|
35
|
out of 191502 (7/2006 U.S. Census Est.).
|
0.00020888
|
2
|
14.29%
|
|
City of Doraville DUI Arrests(these include Sandy Springs, Johns Creek and Dunwoody DUI arrestees)
|
23
|
14
|
out of 9862 (2000 U.S. Census Est.)
|
0.0023322
|
1
|
64.29%
|
|
Cobb County DUI Arrests
|
37
|
36
|
out of 698158 (2008 U.S. Census Est.)
|
0.0000530
|
8
|
2.78%
|
|
City of Roswell DUI Arrsets
|
15
|
9
|
out of 87802 (2003 U.S. Census Est).
|
0.0001708
|
3
|
66.67%
|
|
Clayton County DUI Arrests
|
28
|
59
|
out of 273718 (7/2006 U.S. Census Est.).
|
0.000102295
|
5
|
-52.54%
|
Percent under 1000 means a very low risk of DUI arrest per population. Percent over 2000 means DUI Hot Spot very risky to Drive after Drinking. If you would like your counties statistics shown please contact us with information on obtaining the public records.
|
|
|
The following is an estimate of Metro Atlanta DUI arrests in selected Metro Atlanta Counties for one week based on publicly available records. The information is only as accurate as the public records from which it is obtained.
|
Jurisdiction
|
DUIs
|
DUIs last week
|
Population
|
Arrest Per Population
|
Police Ranks
|
Percent Change
|
|
Atlanta DUI Arrests
|
22
|
37
|
out of 486,411 (7/2006 U.S. Census Est.)
|
0.0000452
|
9
|
-40.54%
|
|
Gwinnett County DUI Arrests
|
89
|
68
|
out of 789499 (2008 U.S.Census Est.).
|
0.0001127
|
5
|
30.88%
|
|
DeKalb County DUI Arrests
|
46
|
25
|
out of 739956 (7/2006 U.S. Census Est.).
|
0.0000622
|
7
|
84.00%
|
|
Fayette County DUI Arrests
|
24
|
0
|
out of 106465 (7/2006 U.S. Census Est.).
|
0.0002254
|
2
|
#DIV/0!
|
|
Henry County DUI Arrests
|
35
|
40
|
out of 191502 (7/2006 U.S. Census Est.).
|
0.000182766
|
4
|
-12.50%
|
|
City of Doraville DUI Arrests(these include Sandy Springs, Johns Creek and Dunwoody DUI arrestees)
|
14
|
19
|
out of 9862 (2000 U.S. Census Est.)
|
0.00141959
|
1
|
-26.32%
|
|
Cobb County DUI Arrests
|
36
|
36
|
out of 698158 (2008 U.S. Census Est.)
|
0.000051564
|
8
|
0.00%
|
|
City of Roswell DUI Arrsets
|
9
|
7
|
out of 87802 (2003 U.S. Census Est).
|
0.0001025
|
6
|
28.57%
|
|
Clayton County DUI Arrests
|
59
|
44
|
out of 273718 (7/2006 U.S. Census Est.).
|
0.00021555
|
3
|
34.09%
|
Percent under 1000 means a very low risk of DUI arrest per population. Percent over 2000 means DUI Hot Spot very risky to Drive after Drinking. If you would like your counties statistics shown please contact us with information on obtaining the public records.
|
|
|
DUI arrests in Gwinnett County are taken to the Gwinnett County Jail. All DUI arrests by Gwinnett County Police are generally sent to the Gwinnett County Recorder's Court for trial. Gwinnett County Recorders Court can only handle non-jury cases. Typically, only DUI pleas are handled in Recorder's Court, although some DUI cases can be reduced to non-DUI traffic violations like reckless driving in Recorder's Court. If a jury trial is requested or motion to exclude evidence or to dismiss the case is filed, then these matters are typically handled in the State Court of Gwinnett County. For multiple DUI offenders facing harsh jail sentences, the Gwinnett DUI Court is an option. The Gwinnett DUI Court is a time consuming and strenuous program. It is not for everyone. The Gwinnett DUI Court program focuses on rehabilititation rather than jail time.
The Gwinnett County DUI Court was created in 2005 under a pilot program offered by the State and in cooperation Gwinnett County State Court Bench, the Gwinnett County Solicitor's Office, the Defense Bar, Treatment Providers and probation.
The Gwinnett County DUI Court program is a minimum of twelve (12) months and a maximum of twenty-four (24) months and consists of 3 phases: Phase I - Active treatment and early recovery, Phase II - Relapse prevention, and Phase III - Continuance of Care. The Gwinnett County DUI Court program includes both vocational and educational components in conjunction with substance abuse treatment monitored by the Gwinnett DUI Court judge. If you would like to participate in the Gwinnett DUI Court Program: First, Speak with your attorney; Second, Read the DUI Court Participant Handbook, the DUI Court Contract and discuss any questions you might have with your attorney; Third, If you are interested in voluntarily entering DUI Court, complete the Participant Application Form, and the Defendant Waiver form; Fourth, Deliver the documents to the DUI Court Office: by mail - Gwinnett County Courthouse, 75 Langley Dr., Attn: Court Administration, Lawrenceville, GA 30045; by Fax - (770) 822-8559. (A fax must be followed by delivery of the original documents.); in person - All documents may be hand delivered to the control desk on the 2nd floor of the Gwinnett Courthouse.
Once you Gwinnett DUI Court application is received: An appointment will be set for you to be assessed by the Gwinnett DUI Court Staff; The Gwinnett Solicitors Office will review your case and your criminal history; The Gwinnett DUI Court Team will review all of this information and make a group decision concerning your acceptance into Gwinnett DUI Court; If accepted, your DUI attorney should contact the Gwinnett Solicitor's Office for a plea recommendation of punishment and a DUI plea date (DUI Court still means punishment as DUI laws carry minimum mandatory jail time, community service and probation -just less of it); Once you enter your plea your treatment will begin right away.
| RECORDER’S COURT - TRAFFIC CITATION OR ORDINANCE VIOLATION -PLEAS, MOTIONS AND NON JURY TRIALS |
| |
|
| MAIN LINE |
770-619-6140
|
| STATE COURT - MISDEMEANOR CASES - PLEAS, MOTIONS, NON JURY TRIALS AND JURY TRIALS |
| |
|
| DIVISION 1 - JUDGE ROBERT MOCK STATE COURT JUDGE |
770-822-8301
|
| |
|
| DIVISION 2 - JUDGE RANDY RICH STATE COURT JUDGE |
770-822-8302
|
| |
|
| DIVISION 3 - JUDGE CARLA BROWN STATE COURT JUDGE |
770-822-8303
|
| |
|
| DIVISION 4 - JUDGE JOSEPH IANNAZONE STATE COURT JUDGE |
770-822-8304
|
| |
|
| DIVISION 5 - JUDGE PAMELA SOUTH STATE COURT JUDGE |
770-822-8305
|
| |
|
| DIVISION 6 - JUDGE JOHN DORAN STATE COURT JUDGE |
770-822-8306
|
| |
|
| INTAKE INVESTIGATION - UNACCUSED STATE COURT CASES |
| |
|
| EXTERNAL STAFF - COMMUNITY PROGRAMS |
| |
| Hands Are Not For Hitting |
Phyllis |
| Turning Point |
Michelle Deutch |
678-488-6679
|
| It Won’t Happen to Me |
Bill Richardson |
770-822-8321
|
| |
|
|
|
| JAIL UNIT - DEFENDANTS IN CUSTODY |
| |
|
ADMINISTRATIVE DRIVER'S LICENSE HEARINGS
Presiding Judge David Langston
Hearings are held every first Wednesday of the month at 5:30 P.M.
Gwinnett Courthouse Annex
115 Stone Mountain Street
Court Room 2B
Lawrenceville, GA 30045
Judge Langston
Gwinnett County
|
|
|
The following is an estimate of Metro Atlanta DUI arrests in selected Metro Atlanta Counties for one week based on publicly available records. The information is only as accurate as the public records from which it is obtained.
|
Jurisdiction
|
DUIs
|
DUIs last week
|
Population
|
Arrest Per Population
|
Police Ranks
|
Percent Change
|
|
Atlanta DUI Arrests
|
37
|
49
|
out of 486,411 (7/2006 U.S. Census Est.)
|
0.0000761
|
6
|
-24.49%
|
|
Gwinnett County DUI Arrests
|
68
|
58
|
out of 757104 (7/2006 U.S.Census Est.).
|
0.0000898
|
4
|
17.24%
|
|
DeKalb County DUI Arrests
|
25
|
33
|
out of 723602 (7/2006 U.S. Census Est.).
|
0.0000345
|
7
|
-24.24%
|
|
Fayette County DUI Arrests
|
0
|
19
|
out of 106671 (7/2006 U.S. Census Est.).
|
0.0000000
|
8
|
-100.00%
|
|
Henry County DUI Arrests
|
40
|
36
|
out of 178033 (7/2006 U.S. Census Est.).
|
0.000224677
|
2
|
11.11%
|
|
City of Doraville DUI Arrests
|
19
|
10
|
out of 9862 (2000 U.S. Census Est.)
|
0.001926587
|
1
|
90.00%
|
|
City of Roswell DUI Arrsets
|
7
|
12
|
out of 78,229 (2003 U.S. Census Est).
|
0.0000895
|
5
|
-41.67%
|
|
Clayton County DUI Arrests
|
44
|
42
|
out of 271240 (7/2006 U.S. Census Est.).
|
0.000162218
|
3
|
4.76%
|
Percent under 1000 means a very low risk of DUI arrest per population. Percent over 2000 means DUI Hot Spot very risky to Drive after Drinking. If you would like your counties statistics shown please contact us with information on obtaining the public records.
|
|
|
The following is an estimate of Metro Atlanta DUI arrests in selected Metro Atlanta Counties for one week based on publicly available records. The information is only as accurate as the public records from which it is obtained.
|
Jurisdiction
|
DUIs
|
DUIs last week
|
Population
|
Arrest Per Population
|
Police Ranks
|
Percent Change
|
|
Atlanta DUI Arrests
|
49
|
32
|
out of 486,411 (7/2006 U.S. Census Est.)
|
0.0001007
|
6
|
53.13%
|
|
Gwinnett County DUI Arrests
|
58
|
93
|
out of 757104 (7/2006 U.S.Census Est.).
|
0.0000766
|
7
|
-37.63%
|
|
DeKalb County DUI Arrests
|
33
|
44
|
out of 723602 (7/2006 U.S. Census Est.).
|
0.0000456
|
8
|
-25.00%
|
|
Fayette County DUI Arrests
|
19
|
16
|
out of 106671 (7/2006 U.S. Census Est.).
|
0.0001781
|
3
|
18.75%
|
|
Henry County DUI Arrests
|
36
|
38
|
out of 178033 (7/2006 U.S. Census Est.).
|
0.00020221
|
2
|
-5.26%
|
|
City of Doraville DUI Arrests
|
10
|
18
|
out of 9862 (2000 U.S. Census Est.)
|
0.001013993
|
1
|
-44.44%
|
|
City of Roswell DUI Arrsets
|
12
|
14
|
out of 78,229 (2003 U.S. Census Est).
|
0.0001534
|
5
|
-14.29%
|
|
Clayton County DUI Arrests
|
42
|
36
|
out of 271240 (7/2006 U.S. Census Est.).
|
0.000154844
|
4
|
16.67%
|
Percent under 1000 means a very low risk of DUI arrest per population. Percent over 2000 means DUI Hot Spot very risky to Drive after Drinking. If you would like your counties statistics shown please contact us with information on obtaining the public records.
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
f 
COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE WARNING!!!!
PILOT WARNING!!!!
PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION WARNING!!!!
Coweta DUI Lawyer Recent DUI success stories: The only unwinnable DUI is the untried DUI! Stay tuned for more victories. The wins just keep on coming! Past success does not guarantee future results only a dedication to winning your DUI, hard work and our clients.
1) DUI Coweta County, Roscoe Road, Ga Hwy 70, February 13, 2009. Client was pulled over for allegedly weaving. Video revealed no weaving. State Patrol Trooper testified that although client was speaking in a normal voice, got out of his car normally, and walked normally that he was less safe becuase he failed an eye jerk test or Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) and had an odor of alcohol and old beer bottles in his truck. Video showed that Trooper failed to perform the HGN test according to his training and client appeared stone cold sober on video despite admitting drinking 2-3 beers in 2-3 hours. Client refused a test of his breath. The breath test rights were confusing to client who thought the Trooper was referring to a road side breath test and not one at the jail on the state certified machine. JURY found client NOT GUILTY on failure to maintain lane and DUI in 20 minutes. Court directed a verdict on the open container charges as there was no proof of alocohol content on the beer bottles found in the car a requirement of the statute.
2) DUI Newnan, Coweta County Georgia, February 11, 2009. Client was pulled over by a City of Newnan Police Officer as he pulled into a parking space at the Corner Tavern in Newnan, Georgia. The Officer observed no traffic offenses, but had received a BOLO (Be on Look Out) for a similar car containing three white males that were involved in a fight at a bar in Newnan called Baja's. The state called the bouncer from Baja's who testified that the client was the only sober, calm and not violent member of his party. The Bouncer also testified that he believed the client was a safe driver at the time. Police Officers did not activate their video and claimed that client had slurred speech, unsteady walk and red eyes as well as failed his field sobriety tests indicating that he was a less safe driver because of alcohol. Cross-Examination revealed that the Officer did not perform the field sobriety tests as trained and could not do the tests himself in the courtroom. Further, slurred speech, red eyes and unsteadiness became slightly slurred and possibly accent, slightly red eyes and a stutter step and not unsteadiness. Client refused a test of his breath as english is a second language and he did not understand the complicated legal terms of the rights read and Officer made no effort to explain them. Jury found client NOT GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS.
3) DUI Coweta County, Georgia: February 5, 2009. Client was pulled over for having non-working tail lights. Client had been eating a birthday dinner with his wife, children and in-laws where he consumed no alcohol. He then went to a friends house and consumed one beer. Later that evening while driving home, Defendant was followed and stopped by a Georgia State Patrol Trooper. Client committed no traffic violations other than defective tail light and weaving within the lane which was mentioned only at jury trial. Client had normal speech, normal eyes, normal walk. Client did not complete the HGN, counted to twenty on the one leg stand, and stepped off line on the walk and turn. The Trooper did not qualify Client about a motorcycle accident before performing field sobriety tests despite training to do so. Client refused a breath test at the scene but requested a blood test and agreed to either a blood or breath test after the Trooper left the jail. Client's wife and friend testified that he only had one beer. Client's twin daughters were in car. State introduced similar transaction from 2006 where client blew .140. Attorney used similar transaction against them by showing what client looked like when he was DUI and that in the first case he pled guilty with out an attorney because he was guilty versus this case where he was not affected by alcohol and fought for his life. Jury found client NOT GUILTY on DUI and two counts of child endangerment in 40 minutes.
|
|
 |
|
|
