If a defendant has been indicted by the federal government for a violation of the narcotics statute, 21 U.S.C. 841 (b), and he has a prior conviction for a drug offense, the penalties can become quite severe.

The mandatory penalties can double in prison time if a defendant has a previous drug conviction. The statute 21 U.S.C. 851, dictates the procedure whereby the government establishes that a defendant has a prior conviction, hence triggering an enhanced statutory sentence under the drug laws.

For example, first and second offense of cocaine trafficking of a mixture 5 kgs or more vary by:

First Offense Cocaine Trafficking – Not less than 10 yrs, and not more than life. If death or serious injury, not less than 20 or more than life. Fine of not more than $4 million if an individual, $10 million if not an individual.

Second Offense Cocaine Trafficking – Not less than 20 yrs, and not more than life. If death or serious injury, life imprisonment. Fine of not more than $8 million if an individual, $20 million if not an individual.

The discretion whether or not to file the enhancement is entirely up to the prosecution. However, the court can only increase the statutory sentencing range of a drug crime based upon a prior conviction if the government files such notice of the prior conviction pursuant to this statute. 21 U.S.C. 851 provides that the enhanced penalties set forth in 841(b) are triggered only if the government files, before trial or the entry of a guilty plea, an information “stating in writing the previous convictions to be relied upon.”

This language is mandatory and if the government fails to file an information before trial, or entry of a plea of guilt, then the court lacks jurisdiction to enhance a defendant’s sentence.

Once the Government proves the defendant has a prior conviction, the defendant then has the burden of showing that the convictions are invalid. This may be prove to be somewhat of a heavy burden since certain time requirements would apply that allow a defendant to dispute the previous conviction. 21 U.S.C. 851(e) prohibits the challenge of a prior conviction which is more than 5 years old. Furthermore, although the United States Sentencing Guidelines exclude certain prior convictions after a certain period of time, under 21 U.S.C. 841(b), it makes no difference how old the priors are.

In short, although the attempt to overcome the use of a prior conviction in a drug offense is a high hurdle to overcome, it is not necessarily an impossible one. Court records will reveal if that prior that the government may want to rely on to enhance the sentence was constitutionally obtained.

From what I hear about California traffic, it seems like the roads would be too jam-packed to allow police officers to pick out the people driving under the influence, but if I guess it still happens. And, if you are caught driving under the influence (DUI), there can be some pretty serious consequences in store.

If you appeal for a trial before your license is automatically suspended, a Los Angeles DUI lawyer can help you challenge the evidence against your case whether it includes your driving behavior at the time of arrest, chemical test results, sobriety tests or your physical appearance when a police officer stopped you.

Although there are many indicators of DUI in these four categories, there are also other factors that can create these indicators besides alcohol. For example, speeding and swerving are two driving behaviors that police officers often associate with drunk driving. Plenty of sober individuals have been guilty of speeding though, and distractions like the radio, a bug, an obstacle in the road or a spill in the car could also cause someone to swerve.

It is also true that the physical appearance of red watery eyes can indicate that a person has been drinking, but red, watery eyes are also common symptoms of fatigue, exposure to smoke, and allergies. Even chemical tests results are subject to error because of improper equipment maintenance, inaccuracies and human error. Not to mention, a test administered after an arrest may record a higher alcohol content than it would have at the time you were driving because it takes time for alcohol to enter the bloodstream.

Every case is different, but these are just a couple examples of the way your own Los Angeles DUI lawyer will strive to create reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors. This is an important goal because you are only convicted of the crime if there is no reasonable doubt in their minds. Unless they are convinced that you were guilty of DUI, you will probably keep your license and walk away without suffering other negative consequences like fines or time in prison.

Life sure gets a lot harder when you can’t even drive to work in the morning. For example, even a marathon runner could spend about 4 hours getting to work if it is 26 miles away. In fact, even ten miles is further than most people want to walk, run or bike. Don’t give up your driving privilege without a fight. Find a good Los Angeles DUI lawyer to stand at your side and make your case.

Compared to legal contracts or many of the bills that move through congress, DUI laws can be pretty straight forward and easy to understand. The only trouble is that every state has its very own set of laws. Of course there are similarities between these laws, but it is the differences you have to watch out for.

For example, there are a couple states that permit passengers to consume alcohol in the car as long as the driver abstains from drinking. But, if someone used to those laws is pulled over in one of the 43 states that don’t permit passenger alcohol consumption, they will end up in trouble. There are other differences too. For example, some states don’t even refer to drunk driving as DUI. The offense is also known as operating under the influence (OUI), driving while ability impaired (DWAI), operating while intoxicated (OWI), operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OMVI), driving while impaired (DWI) and more. As you can see, something as small as the names used for drunk driving can be a little confusing.

Of course, you should be familiar with DUI laws before you even start operating motor vehicles, but familiarity may not be enough to keep yourself out of trouble if you are pulled over for driving under the influence. Whether your arrest in such a case is justified or not, a good DUI lawyer can help you face the charges placed at your door.

With their extensive knowledge of DUI laws and potential weaknesses in evidence like chemical tests, physical appearance, driving patters and field sobriety test, DUI lawyers show your jury the reasons you shouldn’t be convicted. To make this battle possible though, you will have to appeal to the DMV for a trail shortly after your DUI arrest. Your grace period for requesting the trial is usually about ten days.

Breaking DUI laws often leads to inconvenient and serious consequences. For example, conviction may lead to things like license suspension, community service, prison time, large fines, mandatory traffic school attendance or lock-ignition devices in your car. The more offenses you have, the harsher the punishment.

Driving is indeed a privilege, but the older you get, the more it becomes a mandatory part of your day. For example, just imagine how hard it would be to reach the office or run errands with just your feet or a bike to get you there. So, either keep all DUI laws to perfection or hire someone who can help minimize your consequences.

DUI checkpoints are recognizable by the long line of cars and the group of police officers stopping each car asking questions to each driver.

Drunk driving checkpoints or roadblocks have been found to be a reasonable search and seizure by the United States Supreme Court in Michigan Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990). It found that the public concern about drunk driving outweighed the interference of the individual liberty of the driver who is stopped.

Some of the frustrations by legal motorists have been the fear and surprise of the roadblock, the feeling that they must submit to the check and can’t turn around, and the inconvenience of the amount of time for the police officer to reach their car which may be as long as 30 minutes.

Fear and surprise of an unannounced roadblock has been a concern for citizens. In Sitz, the Court reasoned that the “other drivers could see the backup of cars and how each car is being detained for a short period. This would inform approaching motorists that the stop was authorized and non-random, thereby lessening the potential for fear and surprise.”

Fear and surprise is an element that has been of concern so governments have required police agencies to prepare and follow guidelines for all checkpoints. Some states go further and require public notice of upcoming checkpoints.

What about if officers park outside of bars and wait to pull over cars? This could be considered a roving patrol where the police officers stop cars at other than fixed checkpoints. Here they would need either a warrant or probable cause for a search as ruled in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973).

There are 38 states, and the District of Columbia that conduct sobriety checkpoints.

Eleven states do not conduct sobriety checkpoints because they are either considered illegal by law or state constitution or the state has no explicit authority to conduct them.

These states are: Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Texas prohibits sobriety checkpoints based on their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

Interestingly, Michigan which was the State that the U.S. Supreme Court decided in allowing checkpoints, ended up ruling that checkpoints were not permissible under the Michigan State Constitution.

Even with the states that do allow sobriety checkpoints, there are some interesting interpretations on its checkpoint laws. It seems generally that most states allow a motorist to make a legal U-turn or turn off a side road and not need to go through the checkpoint.

Pennsylvania Has been made legal under state and federal Constitution.

Under Commonwealth v. Pacek, 691 A.2d 466 (Pa. Super. 1997), “a checkpoint does not have to provide a legal means of avoidance.”

“Checkpoints must be located in area where DUI is prevalent.” Commonwealth v. Blee, 695 A.2d 802 (Pa. Super. 1997).

“Legal U-turn in advance of checkpoint does not justify a stop.” Commonwealth v. Scavello, 703 A.2d 36 (PA. Super. 1997).

“A checkpoint conducted at a toll booth was held illegal because it was not conducted in accordance with state Supreme Court guidelines.” Commonwealth v. Yashinski, 723 A.2d 104 (Pa. Super. 1988).

New York Has been upheld under federal Constitution.

“Turning into a parking lot to evade a checkpoint is cause for an investigatory stop.” People v. Chaffee, 590 N.Y.S.2d 625 (A.D. 4 Dist. 1992); but “turning off a highway before reaching a checkpoint on to another road is not cause for a stop.” People v. Rocket, 594 N.Y.S.2d 568 (Just. Ct. 1992).

“New York does not require written guidelines for a checkpoint.” People v. Collura, 610 N.Y.S.2d (N.Y. CityCrim. Ct. 1994).

“Delaware Has been made legal under state law and federal Constitution.” Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979).

“A trial court has held that a legally executed U-turn in advance of a checkpoint did not justify a stop.” Howard v. Voshell, 621 A.2d 804 (Del. Super. 1992).

“Florida Has been made legal under federal Constitution.” State v. Jones, 483 So. 2d 433 (1986). Campbell v. State, 679 So.2d 1168 (Fla. 1996)

Found a checkpoint deficient under Jones because the written guidelines were insufficient, especially with regard to the method for choosing which vehicle(s) to stop.

“A delay of less than five minutes before a driver was asked to exit the vehicle was found to be permissible.” Cahill v. State, 595 So.2d 258 (Fla. App. 4 Dist. 1992).

Indiana Has been made legal under state Constitution

Previously, “checkpoints had been conducted in Indiana under Garcia, which held checkpoints legal under the federal constitution.” State v. Garcia, 500 N.E.2d 158 (Ind. 1986), cert. den. 481 U.S. 1014 (1987); Snyder v. State, 538 N.E.2d 961 (Ind. App. 4 Dist. 1989). In the Snyder case, the court held that “avoiding a checkpoint was sufficient cause to conduct a stop.”

“Massachusetts has been made legal under state and federal Constitution.” Commonwealth v. Shields, 521 N.E.2d 987 (Mass. 1988); Commonwealth v. Cameron, 545 N.E.2d 619 (Mass. App. Ct. 1989).

When you have some problem with your husband or wife and the problem can not be solve together, the only way to get through with it is getting divorce. Sometimes it is the best way to make your self comfortable with the entire problem that you face it in your household. The cost that you may take sometimes expensive, so you have to find the cheap but qualified one. Then, this site might help you to get through with it. The gadivorcelitigtaors.com will help you with all your divorcing problem that might happens to you.Athens GA Divorce Lawyers will help you with their best services to solve your problem immediately with their professional knowledge in divorcing. The Atlanta divorce attorney understand that during the most difficult times of their lives, life changing issues are at stake, that’s why, they get you the best and brightest legal team on your side to help you. Beside that, they also will discuss about everything that you may want to make it right, for the example, about child support, child custody, and the division of assets and also the payment, they are considered among the finest lawyers in Their services in providing full free initial consultation by phone so you can talk to their lawyers get to know about you and also listen to some of details of your case in order to give you right explanation about it will be going. The Divorce Lawyers Alpharetta GA will give you solid advice from the advocate that you can trust and tell them every single detail that you want to talk.