Defense of the Oh Crap App

GRL Law’s Oh Crap App has received quite a bit of media attention over the past few months.  Stories were run across the entire United States by local and national media outlets alike. Understandably, different media outlets spun the story of the app to best fit their political and philosophical viewpoints. The two sides of the argument really boil down to: the app is an effective education and prevention tool vs. it promotes drunk driving.  

The public's reaction was similarly divided.  We received numerous messages and phone calls thanking us for making the information in the app available to the public for free.  We also received phone calls and messages from individuals voicing their passionate displeasure with the app.  In fact, some members of law enforcement were so displeased with the app that they publicly wished injury and/or death upon Oh Crap App's founders in an online forum for police officers.

To start, let's get one thing clear - neither GRL Law nor the Oh Crap App condone or encourage drunk driving.  Drunk driving is bad, it is dangerous, it kills innocent people and there is nothing more that really needs to be said on that issue.

That being said, GRL Law is passionate about defending citizens charged with all types of criminal accusations, including drunk driving offenses.  We refuse to stand idly by while people are arrested, prosecuted, and at times, convicted of crimes based upon faulty "evidence" concocted by illegitimate "police science" without any basis in accepted medicine or science.  Just as important, we refuse to allow evidence obtained in violation of citizen's constitutional and statutory rights to be used illegally against them in a legal proceeding.  The Constitution of the State of Iowa and of the United States of America require us as attorneys to honor our oath and stand as the final defenders of the Constitution when the government attempts to infringe upon its' guarantees in order to secure convictions the easy, instead of the right way.

As Justice Bradley declared back in 1886:  “It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives then of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance.” Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635 (1886).

GRL Law and the Oh Crap App are similarly passionate about educating citizens about their legal rights and equipping them with the information and knowledge necessary to avoid being accused of a criminal offense which may come about due to ignorance of the law, a violation of their legal rights, or faulty science.  Educating citizens on how the offense is committed, the legal process, as well as their rights if they happen to find themselves in an investigation, is one small step in the right direction.  The information and knowledge passed on through this process will similarly serve to deter and prevent citizens from committing the offense in the future.  Practical prevention and education through services such GRLLaw's business presentations, the Oh Crap App or other programs such as DUIstopped.us, is much more effective than over-criminalization and penalization.

Our Founding Fathers recognized and understood that for basic rights to serve as adequate protections against an overreaching government, the public must know, understand and be able to effectively exercise those rights.  Benjamin Franklin is credited with the following quote that best sums up GRL Law and the Oh Crap App's approach: "This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men, who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them, cannot be enslaved."  There is no time like the present to ensure that the general public is adequately educated regarding their rights.  If informing and educating people of their legal rights makes us the bad guys then that is a role we will happily accept.  Sometimes it takes a rebel to start the waves of positive change.

Courts across the nation have for centuries been declaring that the exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted to a crime.  We don't plan on letting that happen any time soon.  Know your rights; Exercise your rights; Preserve your freedom!

Thank You May I Have Another

Today in State v. Lukins (No. 12-2221), the Iowa Supreme Court finally announced a straightforward rule as to how an arrestee can assert their right to independent testing following an arrest for OWI (drunk driving) here in the State of Iowa.  In reaching this determination, the Iowa Supreme Court concluded that when Mr. Lukins requested to take another breath test after failing the first one, he triggered his right to independent testing under Iowa Code Section 321J.11.  The Court specifically found "no reason why a detainee should be required to string together a precise formulation of words mirroring the statutory language in order to invoke his or her statutory right to an independent chemical test."  Any request for additional testing should be "liberally construed" and as long as the request can be "reasonably construed" to be a request for an additional test, it will trigger the rights afforded to the detainee pursuant to Iowa Code Section 321J.11 and requires the officer to honor the request.

Additionally, the Court concluded for the first time in a published opinion that when the right to an independent chemical test is denied by police officers, the chemical test obtained by the police officers must be suppressed.  In reaching this conclusion, the Court determined that if suppression was not the appropriate remedy for a violation of this statutory right, it would allow "officers to deny with impunity a detainee's request for an independent chemical test and render the right "meaningless."  This decision now puts the statutory right to independent test right in line with the statutory right to make telephone calls and is a right that should be exercised following every OWI arrest.

The question that is left unanswered by today's opinion, is what duty is imposed upon the officer when a person does adequately assert their right to independent testing.  At the bare minimum, the officer should inform the person of their right to independent testing and how/if the officer will facilitate that request.  Questions most certainly will arise as to whether a trained professional can come to the jail to collect a sample if the detainee remains in jail ;whether the officer must transport the detainee to a trained professional for the testing; or even whether letting the detainee submit to another breath sample is sufficient.  It is important to remember that the "failure" or "inability" of a person to obtain independent testing will likely not trigger suppression unless the officer contributes to that "failure" or "inability." However, for now, suffice it to say that anyone deciding to submit to a breath sample at the station following an arrest for OWI should be asking to take a second breath test!

Finally, as the writer of this blog, I am forced to eat crow and admit that my law partner and associate correctly predicted the outcome if this appeal ;)

Personal Injuries Caused by Drunk Driving or Intentional Conduct and Bankruptcy

Afraid you may get a judgment for a personal injury, only to have the defendant file bankruptcy and leave you with nothing?  In the words of Lee Corso; “Not So Fast My Friend.”

While most injury claims are covered and paid for by the wrong-doer’s insurance policy, insurance does not always cover all claims.  In these situations a judgment can be obtained against the individual who is held financially responsible out of their own assets.  While some judgments are certainly dischargeable in bankruptcy, others are not.  Two specific types of judgments which can overlap with our criminal defense or personal injury cases that are not dischargeable in bankruptcy are “intentional torts” and injuries caused by drunk driving. 

Some personal injury claims and judgments are not dischargeable in any type of bankruptcy proceeding if the injury is the result of an intentional tort. An intentional tort is a wrongful act committed on purpose, not merely negligently, with the intent of causing physical, mental or financial harm to another person.  These types of judgments often include injuries sustained in an assault, sexual assault, libel or slander, malicious prosecution, and other similar intentional wrongful acts, specifically intended to do harm to another person.

Most automobile related personal injury claims or judgments are due to negligent offenses (accidental conduct).  However if the cause of the accident  is due to the driver being intoxicated from alcohol or other drugs, the debt arising from that accident for personal injury is non dischargeable, meaning it won’t go away if you file bankruptcy.  11 U.S.C. §523(a)(9) provides that a debt will not be discharged “for death or personal injury caused by the debtor’s operation of a motor vehicle, vessel, or aircraft if such operation was unlawful because the debtor was intoxicated from using alcohol, a drug, or another substance.”  It’s also important to note that other fines, penalties, and restitution orders associated with a conviction of any crime (even traffic tickets) are non-dischargeable in bankruptcy.

A person suffering under the weight of a judgment resulting from a personal injury caused by an intentional tort or drunken driving may have an alternative financial shelter by way of a chapter 13 bankruptcy filing. This provision does not discharge the debt but provides for an often-times more practical payment plan.  Under chapter 13 bankruptcy provisions the debt will not be discharged, but can be transformed into a priority unsecured debt which may be repaid in full at 0% interest over the course of a 5 year plan under 11 USC §507(a)(10). Five years or sixty months is the maximum amount of time the court will allow a person to repay this debt so the planned payments in the chapter 13 must be sufficient to repay at least the full amount of this debt (plus some administrative fees and any other priority debts).  Otherwise, the chapter 13 plan will not be feasible and the court will not confirm the plan, resulting in the chapter 13 bankruptcy being dismissed.

GRL Law would like to thank Deanna Bachman for this guest blog.  Deanna is the owner of Bachman Law P.C., a West Des Moines law firm, specializing in bankruptcy and debt relief.  For more information on Iowa bankruptcy and debt relief options log onto www.bachmanlawpc.com.

Why Would Anyone Do Field Sobriety Tests?

"Would you mind doing some tests for me real quick just to make sure your are alright to drive?"

By the time a police officer is asking a driver this question, chances are he has already made up his mind that the driver is intoxicated.  Believing that they really don't have a choice and that the tests are presumably fair and objective assessments of their state of sobriety, most drivers agree to perform these tests.  Unfortunately, following this testing, most drivers are shocked to hear the officer say "turn around and face the car, place your hands behind your back" as he cuffs and arrests them for operating while intoxicated.

When a lawyer meets with the confused driver the following morning to discuss the predicament he now faces, there is a consistent theme to the conversation. The driver believes he performed well on the field sobriety tests and cannot understand why the officer claims he failed and is further frustrated and shocked to learn that he never had to perform field sobriety tests in the first place.

Field sobriety tests in the State of Iowa are completely "voluntary."  There is no way that a police officer can compel a person to perform these tests.  If field sobriety tests are declined, chances are the officer will place the individual under arrest which nobody every wants to experience.  However, as many drivers find out the hard way, submitting to the tests inevitably leads to the same result but with additional problem that the State then has more evidence to use against the driver in an effort to prove he was "under the influence of alcohol." 

There really is no good reason why someone would or should submit to field sobriety testing.  Why voluntarily subject yourself to a test that may well be used to incriminate you, especially when you are nervous, scared and your muscle and memory coordination is not what it would ordinarily be under optimal conditions?  Furthermore, many officers have testified that a person passing a particular field sobriety test is not evidence of their sobriety.  Why would anyone agree to take a test that they don't get credit for passing?  Add to all of this, the fact that many officer will "fail" drivers on field sobriety tests even when the driver is completely sober.  In a study conducted at the University of Clemson, researchers found that officers concluded completely sober individuals had "too much to drink" when evaluating their performance of these tests an astounding 46% of the time.  Why would anyone agree to take a test that specially trained police officers get wrong almost half of the time?


Finally, as the below video demonstrates, in order to be an effective sobriety evaluation, the test should be something that is reasonably simple for the average person to perform sober.  If this police officer is having trouble simply demonstrating the test, why would anyone agree to perform the test when their freedom is on the line?

(If video does not open and play, click here)

The biggest reason that drivers submit to field sobriety tests is because they do not know that they do not have to submit to field sobriety tests or are not confident in their rights.  The lawyers at GRL Law have developed a smart phone application to assist motorists in knowing and effectively exercising their rights.  Download your free version of the Oh Crap App, available at iTunes and Android Market. Know your rights; Exercise your rights; Preserve your freedom!

Celebrating Independence - Maintaining Your Freedom

The 4th of July certainly gives Americans something to celebrate.  It is that day where we celebrate the adoption of the Declaration of Independence and the ultimate birth of our great country.  The freedoms and rights that were born out of our nations rise to independence were a bold experiment, the success of which has completely altered how governments interact with their citizenry worldwide.  Our nation is founded on the concept that the government is equally bound by the rule of law and that its citizens have particular rights that the government cannot and will not be permitted to infringe upon.  These core principles were revolutionary, innovative and radical in their time but have proven themselves through the emergence and maintenance of our country as a world leader.

Our success as a nation and the fundamental rights and concepts of government that have made it a success are certainly worthy of celebration.  To quote Founding Father, John Adams: "The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America.  I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival.  It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.  it ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more."

With every form of celebration comes efforts by the government to ensure the safety and well-being of its citizenry.  In recent years this has meant a greater police presence and a significant increase in enforcement efforts.  The Iowa Department of Natural Resources has announced targeted efforts on increasing boating regulation enforcement on Iowa's lakes and rivers during the Fourth of July weekend. At the same time the Governor's Traffic Safety Bureau has announced that it will be conducting "high visibility enforcement" and will be "cracking down on traffic violators."  Finally, many cities have instituted complete bans on fireworks promising "zero tolerance on illegal fireworks."


The greater police presence and enforcement means every citizen's chances of coming into contact with law enforcement is greatly increased as well.  While much of law enforcement's efforts are well-meaning and designed to promote public safety, many of the officers working these programs are doing so on an overtime basis in addition to their normal shifts.  Fatigue and the stress of these additional shifts can take a toll on even the best of officers causing them to be shorter on patience and common sense as the night wears on.  Impatient and intolerant officers are significantly more likely to be over-aggressive with their enforcement efforts which can result in the infringement of individual liberties.

Because of concerns that have arisen in the past with overzealous law enforcement, the attorneys at GRL Law have developed the Iowa Driver's Rights Card and the Oh Crap App, to educate the public on their legal rights and assist citizens of this State in invoking and protecting their rights when confronted with law enforcement.  The Oh Crap App even goes so far as to contact an on-call attorney and record the initial contact with law enforcement when the "help" button is activated to ensure that what transpires during the interaction is truthfully and properly documented.  These tools are free to the public.  Don't leave home without them.

You can log onto GRL Law's website to learn your legal rights; e-mail the law firm at info@grllaw.com for your free copies of the Iowa Driver's Rights Card or get on iTunes or Android Market to download your free copy of the Oh Crap App.


Remember, regardless of the reason you may come into contact with law enforcement, learning and understanding your legal rights is something every American should do.  We celebrate the freedoms and rights that millions of our fellow citizens have fought and died for, you should at least take the time to educate yourself on what your rights truly are.  As Founding Father, Benjamin Franklin said: "This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties.  A nation of well-informed men, who have been taught to know and price the rights which God has given them, cannot be enslaved."





Know your rights; Exercise your rights; Preserve your freedom!

Dismissal to Thwart License Reinstatement

For many years, prosecutors in the State of Iowa have recognized that if a suspected drunk driver was able to successfully challenge the admissibility of their breath test or breath test refusal through a motion to suppress, their driving privileges would be reinstated pursuant to Iowa Code Section 321J.13(6). Therefore, savy prosecutors would recognize cases where the Defendant was likely to succeed on a motion to suppress and would simply dismiss the case "in the furtherance of justice" prior to the court ruling on the motion to suppress. The thought pattern of the prosecutors appeared to be, "well I know I will loose the motion to suppress so I just as well dismiss the case to preclude the Defendant from reinstating their driving privileges." This manuever by the prosecutors did effectively remove the possibility of reinstating driving privileges of Defendants who would have likely prevailed on their motion to suppress.

Today the Iowa Supreme Court disapproved of this procedure and held that "to allow prosecutors to dismiss criminal cases while motions to suppress are pending in order to ensure that section 321J.13(6) is not triggered would be to sanction a manipulation that is not 'in the furtherance of justice' in light of the clear legislative direction." State v. Tageger, (08-0861)filed April 30, 2010. In other words, where the defense has a pending motion to suppress, the prosecutor cannot simply dismiss the case to preclude the Defendant from reigning the benefits of reinstating his license following a successful motion to suppress as provided by Iowa Code Section 321J.13(6). The Court concluded that "once a motion to suppress has been filed, dismissal under [Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure] 2.33(1) will only be 'in the furtherance of justice' when the State articulates grounds for dismissal independant of those raised in the motion to suppress."

This ruling is profound in the sense that prosecutors are no longer able to block reinstatement of driving privileges of those accused of drunk driving when the accused has suffered a violation of one of their constitutional or statutory rights. As it stood before, a police officer could unlawfully stop your vehicle, arrest you for drunk driving which would trigger the loss of your driving privileges, then the State would simply dismiss the criminal charges and you were left without any recourse to reinstate your driving privileges.

For the full opinion click here: State v. Taeger

Tis the Season

Tis the season to be jolly but a word of warning, law enforcement will be out in full force this holiday season. The Iowa Department of Public Safety has issued a press release warning people of the dangers of impaired driving and warning them of increasing law enforcement efforts to prevent and deter drunk driving tragedies. December has been proclaimed Drunk and Drugged Driving Prevention Month. According to the Iowa Department of Public Safety, six people died in traffic collisions over Christmas and New Years of 2008. Interestingly enough though, the Department of Public Safety did not specify how many of those deaths were related to "impaired driving." Chances are a small percentage of those deaths, if any, were related to impaired driving otherwise those statistics would have been emphasized. However, it is important to remember that the chances taken by driving after having a little too much holiday cheer are simply not worth it.

The considerable decrease and/or lack of impaired driving related deaths in 2008 can probably be attributed to the stepped up enforcement, public education and prevention
efforts by the Iowa Department of Public Safety. Credit can also be given to programs like KGGO's Holiday Safe Ride which provides free cab rides from participating establishments for patrons who believe they have had too much to drink during the holiday season. This year marks GRL Law's 5th year of participating in and sponsoring KGGO's Holiday Safe Ride. Bottom line is that prevention efforts from all different angles have a positive impact on decreasing drunk driving deaths. It would be refreshing to see organizations such as MADD and other agencies get involved in similar programs that continue throughout the year instead of merely focusing on the holiday season.

A word of warning though to those who elect not to take advantage of programs such as Safe Ride and chose instead to take the risks associated with driving home; law enforcement routinely steps up enforcement efforts on dates and times in which enforcement efforts are not advertised. They have shown a consistent pattern of cracking down the weekend and week PRIOR to a holiday weekend. Govern yourself accordingly and remember: know your rights; exercise your rights; preserve your freedom.

DUI vs. OWI

What is the difference between DUI and OWI? Primarily the name but there are also little nuances that justify the different acronyms.

DUI stands for "Driving Under the Influence." OWI stands for "Operating While Under the Influence." In the State of Iowa, it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and thus, Iowa uses the acronym OWI. Other states only prohibit driving while under the influence and thus use the acronym DUI. "Operating" under most state laws has a broader definition than "driving" and thus, casts a much wider net. In fact, Iowa defines "Operating" as "being in physical control of a motor vehicle that is in motion or has its engine running." That being the case, one is always "operating" when "driving" but not always "driving" when "operating." Other acronyms such as OMVUI and OUI and DWI which have their own definitions that are much the same but with similar subtle but important distinctions.

Aside from those distinctions, in normal everyday conversations DUI and OWI really mean about the same thing. They are acronyms for drunk driving charges. DUI is the most commonly used because most States prohibit "driving" and not necessarily "operating." As a consequence DUI is the most common acronym used for drunk driving charges.

On an important side note the offense of Operating While Intoxicated in Iowa is Iowa's drunk driving charge. It can be committed in three different ways but the offense is still drunk driving as it is commonly referred to. Whether the person is accused of having an alcohol concentration over .08, being "under the influence of alcohol", having any amount of controlled substances in their system, or a combination of alcohol and controlled substance, the charge is still OWI and the consequences are the same regardless of how it is defined. These charges cary some of the most severe penalties of any misdemeanor offense in this State and must be taken very seriously.

Know your rights; Exercise your rights; Preserve your freedom

June Traffic Enforcement Crackdown

The Iowa State Patrol announced on June 4th, a campaign to step up enforcement of traffic violations during the month of June. http://www.dps.state.ia.us/commis/pib/Releases/2009/06-03-2009_SafeSaturdays.htm. According to the State Patrol's press release "statistics indicate the month of June is one of the deadlier months for traffic fatalities in Iowa." The majority of these fatalities occur on Saturday nights so the special enforcement effort is being dubbed "Safe Saturdays."

The stepped up enforcement will focus on cracking down on speeding, seat belt usage, and drunk driving. Each Saturday during June a different District will activate its entire work force between the hours of 5:30 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. with all uniformed members of the patrol participating in these projects, regardless of rank. Bottom line is that the highways will be crawling with State Troopers looking for the slightest possible traffic infraction to "justify" stopping vehicles to investigate them for OWI/DUI. Aggressive enforcement of traffic laws will likely be an understatement. If you have not already, now is the time to ensure that all of the equipment on your vehicle is in proper working order because the smallest infraction will give law enforcement sufficient reason to pull you over. (Top 10 Ways to Avoid a DUI). Now is also a good time to refresh your understanding of your rights (OWI and Your Rights) and request an Iowa Driver's Rights Card. In the unfortunate event that you are stopped and investigated for Operating While Intoxicated what you do and say from the moment you are stopped can make all the difference.

The Department of Public Safety has released a schedule for the stepped up enforcement but you can be certain that all law enforcement agencies will be increasing patrols and enforcement at all times through out the summer months and especially during the month of June. A word of warning, it is a pattern of Iowa law enforcement agencies and specifically the Department of Public Safety to announce a formal crack down on one weekend but actually step up enforcement on other dates that are not advertised. Govern yourself accordingly. The "published" schedule is as follows:

June 6th:
District 1: Includes Des Moines, Ames, Marshalltown, Boone and Newton
District 6: Spencer, Estherville, Orange city, Sibley, and the Lakes area
District 7: Fort Dodge, Webster City, Algona, Rockwell City, Clarion and Pocahontas
District 12: Davenport, Muscatine, Clinton, Anamosa and Maquoketa

June 13th:
District 3: Council Bluffs, Red Oak, Shenandoah, Atlantic, and Corning
District 8: Mason City, Charles City, Clear Lake, Forest City and Cresco
District 13: Fairfield, Mount Pleasant, Burlington, Washington, Keokuk and Fort Madison

June 20th:
District 2: Osceola, Creston, Chariton, Indianola and Lamoni
District 5: Sioux City, Cherokee, Storm Lake and Ida Grove
District 9: Cedar Falls, Waterloo, Waverly, Iowa Falls and Grundy Center

June 27th:
District 4: Carroll, Denison, Jefferson, Audubon and Harlan
District 10: Dubuque, Oelwein, Decorah and Independence

New Law Gives CDL Holders Hope

Much litigation and debate has centered around how/why the Department of Transportation is able to disqualify a persons' commercial driving privileges following an arrest for operating while intoxicated. As of May 22, 2009, it appears that much of that ligation and debate may be over. Back in 2005, the Iowa legislature amended Iowa Code Section 321.208 to allow for the disqualification of a person's commercial driving privileges following an arrest for operating while intoxicated even if they were driving their personal vehicle. The disqualification would be for one year in the event the person refused to submit to chemical testing or was found or plead guilty to operating while under the influence and it was a first offense. The disqualification would be for life if the person's commercial driving privileges had previously been disqualified.


The unfriendly part about the legislation back in 2005, is that although the statute allowing for disqualification of a commercial driver's license was amended to allow for disqualification of a commercial driver's license even if the person was driving their non-commercial vehicle, Iowa Code Section 321J.8, which is the code section dealing with what warnings a motorist is to be given prior to being asked to submit to chemical testing, was not. Thus, a situation was created whereby motorists holding commercial driver's licenses were not being advised about the disqualification consequences to their CDL licenses and were only being told about the consequences to their non-commercial driving privileges which were for different periods of time. Thankfully, the Iowa Supreme Court addressed this issue in State v. Massengale, 745 N.W.2d 499 (Iowa 2008), and determined that it was a violation of due process for failing to adequately inform motorists holding a commercial driver's license how their CDL license could be disqualified following an arrest for operating while intoxicated.


Nevertheless, holders of commercial drivers licenses were still being treated different and were at a disadvantage. Iowa Code Section 321J.13(6)(c) allowed for a person who had successfully suppressed their breath test results or breath test refusal from being admissible in trial to petition the Department of Transportation to reinstate their non-commercial driving privileges. However, this code section did not apply to commercial driving privileges. See Wiebenga v. IDOT, 530 N.W.2d 732 (Iowa 1995). Thus, motorists who had either their statutory or constitutional rights violated which resulted in the suppression of their chemical test or chemical test refusal had an avenue to get their non-commercial driving privileges reinstated but no such avenue existed for reinstatement of a person's commercial driving privileges for the same statutory or constitutional violations.


This year the Iowa legislature wisely acknowledged the disadvantage that was being bestowed upon holders of commercial drivers licenses, and proposed Senate File 419. That file proposed changes to Iowa Code Section 321.208 to clarify how/when a persons commercial driving privileges can be disqualified following an arrest/conviction for operating while intoxicated but more importantly amended Iowa Code Section 321J.13(6)(c) to provide an avenue for the holders of commercial drivers licenses to petition the Department of Transportation to reinstate those privileges following a successful motion to suppress. Thus, if a motorist is able to get their chemical test result or test refusal suppressed and held inadmissible at trial on the criminal side of their case, they can petition the Department of Transportation to reinstate (or keep from disqualifying) their commercial driving privileges. Senate File 419 was signed by Governor Culver on May 22, 2009, and the portion of that bill amending Iowa Code Section 321J.13(6)(c) became effective immediately and is applied retroactively back to January 1, 2005.


Simply stated, if you or someone you know was arrested for operating while intoxicated dating back to January 1, 2005, and held a commercial drivers license but was able to reinstate their non-commercial driving privileges as a result of a successful motion to suppress on the criminal case, SF419 appears to allow reinstate of the commercial driving privileges or removal of the disqualification of the commercial driving privileges arising out of that event. It would be best for those individuals to contact an attorney who is competent on these issues.

When a drunk driving charge is reduced to a mere traffic ticket

Plan "A" is beat the case. . . . Plan "B" is minimize the damage and obtain the best possible resolution that has the least negative impact on a clients life. That is the plan of attack for the drunk driving defense lawyers at GRL Law.

Whether it is a 1st, 2nd or 3rd offense operating while intoxicated offense, the defendant is facing some of the most severe mandatory minimum penalties for misdemeanors of Class D felony offenses. A person charged with drunk driving in the State of Iowa is looking at mandatory minimum jail time and the highest mandatory minimum fines of any criminal offense in this state. See http://www.grllaw.com/CM/Custom/Criminal-Penalties.asp. That being the case, an aggressive defense from the outset of the case is paramount to obtaining the best possible result. The more holes that can be poked in the State's case the better the ultimate resolution will be for the Defendant. Prosecutors hate to take cases that are not sure victories to trial. The worse the case for the prosecution the more likely there is for a favorable resolution or all out dismissal.

Not every case results in an all out acquittal or dismissal and likewise not all cases end with a guilty plea or guilty verdict to the charged offense. This is because in the majority of cases, plea bargaining takes place. A reduction from Operating While Intoxicated to a traffic offense or simple misdemeanor is a victory regardless of the case. Reckless Driving or Public Intoxication http://www.grllaw.com/CM/Custom/Pulic-Intoxication-Iowa.asp is always better than a conviction for Operating While Intoxicated. Mandatory minimum jail time is avoided and the fines are much lower not to mention the fact that no Operating While Intoxicated conviction is on the person's criminal record for the rest of their life. Reduction of charges are not just given away because someone is a good person, has lots of money, knows the right people or any other reason than a factual or legal issue that weakens the prosecutions case. It is these weaknesses that drive a reduction of charges and nothing else.

While an aggressive drunk driving defense lawyer, such as the lawyers at GRL Law (http://www.grllaw.com/CM/Custom/Attorneys.asp), is an important piece in securing a favorable resolution such as a reduced charge, what the defendant does from the time he/she is pulled over to the time that an attorney gets involved is equally important. Even the best lawyer can't change the facts of a case once they are established. While facts can be developed in certain ways to benefit a client, the core facts will always remain unchanged. That being the case, it is important for people to know and understand their rights and responsibilities before getting in a position where they are faced with a drunk driving charge. For more information regarding avoiding a DUI please refer to our prior blog at http://grllaw.blogspot.com/2008/08/dui-prevention-top-ten-ways-to-avoid.html

Know your rights; Exercise your rights; Preserve your freedom