Well, I don't know much about the Trixter or the Trichster, but my two-letter name reminds me of the fellow who told his friend that he was going to the "Y" and swim -- his buddy said "Well, I'm going to the A&P"

You older folks, like the king of posts will get that, I hope.

Hawk says Trischter is more of an expert on the Intoxilyzer than the DPS supervisors. But in his Bar magazine advice, Trichter said the subject will be required to use a "community" breath tube.

Every rookie cop and every greenhorn prosecutor knows that is not true. Every breathtest subject is given his own, sterile tube to blow into. How could a expert like Trichter not know that---hmmmmmmmmm?

I like Gary Trichter too. But if I have a question about the Intoxilyzer, the DPS breathtest supervisors are a much better source of info.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
I'm sure Gary knows that. As a prosecutor you are much better off talking to someone who is on your side, which Gary is not. Our frienship and the fact we are in jurisdictions pretty far apart puts me in a position if I had any questions Gary wouldn't BS me. Trichter has taught more DWI classes at DWI seminars to Judges, Defense Attorneys, and Prosecutors then anyone I know over the past 20 years. Unless he's a victim of old age, he knows the difference. If you don't think Gary is an expert on the intoxilyzer, just watch him cross-examine a DPS intoxilyzer supervisor.
Hawk

STATES SEEK TOUGHER DRUNK DRIVER PENALTIES

States are trying to toughen penalties for suspected drunken drivers who refuse to take a breath test, arguing motorists too often get a milder penalty than if they had provided evidence that could convict them.

Bills to lengthen license suspensions or make it a criminal offense to refuse a test are pending in five states, including Ohio, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, where the percentages of people refusing are among the highest in the nation.

Nationwide, an average of 25 percent of people pulled over on suspicion of drunken driving refuse to take a breath test, which is designed to estimate the amount of alcohol in the blood, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. [Texas beats that by double digits.]

In every state but Nevada, the punishment is a suspended driver's license. Still, people who refuse believing they would fail a test might avoid a drunken driving conviction and jail time.

Defense attorneys and motorist groups oppose stricter penalties, and some lawmakers don't see the need.

For the full article, go to this link.

In 2004, the Bar Journal published an answer from both sides on the issue. To read it, go to this link and scroll down to the answers.

In 2007, the question addressed the collection of blood samples. For the answer, go to this link and advance to page 951.

A Brooklyn, N.Y., company is marketing a breath mint that may be so curiously strong it is raising eyebrows of concerned consumers.

It�s called "AntiPoleez," and is advertised as a way to eliminate bad breath caused by alcohol, tobacco and food, My FOX New York reports.

Critics say the name and marketing angle could promote alcohol abuse, leading people to believe they can pass a police breath test, or encourage underage kids to drink alcohol and attempt to cover it up.
The Rest of the story can be viewed here>>>>


Anti-Poleez

Great. That's all we need........

Another reason for a mandatory blood draw.

People might chew thinking they will blow low because of the magic gum, and then submit to the breath test. (Doesn't say it affects what's in the lungs, so the tests should still work).

Then we'll have the debate about whether the wrapper is admissible....reminds me of the booking photo of the lady that said something about drinking and our discussion of its admissibility.

Why wouldn't it be admissible as a criminal instrument? And why isn't the marketing of this product illegal under 16.01(a)(2)? Maybe I don't completely understand this, but it sure seems to fit.

Senate item would ban lawyers' DUI advertising
BY ERIK SCHELZIG � ASSOCIATED PRESS
APRIL 23, 2008

Defense attorneys would be banned from advertising their expertise with drunken driving cases under a bill advancing in the Senate.

Sen. Rosalind Kurita, a Clarksville Democrat, successfully added the provision to a bill on Tuesday that would create an online registry of repeat DUI offenders in Tennessee. The measure is now headed for a full Senate vote.


Details.

That bill "ain't goin' nowhere" and if it does, it will probably be ruled an unconstitutional violation of free speech.

A more effective approach would be a multitude of attacks on DWI: refusal statutes, blood evidence, following Schmerber, ignition interlocks, continued use of the felony murder statute (congrats to the latest successful prosecution in Wharton County on their 90 year sentence), etc.

One multi-pronged attack is cooperation between prosecutors, officers, and advocates. For a interesting approach, go to this website (which is still being worked on): www.trafficcrime.net.

Oh, I see, You want to get back to enforcing the law. My bad. Banning ads about DWI is oh so much more sexy from a politician's point of view.

Deadly reality of driving drunk

Web Posted: 04/26/2008 11:45 PM CDT

John Tedesco

Everyone knows the stories about drunken drivers.
That most of them walk away unscathed from horrendous accidents.

That most are repeat offenders who never learn their lesson.

That most don't know their victims.

But the reality is different.

While many people realize drinking and driving is a persistent killer, misconceptions about the crime flourish, despite two decades of heightened public awareness.


Details.

State Representative Mike Krusee, R- Williamson County, was swerving between lanes in his black BMW on the frontage road of U.S. 183 Wednesday night, according to officials and an arrest affidavit.

A Texas Department of Public Safety trooper arrested and charged Krusee in for driving while intoxicated. Krusee was booked into the Williamson County Jail at 11:15 p.m. Wednesday and was released at 8:55 a.m. today, officials said. His bail was set at $1,000.

He refused a Breathalyzer and blood test, according to the affidavit.

See the story:

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/blotter/entries/2008/05/01/krusee_charged_with_drunken_dr.html

Continues a long streak: people who work in the Capitol continue to report a 100% refusal rate. Any wonder we continue to have trouble improving the breath testing rates in Texas through legislative action?

Mandatory blood draws would be a significant improvement. Many counties are adopting blood draw procedures. My goal is to eventually have 100% blood draws on DWI cases (Felony AND Misdemeanor) in Andrews County.

I know we have tried several times to adopt a refusal statute, but it has been defeated time and time again. We just need to keep working on it until we get something passed.

I thought Williamson County was doing search warrants for blood draws on DWI's? Or is that just on felony / subsequent DWI stops? I assume the defendant was NOT naked....

Wow just barely in Williamson county... too bad for him.

No offense, Travis guys.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlexLayman:
Wow just barely in Williamson county... too bad for him.

No offense, Travis guys.

---

Actually, DWIs may be the exception to that unstated rule to which you seem to be referring. Travis Co. is tougher on DWIs than many, perhaps most, other counties.

Vive le difference!