You Really Oppose Technology That May Make DUI Charges “Extinct”?
Posted by Ben Sessions | | Uncategorized
In my DUI defense practice, I do everything ethically possible to attain the best possible results for my clients. In every case, I generally start with 2 “basic” goals: get the DUI charge dismissed and save my client’s driving privileges. In my day-to-day practice, I continually attempt to help clients who face potentially catastrophic consequences as a result of a DUI charge and conviction. A DUI charge results in tremendous stress and trouble in my clients’ lives. Irregardless of opinions on the level of personal responsibility which should be imposed on drivers who drink alcohol prior to driving, the consequences of a DUI charge are unmistakable to any considerate observer.
Because I know as well as anyone the consequences which accompany a DUI charge, I was taken aback at the response of many within the DUI defense “community” with the publicity that technology which may significantly diminish the frequency of drivers operating motor vehicles under the influence of alcohol.
The technology being developed is known as the Driver Alcohol Detection Systems for Safety. The technology involves the use of sensors to measure blood alcohol content (BAC) of the driver in 2 ways: analyzing a driver’s breath or through the skin. If the system detects the blood alcohol content in a person to be above the legal limit of .08, the vehicle would become inoperable. The effort to develop this technology was spurred by a $10 million grant issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety.
I am a DUI defense attorney in Atlanta, but my foremost concern is with the safety of the community at-large. I openly acknowledge that I advise nearly every client that retains me to undergo an alcohol and drug evaluation from a state-certified substance abuse evaluator. I try to undertake some effort to ensure that my clients receive the assistance needed to avoid an alcohol or drug-related charge in the future. How could anyone in good conscience attempt to obstruct efforts to prevent these problems? Why would we not embrace and encourage efforts that mayreduce the frequency of this completely preventable problem.
This post is provided by:
The Sessions Law Firm3155 Roswell Rd., Ste. 220