Let’s first look at the statutory language.

“The operator of a motor vehicle who has caused or is involved in a crash resulting in injury to any person other than the operator, or in damage to any property other than the vehicle then under his or her control, shall immediately stop and render any assistance reasonably necessary. Subsection 1102(g) of this title (stopping not to impede traffic or jeopardize safety; exceptions) governs the location where a person shall stop. The operator shall give his or her name, residence, license number, and the name of the owner of the motor vehicle to any person who is injured or whose property is damaged and to any enforcement officer. A person who violates this section shall be fined not more than $2,000.00 or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.”

Now let’s apply this language to a scenario:

Bill is driving down a Vermont country road; dirt, dark, cold and snow covered. Bill attempts to stop at an intersection and slides across the road into a telephone pole. Bill is fine, he gets out of the car and takes a quick look around. Assuming there is no damage and clearly no one hurt, Bill drives home.

Telephone repair professional drives by the intersection the next morning, notices the damage to the pole and calls it in to dispatch, who then notify police.

Activate investigation and activate Bill being the target.

Analysis:

By not notifying the power company after the incident of the collision and by not reporting it to police, but instead driving home, it could be alleged that Bill did not “render any assistance reasonably necessary” and therefore could be subject to criminal charges and a license suspension of at least 30 days.

The content in this post should not be considered legal advice and is only for information purposes. If you have a specific legal issue that needs to be addressed, consult with your own private attorney.

However, even under optimal conditions and clear instructions from the officer, the FSTs are not conclusive proof of impairment. Although the FSTs can serve as one piece of a much more complex DUI puzzle, the burden on the state to prove each of the elements of DUI beyond a reasonable doubt require far more then an officer’s observations of the FSTs.

Can Prior Injuries or Diagnosis Explain FST Failure?

In some cases, the lack of balance, which plays a significant role in all 3 of the FSTs, can be explained due to medical conditions that impact a defendant’s ability to maintain a balanced position, especially under the stressful circumstance of a DUI investigation.

Have you suffered a lower body injury? Have you suffered a concussion or other brain injury. Do you have high sensitivity to light or occasions of Vertigo? If so, it is important to gather records of these injuries through your medical providers in order to provide some context as to the failure of the FSTs.

Did a Car Accident Occur Prior to FSTs?

In some cases, a defendant is requested to perform FSTs shortly after they were involved in a motor vehicle accident. Although there is no hard and fast rules prohibiting FSTs from being taken after an accident has occurred, the injuries sustained as a result of the crash can cast into doubt the validity of the tests.

Even in situations where the defendant is not transported to the hospital, it is still important to be evaluated by a medical professional in order to determine the extent of the bodily damage that was sustained. If a defendant declines all treatment, this important evidence as to their condition at the time of performing FSTs is lost, making it harder to explain to a judge or jury the impact this accident had on balance and the comprehension of officer instructions.

Age and Weight Can Raise Doubt as to FST Performance

Although not considered definitive, the National Highway Safety Association has found that individuals over the age of 65 and those who are 50 or more pounds overweight may have a more difficult time performing the FSTs even if not under the influence. Officers are encourage to take these factors into consideration when determining probable cause for a DUI arrest.

Even if the defendant is still arrested, using the NHTSA recommendations can cast doubt as to the validity of the FSTs, especially in cases where additional medical conditions are also a concern.

Gather Your Medical Records Early in a DUI Prosecution to Determine Whether a Defense Exists to the FSTs

It is not illegal to be off balance. Explaining the underlying cause of imbalance through medical testimony can be an impactful way to argue to a jury that the results of the FSTs in a Vermont DUI prosecution should be significantly discounted, or, in some cases, all together ignored. By putting together a medical chronology that supports a medical defense to a DUI, a defendant may be able to show that alcohol or drugs were not the underlying factor of their roadside behavior.

The information contained in this post is for informational purposes only. Any reader who has specific questions about the DUI or any other legal process should consult with their own private attorney.

The Vermont DMV has strict timelines on the filing of a uniform accident report by a motorist who is involved in a car accident where damage has been sustained. However, if there is an ongoing investigation into an accident, or if a motorist has been cited for a criminal offense, such as DUI or Negligent Operation, there are several complicated considerations that should be evaluated before submitting this report.

23 VSA  § 1129 states:

“The operator of a motor vehicle involved in a crash in which someone is injured or there is total property damage of $3,000.00 or more shall make a written report concerning the crash to the Commissioner on forms furnished by the Commissioner. The written report shall be mailed to the Commissioner within 72 hours after the crash. The Commissioner may require further facts concerning the crash be provided upon forms he or she furnishes (emphasis added).”

The Details of the Report

Much of the information requested in this report is not prejudicial to the defense of any claim that is brought against the motorist. Information such as the make and model of the car, policy number for insurance and your name and date of birth should be freely provided in a timely fashion. However, on page two of the Uniform Crash Report, there is a section that requests that you, in your own words, provide a narrative of what happened.

Filing a False Report

First off, it should be made clear that filing any type of false information in this report can be considered a crime under 13 V.S.A. § 1754.

Providing an Accurate Narrative

Further, if you provide an accurate detailed description of the events that led up to the accident, this information, which you are required to swear to the truth of, could be used against you in a criminal prosecution.

Does the 5th Amendment Apply?

All defendants in criminal actions have a right to not incriminate themselves under the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution. Since the DMV is requesting just that in their Uniform Accident Report, declining to answer may be a viable option after you have consulted with your attorney.

What Are the Consequences of Not Filing Any Report?

The Vermont DMV can move to suspend your license should you fail to fill out any accident report. As stated above, the basic identifying information should not provide too much risk of self incrimination. However, consulting with the appropriate legal professionals before submitting this report may be the best course of action before you ultimately determine how detailed you want to be in responding to the DMV’s request for information.

The information contained in this post is for general information only. Should you need specific legal advice concerning any matter, consult with your personal attorney.

It has been well settled in Vermont that the following provisions must be followed in order for a DUI roadblock to be considered constitutional under the 4th Amendment.

As a general rule, a DUI roadblock will pass constitutional muster if: (1) the initial stop and the contact between the officers in the field and the motorist involves an explanation of the nature of the roadblock and minimal detention of a nonimpaired driver; (2) the discretion of the officers in the field, as to the method to be utilized in selecting vehicles to be stopped, is carefully circumscribed by clear objective guidelines established by a high level administrative official; (3) the guidelines are followed in the operation of the roadblock; (4) approaching drivers are given adequate warning that there is a roadblock ahead; (5) the likelihood of apprehension, fear or surprise is dispelled by a visible display of legitimate police authority at the roadblock; and (6) vehicles are stopped on a systematic, nonrandom basis that shows drivers they are not being singled out for arbitrary reasons.  State v. Martin 496 A.2d (VT 1985)

Roadblocks have been attacked on constitutional grounds for a wide range of reasons, such as Officers detaining a motorist for longer than is necessary or for them singling out certain vehicles based on their make and model or the appearance of the driver.

If your planning on driving during the evening hours this month, be sure to check local newspapers for press releases on DUI checkpoints that are planning on being conducted.  However, as a basic rule, the assumption should be, that if your driving at night this month, expect that there will be a Vermont DUI checkpoint somewhere along your travels.

The South Burlington Police Department recently announced that they would begin disclosing the results of breath tests for those arrested for DUI. According to a report by WPTZ.com, police departments had been withholding this information due to concerns that the accused would not get a fair trial if potential jurors were able to read about the defendant’s breath test results prior to their admissibility being determined by a Vermont district court.

In a change of course, departments are now saying that transparency in these arrests is more important then keeping the results confidential.  This push was given substantial weight when governor Peter Shumlin stated that he was in favor of full disclosure.

The Vermont State Police and Vermont Department of Motor Vehicles will also be disclosing breath test results.  Although transparency in government is important, the constitutional right of an individual accused of drunk driving in Vermont trumps the press and the public’s need to know.  Numerous issues have arisen in recent years as to the breath test’s reliability.  As a result, this practice may potentially have an adverse effect on those who were under the legal limit at the time of operation, certainly not helpful in ensuring that every person is given their day in court to present a defense.

According the the Brattleboro Reformer, the incident in question arose late one evening when a Sheriff’s Deputy attempted to stop a motorist in the town of Vernon, Vermont.  The Sheriff alleged that the vehicle did not stop right away and instead pulled into a residence.  The motorist is alleged to have gotten out of her vehicle and began to walk towards the house.  The deputy then pulled his firearm and ordered the woman to stop.

After being taken into custody the station commander stated in his report that he received numerous phone calls from the chairwoman, using foul language to describe the deputy’s actions.

It is at this point, where the chairwoman may have gone too far, using her position of authority in an attempt to try and influence an investigation.

Obstruction of Justice is defined in the Vermont Statutes as:

“Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, intimidates or impedes any witness, grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court or agency, in a contested case, of the state of Vermont, or causes bodily injury to such person or intentionally damages the property of such person on account of such person’s attendance at, deliberation at, or performance of his or her official duties in connection with a matter already heard, presently being heard or to be heard before any court or agency, in a contested case, of the state of Vermont, or corruptly or by threats or force or by any threatening letter or communication, obstructs or impedes, or endeavors to obstruct or impede the due administration of justice”  13 VSA 3015.

The key to this investigation will be whether the contact made by the chairwoman was meant to “intimidate”the officer in the administration of his duties.  Although it is not clear as to when a final report will be issued, the Vermont DUI, which stemmed this whole incident seems completely lost in what actions followed it, raising many questions as to the role town government officials should play in incidents that fall outside their scope of authority.

Vermont law enforcement officers have been trained in all sorts of techniques to gain consent from motorists.  In many cases, officers will use the, “give consent or I will have your vehicle towed” tactic, which can scare a motorist into thinking they truly have no other choice but to allow a search.

However, a recent report by CNET showed that an Iowa officer may have tried to go a little too far off the cuff  when he tried to gather consent from a motorist to search his vehicle for marijuana because the driver played frisbee golf.

The entire interaction was recorded, where the officer attempted several times to get the driver to consent to a search because in his opinion, all frisbee golfers apparently smoke weed.

The motorist was not buying into the officer’s assumptions however and, after several attempts to gain access to the vehicle, the officer let the motorist go with a warning for failing to turn on his headlights.

This tactic has raised some serious concerns as to just what strategies officers are using to gain access to people’s vehicles.  If frisbee golf is such a tactic, I don’t want to know what a Grateful Dead CD will bring.

Two days after the implementation of the new hand held device ban on drivers, Vermont police arrested an individual on drug possession charge after a police officer alleged to have seen the man talking on his cellphone.

The Burlington Free Press reports that this arrest was the first in Vermont that was triggered by the new law.  The man not only faces a fine for his cell phone traffic ticket, but is also facing felony marijuana charges after police claim to have located over two ounces of the drug in his vehicle.

The officer was reportedly tipped off of the drug’s presence after he approached the vehicle and have smelled marijuana in the vehicle.  When the operator refused to consent to a search, the police towed the vehicle and searched it after a warrant was approved by a local judge.

This law will likely be an expansive battle field for prosecutors and defense attorneys in the coming years.  Allowing an officer to pull someone over merely because they claim to see someone using their phone, will likely cause numerous challenges to the circumstances of the officer’s visual contact with the motorist.  Although the facts will vary widely in each case, after enough cases have been ruled on, a precedent for the validity of this law will maneuver its way through the Vermont judicial system.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/31/rod-maciver-bogus-ticket-dash-cam-video_n_3683370.html