What is a Class A Felony in Missouri?

The Class A Felony is the highest level of classification of crime in the State of Missouri. This is the highest of the high, the most serious level of crime.

This includes cases like Murder in the First Degree, Murder in the Second Degree, Robbery in the First Degree and some drug crimes like Trafficking in the First Degree.

From a lawyer’s point of view these big cases are what the big time lawyers live for. Can they be technical? Yes, but rarely so. It is a common saying that from a legal point of view a DWI can be more difficult to try in a technical point of view than a homicide. There is a lot more science and need for precision in analyzing Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, Breathalyzers and the expert witnesses the officers are holding themselves out to be. Robberies cases do not tend to be scientific in nature. They tend to be more fact base. That makes it less likely to find a technicality to get you or your loved one out of hot water. You need good lawyering more in these high end cases than a routine DWI.

Why do the big time lawyers want these big cases? These cases can be true life changers. These cases are the ones that decide if you are going to be there for your family for the next 10, 20 or 30 years; if you are going to be able to see your five-year-old graduate from high school, or get married, or have kids of their own. These are big time stakes. Big time players want the ball.

You need to be looking for the right kind of attorney to deal with these high end cases. Some of the things you should be looking for in an attorney if you or a family member has been charged with this sort of crime.

Having the compassion to deal with the client and their family. Taking time to explain the situation to them. To talk about the facts. Do they take phone calls and return phone calls?

  • Having the knowledge to deal with the legal issue. To be able to spot where the prosecutor went too far or the detective asked one too many questions. Are they straight out of law school? Are they looking at 1970 law? You need someone up to date but still having the experience.
  • Having the experience to know how the Judge is likely to rule. To be able to predict what is going to happen.
  • Do they try cases? Winning is good, but trying cases is the important part. I once worked for an attorney that said there are two types of attorneys: Cryers and Tryers. If you have a Tryer on your side, you will always beat the Cryer. Being able to stand up and hold the line is an important part of our legal system. Make sure you hire someone that is not afraid to hold that line for you.

Why do you need this kind of lawyer? Because the Revised Statutes of the State of Missouri (RSMo) states that a Class A Felony shall have the punishment as follows:

558.011. 1. The authorized terms of imprisonment, including both prison and conditional release terms, are:

 For a class A felony, a term of years not less than ten years and not to exceed thirty years, or life imprisonment;

Additionally, if you are charged with Murder in the First Degree, the death penalty is also on the table. The stakes do not get higher than this.

Class A felonies will determine the way you live your life for a very long time to come. Do not leave it up to chance.

Source

Missouri in the Middle When it Comes to DUI Strictness

blue united states map with borders around each state

 

Many consequences could come out of being accused of drunk driving. Multiple factors impact what specific things a person who has had DUI charges brought against them could face if a conviction is ultimately reached in their case. This is because each state has its own particular laws regarding drunk driving, including what actions can be taken against those charged with DUI and those convicted of DUI.

Among the ways states vary when it comes to DUI law is in the strictness of the laws they have. A recent set of state rankings put Missouri solidly in the middle when it comes to overall DUI strictness. In these rankings, done by WalletHub, Missouri was in a three-way tie for the No. 25 spot. The states that Missouri tied with were New Hampshire and South Carolina.

While the rankings found Missouri to be middle-of-the-road overall when it comes to how strict its DUI laws are, there was one general class of DUI-related things that the report rated Missouri to be very strict on. This was DUI prevention.

DUI prevention was one of the two main categories of metrics that were used for determining the overall rankings. The other was criminal penalties. Metrics which fell into the prevention category included a state’s laws and practices on things like: alcohol abuse assessment/treatment, ignition interlock devices, enforcement tactics and license suspension.

When it came to the prevention category, Missouri ranked 7th in the nation in strictness. In comparison, it ranked 39th in the criminal penalties category.

As a note, what sort of DUI prevention measures they could be subject to after being charged with or convicted of a drunk driving crime can have very big impacts on a person, just as the potential criminal fines and jail sentences they could face can.

Experienced Missouri DUI lawyers can assist individuals accused of drunk driving in the state with taking the unique aspects of Missouri DUI law (including its laws related to drunk driving prevention) into account in their defense efforts.

Source

What to do If You Are Pulled Over for Suspected DWI in Missouri

What you do and don’t do after a DWI stop can affect the outcome of your case. Your actions or those of the police may enable your DWI defense attorney to obtain a dismissal of the charge or another positive outcome.

After You Are Stopped By The Police

If you have been drinking and are pulled over, keep the following in mind during your interaction with the police officer:

  • Be respectful and cooperative — Hostility or rudeness will only invite increased scrutiny by the officer. Be polite and responsive to the officer’s questions.
  • Remember that you are probably on camera — Many DWI stops in Missouri are recorded by squad car videos. This video can provide evidence that supports the officer’s decision to arrest you. Be mindful of this fact and behave appropriately.
  • You have the right to remain silent — Provide the officer with your driver’s license and insurance card. But don’t answer any questions regarding your consumption of alcohol or admit that you have been at a bar. At this point, the officer is looking for information that will allow him or her to continue the investigation to find evidence against you. The less information you provide, the more difficult the officer’s task is.
  • Field sobriety tests — In asking you to perform these tests, the officer is looking for evidence that you are impaired. Respectfully decline to perform field sobriety tests. If he or she presses you to perform these tests, restate your refusal in polite language.
  • Do not submit to a portable breath test — The results from this hand-held device can provide probable cause for the police to arrest you. Refusing to take a portable breath test does not violate Missouri’s implied consent law.
  • Get legal help as soon as possible — If you refuse to perform field sobriety tests or take a portable breath test, you may be transported to a police station and asked to take an official breath test. At that point, should you take the breath test? That is a complicated issue that depends on the specific circumstances of your case. You should obtain advice from an experienced DWI defense attorney.
Source

Keeping New Year’s Eve DWI Free

a man holding a class of alcohol with car keys in hand. there is a clock turning midnight in the background

New Year’s Eve is the second most likely night for people to receive a DWI charge. Only Thanksgiving sees more DWIs than New Year’s, and the accident rates soar during this time of year, according to official sources. However, it is important to remember that DWIs can happen at any time, and the same rules for keeping New Year’s Eve safe and DWI free apply throughout the year as well.

A DWI conviction can have many life changing consequences including:

  • Having an arrest record
  • Incurring expensive fines
  • Serving jail time
  • Being placed on probation
  • Being required to install an ignition interlock device
  • Being forced to attend mandatory counseling or education classes

A DWI conviction has a serious impact on your life. It is much easier for you to avoid a DWI altogether than to deal with the consequences of such a charge.

What Can I Do To Avoid a DUI Charge?

There are no magic formulas to help you avoid a DWI. Common sense is the best weapon you have in the fight against a DWI charge, but sometimes a bit of knowledge about how the system works can also be beneficial. Here are some tips for avoiding DWI charges:

  • Designated drivers do not get DWIs. It is a simple fact that a designated driver who consumes no alcohol is the best defense against a DWI charge. It is also the best way for you and your friends to stay safe when you are out enjoying the evening. You could also arrange for a cab or other transportation.
  • The less said, the better. It is important not to talk too much to police officers when you are pulled over for any infraction. Police officers are trained to talk to you and get you to say things that can then be used as they build a case against you. While police officers are just doing their jobs, they are not your friends when you are pulled over and you should try to avoid talking to them too much, no matter how polite or nice they seem to be.
  • Call an attorney. If you are charged with DWI, an experienced DWI attorney is your best bet for reduction or dismissal of the charges.

Contact me,  Adam Woody, at The Law Office of Adam Woody if you are arrested or booked on DWI charges. I’m here to fight for you.

Source

Weapons Offenses – Guns in Schools

Just last week a student at Central High School in Springfield, Missouri was arrested for possessing a firearm on school grounds after a gun was accidentally discharged from his backpack as he was passing it to another student.  Springfield criminal defense attorney Adam Woody was interviewed on the local CBS affiliate, KOLR10, regarding the potential legal consequences of possessing a gun on school grounds.

Even though the student is a teenager, he is apparently 17 years old.  In Missouri, 17 is the technical age of adulthood to be tried in adult court.  What this young man is facing is the class D felony of Unlawful Use of a Weapon.   Although the statute is long a convoluted, one of the ways in which a person commits this crime is if he or she carries a gun or other weapon readily capable of lethal use into a school, onto a school bus, or onto the premises of any function or activity sponsored by school officials.  If the weapon is an unloaded gun, the offense is a class A misdemeanor which carries maximum penalties of up to a $1,000 fine or up to one year on the county jail.  If the weapon is a loaded gun, however, the offense is a class D felony, which carries up to a $5,000 fine and/or up to four years in the state Department of Corrections.

With the seemingly recent rise in school violence, local authorities are sure to take this action quite seriously.  The local media will no doubt continue to keep the public well advised as to what happens to the young defendant in this case.  Stay tuned for further information and interviews from Adam Woody.

As always, if you have any questions regarding criminal law, do not hesitate to contact Adam Woody by phone or e-mail, adam@adamwoody.com.

Excessive Force By Police

In light of the recent events in Ferguson, Missouri where an unarmed 18 year old man was gunned down by police, it is important that we stop and remember that there are ways to combat excessive force by police. When race is involved, it is obviously a polarizing issue. Media and news outlets from across the nation have weighed in on the Ferguson Police shooting. I was recently interviewed by our local ABC affiliate to discuss the potential ramifications of police brutality or excessive force.

Realistically, any time there is an officer involved shooting there is a potential of three different things happening: An internal investigation by the police department, a criminal investigation by the police department or an outside agency, and a civil lawsuit against the officer and/or the department.
Internal Investigation – This is an investigation done by the police department that employs the officer involved in the shooting. Typically the officer is placed on paid administrative leave while the investigation is conducted. The point of this investigation is to determine what disciplinary action, if any, the officer should face for the shooting. The most severe thing that can happen here is that the officer can lose his or her job. However, the department could also determine that the officer’s actions were justified, leading to no discipline whatsoever.
Criminal Investigation – There is the possibility that either the department that employs the officer involved in the shooting or an outside agency could conduct a criminal investigation to determine if criminal charges should be sent to the prosecuting attorney against the officer involved in the shooting. In my opinion, it is a terrible idea, not to mention a deep conflict of interest, for the police agency that employs the officer to conduct the criminal investigation. It is much safer and reduces the appearance of impropriety if an outside agency conducts any criminal investigation. Much like in the Ferguson shooting case, rather than the Ferguson Police Department investigating the case, the FBI has stepped in to investigate. Once the investigation is complete, the case file will likely be turned over the the prosecuting attorney to determine if there is any criminal liability on the part of the officer. If it is decided that there are grounds for charges, which would include a criminal mental state by the officer, it is up to the prosecutor on what charges to file. Those can range from misdemeanor assault all the way up to various degrees of murder. Oftentimes, however, the shooting will be determined justified and no criminal charges are filed. If criminal charges are filed, the burden is on the prosecutor to be able to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.
Civil Rights Lawsuit – The last possible outcome of a police involved shooting is for the victim or victim’s family to file a civil rights lawsuit alleging that the police officer violated the victim’s civil rights. There is a provision of the United States Code, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, which allows for such a lawsuit. The lawsuit will usually name the officer involved in the shooting, as well as the police department that employs he or she. Any time a police officer touches a civilian, even if it is with an object, or even a bullet in the most severe instances, legally speaking a seizure has occurred. As the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, all citizens are presumed free from unlawful searches and seizures. Therefore, when it is alleged that the Fourth Amendment has been violated, a 1983 action can be filed. It is then up to the officer or the department to justify the actions of the officer and to demonstrate that the actions were lawful. As has been reported, the family in the Ferguson, Missouri case has hired the same attorney from Florida who Trayvon Martin’s family has hired. It is anticipated that a civil case against Ferguson PD and the officer is imminent. Once a civil 1983 action has been filed, it is up to the victim or his family to prove the allegation by a preponderance of the evidence to the jury, which basically means that the force used by the officer was more likely than not excessive under the circumstances.

Although these types of cases are polarizing and can sometimes grip a nation, it is best to let the various legal processes play out. It is not time to jump to conclusions either way, rather, it is time to let the investigators investigate and to simply observe as the legal chess match subsequently ensues. It is no doubt going to be a long process, and surely emotions that lead to criminal behavior such as rioting, burglary, and damaging people’s property cannot run this high for long.

DWI Field Sobriety Testing: Post 2 of 3 Post Series – Walk and Turn Test

Back on July 7 I began a 3 post blog series regarding Standard Field Sobriety Testing in DWI cases. In Post 1 I discussed in detail the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test, better known as “the eye test”. Today, I hope to provide details and information regarding the field sobriety test that should be administered by law enforcement directly following the HGN, the Walk and Turn Test, also known as the Heel to Toe Test. As indicated in Post 1, other than blood alcohol content evidence, the Field Sobriety Tests are what prosecutors, judges, and juries rely on in determining the guilt or innocence of those accused of driving while intoxicated. The Walk and Turn Test (WAT) is the first opportunity the investigating officer has during the field sobriety tests to observe whether there is actual physical impairment of a person’s balance and walking. Of course, during the initial contact phase of the investigation the officer is already looking for possible signs of impairment, but the WAT is the first sobriety test designed to detect physical impairment.

On the WAT there are a possibility of eight indicators of impairment. Many people claim that they cannot complete this test whether sober or intoxicated. However, evidence shows that exhibiting two out of eight clues indicates a 79% probability of that subject having a BAC over the presumed legal limit of .08%. Like the HGN, however, the test is only as accurate as the person (i.e. law enforcement officer) administering the test and only as accurate as the instructions that are given. This is why it is critically important to have an attorney in these cases who understands and knows the field sobriety testing protocol so that they can determine whether the officers administered the test appropriately and, if not, can adequately cross-examine the officer and bring those inaccuracies to the Court or jury’s attention.

The WAT test is a divided attention test. What this means is that it combines a physical and a mental task at the same time. Like all divided attention tests there are two stages: on the WAT there is an instructions stage and a balance and counting stage. Both stages are important as they can both affect a subject’s overall performance, but the instruction phase is given by the officer administering the test. It is critically important that the instructions are given properly, otherwise, the results cannot and should not be relied upon by the judge or the jury. Also in order to be relied upon with any sense of accuracy, the test must be conducted on a surface that is dry, hard, level, and non-slippery. Other factors that may play a role in the accuracy of this test is if the subject is 65 years of age or older, or is greater than 50 pounds overweight. Although these factors may affect people differently, they are something to consider and should be brought to the Court or jury’s attention if present.

To have any accuracy whatsoever, the instruction phase outlined in the officers training manual must be completely adhered to. There are sixteen distinct points of instruction that must be given prior to the subject performing the WAT test. If any instructions are left out, the results of the test are greatly compromised. The officer’s are taught to give the instructions from a safe distance from the subject. Then, the following instructions must be given:
1) Tell the suspect to place their left foot on a line (which can be an imaginary line, although an existing line such as a parking lot line is preferred) with the right foot in front, heel touching toe, keeping the arms at their sides. Demonstrate as they do it.
2) Tell the suspect not to begin the test until instructed to do so. Ask suspect if he or she understands.
3) Tell the suspect that he or she will be expected to take nine heel-to-toe steps down the line, make a turn in a prescribed manner, and return nine heel-to-toe steps back to the starting position. Tell the suspect that you will demonstrate.
4) Explain and demonstrate using three heel-to-toe steps.
5) Explain and demonstrate the turn procedure.
6) Explain and demonstrate three heel-to-toe steps for return.
7) Ask the suspect if he or she understands.
8) Tell the suspect to watch his or her feet at all times.
9) Tell suspect that he or she is to count each step out loud (so that you can hear him or her).
10) Tell suspect that he or she is to keep his or her arms at their sides at all times during the test.
11) Tell the suspect that he or she is not to stop the test once it has begun.
12) Instruct the suspect that if he or she steps off the line, to place their foot back on the line and continue walking in the heel-to-to fashion until the test is complete.
13) Ask the suspect if he or she understands the instructions for the test.
14) Ask the suspect if he or she feels they cannot perform the test as explained.
15) Tell the suspect that the first step from where he or she is currently standing is step one.
16) As the suspect if he or she has any physical disabilities that would not enable them to complete the test.
17) Tell the suspect to begin the test.

Once again, if any of these instructions are left out of the first phase by the officer, that particular instruction cannot be used as a clue, and the validity of the entire test can be called into question. During the test, the eight possible indicators of impairment that may be present are each included in the instructions. Although there are a total of 18 steps and a turn on the test, if an indicator of impairment occurs only one time it is considered a clue. That is what makes the walk and turn test such a difficult test for many people. There are numerous ways to exhibit an indicator of impairment and it seems even non-impaired people could show one or more of the indicators.

With the officer’s report that is presented to the prosecuting attorney after a DWI arrest is made is a separate report called the “alcohol influence report”. On the AIR there is a diagram of the WAT test, as well as nine separate boxes that can be check for each indicator. During the WAT, the investigating officer is looking for the following:
1) Fails to maintain heel-to-toe stance (this is during the instructions when the person has to keep right foot in front of their left foot while the instructions are given).
2) Starts before instructed to begin.
3) Stops while walking to steady self.
4) Does not touch heel-to-toe (misses by more than 1/2 inch).
5) Loses balance while walking (steps off line).
6) Uses arms for balance (raises arms more than 6 inches from side).
7) Loses balance while turning or made an improper turn.
8) Incorrect number of steps.
9) Cannot perform or refused to do the test.

If two or more of the above indicators are present the subject is considered to have failed the test and officers will testify on the witness stand that the failure of that test indicates a possibility that the subject was impaired. The prosecutor will then try to couple that failure with other indicators to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt to the judge or jury. As with the HGN test, if the WAT is not recorded on an audio/video camera, it will be difficult to uncover whether an officer administered the test correctly by giving the correct instructions. However, it may be difficult for an officer to regurgitate every single instruction while on the witness stand as well. That is again why it takes a criminal defense attorney who is knowledgeable in field sobriety testing to effectively cross-examine highly trained and experienced police officers.

Within the next few weeks I plan to do the final post in the series, which will cover the One-Leg Stand. I certainly hope that my posts have been insightful and informative up to this point. My goal is not to try to thwart DWI investigations or to encourage drinking and driving at all. I am simply hoping to make you more aware of these tests should you find yourself being put through roadside testing. Perhaps then, the public will be on a level playing field with police if being investigated. Feel free to contact my office if any questions arise or if anything is unclear.

Castle Doctrine – Adam Woody on Self-Defense in Missouri

Adam Woody was featured on the Springfield, Mo. CBS affiliate KOLR10 to discuss the “castle doctrine”.

The “castle doctrine” is essentially the legal right that everyone has in Missouri to defend themselves or another person when someone comes into their home unlawfully.  The use of force in that situation can be deadly force if the person using force reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent imminent harm.  The “castle doctrine” does not just extend to a person’s home.  It can include a vehicle, a hotel room, and essentially anywhere else that person has a lawful right to be.  Historically Missouri was a “retreat state”, which means that even if someone was in their own home at the time of unlawful entry by another person, the home owner was required to do everything he or she could to remove him or herself from the situation before using force.  That changed in 2010, and the “castle doctrine” was passed into law.  Now, deadly force can be used any time someone unlawfully enters a home or vehicle.  RSMo. Section 563.031 is where the “castle doctrine” can be found in the Missouri Statutes.

Unfortunately, this is a hot topic in and around the Springfield area where home invasions are becoming more common.  There have been several home invasion shootings over the past several weeks, and when you read a headline such as this, the homeowner is going to be justified under the “castle doctrine” just about every time.  This is basically a form of self-defense, however, the aggressor does not have to be using force that is reasonable under the circumstances.  Deadly force by a home owner can be justified just about any time a person is entering a home unlawfully no matter what that person’s intentions.  Perhaps the “castle doctrine” will lead to fewer home invasions, or perhaps it will simply lead to more shootings and deaths.  Only time will tell.

DWI Field Sobriety Testing: Post 1 of 3 Post Series – HGN (Eye) Test

Aside from blood alcohol tests, the most important evidence of impairment that police, prosecutors, judges, and juries rely on in driving while intoxicated cases are the results of the field sobriety tests. Most of these tests are difficult for most anyone to pass, whether sober or impaired. The key to successful defense against possible false accusations by police or prosecutors is to know and understand the tests before you decide to comply with the officer’s request and take them. Over the next few weeks, I am going to go into each of the three standard field sobriety tests in detail in an effort to provide the information and knowledge necessary so that people can be better prepared if encountered with a roadside test.

Of the three standardized field sobriety tests (SFST’s) that are routinely conducted in DWI cases, the one that is the least understood by the general public, judges, and prosecutors alike is the dreaded eye test, technically known as the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test (HGN). It is by far the most scientific test of the three, and it can actually be the most reliable. However, if it is conducted improperly, the results can be severely compromised. Because of this, although the results can be very reliable to determine whether there is alcohol in the blood stream, the test is only as good as the person administering it.

Many people believe that when an officer is conducting the test of the eyes they are simply checking to see whether the subject’s head is moving or whether the subject can follow simple instructions. In reality, the officer is checking for “nystagmus” which is an involuntary jerking of the eye. There are several types of nystagmus, but only alcohol and a few other drugs actually cause horizontal gaze nystagmus. When under cross-examination by a skilled defense attorney most officers will not know the difference between HGN and other forms of nystagmus such as fatigue nystagmus, optokinetic nystagmus, or nystagmus caused by a previous head injury. Of course, if the trained police officer doesn’t know the difference, neither will the judge or jury. That is why it is important for the officers to be cross-examined on these details in order to impeach their credibility. If they don’t know whether what they are seeing is caused by alcohol or whether is it caused by something else, how can a judge or jury be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt?

During the test, the officer is looking for six potential clues of impairment. In each eye the officer is looking: 1) to see whether the eye moves smoothly from side to side or does it jerk noticeably (this portion of the test is known as lack of smooth pursuit); 2) whether the eye jerks distinctly when it moves as far to the side as possible and is kept there for a minimum of four seconds (this part of the test is known as distinct and sustained nystagmus at maximum deviation); and 3) whether the subject’s eye starts to jerk noticeably as it moves toward the side prior to it reaching a 45 degree angle (this is known as onset of nystagmus prior to 45 degrees). If all six of these clues are present, studies show that the test has a 77% accuracy rate at detecting subjects at or above a 0.10 BAC.

Although potentially 77% accurate, the test must be conducted precisely according to protocol. If not, the results are substantially compromised. When conducting a roadside field sobriety test, the officer’s patrol car is usually equipped with a dashcam that is recording the entire incident on both video and audio. Unfortunately for those who have been pulled over it is up to the individual officer to save the video as evidence. It is not unheard of to see an officer fail to do so because the video is often the only way that their performance in conducting the HGN can be impeached. Do not be afraid to ask the officer to save the dashcam video of the arrest. There is still nothing that requires the officer to do so, but it is worth asking because the evidence can be critically important.

In conducting the HGN, the following protocol must be followed:
The stimulus (finger, tip of pin, etc.) must be held approximately 12-15 inches from the tip of the subjects nose.
The officer must check to make sure that the eyes track equally, that the pupils are of equal size, and that there is no resting nystagmus. The presence of any of these things could mean there was a previous head injury by the subject or resting nystagmus could detect the presence of a disassociative drug such as PCP, which can be dangerous for the officer.

First Clue – Check for Smooth Pursuit – Check suspect’s left eye first. Begin from center of the nose to the maximum deviation in approximately 2 seconds. Then check the right eye by moving back across the subjects face to a maximum deviation at approximately a 4 second pace. Then go back to center approximately 2 seconds. You then must repeat the process always doing the test twice for each eye.

Second Clue – Check for Distinct and Sustained Nystagmus at Maximum Deviation – Check the left eye first. Eye must follow stimulus to maximum deviation (no white showing in corner of eye). Eye must be held in this position for at least 4 seconds in order for this clue to be scored. Check the right eye. Again, repeat in each eye.

Third Clue – Check for Angle of Onset Prior to 45 Degrees – Check the left eye first once again. The eye must follow the stimulus from the center of the suspect’s nose to near the edge of the suspect’s shoulder to a 45 degree angle, leaving some white showing in the corner of the eye, at approximately a 4 second pace. Check the right eye, and repeat the entire cycle again in each eye.

The final steps of the test includes checking for vertical gaze nystagmus, which is the same process as checking for smooth pursuit only up and down, and the last thing to do is to check for lack of convergence. Both VGN and lack of convergence are not clues to be scored during the HGN test, but could aid the officer in developing suspicion of either a high level of alcohol in the blood or other types of drugs as possible intoxicants. If each of the above steps are conducted appropriately, the test should take no less than 64 seconds and realistically probably longer for a good, accurate test.

Once again, if this test is conducted properly by the arresting officer it can be very solid evidence of the presence of alcohol in a person’s system. However, to uncover poor administration of the HGN, and any other FST, it takes a skilled criminal defense attorney who is knowledgeable in the area of DWI defense.

Over the next couple of weeks, posts 2 and 3 of the series will cover the Walk and Turn Test and the One-leg Stand Test. If anyone should have any questions or want any advice, don’t hesitate to contact our office. Until then, be safe and smart out there!

Attorneys for Craig Michael Wood Want Statements Thrown Out

Last week a flurry of attention was again brought on the accused killer of Hailey Owens, Craig Michael Wood.  This time, it was because his attorneys have now filed a Motion to Suppress his statements to police.  Motions to Suppress are frequently filed and are essentially asking the court not to consider certain pieces of evidence in reaching their conclusion, or to keep certain pieces of evidence from being presented to a jury.  Wood’s attorneys are asking for such relief, in part, because of what they believe is a violation of his Miranda Rights.  What many people do not understand is that Miranda does not apply to every single arrest.  Most people believe that immediately when a person is arrested, they must be given their Miranda warnings by police.  That’s not actually true.  Miranda only applies when there is a custodial interrogation.  What this means is that if someone has been arrested, they must be given their Miranda warnings only before police begin to ask them incriminating questions.  If police are simply arresting someone and transporting them to jail, Miranda is not required.  Then, if the suspect makes unsolicited incriminating statements, those statements are admissible in Court.

Attorney Adam Woody was asked by the local CBS and ABC affiliates, KOLR10 and KSPR, to provide insight into the legal basis and motivation for filing Motions to Suppress statements. This case has gained regional and national attention as well, as Adam was featured on a telecast on KCTV5 in Kansas City.  This case is no doubt polarizing  and the facts are everyone’s worst nightmare, but Wood’s attorneys and the prosecutors on the case alike are doing everything they can to ensure that justice is served for everyone involved.