| |
Divorce Lawyer Winter Garden
Criminal Defense Attorney Windermere
Divorce Lawyer Apopka
|
| | Can I Be Charged With Drunk Driving, Even If My Driving Is Perfect? | | |
Yes. Many people charged with drunk driving protest that their driving was fine. They believe either that the officer made up an excuse to pull them over, or that the "mistake" that the officer observed was appropriate or had nothing to do with their driving. However if your blood alcohol content exceeds the "legal limit" of 0.08%, you can be charged and convicted even if you do not feel that you are in any way affected by the alcohol you consumed.
Additionally, you may be stopped because there is a mechanical problem with your motor vehicle. If the officer finds you to appear intoxicated (usual signs: slurred speech, glassy or bloodshot eyes, poor balance, conspicuous odor of alcohol, lack of coordination, difficulty comprehending instructions, clumsiness or lack of coordination, combativeness, and disorientation), he may investigate further. |
|
On September 6, 2007, a judge for the US District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that issuing National Security Letters (NSLs) demanding private information and imposing gag orders on recipients under the reauthorized and revised USA Patriot Act was unconstitutional without judicial review. In the ruling, the court held that allowing the FBI to issue NSLs without seeking prior court approval from a judge or grand jury violated several constitutional principles including separation of powers and First Amendment rights. Learn more about the Patriot Act from the JURIST news archive.
On September 6, 2007, a judge for the US District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that issuing National Security Letters (NSLs) demanding private information and imposing gag orders on recipients under the reauthorized and revised USA Patriot Act was unconstitutional without judicial review. In the ruling, the court held that allowing the FBI to issue NSLs without seeking prior court approval from a judge or grand jury violated several constitutional principles including separation of powers and First Amendment rights. Learn more about the Patriot Act from the JURIST news archive.
On September 10, 2004, a judge for the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that the Pennsylvania Internet Child Pornography Act, which required Internet service providers to block child pornography websites, was unconstitutional due to its effect on legitimate websites. The judge also held that the act violated the First Amendment by sweeping up too much protected speech in its enforcement. Attorneys from the Center for Democracy and Technology argued that the law had blocked access to 1.5 million legitimate websites. Learn more about child pornography laws from the First Amendment Center.
|
|
