Florida DUI Center

Family remembers 19-year-old killed last Halloween
Halloween will mark the one-year anniversary of the death of Taylor Moss, a 19-year-old Newbury Park woman and Moorpark College student who was killed by a wrong-way driver on Highway 101 in the Valley. Her family has dealt with her death and brought hope to other families through the donation of her organs. The family has written to the recipients and employees of the Build A Bear Workshop in …

Published Oct 30, 2010.
Read more: Ventura County Star

     You want to help your drug addicted child or alcoholic spouse quit. They’ve suffered enough and broken up the family. Perhaps they’ve become involved with the law, arrested for drug possession or a DUI or maybe worse. You ask yourself, who can I call? Where can I send them?

 

     As a Certified Prevention Professional in the State of Florida, I can empathize with those parents and spouses understanding that many of them, to avoid embarassment, turn to the Internet for help. They type in “drug treatment” and hundreds of web addresses appear. The search is started and the competition between treatment centers is fierce. Thousands and thousands of dollars are spent on designing a web site that will catch the eye of the desperate parent or spouse with calming music, ocean scenes, and false promises.

 

     Loved ones are vulnerable to certain treatment centers that will take advantage of people who don’t know where else to turn and despite the advanced state of medical science in the area of substance abuse treatment, many people who have lived with long-term alcohol and substance abusers turn to dubious methods.

 

     Treatment is usually a necessary part of recovery from alcohol or drug abuse or dependency. The addicted person needs the services of a professional counselor or therapist to identify what causes an individual to continue using alcohol or drugs despite knowing the negative consequences. It is important that parents and spouses looking for a reputable treatment center be reminded that before handing over their hard earned money to any treatment center, they need to do their homework.

 

     Many private treatment centers charge upwards of $15,000 to $60,000 for a thirty-day program. When looking at a treatment center be wary of those advertising the use of herbs and alternative methods of treatment. Although some are useful, many herbs are promoted through information based on hearsay and folklore. The frightening thing about herbal medication is the fact that many herbs contain hundreds even thousands of chemicals that have not been completely cataloged or approved by the Food and Drug Administration. While some may prove to be useful, others could well prove toxic.

 

     Be aware of treatment centers marketing or promoting homeopathic medicines, holistic, natural or miraculous treatment. What these treatment centers often sell the consumer is not the quality of their program but the salesperson’s ability to influence the customer into believeing their loved one will be cured. The sad thing is many families faced with addiction become desperate enough to try almost anything that arouses their hope. Some squander their life’s savings serching for a “cure.”

 

     Yes, there are excellent treatment centers out there. Treatment centers that work with clients to identify their issues and help them develop the life and coping skills necessary to stay clean and sober. Most of these centers follow the traditional 12-Step philosophy, which puts the responsibility of recovery on the client without any fancy bells and whistles.

 

     Before handing over any of your money, talk with your family doctor or another health-care professional then, thoroughly check-out the treatment center you are thinking about sending your child, spouse or other loved one. Ask to see the credentials of the owners and staff. Therapists should not only be degreed but have a recognized license or state certification to practice. Check with the Better Business Bureau or local Attorney Generals’ Office to see whether other consumers have filed complaints.

 

     Finally, my recommendation is to visit the treatment center yourself. Even if the center you are looking at is out of your state, it’s worth a few hundred dollars to drive or fly and check-out the location yourself. By doing this, you avoid becoming a victim of health care fraud.

Originally published here.

---

A retired police officer now working as a certified substance abuse counselor with adolescents and adults. An Adjunct Instructor in South University’s Criminal Justice Program and a published author of two books, several short stories and numerous articles appearing in law enforcement magazines and local newspapers. I am available to speak at your school, church, fraternal organization or club on the reality of drug abuse, substance abuse prevention strategies, adolescent criminal behavior and what parents need to know about drugs and crime.

---

DUI checkpoints are recognizable by the long line of cars and the group of police officers stopping each car asking questions to each driver.

Drunk driving checkpoints or roadblocks have been found to be a reasonable search and seizure by the United States Supreme Court in Michigan Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990). It found that the public concern about drunk driving outweighed the interference of the individual liberty of the driver who is stopped.

Some of the frustrations by legal motorists have been the fear and surprise of the roadblock, the feeling that they must submit to the check and can’t turn around, and the inconvenience of the amount of time for the police officer to reach their car which may be as long as 30 minutes.

Fear and surprise of an unannounced roadblock has been a concern for citizens. In Sitz, the Court reasoned that the “other drivers could see the backup of cars and how each car is being detained for a short period. This would inform approaching motorists that the stop was authorized and non-random, thereby lessening the potential for fear and surprise.”

Fear and surprise is an element that has been of concern so governments have required police agencies to prepare and follow guidelines for all checkpoints. Some states go further and require public notice of upcoming checkpoints.

What about if officers park outside of bars and wait to pull over cars? This could be considered a roving patrol where the police officers stop cars at other than fixed checkpoints. Here they would need either a warrant or probable cause for a search as ruled in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973).

There are 38 states, and the District of Columbia that conduct sobriety checkpoints.

Eleven states do not conduct sobriety checkpoints because they are either considered illegal by law or state constitution or the state has no explicit authority to conduct them.

These states are: Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Texas prohibits sobriety checkpoints based on their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

Interestingly, Michigan which was the State that the U.S. Supreme Court decided in allowing checkpoints, ended up ruling that checkpoints were not permissible under the Michigan State Constitution.

Even with the states that do allow sobriety checkpoints, there are some interesting interpretations on its checkpoint laws. It seems generally that most states allow a motorist to make a legal U-turn or turn off a side road and not need to go through the checkpoint.

Pennsylvania Has been made legal under state and federal Constitution.

Under Commonwealth v. Pacek, 691 A.2d 466 (Pa. Super. 1997), “a checkpoint does not have to provide a legal means of avoidance.”

“Checkpoints must be located in area where DUI is prevalent.” Commonwealth v. Blee, 695 A.2d 802 (Pa. Super. 1997).

“Legal U-turn in advance of checkpoint does not justify a stop.” Commonwealth v. Scavello, 703 A.2d 36 (PA. Super. 1997).

“A checkpoint conducted at a toll booth was held illegal because it was not conducted in accordance with state Supreme Court guidelines.” Commonwealth v. Yashinski, 723 A.2d 104 (Pa. Super. 1988).

New York Has been upheld under federal Constitution.

“Turning into a parking lot to evade a checkpoint is cause for an investigatory stop.” People v. Chaffee, 590 N.Y.S.2d 625 (A.D. 4 Dist. 1992); but “turning off a highway before reaching a checkpoint on to another road is not cause for a stop.” People v. Rocket, 594 N.Y.S.2d 568 (Just. Ct. 1992).

“New York does not require written guidelines for a checkpoint.” People v. Collura, 610 N.Y.S.2d (N.Y. CityCrim. Ct. 1994).

“Delaware Has been made legal under state law and federal Constitution.” Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979).

“A trial court has held that a legally executed U-turn in advance of a checkpoint did not justify a stop.” Howard v. Voshell, 621 A.2d 804 (Del. Super. 1992).

“Florida Has been made legal under federal Constitution.” State v. Jones, 483 So. 2d 433 (1986). Campbell v. State, 679 So.2d 1168 (Fla. 1996)

Found a checkpoint deficient under Jones because the written guidelines were insufficient, especially with regard to the method for choosing which vehicle(s) to stop.

“A delay of less than five minutes before a driver was asked to exit the vehicle was found to be permissible.” Cahill v. State, 595 So.2d 258 (Fla. App. 4 Dist. 1992).

Indiana Has been made legal under state Constitution

Previously, “checkpoints had been conducted in Indiana under Garcia, which held checkpoints legal under the federal constitution.” State v. Garcia, 500 N.E.2d 158 (Ind. 1986), cert. den. 481 U.S. 1014 (1987); Snyder v. State, 538 N.E.2d 961 (Ind. App. 4 Dist. 1989). In the Snyder case, the court held that “avoiding a checkpoint was sufficient cause to conduct a stop.”

“Massachusetts has been made legal under state and federal Constitution.” Commonwealth v. Shields, 521 N.E.2d 987 (Mass. 1988); Commonwealth v. Cameron, 545 N.E.2d 619 (Mass. App. Ct. 1989).

Originally published here.

---

Knowing your legal and consumer rights is your best defense.

---