Your Alabama Lawyer - Divorce, DUI, Bankruptcy, Personal Injury - Birmingham, Pelham, Calera, Chelsea, Jemison, Montgomery, Prattville

Contact a Lawyer

Full Name:

E-mail Address:

Phone Number:

Details:

= Required

LEGAL TIPS

US Drunk Driving Laws :
In the US, most of the laws and penalties were greatly enhanced starting in the late 1970s, and through the 1990s, largely due to pressure from groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and Students Against Driving Drunk (SADD) and leaders like Candy Lightner. Most significantly.

DUI & Driving Under The Influence:
DUI History :
Historically, guilt was established by observed driving symptoms, such as weaving; administering field sobriety tests, such as a walking a straight line heel-to-toe or standing on one leg for 30 seconds; and the arresting officer's subjective opinion of impairment. Starting with the introduction in Norway in 1936 of the world’s first per se law which made it an offense to drive with more than a specified amount of alcohol in the body, objective chemical tests have gradually supplemented the earlier purely judgmental ones. Limits for chemical tests are specific for blood alcohol concentration or concentration of alcohol in breath.

Alabama DUI Views :
Alabama can't afford to look the other away at drunks who insist on getting behind the wheel. A few weeks ago in the Mobile area, a driver who was allegedly drunk struck and killed two bicyclists. Two years earlier, when he was a juvenile, the same driver killed another cyclist.

* No representation is made that the quality of legal services to be performed is greater than the quality
of legal services performed by other lawyers. The information presented at this site should
not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship.

All Rights Reserved. Copyright © 2008 Richardson Law Offices, LLC

Glossary of Legal Terms :: Alabama Lawyers

DUI Driving Drunk :
But the law was changed and changed again - strengthened, in fact, to be less tolerant of multiple convictions. But a provision that stipulated four convictions in five years was inadvertently left in. The high court indicated that it had little choice. It could not consider seven convictions in 15 years as constituting four in five years.