Wednesday, May 30, 2012

The Death of Bryan Stevenson and Why Plea Deals are Struck

The whole idea of lawyers “making plea deals” causes a lot of people discomfort.  Maybe it’s the concept of people who are supposed to be integral pieces of our judicial systems coming together, and everyone agrees NOT to do their “jobs.”  And I get that.  Or maybe it is the nagging feeling in the back of some people’s heads, that - these guys in suits get together in some secret room, have a secret conversation, and all the sudden, someone gets way too good of a deal.  The idea of a plea deal, in general, just smells bad to some people.

Regardless of the reason, a lot of people seem to be really unhappy when lawyers make settlements – particularly in criminal cases.  For those of you who have been angered or disturbed by a recent plea deal, this blog post is for you.  Per

The man on trial for the death of a Northern Kentucky athlete reached a plea deal Tuesday that includes the dropping of a murder charge and likely no jail time.

Justin Werner was charged with beating Bryan Stevenson to death outside a Louisville restaurant on May 30, 2010. As part of his deal to plead guilty to multiple other charges, the murder charge will be dropped. [apparently, it already has been dropped]

Werner pleaded guilty to assault under extreme emotional disturbance, trafficking in a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. Werner faces up to three years in jail time for these charges, but the prosecution is only recommending five years probation and Werner has already served two years of house arrest that will count toward his sentencing.
A sentencing date will be determined on June 4.

‘The murder charge was amended to manslaughter 1st degree before the trial started,’ Leland Hulbert, Asst. Commonwealth Attorney said. ‘The manslaughter charge was reduced to assault under extreme emotional disturbance due to inconsistent witness testimony. [this is going to be important for today’s analysis] Werner will likely be probated by the Court."

…On Thursday, witnesses took the stand, including one man who said he saw the fight break out.

Paul Demoss testified that someone spit on another person, which caused the fight to start.
‘I reached down and picked him up, and reached down, and kept saying wake up, you got knocked out. And he wasn't waking up,’ said Demoss.

Demoss couldn't identify who threw the fatal blow that killed the 26-year-old. [also very important] [notes added for clarification]

First, let’s start with the presumption that police officers will charge a suspect with the absolute highest level of crime possible.  Even a lot of police officers will admit that this is the standard… “protocol” isn’t the right word, but it’s the first one that comes to mind.*  Police will charge a suspect with the greatest degree of crime that is even a remote possibility.  Remember the stripper arson bar lingerie post?  

The reasons for “over-charging” include, but are not limited to the following: 1) Police officers know that plea deals exist.  So they start with a higher charge, because some slimy criminal defense lawyer like me is going to haggle it down.  2) Police officers like to pad their own records.  If it is possible to get a higher charge to stick, it looks good for them.  Getting a murder conviction looks better on an officer’s record than getting a reckless homicide conviction.  3) Sometimes, police officers just don’t know the law.  I’ve had a lot of disorderly clients who were charged with Disorderly Conduct in the First Degree (hereinafter, DC1).  DC1 requires a person to be disorderly in the presence of a funeral, burial, or funeral procession.  And a lot of police officers don’t know that.
Over-charging can benefit a police officer, as in the first 2 of the above 3 scenarios.  However, it can also backfire.  If a case gets a lot of publicity, and the criminal defendant ends up being convicted of a lesser charge, it looks like the prosecution “lost” when the criminal defendant should have been charged with the lesser charge in the first place.  Now the prosecution looks incompetent and the criminal defendant looks like he or she “got off” because of some slimy criminal defense lawyer.

Let me get back to the Justin Werner case for a minute.  First and foremost, I have no idea what happened in his case.  I haven’t been following it at all.  I only know what I read in the news story that I posted above.  But from the witness testimony, it looks like there was a fight of some sort.  However fair, unfair, or drastically unfair the fight may have been, at least one witness testified that there was a back and forth aggression of some sort.  If that was the case, the “lack of extreme emotional disturbance (hereinafter, “EED”)” element for murder is going to be difficult for any prosecutor to prove.  Especially with conflicting accounts of what happened.  It doesn’t surprise me in the least that the murder charge was amended down to a homicide case without the “lack of EED” element. 

I'm not saying the prosecution didn't have a case, I'm just saying that there look to be some hurdles along the way if they wanted to prove a homicide.  Not the least of which would be Demoss' statement that, as a witness, he couldn't tell who threw the blow that killed Bryan Stevenson.  A jury may very well have believed that Werner probably killed Stevenson.  but "probably" isn't the standard of proof for a criminal jury trial.  The standard is Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.  More on this later.

Back to the original issue of plea deals and the appropriate or inappropriate nature thereof – Let’s talk about prosecutors for a bit.  The Prosecution’s job is not just to prosecute.  Prosecutors represent the interests of the Commonwealth (and to a degree, the County) in District Court cases and the Commonwealth in Circuit Court cases, like the Werner case.  They have a pretty complicated job.  They look out for the interest of the victim and/or victim’s family.  They take into account the wishes of the police officers involved.  And they are supposed to look out for the best interests of the Commonwealth – how much of your tax dollars to spend on a case that they may or may not be able to win.  On top of all of that, (unless they are THE Commonwealth Attorney in their Circuit) they have a boss, who may have his or her own expectations.  They weigh the evidence in a case, both the inculpatory and exculpatory, and make a decision on what a jury might do - which is virtually, if not completely impossible, given the Beyond a Reasonable Doubt standard.
In short, Bryan Stevenson’s family may not have gotten what they feel is justice – hell, they may not have gotten justice at all.  Who knows.  But given the witness testimony and unclear circumstances surrounding the death of Stevenson, it would have been extremely difficult to guess what a jury would have done in this case.  I certainly don’t blame the prosecution or the defense attorneys for compromising and settling this case.
I hope this helped shed a little light on why plea deals get struck, and why charges are reduced.  If not, I hope it was a nice distraction.

*Literary device taken from Chuck Palahniuk.  "Borrowed" isn't the right word, but it's the first word that comes to mind.

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

You Should Have A Last Will and Testament.

         The following is why you should have a will.  Not next year.  Not after you get more assets.  If you are married, or if you have a child, regardless of your marital status, you should have a will.  If you don't get me to draft your wills, get some other lawyer.  But you should get it done.  It is the responsible thing to do.
        In Kentucky, if you die without a will, your spouse does NOT automatically get all of your assets.  When a person dies “intestate” (which means they die without a will), the laws of intestacy applies.  This great Commonwealth has two (2) intestacy statutes for the succession of property – one for real estate and one for personal property.  But the succession order is the same.  Pursuant to KRS 391.010, the first people to inherit your property in Kentucky would be your children and descendants.  If you have no children or descendents, your parents would take the property.  If your parents have predeceased you (they die before you die), your brothers or sisters would inherit.  Only if none of the preceding situations were applicable, would your spouse inherit all of your property under the law of intestacy in Kentucky.  That’s right – your spouse is fourth in line.  After children, parents, and siblings.
            That doesn’t mean your spouse would get nothing at all.
           If the assets were marital assets, obviously the surviving spouse’s portion of assets would not be passed through the decedent’s (dead person) estate.  And the spouse would be entitled to a dower or curtesy share.  This means your spouse might have to fight in court to get what you wanted them to have in the first place.  If you die in Kentucky without a will, your spouse isn’t automatically entitled to all of your assets.  That is why EVERYONE who is married (and everyone who has a child regardless of their marital status) should have a will.
         Now let's get complicated.
            About this whole “survivorship” business - when a spouse is cut out of a will, or a spouse believes they should have received more than what the testator or testatrix (person who made a will, male or female, respectively) gave them under the will, they can contest the will.  KRS 392.020 defines the dower and curtesy interest of a surviving spouse.  Under this law, a surviving spouse gets an absolute interest in ½ of the deceased spouse’s real estate and personal property, plus 1/3 of real estate held by the decedent during marriage but not at the time of death (which gets complicated).
            Unless another rule of law carved out an exception – like KRS 391.030 which grants the $15,000 exemption.  So maybe if an estate was worth less than $15,000 and there was no real estate, then yes, a spouse may be entitled to all of it.  But absent a strange circumstance like this, if a judge were to give literally ALL of the decedent’s assets to a spouse, including real estate, and the decedent had a valid will which did not authorize the same, it would probably be an abuse of the judge’s discretion. 

            But all of these circumstances distract from my point.  These circumstances are for people who don’t want their spouse to have much, and their spouse has to fight for more.  That is the slim minority of circumstances.  The majority of couples want something very simple to happen: If I die, I want everything to go to my spouse.  If my spouse predeceases me, I want everything to be held in trust for my children.  Simple.  Done.
            If you are married, and you want your assets to go to your spouse, don’t make your spouse fight for the assets after you are dead.  Have a lawyer draft a will for you.

         If you are married, or you have a child, you should have a will.  Call the attorneys at Simms & Reed, PLLC, for a free consultation today.  It isn't expensive and you'll be glad you got it out of the way.  You can reach us at 502.618.4949.  Get some piece of mind for the future.

and get...

Results.  As fast as the law will allow.

Questions answered in this blog post: Why do I need a last will and testament; how can I find a good Louisville probate lawyer; how can I find a good Louisville estate planning lawyer; how can I find a Louisville lawyer for drafting/making wills and last will and testaments; what is "intestate"; what is "testate"; what is the difference between dying testate and intestate; what is a decedent; what happens to my stuff if I die?

Thursday, May 17, 2012

Free in Kentucky: All You Need To Know About Marijuana Cultivation

Free in Kentucky: All You Need To Know About Marijuana Cultivation: In Kentucky, a person can grow a marijuana plant without being guilty of marijuana cultivation. Over the last month, I’ve gotten a...

All You Need To Know About Marijuana Cultivation

In Kentucky, a person can grow a marijuana plant without being guilty of marijuana cultivation.

Over the last month, I’ve gotten an inordinate amount of questions about growing marijuana.  I have no idea why that could be…people must just get a little more curious in the spring time and early summer.  Maybe fresh cut grass spawns the yearn for knowledge.  Maybe...

Let’s take 2 scenarios.

1) Humphrey Bogart plants three (3) marijuana clones in flower pots.  He tends to the plants, watches them mature, cuts, dries and smokes them.  His crop yielded about three (3) ounces of marijuana.  End of story.  Bogart is a selfish man.

2) Sharon Stone is less selfish than Bogart.  She grows only one (1) marijuana plant.  After it matures, and she cures the plant, she invites a couple of friends over.  Sharon Stone shares the pot with her friends.  They smoke the plant together while watching old classic movies.  Stone’s crop yielded about one (1) ounce of pot.

Which of the two aforementioned scenarios describes a more serious crime?

Although Bogart grew more plants, his conduct is less culpable than Stone’s.  At this time I would like to refer to you KRS 218A.1423, which states:

 (1) A person is guilty of marijuana cultivation when he knowingly and unlawfully plants, cultivates, or harvests marijuana with the intent to sell or transfer it.

(2) Marijuana cultivation of five (5) or more plants of marijuana is:
(a) For a first offense a Class D felony.
(b) For a second or subsequent offense a Class C felony.

(3) Marijuana cultivation of fewer than five (5) plants is:
(a) For a first offense a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) For a second or subsequent offense a Class D felony.

(4) The planting, cultivating, or harvesting of five (5) or more marijuana plants shall be prima facie evidence that the marijuana plants were planted, cultivated, or harvested for the purpose of sale or transfer.

Both of our former movie stars grew under five (5) marijuana plants.  This was a smart move on their parts.  Now we know, pursuant to subsection (3) of KRS 218A.1423, that they can be guilty of nothing more serious than a Class A misdemeanor.

But the answer to our original question lies in subsection (1), supra.  A key element in Marijuana Cultivation is the planting, cultivation, or harvesting of marijuana “with the intent to sell or transfer” the marijuana.

Even though Bogart grew more plants, and yielded more marijuana, he cannot be guilty of “Marijuana Cultivation” because he never had the intent to sell or transfer.  Stone, however, did.  So she can be found guilty under subsection three (3), a Class A misdemeanor.  She would face jail time of up to one (1) year in jail.

That does NOT mean that Bogart has committed no crime.  He can be found guilty of “Possession of Marijuana.”  KRS 218A.1422 governs possession.  The law on marijuana possession changed on June 8, 2011, and currently states:

(1) A person is guilty of possession of marijuana when he or she knowingly and unlawfully possesses marijuana.

(2) Possession of marijuana is a Class B misdemeanor, except that, KRS Chapter 532 to the contrary notwithstanding, the maximum term of incarceration shall be no greater than forty-five (45) days.

So, strangely enough, you can see that growing marijuana does not always constitute “Marijuana Cultivation.”  The key element is the intent to sell or transfer.  If someone does not intend to share their pot, they are Not Guilty of Marijuana Cultivation.

If you have been charged with Marijuana Cultivation in Louisville, Lexington, Frankfort, Elizabethtown, or the surrounding areas, call attorney Greg Simms at 502.473.6464 for a free initial consultation.  Cultivation charges can be very serious.  You need a lawyer who will give your case the individual attention it needs.  Call to speak with a lawyer about your Louisville marijuana cultivation charge today.  Visit

Results.  As fast as the law will allow.

Questions answered in this blog post:  In Kentucky, how many marijuana plants can I grow; what are the requirements to be found guilty of marijuana cultivation; how many pot plants equals a felony; how many marijuana plants can I grow and still be a misdemeanor; how can I find a good Louisville marijuana cultivation lawyer; what is the number of plant rule in Kentucky?

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Is it Illegal to Urinate on Your Sister? What this means for your weekend, tonight at 10:00pm...

Did you know the laws are different in different states?  You probably did.  You have probably heard that marijuana has been decriminalized in sixteen (16) states and in Washington DC.  Which would tip you off to the autonomy of state legislature.  And you probably know that lawyers have to pass a state bar, and that they can only practice law in the states where they are admitted to practice. 

Try asking a lawyer about the laws of another state where they are not authorized to practice.  Watch them get nervous as hell – it’s hilarious.

A lawyer can be going on and on, blathering about a certain law in Kentucky, like they are the world’s foremost expert.  Then ask, “Doesn’t Indiana have an exception to that law?”  And watch them backstroke quicker than Michael Phelps.  “Uh, no – I don’t know that.  I’m not licensed to practice there.  I don’t know anything about any of Indiana law.  Don’t consider any of this to be legal advice.”  Because lawyers are terrified of malpractice.

It’s important to know the laws of your state, and to know your rights.  But if lawyers don’t even know the laws of different states, how can one be expected to know and abide by the laws of another state when visiting?  Why should a person from Kentucky be held accountable for knowing the laws of Florida when they visit the beach, for example?  I don’t have an answer to that question.  I’m just asking.

All I know is this:  Don’t pee on anybody in Indiana.

Here’s a great example of how the laws are different in different states.  Apparently, in Indiana, peeing on other people happens frequently enough that the state had to make a specific law against urinating on your sister.  Per WLKY: 

A southern Indiana man was arrested and accused of beating and terrorizing his sister for hours, during a methamphetamine-induced rage.

The accused attacker, 37-year old Randall Bracey, will now be out of jail in about two months…

…In February 2011, in the 300 block of Maple Drive in Charlestown, police charged Bracey in connection with assaulting his sister for nearly six hours with a handgun in her bathroom in a meth-induced rage.  Police said he then urinated on her…

…After being charged with attempted murder and battery with body waste, prosecutors said the victim saved him from possible decades in prison.

"He's wonderful, he's my brother," said the victim's sister, Victoria Wimp. [boldness added for emphasis]

See, little sis!?  The stuff I did to terrorize you when we were kids wasn’t that bad, was it?
In Kentucky, we don’t have a charge for peeing on your sister.  We don’t even have a charge called “Battery with Bodily Waste.”  Let’s briefly run through the Assault charges and related offenses, to see if we can fit it into another charge.

508.030   Assault in the fourth degree.
(1) A person is guilty of assault in the fourth degree when:
(a) He intentionally or wantonly causes physical injury to another person; or
(b) With recklessness he causes physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument.
(2) Assault in the fourth degree is a Class A misdemeanor.

Peeing on your sister is not Assault, assuming it causes no injury.

508.070   Wanton endangerment in the second degree.
(1) A person is guilty of wanton endangerment in the second degree when he wantonly engages in conduct which creates a substantial danger of physical injury to another person.
(2) Wanton endangerment in the second degree is a Class A misdemeanor.

Peeing on your sister is not Wanton Endangerment, because there has to be a danger of physical injury.  Again, I’m assuming you aren’t peeing on someone in a manner which could possibly cause physical injury.

508.050   Menacing.
(1) A person is guilty of menacing when he intentionally places another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury.
(2) Menacing is a Class B misdemeanor.

Doesn’t look like it fits into the category of “Menacing” because, again, no injury.

508.080   Terroristic threatening in the third degree.
(1) Except as provided in KRS 508.075 or 508.078, a person is guilty of terroristic threatening in the third degree when:
(a) He threatens to commit any crime likely to result in death or serious physical injury to another person or likely to result in substantial property damage to another person; or
(b) He intentionally makes false statements for the purpose of causing evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation.
(2) Terroristic threatening in the third degree is a Class A misdemeanor.

I’m detecting a theme here.  It looks like most of the Kentucky laws on Assault and related charges require an element of physical injury or the likelihood thereof.  For that reason, it doesn’t fall in Terroristic Threatening, either.*

508.100   Criminal abuse in the first degree.
(1) A person is guilty of criminal abuse in the first degree when he intentionally abuses another person or permits another person of whom he has actual custody to be abused and thereby:
(a) Causes serious physical injury; or
(b) Places him in a situation that may cause him serious physical injury; or
(c) Causes torture, cruel confinement or cruel punishment; to a person twelve (12) years of age or less, or who is physically helpless or mentally helpless.
(2) Criminal abuse in the first degree is a Class C felony.

To tell you the truth, I was confident that peeing on your sister would not fall into any of the other categories of assault or related offenses, because of the injury requirement.  But I had forgotten the exact language of the criminal abuse statute, because people simply aren’t charged with it very often. 

So I had no idea whether it would fit under Criminal Abuse.  But apparently it might, depending on the circumstances.  It looks like when we get to subsection (1)(c) in KRS 508.120, that we can adjust our fact pattern to fit.  If you have “actual custody” of your little sister, and you pee on her, and she is under twelve (12) years old, OR is physically or mentally helpless, AND a jury determines that to be “torture” or “cruel punishment” you could be found guilty of Criminal Abuse.  Criminal Abuse in the 1st degree is a Class C Felony, which carries a punishment of 5-10 years (obviously, pretty serious stuff).

If, while peeing on your sister, you were in some sort of very intoxicated state**, and your lawyer was able to argue intoxication as a defense to the mental state, you could possibly be found guilty of a lesser form of Criminal Abuse, either a Class D Felony OR a Class A Misdemeanor.

What about urinating on your sister if she is over twelve (12) and of sound mind and body?  If it’s a crime in Kentucky, I haven’t found a subsection under which they could charge you.  If anybody out there knows more than I about the subject, please fill me in.

If you have been charged with Assault or any assault related charge in Louisville, Lexington, Frankfort, Elizabethtown, or the surrounding areas, you should call an experienced Louisville Assault Lawyer  Greg Simms today.  Call 502.618.4949 for a free consultation. 

*I know I’m supposed to use the word “or” after I use the word “either.”  I just don’t care.  I’m a grown man.  Don’t tell me what to do.

**See also: meth induced rage

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Is Exposing Yourself to Blind People Considered Indecent Exposure?

Remember that old saying, “If a tree falls in the woods, and nobody is around, has anyone actually seen its penis?”

NBC News in Philadelphia reports:
A man allegedly exposed himself to a woman inside an association for the blind last week.
On Tuesday morning, the Bucks County Courier Times reported that a woman says an unidentified man exposed himself to her inside the book store of the Bucks County Association for the Blind’s offices at 400 Freedom Drive in Newtown, Pa.  The man, described as a 5-foot-10 skinny black man between 35 to 45 years old who was wearing a black track suit, got away, the Times reported.*

The question for the day is awesome, and the question is: “In Kentucky, if you expose yourself to a blind person, does that count as indecent exposure?”  Since we are going to assume that the above described man is innocent, we will create a new fictional scenario.  In our new scenario, a black man of average height, wearing average clothing and being between age 18 and 50, walks into the school for the blind on Frankfort Avenue in Louisville.  He knows it is the school for the blind, and he believes everyone in the school to be blind.  He promptly exposes himself.  Has the man committed “indecent exposure?”  In Kentucky, KRS 510.148 “covers” indecent exposure in the first degree.**  The law states:

 (1) A person is guilty of indecent exposure in the first degree when he intentionally exposes his genitals under circumstances in which he knows or should know that his conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to a person under the age of eighteen (18) years.
(2) Indecent exposure in the first degree is a:
(a) Class B misdemeanor for the first offense;
(b) Class A misdemeanor for the second offense, if it was committed within three (3) years of the first conviction;
(c) Class D felony for the third offense, if it was committed within three (3) years of the second conviction; and
(d) Class D felony for any subsequent offense, if it was committed within three
(3) years of the prior conviction. [boldness added for emphasis]

Without going to much into Indecent Exposure in the second degree, just understand that it contains the same “affront and alarm” type requirement, but with a victim OVER 18 years old.  It is a class B misdemeanor (which kinda surprises me.  I would think it would be a more serious crime, wouldn’t it?).

So the answer to today’s question is, surprisingly, no.  If you expose yourself to a blind person in Kentucky and you believe them to be blind, you probably don’t meet the requirement of knowledge that your conduct would cause affront or alarm.  After all, if you believe they aren’t witnessing the…um…event, then you couldn’t possibly have the knowledge that it would alarm said blind victim (not in the legal sense of “victim”).

So…there you go.  Not sure if this post is going to help you sleep at night or anything.  But that’s the law.

Please be advised that neither I, nor any other lawyer I know, condones exposing yourself to anyone of any age, regardless of their disability.  Also, depending on your conduct, you may be violating a slew of other laws at the time of said exposure.

Thank you for your time.

Simms & Reed, PLLC.

Results.  As fast as the law will allow.

*Jeez, talk about helping the police racially profile.  You can’t give a more specific description???  Come on.  Hair?  Facial Hair?  Glasses?  Light or dark skin tone?  Shoes?

**Ba-Domp, Ching!

Free in Kentucky: All You Need to Know About Field Sobriety Tests

Free in Kentucky: All You Need to Know About Field Sobriety Tests: You should not perform Field Sobriety Tests for a police officer. Just to speak briefly about the whole theory and concept of field so...

All You Need to Know About Field Sobriety Tests

You should not perform Field Sobriety Tests for a police officer.

Just to speak briefly about the whole theory and concept of field sobriety testing, let’s start with the following premise: If police perform a standardized test on someone to measure their balance and coordination (more on HGN later), and police determine that the person has less balance and coordination than is acceptable, police can determine that said person is under the influence of alcohol.

One of the central problems with the above premise is that the test is standardized, while people are not.  People come in all shapes and sizes, and different levels of strength and ability, but the tests do not adjust to the individual.  The test is the same every time.  Some people have a much greater degree of balance and coordination than others.  Anyone who regularly practices yoga will generally perform better on FSTs, and people who are out of shape will generally perform worse.

Also, some people are more knowledgeable than others.  If you possess the knowledge that slightly bending your knees will help you balance, you will perform better than someone who does not possess that knowledge, and performs FSTs with their knees locked out.  Try it.  Go home and try to walk a straight line heel to toe with your knees straight and arms down at your sides.  Then try to walk the same line with your knees slightly bent.  It’s a world of difference.

Another central problem with field sobriety testing is that the tests are subjective; they are not graded by strictly objective criteria.  Math tests are objective.  No matter who grades my test, if I think 2+2=6, I get the answer wrong.  There is a correct answer, and an incorrect answer, and it is pass/fail NO MATTER WHO GRADES THE TEST.  An art contest at the state fair is subjective.  My painting of a kitty may be better or worse than your painting of a kitty, depending on who judges the art contest.  Somewhere between math and the kitty painting lies the FSTs.  The officer gets to determine how much swaying constitutes “swaying” when you stand on one leg.

Did you know that officers are sometimes given incentives to make DUI arrests?  Obviously there is the incentive to perform at their job so that they can succeed, and what better way to perform than make a lot of arrests.  But I’m talking about incentives specifically for DUI arrests.  A retired Kentucky State Trooper recently told me that insurance companies would pay for vacations that were given away to police officers who made the most DUI arrests.  If you’re skeptical, check it out for yourself.  Here’s just one example:

“Free, cool new equipment for cracking down extra hard on DUIs???  Sweet!” – random law enforcement official.

My point, in examining the foregoing, is that sometimes police officers might have an incentive to be slightly less than objective.  So, even if you passed that walk and turn test, you might have failed.  Because Officer Bob needs his agency to receive the "DUI ENFORCEMENT INCENTIVE PACKAGE!!!"  After all, LED flashlights are expensive, yo!

Lastly, there is no negative ramification for refusing to submit to Field Sobriety Tests.  You can’t be punished for refusing to take the FSTs.  You will not automatically lose your license for refusing to submit to Field Sobriety Tests.  You will not receive extra jail time.  So do not take them.  Police officers are not your friends.  They are not trying to help you.  Don’t help them build a case against you.

This blog post is in no way an endorsement for driving under the influence.  Seriously.  Take a cab and avoid the hassle and danger.

If you have been charged with a DUI in Louisville, Lexington, Elizabethtown, Frankfort, or the surrounding areas, you should hire a Louisville DUI lawyer who knows the law.  Call 502.618.4949 for a free consultation today.  Your case is serious.  You deserve a lawyer who gives a damn.

Simms & Reed, PLLC.  Results.  As fast as the law will allow.