Law Office of Patrick Mahaney

Law Office of Patrick Mahaney Mr. Mahaney is a well respected and highly experienced criminal defense attorney, specializing in DUI cases.

06/11/2022

What are Class D felony offenses?
Class D felony offenses were created in the 2015 legislative session specifically to ease prison over-crowding. The Alabama Habitual Felony Offender Act (AHFOA), enacted in 1979 prior to the implementation of Title 13A on January 1, 1980, requires mandatory enhanced sentences based upon the conviction of prior felony offenses. The legislature's enactment of Class D felony offenses was a method to skirt around the harsh sentencing standards of the AHFOA. The prison sentence for a Class D felony is not less than a year and a day (366 days) and up to five years. The sentence will be served in a community correction facility. The actual in-prison sentence can only be 2 years, absent HFOA. Supervised probation is possible, but only for a “clean record”.

Under Alabama Code § 15-18-8(b), if the defendant is given a prison term, the term must be split under § 15-18-8(b) to a 2-year split sentence. This sentence must be served day-for-day with no good time or incentive time given. The defendant will be placed on supervised probation for a period not exceeding three years upon release and upon such terms as the court deems best.

Under the Alabama Habitual Offender Act, Class D felonies receive the following treatment: In a case where a defendant has two or more prior Class A or B felonies and picks up a Class D felony, they are punished as a Class C felony (sentence up to ten years). Where the defendant has three prior felony convictions of any classification and picks up a Class D felony conviction, the defendant will be punished as a Class C conviction (1 to 10 years hard time in state prison). See, Alabama Code § 13A-5-9(d) and (e). Felony convictions out-of-state (or federal jurisdiction) carry the same weight as any felony conviction in-state, without regard to the when or where the conviction was entered. Class D felonies are subject to the Presumptive Sentencing Guidelines, and therefore, the defendant’s prior criminal history will have an effect on the actual terms of the sentence imposed.

Class D Felony Offenses:
• Possession of a Controlled Substance/VUCSA (any controlled substance other than ma*****na);
• Possession of Ma*****na 1st degree [where the person has been previously convicted of unlawful possession of ma*****na in the second degree or where the unlawful possession of ma*****na is greater than the amount for personal use, but less than 1 kilo/2.2 pounds]
• Theft of Property 3rd;
• Theft of Services 3rd;
• Theft of Lost Property 3rd;
• Theft of Cargo (subject to certain values);
• Receiving Stolen Property 3rd;
• Possession of Forged Instrument 3rd;
• Forgery in the 3rd degree, and
• Possession of or Fraudulent Use of a Credit or Debit Card.

04/03/2022

Is Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Now Admissible in the State of Alabama in a DUI Trial?

Act 2021-498, section 3: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law and for purposes of prosecutions under Section 32-5A-191, a law enforcement officer witness may give testimony solely on the issue of impairment, and not on the specific alcohol or drug concentration levels, based on the results of a horizontal gaze nystagmus test….” [Effective August 1, 2021] Now codified as Code section 32-5A-196.

Important Notes about Act 2021-498:
1. Does not require APOSTC certification or re-certification in administration of HGN
2. Is limited to prosecutions for DUI [Code section 32-5A-191]
3. Does not address the Frye/Daubert distinction in Ala. Rules of Evidence, Rule 702

The state of the law in Alabama prior to Act 2021-498 is that the administration and purported results derived of the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test are inadmissible at trial and admission of results of said test, over objection, is reversible error. See Ex parte Malone, 575 So. 2d 106 (Ala. 1990); Sides v. State, 574 So. 2d 859 (Ala. 1990); Brunson v. State, 580 So. 2d 62 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991); Blake v. State, 581 So. 2d 1282 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991); Johnson v. State, 591 So. 2d 580 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991); Desselle v. State, 596 So. 2d 602 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991). As well, the Alabama Supreme Court, in addressing whether the HGN would ever be admissible in Alabama even upon proper predicate, “This Court has not been presented with sufficient evidence concerning the test’s reliability or acceptance by the scientific community to address that question.” Sides, 574 So. 2d at 859.

Recently, the Alabama legislature has, by legislative act, sought to over-turn this long-standing rule of admissibility derived from the judicial holding in Ex parte Malone, supra, by legislatively declaring:
“Notwithstanding any other provision of law and for purposes of prosecutions under Section 32-5A-191, a law enforcement witness may give testimony solely on the issue of impairment, and not on the issue of specific alcohol or drug concentration levels, based on the results of a horizontal gaze nystagmus test when the test is administered in accordance with the individual's training and administered by an individual who has successfully completed training in the horizontal gaze nystagmus test.” Act 2021-498, section 3 (page 29).

Fundamentally - even if the prosecution could overcome the Frye test of "general acceptance in the scientific community" - can the Alabama legislature by legislative act summarily "overrule" a long-standing judicial decision issued by the Alabama Supreme Court? The doctrine of separation of powers must be examined. This act will undoubtedly result in litigation and force the Alabama Supreme Court to interpret the Alabama Constitution which clearly states: "The powers of the government of the State of Alabama shall be divided into three distinct departments, each of which shall be confided to a separate body of magistracy, ..." The clear meaning of part of the Alabama Constitution is that each branch of state government is independent and co-equal of the other with designated powers of government and may not invade the powers of the others. Does Act 2021-498 exceed the legislature's authority to determine what is or is not admissible evidence in a court of law?

04/01/2022

The IRS – MADD Tax Scam :
Under the IRS Code, if a tax-paying entity, such as a privately-owned interlock company, contributes to a 501(c)(3) "non-profit, educational" entity, that contribution off-set’s the corporation’s tax liability for the tax year. [Up to 50 percent of the taxpayer's contribution base for the taxable year. See, IRS Code section 170.]

If SmartStart, as example, gave $10 million annually to MADD, then $5 million is deducted from the corporation’s yearly tax liability.

MADD received $21 million in 2019 from "private" (unnamed and unlisted) entities.

MADD is the highly visible advertising arm for the interlock industry, and the nation’s tax-payers are paying for it in the form of lost tax revenue.

Have you ever wondered how much income Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) generates on an annual basis? How does $32 M...
03/29/2022

Have you ever wondered how much income Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) generates on an annual basis? How does $32 MILLION for a "non-profit educational entity" sound? See the latest IRS filing, filed in 2020.

Dräeger DrugTest® 5000 - On order for use in the state of Alabama to enforce the newly revised Implied Consent law.
03/28/2022

Dräeger DrugTest® 5000 - On order for use in the state of Alabama to enforce the newly revised Implied Consent law.

03/28/2022

Can a DUI Conviction Be Expunged?

No - Expungement is NOT an option. The revised expungement statute – Code 15-27-1 (b)(7) - [eligibility requirements] states: “The conviction is not a serious traffic offense, as provided in Article 9 of Chapter 5A of Title 32.”

Act 2021-482, which took effect on July 1, 2021, now allows for expungement of minor misdemeanor convictions not involving a crime of violence. However, specifically excluded from Act 2021-482 are DUI and reckless driving offenses.

DRUGGED DRIVING AND THE FUTURE OF DRUG TESTING: THE DRAEGER DRUG TEST 5000January 25, 2022  By Joe Bernard and Erica Bru...
03/21/2022

DRUGGED DRIVING AND THE FUTURE OF DRUG TESTING: THE DRAEGER DRUG TEST 5000
January 25, 2022 By Joe Bernard and Erica Bruno

The Draeger Drug Test 5000

With the rise of arrests for operating under the influence of drugs across the United States, reliable evidentiary testing for drug use has been highly sought by law enforcement for the detection and prosecution of drugged driving crimes. In response, Draeger, Inc. has developed the Draeger DrugTest 5000 (DDT5000), an oral fluid test to assist law enforcement with determining whether an individual has consumed drugs. The device is designed to test for the presence of seven drugs, including amphetamine, methamphetamine, co***ne, opiates, benzodiazepines, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinaol (THC), and methadone.

The DDT5000 is a type of Lateral Flow Testing (LFT) or "point of collection" testing. An LFT is a rapid type immunoassay testing method designed to detect the presence of a drug in a biological sample without the need for specialized equipment. One of the most commonly known types of an LFT is a home pregnancy test.

The DDT5000 specifically tests oral fluid. Oral fluid testing has become a popular method of testing based upon the ease of collection that can be done close in time to driving, allowing for better correlation between signs and symptoms of impairment observed at the time of the arrest as compared to drugs detected in a biological sample collected later.

The DDT5000 consists of four main parts, the analyzer, printer, keyboard and test cassette that contains the sample collector. The sample collector is placed into the mouth and moved between the gums and cheek. When sufficient volume is collected, an adequacy indicator turns blue to signal that enough sample (approximately 150-200 μL) has been collected. The test cassette and a buffer cartridge are then inserted into the analyzer. The testing is complete in eight minutes. Results are initially displayed on the instrument as positive or negative and can be printed.

The DDT5000 is designed to be used at the roadside or after arrest, much akin to the portable breath test (PBT) devices used for alcohol testing. Unlike the PBT, the DDT5000 does not provide any numerical reading, limiting the utility of the devices to a roadside "screening" as opposed to a quantitative device. Even a positive result still requires confirmatory testing1. The DDT5000 only provides a qualitative result of a positive or negative sample, and Draeger, Inc. states in its manual that in order to obtain a confirmed analytical result, a more specific alternate chemical method is needed, such as Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry. Thus, Draeger suggests that a second saliva sample be obtained and analyzed by an accredited laboratory.

Although the DDT5000 has not yet been formally endorsed by the federal government for roadside or evidentiary drug testing, it appears from an April 2021 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) report that it may soon be a recommended device for law enforcement. In April 2021, NHTSA released a report of its evaluation of multiple different roadside and evidentiary drug testing devices, including the DDT5000. In its report, NHTSA found the DDT5000 to meet its standards for device performance specifications. NHTSA device performance specification starters are based upon the Roadside Testing Assessment (ROSITA) and the Driving Under the Influence of Drugs, Alcohol and Medicines (DRUID) project. In its report, NHTSA supports its use of these standards by explaining that the ROSTIA and DRUID studies were the first large-scale evaluations of using oral fluid drug testing in the field and recommended performance criteria for oral fluid drug-testing devices designed for use in the field (point-of-contact testing).

Both studies made recommendations for sensitivity, specificity and accuracy in order for an oral fluid test before law enforcement could have confidence in the result. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy determine how well a test works; sensitivity refers to a test's ability to avoid a false negative while specificity refers to a test's ability to avoid a false positive, both of which are then combined to determine the test's accuracy. ROSITA recommends greater than 90 percent sensitivity and specificity, and greater than 95 percent accuracy, and the DRUID project recommends greater than 80 percent sensitivity, specificity and accuracy. (Schulze et al., 2012; Viviane et al., 1999).

After analyzing the DDT5000 under five different phases to assess its accuracy, reliability, performance to specification, susceptibility to interference, and resistance of the consumables to extremes of temperature and humidity, NHTSA claims that the DDT5000 meets both the ROSITA and DRUID criteria. However, to no one's surprise, the device is not perfect, and false positives were observed. During the interference testing phase, the DDT5000 had seven false positives when testing samples that did not contain the target drug. Three were for THC and occurred one time each when the negative saliva was mixed with beer, toothpaste, and coffee. The device also had false negative results when the sample containing the target drug was mixed with milk, resulting in a false negative for THC, and another false negative when mixed with chewing to***co, resulting in a false negative for opiates.

Although law enforcement may begin adopting new oral fluid testing devices like the DDT5000 to gather evidence to support drugged driving charges, with the support of the NCDD, there undoubtedly will be Frye and Daubert challenges to any admission of a positive result at trial based upon this very new method of testing.

1. As many of us are aware, the mere presence of a drug in a person's system does not constitute impairment nor is it indicative of the quantitative amount of a drug in a person's body.

03/18/2022

Act 2021 – 498 - further revisions to Alabama’s Implied Consent Statute (effective August 1, 2021)
• Amends current Implied Consent statute [Code section 32-5-192] from alcohol only to “any impairing substance or substances within a person’s system.”
• Removes urine from testing and replaces with “oral fluid” – a new concept in Alabama law enforcement.
• Authorizes multiple tests (blood, breath, & oral fluid) at direction of the arresting officer.
• Authorizes use of “court order” to obtain test samples if the arrested subject refuses to consent to testing.
• Expands Implied Consent refusal from alcohol only to “alcohol or any impairing substance.”

03/16/2022

Act 2021 – 387 amends Alabama's Implied Consent Law [Code section 32-5-192(c)] effective August 1, 2021. Increases the Implied Consent “lookback” period from 5 years to 10 years. Provides increased suspension durations for third and fourth refusals.
• third refusal suspended for 3 years
• fourth or subsequent refusal suspended for 5 years
CAVEAT: No interlock ignition installation available for implied consent refusals!

02/27/2019

You may have heard that it is very difficult, almost impossible, to enter the neighboring country of Canada with a DUI conviction on your record. Well, it just worse…. On December 18, 2018, Canada's new impaired driving laws went into effect. Under the new laws, driving while intoxicated by drugs or alcohol is now considered a serious offense, placing the offense in the same legal category as murder, aggravated sexual assault, and drug trafficking.

Under Canada's new DUI laws, it doesn't matter if the driver caused an accident or hurt someone, simply being behind the wheel while legally impaired is enough to result in significant prison time. The new law also doubled the previous maximum penalty, from 5 years to 10. This also means that Canadian immigration officials treat foreign DUI convictions much more seriously than they did before and, as a result, it will be more difficult to obtain a permit to travel into Canada.

The immigration officials at Canadian airports and the international border between the U.S. and Canada have access to the FBI’s national database of all fingerprints and criminal records. If you have a DUI arrest on your record, you may be questioned about the offense; it you were convicted, you will probably be turned away. If you lie about your record, and you are caught giving false information about your DUI, you are facing a very serious felony level crime. Don’t do it!

If you are considering a visit to Canada and have a DUI or similar offense on your record from after December 2018, these new rules could make it much more difficult to enter the country. Without legal assistance to secure a ‘Temporary Resident Permit’, travelers with a DUI on their records from December 2018 or later will likely find themselves unable to enter Canada. If you want to talk to a qualified Canadian lawyer about your potential DUI issue so that you can obtain a lawful entry permit, call the Law Office of Patrick Mahaney.

Address

8650 Minnie Brown Road Suite 150
Montgomery, AL
36116

Opening Hours

Monday 8:30am - 5:30pm
Tuesday 8:30am - 5:30pm
Wednesday 8:30am - 5:30pm
Thursday 8:30am - 5:30pm
Friday 8:30am - 5:30pm

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Law Office of Patrick Mahaney posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Law Office of Patrick Mahaney:

Share