Sentencing options for Austin DWI cases

Written by swayze on November 7th, 2011

Travis County has a program referred to as the Sheriff’s Weekend Alternative Program or “SWAP.” The program allows inmates to go to jail on the weekend, do some type of work, and then go home and sleep in their own bed at night. The program is generally available for non-violent offenders found guilty of such offenses as DWI. The “SWAP” program was created in part to save the taxpayers money, as it is very expensive to house inmates. “SWAP” is an alternative to the other punishment options a person in Austin may face when charged with an offense such as DWI.

What are the options for such a person?

First, the person can do probation. The general terms of probation for a person convicted of class B misdemeanor first offense DWI in Travis County are fairly uniform. The probation will typically last around 18 months, the person will be required to perform community service, complete counseling, pay fines, pay court costs, and report to a probation officer. The community service can vary, but is typically around 80 hours. These hours can feel more punitive than many people think. After all, time is money. Clients who are paid by the hour understand this very well, but even those that are paid a salary understand they only have so much time. So the time spent on community service could have been spent on something that would earn them money or even something that you would enjoy doing. Time is the most precious commodity that a person has as a human being, you can’t ever get any more of it, and you can’t get it back once you have spent it. If you think about it, time represents all of the opportunity that you have and all of the potential actions you have to take. When you lose a segment of time, you lose all of the potential and all of those possibilities. In addition, the fines and court costs are generally going to be around $800 dollars, and counseling can vary from just a few alcohol classes to inpatient treatment. Basically, the money (which takes time to earn), and the counseling (which costs money, and time) and the community service (which takes time) equates to a period of time in a particular person’s life that they will never get back.

Given the time lost while on probation, a person facing a conviction for class B misdemeanor DWI in Austin may find that it is more beneficial to sit the sentence out in jail rather than probation. A jail sentence will vary depending on the facts of a particular person’s case. The punishment range for a class B misdemeanor DWI is between 72 hours and 180 days. The person will also have to pay court costs, and have their driver’s license suspended. The person will receive credit on their driver’s license suspension for their ALR driver’s license suspension. A typical inmate sentenced to 10 days in Jail will get 2 days credit for every one day actually served. The Travis County Sheriff’s Office gives 2 days credit to inmates for their “good behavior” instead of one. This is an incentive to the inmates to be “good inmates” and saves Travis County precious dollars because the inmate will spend less actual time in the jail. If an inmate works while he is incarcerated he will get 3 days credit for every 1 day actually spent in the Travis County Jail.

Despite the good time credit, few people relish the idea of going to jail. In some cases, the SWAP may be a good alternative. If the person is accepted into the Travis County SWAP program, then the person will be able to serve their sentence on the weekend, and go home at night. While, the Travis County Sheriff’s Office’s SWAP program benefits persons that are allowed to enter the program it also benefits Travis County in that the county spends less money housing inmates. This seems like a win/win situation. However, it is not popular with all judges and prosecutors, some of whom do not like the program. Some judges have put time requirements on those allowed in the program. What this means is that a person sentenced to jail in their court can only benefit from the SWAP program if they are sentenced to more than a certain amount of days.

This situation may lead to a longer sentence for some defendants. For instance, consider person A, who is sentenced to say 10 days in the Travis County Jail, and is not eligible for SWAP. For purposes of our hypothetical he is good in jail and works every day while incarcerated. Let’s also say that person A has credit for 2 days (1 actual day) for the day he was originally arrested for the offense. This means that person A goes into the jail Friday night, and gets out Sunday morning. On the other hand, consider person B. Person B is sentenced to 30 days in the Travis County Jail because he is going to be participating in the “SWAP” program. Person B is expected to go to jail and work every weekend for approximately 10 weekends. However, just because someone is allowed to participate in the “SWAP” program by a judge does not mean the Travis County Sheriff’s Office will accept the person. For purposes of our hypothetical lets say that the Travis County Sheriff’s Office determines person B is physically not capable of performing the work required and rejects person B from the program. This means that person B now has to serve 30 days in jail (2 days for 1). Person B goes into the Travis County Jail on Friday night, and gets out of jail 13 days later. The result? Person B has to serve a disproportionately larger amount of time than person A.

Austin DWI Lawyer

Clifford Swayze
Attorney at Law
512 E. 11th St. Ste. 202
Austin, Texas 78701
Phone: 512-335-5245

 

DWI arrests Austin Texas

Written by swayze on October 21st, 2011

Generally, a police officer first initiates contact with a person due to a traffic violation, or to investigate some other violation of the law. During the investigation or detention begins an investigation of Driving While Intoxicated (DWI). There are certain situations where an officer may stop and assist a person whom a reasonable person, given the totality of the circumstances, would believe is in need of help. There are situations in Austin, Texas, where the Austin Police Officer’s initial encounter with a person later arrested for Driving While Intoxicated originated under the officer’s community caretaking function. The police officer’s community caretaking function is an issue that the Texas Courts have addressed on numerous occasions. I must stress that the community caretaking function of an officer is a highly fact based issue, and one that is flux. Meaning that the smallest detail can play a role in whether the officer’s stop was reasonable. The following is the case law associated with the officer’s community care taking function summarized above.

A police officer may seize an individual through the exercise of his community caretaking function. Corbin v. State, 85S.W.3d 272, 276 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Wright v. State, 7 S.W.3d 148,151-52 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).

“As part of an officers’ duty to ‘serve and protect,’ an officer ‘may stop and assist an individual whom a reasonable person given the totality of circumstances, would believe is in need of help.’” Corbin, 85 S.W.3d at 276 (quoting Wright, 7 S.W.3d at 151).

“Once it is determined that an officer is primarily motivated by his community caretaking function, it must then be determined whether the officer’s believe that the defendant needs help is reasonable. Corbin, 85 S.W.3d at 277 (citing Wright, 7.S.W.3d at 151-52).

In evaluating whether an officer reasonably believes that a person needs help, courts may look to a list of four non-exclusive factors:
(1) the nature and level of the distress exhibited by the individual;
(2) the location of the individual;
(3) whether or not the individual was alone and/or had access to assistance other than that offered by the officer; and
(4) to what extent the individual, if not assisted, presented a danger to himself or others.
The first factor is entitled to the greatest weight. Corbin, 85 S.W.3d at 277.

Where the evidence establishes that an officer’s belief that an individual was in need of assistance was not objectively reasonable, a “community caretaking” seizure is not authorized and violates the Fourth Amendment and any evidence obtained as a result of such seizure must be suppressed. Corbin, 85 S.W.3d at 277-78; Wright 7.S.W.3d at 151-52.

Where an officer is not acting on a reliable tip about a suspicious person and the area where the individual was seized was not a “high crime” area, an individual’s nervousness and crying do not rise to the level of anxiety necessary to support a seizure pursuant to the “community caretaking” function. Franks v. State, 241 S.W.3d 135, 143 (Tex. App. – Austin 2008, pet. ref’d.).

My friend Steve Graham’s blog post on DUI’s Under.08 discusses legal issues in Washington State concerning the subjective nature of DWI arrests. Through my discussions with Steve, I have learned that Washington State has a two prong DWI/DUI statute similar to Texas in that the statutes are both objective and subjective in relation to intoxication. In his blog post, he discusses an officer’s reluctance to send a person back on the road if they are at all “questionable.” I think his discussion of legal issues in Washington State is relevant to my discussion of the community caretaking function of Austin Texas police officers only as to the highly fact-specific and subjective nature of both types of issues.

The above discussion relating to an officer’s community caretaking function (sometimes used as the reasoning for an initial encounter with a future DWI defendant) is brief and highly fact specific. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law on this issue, one should not rely in any way on the accuracy of the information. If you have any questions relating to the community care taking function of a police officer or have been arrested for DWI, please schedule a consultation.

Austin DWI Lawyer
Clifford Swayze
Attorney At Law
512 E. 11th Street, Ste. 202
Austin, Texas 78701
Phone: (512) 335-5245

 

Austin Texas DWI Laws

Written by swayze on October 18th, 2011

Generally, a first offense Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) charge with a breath and/or blood alcohol concentration of under a .15 is a class B misdemeanor punishable by a minimum of 72 hours in jail, with a maximum of up to 180 days in jail and up to a $2000 dollar fine. However, there are situations where a first offense Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) arrest can lead to higher level charges and punishment ranges. As I have stated in previous blog posts, a first offense Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) charge in Austin, Texas, where the defendant provides a breath and/or blood sample at .15 or higher is a Class A misdemeanor.

The purpose of this blog post is to discuss Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) with a child passenger. A person commits this offense if they are intoxicated, while operating a motor vehicle in a public place and the vehicle being operated (by the person) has an occupant who is younger than 15 years old. An arrest for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) with a child passenger is a state jail felony in Texas. This means that if convicted, the defendant faces a minimum of 180 days in jail and up to 2 years in jail and up to a $10,000 dollar fine. The one major difference between state jail felony Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) convictions is that a state jail felony conviction requires the defendant to serve day for day in jail. This means that if the defendant is required to go to jail, he or she will be forced to serve out the sentence day for day rather than 2 for 1, or 3 for 1 that a person may be eligible for if convicted of a Class B misdemeanor Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) charge.

I am not saying that a person convicted for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) with a child passenger will have to go to jail, in Travis County (Austin) the person, depending on the circumstances may be eligible for probation.

Austin DWI Lawyer
Clifford Swayze
Attorney at Law
512 E. 11th Street, Ste. 202
Austin, Texas 78701
Phone: 512-335-5245

 

DWI arrest- drugs-Austin, Texas

Written by swayze on October 14th, 2011

OUELLETTE v. STATE

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued an opinion yesterday on a Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) case that resulted from an arrest in Austin, Texas. In this case, the defendant rear-ended another car while driving in Austin. She was then arrested by an Austin Police Officer, and charged with Driving While Intoxicated (DWI). After the officer had placed the defendant into custody, he found “Soma” in the vehicle that was properly prescribed to the defendant. In Texas, as I have stated previously, our definition of “intoxicated” in relation to a Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) arrest includes alcohol, or a controlled substance as the possible intoxicant.

At some point, this case went to a jury trial in Travis County, and the defendant was convicted for Driving While Intoxicated. The issue in the opinion delivered by the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, was whether the trial court made an error “in a driving while intoxicated case, where the evidence is legally sufficient to support a conviction on the theory that the defendant was intoxicated by [...] alcohol [...], is it proper for the trial court, in its charge, to also authorize a conviction on an alternative theory that the defendant was intoxicated by [...] a drug, or a combination of alcohol and a drug [...], where the evidence merely shows that medications prescribed for the defendant were found in her car [...]?”

To articulate this in a manner that can be more easily understood, did the trial court make an error in submitting “a statutory definition” to the jury that is not relevant to the evidence in the case. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas decided that they “need not decide that issue” because they found that “while evidence that the appellant was intoxicated by drugs was circumstantial and not obviously overwhelming, it is nonetheless present in the record.”

The “circumstantial evidence” found in the Travis County Court’s record was that the Austin Police Officer “testified that the appellant showed signs of having consumed a central-nervous-system depressant.” The Austin Police Officer also testified that both alcohol and Soma are central-nervous-system depressants. “In short, the appellant appeared intoxicated, police found in her vehicle a drug that could have produced the observed symptoms of intoxication, and she refused a blood test. Although there was no direct evidence that the defendant consumed the drug, there was evidence from which a rational juror could have found that the defendant did so.”

I think this case represents a situation that a lot of people do not realize is against the law. If you take a prescription, even if properly prescribed, and drive, then you may get arrested for Driving While Intoxicated. Additionally, if you have a drink, drive, and have those prescriptions in your car, they might be used against you in court.

Austin DWI Lawyer

Clifford Swayze

512 E. 11th Street, Ste. 202

Austin, Texas 78701

Phone: 512-335-5245

 

Occupational Driver’s License – Austin, Texas

Written by swayze on October 6th, 2011

An occupational driver’s license is a restricted license issued to persons whose license has been suspended for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) or other offenses. An occupational license allows the person to operate a non-commercial motor vehicle in connection with a person’s occupation, for educational purposes or in the performance of essential household duties. In Travis County (Austin, Texas), petitions for occupational driver’s licenses are made to one of the Travis County or District Courts in the county if the person resides in Travis County or if the offense occurred in Travis County.

A court order is not an occupational driver’s license; it is the order granting the occupational license. The Travis County court order and all other required items must be submitted to the Texas Department of Public Safety for issuance of an occupational driver’s license. The court order is only valid for thirty days from the date the judge signed the order.

I have had situations where a client gets arrested for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) in Austin, has their driver’s license suspended, obtained an order granting an occupational driver’s license and submitted it to the Texas Department for issuance of the occupational driver’s license, but have failed to receive their driver’s license within the thirty day period. If you have not received the actual occupational driver’s license within the thirty days, then you are not able to operate a motor vehicle. If you are caught driving a motor vehicle, then you could get arrested for driving on a suspended driver’s license and/or have your driver’s license suspended for a longer period by the Department of Public Safety for driving while your license is suspended. If you have been arrested for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) and have failed to request an administrative driver’s license hearing within 15 days after the date of arrest, or have had the hearing and your driver’s license was suspended, then you must obtain an occupational driver’s license to drive.

If you fail to request a driver’s license hearing within the 15 days after the date you were arrested your driver’s license will be suspended on the 40th day after arrest. It is very important to be aware of the status of your driving privileges if you have been arrested for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI). You are the one that will be arrested and face the consequences if you are caught driving while your license is suspended! For more information regarding occupational driver’s license, and/or driver’s license suspensions contact my office.

Austin DWI Lawyer
Clifford Swayze
Attorney at Law
512 E. 11th Street, Ste. 202
Austin, Texas 78701
Phone: 512-335-5245

 

DWI arrest Austin Texas – Is my driver’s license suspended?

Written by swayze on October 3rd, 2011

I had a client that was recently arrested for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) in Austin, Texas, that asked me how he was going to get to work or school because his driver’s license had been taken by the police officer. The client believed his license was suspended. I explained to him that his driver’s license was not suspended, but that if he failed to request a driver’s license hearing before the 40th day after he was arrested for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), his driver’s license would be suspended at that time.

When a person is arrested for suspicion of Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), among the paperwork the defendant should receive will be documents titled “Statutory Warnings” and “Temporary Driving Permit”. The Statutory Warnings are referred to as the DIC-24. The Temporary Driving Permit is referred to as the DIC-25. The Temporary Driving Permit is valid for 40 days from the date of arrest, unless an administrative driver’s license hearing is requested, in which case the Temporary Driving Permit will remain valid until after the hearing takes place. However, if a person’s driver’s license was already suspended prior to the Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) arrest, or if that person is charged with any other driving-related offense at the time of the arrest that results in the license being suspended, he or she will not receive a Temporary Driving Permit and the suspension is immediately in effect.

What if you have an out of state driver’s license? What if you were arrested in Austin, Texas and live in a different state? What if this is your second, third or more Driving While Intoxicated arrest? Did the Judge require, as a condition of your bond, that you have an ignition interlock device?

If you have any questions regarding a Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) arrest call my office and schedule a free consultation to discuss your case!

Austin DWI Lawyer

Clifford Swayze

Attorney at Law

512 E. 11th St. Ste. 202

Austin, Texas 78701

Phone: 512-335-5245

 

Probation vs. Jail Sentence? Austin, Texas

Written by swayze on September 30th, 2011

When a person is facing a conviction for a first offense Class B misdemeanor Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), they often have to make the decision whether they want to take a jail sentence or be put on probation. Recently, one of my clients was trying to make the decision whether to take a jail sentence or be put on probation. The client had to take into consideration the potential conditions he would face in jail, potential conditions he would face on probation as well as his life circumstances.

Generally in Travis County, a jail sentence will include a specific amount of days confinement at the Travis County Jail, court costs, and a driver’s license suspension. If a person chooses to be placed on probation in Travis County,then they generally will be required to pay a fine and/or court costs, complete counseling through Travis County Counseling and Education Services, complete a specified amount of community service, and maintain a valid driver’s license and insurance. This list of requirements is by no means exhaustive, and depending on the facts of a particular defendant’s case, he or she may be required to submit to other requirements. Probation is not easy and first offense class B Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) probation in Travis County, Texas, can last for up to two years in duration depending on the defendant’s case. While a defendant in Travis County is generally not required to take a jail sentence (unless he or she violate their conditions of probation), if they are convicted of first offense class B misdemeanor Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), they often choose a jail sentence.

Defendants often choose jail time over probation when dealing with a first offense Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) conviction primarily because of the costs associated with probation. Jail time is often a traumatic experience, but it is often significantly less expensive than a stint in jail. Probation is also very time consuming, and places a considerable amount of burden on the defendant. It is often difficult for people to visit a probation officer every month, complete community service, and attend counseling requirements as well as try to earn a living. The decision to take probation or a jail sentence is a personal choice that a person facing a conviction for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) has to make, based on their own life circumstances. A person facing such a choice should consider all the factors of their case along with the potential sentence they are facing. One final thought on this matter. When dealing with a first offense class B Driving While Intoxicated conviction, it is important to remember the surcharge placed on a person’s driver’s license, after a conviction along with the SR-22 insurance requirements.



Austin DWI Lawyer
Clifford Swayze
Attorney at Law
512 E. 11th St. Ste. 202
Austin, Texas 78701
Phone: 512-335-5245

 

Repeat DWI arrests! Austin, Texas

Written by swayze on September 25th, 2011

The Texas Penal Code provides for the enhancement of Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) sentences for repeat or habitual felony defendants. When a defendant is considered a repeat or habitual he or she is subject to an enhancement that increases the range of punishment for the primary Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) case. For instance, person A gets arrested for Driving While Intoxicated in Austin, Texas, in 2006. Then, after appearing in the Travis County Court he is eventually convicted of a class B misdemeanor Driving While Intoxicated first offense. If person A gets arrested again in 2011, in Texas, for suspicion of Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), then he will be facing a class A misdemeanor subsequent offense Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) charge. The prior arrest for Driving While Intoxicated had a punishment range of between 72 hours in Jail and up to 180 days in Jail and up to a $2000 dollar fine. The Driving While Intoxicated subsequent offense has a punishment range of between 5 days to 1 year in jail and up to a $4000 dollar fine.

A person that has two previous convictions for Driving While Intoxicated is subject to an enhancement for a 3rd Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) arrest to a 3rd Degree Felony punishable to up to 10 years in Prison and up to a $10,000 dollar fine.

Texas law changed on September 1, 2011, and a DWI first offense can also be charged as a class A misdemeanor Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) charge if the person provides a breath and/or blood test with a blood alcohol concentration of .15 or higher. I have covered this issue in previous posts, but for purposes of completeness I included it in this discussion. I will discuss habitual offender Driving While Intoxicated issues in later posts. Stay tuned!

Austin DWI Lawyer

Clifford Swayze
Attorney at Law
512 E. 11th St. Ste. 202
Austin, Texas 78701
Phone: 512-335-5245

 

DWI Voluntary? Austin, Texas

Written by swayze on September 21st, 2011

Occasionally, a Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) involves a situation in which the person did not intend to drive intoxicated. Prosecutions for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) in Texas do not require that the State prove a culpable mental state. For instance, the Travis County Attorney’s Office is not required to plead that the defendant operated a motor vehicle in a public place intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence. A person may still be convicted of Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) even though he or she was involuntarily intoxicated, or where the person did not know he or she was intoxicated.

The issue of whether a person knew they were intoxicated as defined by the Texas Penal Code arises in the following situation. First, the objective portion of the Driving While Intoxicated statute in Texas defines Intoxication as having a blood alcohol concentration over a .08 reading. A woman and a man who weigh exactly the same, consume the same amount of alcohol under the same circumstances will have different blood alcohol levels. In this situation, the woman’s blood alcohol will climb higher than a male’s. The reason for this is that the female body typically has a lower percentage of water than that of a man, meaning that women have less space to distribute the alcohol. When you add to the equation that the average woman is smaller than the average man, it is no surprise that a specific amount of alcohol will generally cause a woman to have a higher blood alcohol concentration than a man.

The average 180 lb male is going to reach the objective legal alcohol limit at 4 or fewer drinks. There are a lot of factors that could change this average, so you should in no way use this as a barometer for how much alcohol you can consumer before you drive. The best option is to never have a drink and operate a motor vehicle. If the average 180 lb male reaches the legal limit at 4 or fewer drinks, how many drinks do you think it is going to take for a 100 lb 21 year old female going to downtown Austin for the evening? The answer, not much. I am not saying the female will feel intoxicated, or that she has lost the normal use of her mental or physical faculties, but her blood alcohol concentration will be higher!

Austin DWI Lawyer
Clifford Swayze
Attorney at Law
512 E. 11th St. Ste. 202
Austin, Texas 78701
Phone: 512-335-5245

 

DWI arrest Confession? Austin, Texas

Written by swayze on September 20th, 2011

Practicing criminal law in Travis County (Austin), Texas, one of the first things defendants tell me is that the officer did not read them their rights.
To invoke the 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, a suspect has the right to consult with an attorney, and have counsel present during a custodial interrogation. The police officer must explain this right to the suspect before questioning commences. The warnings and rights are codified in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

The warnings or rights do not have to be read to the suspect until the person has been placed into custody. A traffic stop, as I have described in earlier posts, is an investigative detention and the suspect has not been placed into custody. This means that the police officer may have found reasonable suspicion to stop the person, such as speeding, no headlights, or going the wrong way on a one way street to name a few. At this point in the officer’s investigation he has not obtained probable cause to arrest the suspect for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI). As I have described in earlier posts, a traffic stop is an investigative detention when a police officer detains a person reasonably suspected of criminal activity. The point of the stop is to determine the suspect’s identity or at least to momentarily maintain the status quo to gather information. The Austin Police officer’s investigative detention must last no longer than necessary to accomplish the purpose of the stop. The police officer must actually be investigating, and the police officer has to use the least intrusive means to dispel the police officer’s suspicions.

The determination of whether a person has already been placed into custody for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) has to be evaluated on a case by case basis by taking into account all the objective circumstances. There are four factors that are relevant in determining if a person has been placed into custody. They are as follows:
1. Whether the police officer has probable cause to arrest the person for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI).
2. The subjective intent of the police officer.
3. The focus of the investigation.
4. The subjective belief of the suspect

There are also 4 situations to think about when figuring out if a non-custodial encounter has become a custodial interrogation. The first situation occurs when the defendant has been physically deprived of freedom of action in any significant way. The second situation occurs when a police officer tells a person that they are not free to leave. The third situation arises when the police officer has probable cause to arrest the person, but the law enforcement officers have not told the person that he or she is free to leave. The fourth situation occurs when the police officers have created a situation in which a reasonable person believes their freedom of movement has been significantly restricted.
The gist of this is that generally a person does not need to be read his or her rights when they have been pulled over for a traffic violation. For instance, if a person gets pulled over for speeding, the officer approaches the vehicle, and detects the odor of alcohol on the driver’s breath. The officer is not required to read the person his rights prior to asking him if he has had any alcohol to drink, or asking him to submit to the standardized field sobriety tests. Generally, the above actions do not rise to the level of an arrest. The officer is engaged in what is referred to as an investigative detention.

Furthermore, if a suspect for a Driving While Intoxicated offense is sitting in the back seat of the police car and blurts out “God, I have had way too much to drink,” then the officer need not have read him his rights in order for the state to use this statement against the defendant. The reason for this is that the police officer was not interrogating the defendant. The defendant must be subject to an interrogation, and if the defendant voluntarily makes a statement while he is in custody, then it can still be used against him! This is a very general look into this subject, and I will have future posts that go into more detail. This area of the law is extremely complicated. If you have any questions about this subject you should consult a lawyer. Furthermore, due to the rapidly shifting nature of the law, I make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of this content.

Austin DWI Lawyer
Clifford Swayze
Attorney at Law
512 E. 11th St. Ste. 202
Austin, Texas 78701
Phone: 512-335-5245

 
Thank you for using IGIT Tweet Button, a plugin by PHP Freelancer