How do I find a good lawyer?

Home | Personal Injury | DePuy Hip Recall | Traffic Tickets | Family Law | Criminal Defense |Get Informed

With so many lawyers out there, how should you go about finding a good one? How can you tell a strong lawyer from a weak one? You need solid legal advice, and you want the right attorney. Do not, we repeat, DO NOT just open the phone book, close your eyes, and point to a name. Here are some guideposts to help you.

A good lawyer is ethical.

You're probably laughing right now. Can the words "ethics" and "lawyer" exist in the same sentence? Actually, it is possible, and you should absolutely insist on it. But how can you tell if a lawyer is ethical? There are some pretty good indicators.

What types of cases does he take? Lawyers have a choice about which cases they take. Look at her winning cases as well as the losing ones. No lawyer wants to lose a case, but an ethical lawyer will often be willing to take a case because it is the right thing to do and fight to the very end.Look at whether the lawyer actually tries the cases he takes in court or whether he just gathers cases for others. Ask the attorney when he last went to trial. Ask him how often his cases settle and how often his cases make it to a jury. Be sure that the lawyer specializes in your type of case. You really don't want a tax attorney to represent you in your personal injury case. An ethical attorney will only take cases in her area of expertise.

What types of clients does he represent? Does he represent big corporations or everyday people? Does he fight for the underdog? Does he hold wrongdoers accountable for their behavior?

Is he honest? Is she candid about the strengths and weaknesses of your case? A good lawyer will almost never tell her clients that the case is a "slam dunk." Those types of cases are extremely rare. Moreover, is he honest about his own strengths and weaknesses as an attorney? A good lawyer will tell you if he's particularly good in one area, but that he may ask his partner to help out in another area. He knows that two heads are better than one, and he can be honest about it. Is the lawyer truthful about his fees and costs? He should tell you what his services will cost, and there should not be any hidden fees.

What is the lawyer's reputation in the community? Is he known for his honesty, his pro bono work, his strong relationships in the legal and general community? Google the lawyer's name. See what comes up. Look for newspaper articles, websites and blogs. Make sure the attorney is in good standing with the state. Any sort of disciplinary action is a red flag. Ask around the community. Does the lawyer have a good name around town? Have any of your friends or acquaintances had experiences with him? Check his references.

A good lawyer values you as a person.

Does he look you in the eye when he's talking with you? Are you treated as a person or as just some client? Does the lawyer remember personal information about you, including your spouse's or children's names? Do you actually get to meet with him personally, or are you always sent to talk with a secretary? A good lawyer will make time for you and will return your phone calls quickly. Does he show that he understands that you have a unique situation that is quite unlike anyone else's? Has he shown that he respects your time and obligations, or does he talk on and on? Remember, a good lawyer will listen at least as much as he speaks.

Trust your gut.

It all really comes down to trusting yourself. Ask yourself: Do I like the guy? How does he treat his office staff? Do I trust this guy? Does it feel like he's trying to sell me the Brooklyn Bridge? If you don't like how you feel at that first meeting, chances are that it's not going to get any better. Listen to that little voice inside - odds are, you're exactly right.

How do I know if Sullo & Sullo is right for me?

Please browse our site and give us a call. We'd like to answer any questions you may have. Give your gut a chance to test our ethics and people skills.

Alert Cab Aimed At Curbing DWI’s

By Megan Breckenridge, Staff Writer

SULLO & SULLO, LLP

Home Criminal Defense Traffic Tickets Legal Articles

HOUSTON — Harris County has long been the national leader in fatal alcohol-related auto accidents; a title that law enforcement officials are eager to relinquish. Though instances of Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) have declined in recent years thanks to aggressive educational campaigns and improved methods of screening and prosecuting suspected parties, the city still has a long way to go.

Enter “Alert Cab”, a new initiative aimed at providing a safe alternative for restaurant and bar patrons that have imbibed too much to drive home safely. Developed and supported through a partnership between Silver Eagle Distributors, L.P. and the Greater Houston Restaurant Association (GHRA), the program enables participating locations to offer guests a free cab ride home in hopes of avoiding a potential DWI, or worse, an alcohol-related collision.

Harris County Sheriff Adrian Garcia is a strong supporter of the Alert Cab program.

“Alcohol-related accidents are claiming more lives in Harris County than anywhere else in the country,” he said in an interview with Houston Community Newspapers. “Taking us off that first-place spot is everyone’s responsibility, not just law enforcement. That’s why I welcome community partners like [this].”

Alert Cab operates by offering $20 cab ride vouchers to patrons in exchange for their car keys. Clients fill out the paperwork necessary to get them home safely if the need arises, and relinquish their keys to their server. Everything is then sealed in an envelope and given to the cab driver, who returns the keys only upon the patron’s arrival home.

Tyron Malone, branch manager at the Cypress Silver Eagle site, said Silver Eagle and the GHRA contribute the money to pay for these cab rides. “[The program] curbs drunk driving and helps keep our roads safer,” he said. “As a father and community member, I’m proud to support these efforts.”

Lauren Barrash, founder and president of The Wave, a shared shuttle service for nightlife entertainment inside the 610-loop, agrees. “Anything we can do or participate in to help create safer roadways for Houstonians and her visitors, we do,” she said. “Alert Cab is a program The Wave is honored to partner with.”

GHRA President Mike Shine, said his organization hopes to help encourage patrons to drink responsibly. Still, he said, in the event that a server is faced with a dangerously intoxicated individual, they have the option to employ the Alert Cab program.

“In the past, managers would have to call a cab, often at the expense of the business,” Shine said. “Alert Cab gives our members a better approach to get the guest home safely.”

With the Alert Cab program, protecting yourself and your loved ones while out on the town is simple: Start by selecting an establishment that is partnered with the Alert Cab initiative. In the event that you have too much to drink, tell your bartender and trade in your car keys for a cab ride voucher. Arrive home safely, receive your keys, and return to get your car the next day. No amount of inconvenience is worth risking a potential DWI or alcohol-related accident.

That said, if you or someone you know has been involved in a drunk driving accident and needs legal assistance, the experienced lawyers at Sullo & Sullo, LLP are here to help. We understand that even the most stringent planning can still result in unintended consequences, and will fight to defend your rights to the full extent of the law. Call us at 713.839.9026 or visit our website at www.sullolaw.com for a free legal consultation today.

The Dangers of “Drugged Driving”

By Megan Breckenridge, Staff Writer

SULLO & SULLO, LLP

Home Criminal Defense Traffic Tickets Legal Articles

HOUSTON — Drinking and driving have long been considered a dangerous and potentially deadly combination, and in recent years, instances of Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) have been on the decline in the United States. Many credit this positive trend to the multipronged and concerted effort of many stakeholders—including educators, legislators, law enforcement, media and community organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving—and improved methods of screening and prosecuting suspected parties.

But while fewer drivers may be electing to drive drunk, a growing number are getting behind the wheel impaired by illegal and prescription drugs. Experts in the field say cracking down on “drugged driving” must become a national priority before it spirals any further out of control.

“Ten years ago we didn’t have nearly the amount of drug-impaired cases as we have now,” said Sgt. Susan Cotter, a drug recognition expert with the Harris County Sheriff’s Office, in an interview with the Houston Chronicle. Blood tests performed on drivers are detecting more traces of prescription drugs such as Xanax, Soma and hydrocodone—all substances that can adversely affect judgment, reaction time and motor skills. The tests are also increasingly detecting mixtures of prescription and illegal drugs taken with alcohol, which can exacerbate impairment.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) 2007 National Roadside Survey, more than 16 percent of weekend, nighttime drivers tested positive for illegal, prescription or over-the-counter medications. And the 2008 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) found an estimated 10 million people aged 12 and older drove under the influence of illicit drugs during the year prior to being surveyed.

In addition, NSDUH reported the following:

· In 2008, an estimated 12.4 percent of persons aged 12 and older (30.9 million persons) drove under the influence of alcohol at least once in the past year. This percentage has dropped since 2002, when it was 14.2 percent.

· Driving under the influence of an illicit drug or alcohol was associated with age. In 2008, an estimated 7.2 percent of youth aged 16 or 17 drove under the influence. This percentage steadily increased with age to reach a peak of 26.1 per- cent among young adults aged 21 to 25. Beyond the age of 25, these rates showed a general decline with increasing age.

· Also in 2008, among persons aged 12 and older, males were nearly twice as likely as females (16 percent versus 9 percent, respectively) to drive under the influence of an illicit drug or alcohol in the past year.

In recent years, more attention has been given to drugs other than alcohol that have increasingly been recognized as hazards to road traffic safety. Some of this research has been done in other countries or in specific regions within the United States, and the prevalence rates for different drugs used vary accordingly. Overall, marijuana is the most prevalent illegal drug detected in impaired drivers, fatally injured drivers, and motor vehicle crash victims. Other drugs also implicated include benzodiazepines, cocaine, opiates, and amphetamines.

Drugged driving laws have lagged behind alcohol-related driving legislation, in part because of limitations in current technology for determining drug levels and resulting impairment. For alcohol, detection of blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is relatively simple, and since concentrations greater than 0.08 percent have been shown to impair driving performance, that is the legal limit in the U.S. But for illicit drugs, there is no agreed-upon limit for which impairment has been reliably demonstrated, and determining current drug levels can be difficult, since some can linger in the body for days or weeks after initial ingestion.

In the absence of Federal legislation addressing the problem of drugged driving, some states have adopted the per se standard. These laws indicate that it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle if there is any detectable amount of a controlled substance in a driver’s blood. This has been the national standard for commercial drivers since 1988, and is also widely used in the developed world outside the U.S., including Western European nations, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It is beneficial because prosecutors don’t have to meet more complex standards of guilt, and drivers know that if they do not abstain completely from the use of illegal drugs before getting behind the wheel, they face the risk of a DWI conviction.

Other State laws define “drugged driving” as driving when a drug “renders the driver incapable of driving safely” or causes the driver to be impaired”. In addition, 44 states and the District of Columbia have implemented Drug Evaluation and Classification Programs, designed to train police officers as Drug Recognition Experts. Officers lean to identify characteristics in a person’s behavior and appearance that may be associated with drug intoxication. If the officer suspects drug intoxication, a blood or urine sample is submitted to a laboratory for confirmation.

In addition to these efforts, the Office of National Drug Control Policy is calling for a reduction in accidents and fatalities over the next five years and for more education and research on how drugs affect the ability to drive.

“We’ve made progress on DWI,” said R. Gil Kerlikwoske, President Barak Obama’s top drug policy adviser. “We need a very clear message on not using drugs and driving.”

Locally, the Harris County Sheriff’s Department launched a targeted DWI enforcement program in July that includes no refusal and public education. Two dozen agencies in the Houston area also have police officers that have undergone drug-recognition training.

A new Texas state law, which went into effect last September, requires mandatory blood testing in specific DWI violations, including when the driver has two or more prior DWI convictions, the driver has a child younger than 15 in the car or the driver causes a fatality or injury. It has helping catch drugged drivers who might go undetected with a breath test.

If you or someone you know has been involved in a drugged driving accident and needs legal assistance, the experienced lawyers at Sullo & Sullo, LLP are here to help. Call us at 713.839.9026 or visit our website at www.sullolaw.com for a free legal consultation today.

Television Stars Call It Quits After Eight-Month Marriage

By Megan Breckenridge, Staff Writer
SULLO & SULLO, LLP
Home Criminal Defense Traffic Tickets Legal Articles

HOUSTON — Apparently, “’Till death do us part,” was merely a suggestion for two of television’s most visible stars, who have elected to divorce after eight short months of matrimony.
Mad Men actress Elizabeth Moss—who plays Peggy in the popular AMC series—filed for divorce from Saturday Night Live comedian Fred Armisen in Los Angeles on Monday, September 20. However, Entertainment Tonight reported that Moss listed June 26 as the date of the couple’s separation, only eight months after they were married in an intimate ceremony in Long Island City.
Moss cited irreconcilable differences in her petition. According to Star magazine, she wants to prevent Armisen from getting spousal support. Sources close to the couple said Moss’s ties to the controversial Church of Scientology were behind the split. Us Weekly Magazine quoted one insider as having said, “Her religion was as important to her as their marriage, if not more. [Armisen] could not get with it.”
Others have speculated that their busy schedules were problematic, and they couldn’t make their long-distance relationship work. Whatever the reason for divorce, neither spouse seems to be wasting any time moving on. Armisen is reportedly dating SNL castmate Abby Elliot, 23, while Moss has been linked to Bosnian actor Edin Gail.
Moss and Armisen met in October 2008, when she was a guest star on SNL, along with Mad Men co-star Jon Hamm. They became engaged the following January and were married last October 25. Armisen was previously married to British singer-songwriter Sally Timms.
Before being cast in Mad Men, Moss had a small role in the drama series The West Wing, appeared briefly in the medical drama Grey’s Anatomy, and appeared alongside Winona Ryder and Angelina Jolie in the movie Girl, Interrupted. She was nominated for an Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress for her work on Mad Men in 2009.
Fred Armisen joined the cast of SNL in 2002, and has also appeared on 30 Rock and The Sarah Silverman Program, among other popular shows. He has a cameo in the comedic movie Easy A, and will play Brainy in the Smurfs movie scheduled for release next year.
The dissolution of a marriage, regardless of the length of your union, is never easy.

If you or someone you know is facing a split, it pays to consult a professional about how best to protect your interests and assets. The experienced lawyers at Sullo & Sullo, LLP understand the emotional and financial ramifications of divorce and are here to help. Call us at 713.839.9026 or visit our website at www.sullolaw.com for a free legal consultation today.

Paris Hilton’s Drug Problems Follow Her Overseas

By Megan Breckenridge, Staff Writer
SULLO & SULLO, LLP
Home Criminal Defense Traffic Tickets Legal Articles

HOUSTON — Stars in the United States have long enjoyed our nation’s brand of “celebrity justice”, but overseas their status is often overlooked. Case in point: The Japanese government’s recent refusal to allow Paris Hilton into the country after pleading guilty to misdemeanor drug charges in Las Vegas.
Hilton joined the ranks of such pop icons as Paul McCartney and the Rolling Stones when she was delayed by immigration authorities at Narita International Airport and officially denied entry into Japan. Her trip came just two days after she plead guilty to drug possession and obstructing an officer; and was sentenced to one year of probation, a $2,000 fine, 200 hours of community service and completion of a substance-abuse program. Japan has strict immigration laws that bar entry to those convicted of drug offenses, although exceptions are occasionally granted.
The 29-year-old celebrity socialite was supposed to promote her fashion and fragrance lines at a news conference on the morning of Wednesday, September 22, in Tokyo. She arrived Tuesday evening but was stopped at the airport and spent the night at a hotel there after being questioned by officials.
Tokyo was the first stop on Hilton’s planned Asia tour, during which she was to visit Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and open a new retail store in Jakarta, Indonesia. She was forced to cancel all of her appearances, which she has said she will make up at a later date.
Hilton’s trip was scheduled before her arrest last month in Las Vegas, when an officer found a small amount of cocaine in her purse. She was given a one-year suspended sentence, the terms of which stipulate that if she is arrested for anything besides a minor traffic violation in Vegas within the next year, she will have to serve a full year in prison. The conditions did not, however, restrict her travel overseas.
Japan has taken a hard line with famous figures in the past, including rock legends, The Rolling Stones, who struggled for years to gain entry to the country because of drug convictions among the group’s members. Former Beatle Paul McCartney was also deported in January 1980, when he was arrested at Narita airport for marijuana possession while touring with his band, Wings.
Kazuo Kashihara, an immigration official at Narita International Airport, said if Hilton had applied for an entry permit in advance of her arrival, there might have been a chance for Japan’s minister to consider an exception in her case. Instead, “She just showed up the day after [pleading guilty],” he said.
According to a statement issued by Hilton’s publicist, Dawn Miller, “Paris is very disappointed and fought hard to keep her business commitments and see her fans, but she is forced to postpone her commitments in Asia. Paris understands and respects the rules and laws of the immigration authorities in Japan and fully wishes to cooperate with them.”
Drug charges can affect every aspect of your life, including business relationships and your ability to earn a living. If you or someone you know are facing accusations of this nature, please contact the experienced team at Sullo & Sullo, LLP. Call us at 713.839.9026 or visit our website at www.sullolaw.com for a free legal consultation today.

Proposition 8: The Legal Battle Over Gay Marriage In California

By Megan Breckenridge, Staff Writer
SULLO & SULLO, LLP
Home Criminal Defense Traffic Tickets Legal Articles

HOUSTON—The majority of U.S. states have Defense of Marriage Acts, which define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. But across America, gay rights activists are challenging state bans on same-sex marriage, arguing that such laws violate equal-protection guarantees in state constitutions. These arguments first proved persuasive in Massachusetts in 2003, and they have since had success in other state courts.
The battle over gay marriage has been raging in California since the beginning of 2000, when the state first started registering domestic partners and affording same-sex couples the benefits of hospital visitation and health insurance coverage for the dependents of government employees covered by CalPERS, the state’s retirement system. While groundbreaking, the law was not nearly enough to satisfy gay rights activists hoping to win the right to marry. Here is timeline from 2000 to present on the fight for same sex marriage in California:

March 7, 2000: More than 61% of Californians vote “yes” to Proposition 22, a ballot measure declaring that marriage should remain reserved for couples of the opposite sex.

October 14, 2001: Gov. Gray Davis signs a bill that expands the rights of domestic partners to include the right to make medical decisions for a hospitalized partner, use of sick leave to care for an ill or incapacitated partner, and to relocate with a partner without losing unemployment benefits, among others.

September 19, 2003: Gov. Davis signs a bill that gives state-registered domestic partners many of the legal rights and obligations of married couples in matters involving children, money and property. While the law does not go so far as to recognize gay marriage, it does give a partner the right to financial support and child custody following the dissolution of a partnership, and a survivor the right to collect his or her partner’s government benefits in the event of death.

February 12, 2004: San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom instructs city officials to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the first action of its kind in the nation. Dozens of couples are married, as city offices stay open late to accommodate long lines.

March 3, 2004: The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and the Los Angeles City Council pass resolutions opposing a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

March 11, 2004: The California Supreme Court unanimously orders San Francisco to stop issuing marriage licenses to gay couples and says it will rule on the legality of the city’s actions within the next few months.

August 12, 2004: The California Supreme Court rules unanimously that San Francisco's mayor overstepped his authority by issuing same-sex marriage licenses. By a 5 to 2 vote, the court also declares the roughly 4,000 marriages of gay and lesbian couples that had been sanctioned by the city "void from their inception and a legal nullity."

December 21, 2004: A San Francisco judge hears arguments on same-sex marriages. At the heart of the consolidated lawsuits, brought by the city of San Francisco and a dozen gay and lesbian couples, is the contention that current law defining marriage as "between a man and a woman" violates the state Constitution by denying homosexuals the "fundamental right" to marry the person of their choosing.

June 29, 2005: The California Supreme Court declines to hear a challenge to the state's domestic partners benefits law. Critics of the law thought such benefits would be prohibited by Proposition 22.

August 22, 2005: The California Supreme Court rules that children born to gay couples have two legally recognized parents; the first such ruling in the nation.

September 29, 2005: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoes a same-sex marriage bill after it passes the Senate and Assembly. Schwarzenegger says the bill would wrongly reverse Proposition 22, which declares that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

June 5, 2007: A measure to legalize marriage for gay couples easily passes the California Assembly after a respectful debate. As he did in 2005, Gov. Schwarzenegger is expected to veto the measure.

September 19, 2007: San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders abruptly reverses his public opposition to same-sex marriage. In an emotional statement, Sanders says he realizes that he cannot tell his daughter Lisa, who is gay, that her relationship with a partner is not as important as that of a straight couple.

October 12, 2007: Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoes a bill approved by state lawmakers that would legalize gay marriage. He says the courts need to rule on the legality of Proposition 22, the gay marriage ban passed by voters.

March 4, 2008: The California Supreme Court considers four lawsuits brought by same-sex couples after San Francisco issued marriage licenses in 2004. Three of the court's seven justices indicate they will uphold state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Ruling expected within 90 days.

May 15, 2008: The California Supreme Court rules that the state Constitution protects a fundamental "right to marry" that extends equally to same-sex couples. The three dissenting justices argue that it is up to the electorate or the Legislature to decide whether gays should marry.

June 2, 2008: More than one million signatures are submitted for a ballot measure that would amend the state Constitution to define marriage as a union "between a man and a woman" and undo the California Supreme Court ruling allowing gay marriages.

June 16, 2008: County registrars and clerks in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Alameda, Sonoma and Yolo counties keep offices open to allow at least two dozen same-sex couples the distinction of being among the first to wed. Seven Southern California Roman Catholic bishops, including L.A. Cardinal Roger Mahony, publically reaffirm their opposition to same-sex marriage.

July 16, 2008: The California Supreme Court rejects arguments that Proposition 8, which if passed by voters would amend the state Constitution to ban gay marriage, is an illegal constitutional revision. Justices also reject the argument that voters had been misled when they signed petitions to put it on the ballot.

November 4, 2008: California passes Proposition 8 with about 52% of the vote.

November 19, 2008: The California Supreme Court votes 6 to 1 to review legal challenges to Proposition 8, but refuses to permit gay weddings to resume pending a final decision.

March 2, 2009: The California state Senate approves a resolution calling Proposition 8 an improper revision of the California Constitution because it was not approved by the Legislature.

March 5, 2009: The California Supreme Court strongly indicates it will rule that Proposition 8 validly abolished the right for gays to marry but will allow same-sex couples who wed before the November election to remain legally married.

May 26, 2009: The California Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8's ban on same-sex marriage but also rules that gay couples who wed before the election will continue to be married under state law. Gay rights activists say they may ask voters to repeal the marriage ban as early as next year, and opponents pledge to fight any such effort.

May 27, 2009: Opening a new front in California's gay marriage battle, prominent attorneys working for a project of the American Foundation for Equal Rights announce they will file suit in federal court. The suit calls for an injunction against Proposition 8 and the immediate reinstatement of marriage rights for same-sex couples.

October 14, 2009: A federal judge refuses to dismiss a constitutional challenge to Proposition 8, ruling the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage raised legal and factual issues that required a trial.

Aug. 4, 2010: A federal judge in San Francisco rules that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry, striking down Proposition 8. U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker says Proposition 8, passed by voters in November 2008, violates the federal constitutional rights of gays and lesbians to marry the partners of their choice.

August 16, 2010: In a brief order, the 9th Circuit Court puts the legal battle over Proposition 8 on hold while it considers the constitutionality of the state's ban on same-sex marriage. The appeals court agrees to stay Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's order last week that would have barred the state from enforcing Proposition 8.

August 31, 2010: The Pacific Justice Institute, a conservative legal group in California, petitions the 3rd District Court of Appeal for an emergency order that would require Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown to defend California's gay marriage ban in court.

September 8, 2010: The California Supreme Court denies the petition from The Pacific Justice Institute seeking to force California Gov. Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Brown to participate in an appeal of the Proposition 8 case. The full court issues its decision with a simple two-sentence declaration.

The legal battle over gay marriage in California has been a lengthy one, and is not over yet. Arguments from both sides will be heard by the 9th Circuit Court on December 6, 2010, which could push a decision into next year. In the meantime, same-sex marriages will remain on hold.
If you or someone you know is in need of legal counsel regarding family matters or divorce, contact the experienced team at Sullo & Sullo, LLP. Call us at 713.839.9026 or visit our website at www.sullolaw.com for a free legal consultation today.

High-Speed Chase Ends on Dallas Love Field Runway

By Megan Breckenridge, Staff Writer
SULLO & SULLO, LLP
Home Criminal Defense Traffic Tickets Legal Articles

DALLAS—an hour-long police chase late last month ended in the arrest of a suspect wanted in connection with several robberies in the Dallas area. Michael Lawrence Brown, 46, was taken into custody next to one of Love Field airport’s busiest runways after leading police on a high-speed chase through the city.
Police said that a gray Chevy pickup, which had been stolen at knifepoint from the Sheraton Hotel in Fort Worth, was spotted at an apartment complex in the area of Preston Road and Belt Line Road in north Dallas around 2:30 p.m. on Thursday, August 19. This started a chase that ran down the service roads of Central Expressway.
After heading through neighborhoods and even traveling south into the downtown area, Brown turned the pickup truck northbound and wound up at Love Field.
With no other way to go, he easily smashed through a security gate off of Aviation Place and found himself on the tarmac not far from nine Southwest passenger jets. But he didn’t stop there: Brown drove east over an active runway (31R) before turning and continuing up the taxiway. He crossed Runway 18 and was boxed in by four cruisers and an unmarked police truck, then was forced onto the grass north of Runway 18 in between the taxiway and Runway 13L. One officer used a pit maneuver to force the truck into a spin, and the chase was over.
In the wake of this dramatic pursuit, the Dallas Police Department has put the entire chase under review. It has been noted that officers had multiple opportunities to bring the chase to an end before Brown reached the airport, opting not to use the pit maneuver on two separate occasions, since it violated the department’s new chase policy. But a Dallas police car ended the chase with a pit maneuver, ramming the stolen truck and forcing it to stop, which the department contends was in response to “extenuating circumstances”.
Also under scrutiny are the seemingly thin defenses for Love Field, which have raised concerns that vehicle driver with more mayhem in mind than simply avoiding law enforcement could mimic the move. But officials declined to comment on possible changes or improvements to the current airport design, because “if [they] talk about [their] security program, it ceases to be a security program.”
Though high-speed chases like this one are more often seen on the big screen than in real life, minor traffic incidents occur on our city streets every day. If you or someone you know has been cited for traffic violation, contact the experienced team at Sullo & Sullo, LLP. Our lawyers are leaders in traffic ticket defense in both Dallas and Houston, and are here to help. Call us at 713.839.9026 or visit our website at www.sullolaw.com for a free legal consultation today.

Feds Crack Down on Illicit Prescription Drug Sales

By Megan Breckenridge, Staff Writer

SULLO & SULLO, LLP

Home Criminal Defense Traffic Tickets Legal Articles

HOUSTON—Pharmacies in Illinois and Utah stand accused of illicit prescription drug sales over the Internet, according to court papers filed by federal agents in two U.S. cities.

Search warrant affidavits allege that both pharmacies, one in Des Plaines, Illinois, and the other in American Fork, Utah, are owned by the same man, Kyle Rootsaert. The company in Des Plaines, now called Rand Pharmacy, combined with another unidentified online pharmacy shipped 30,000 packages of prescription drugs across the country during the first six months of 2010.

"This is a pretty large ring of at least 200 websites that acted as internet pharmacies that were basically selling drugs—prescription drugs—without requiring a valid prescription," John Horton, a former official in the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, said in an interview with CNN. "These affidavits indicate this was a multiyear, multimillion-dollar operation involving thousands and thousands of prescriptions. Going back in time, there were even deaths involved with this organization."

According to the court documents, the majority of the drugs were highly addictive, especially the muscle relaxants Soma and Tramadol. And the same physician, Dr. William E. Morrow of Layton, Utah, authorized most of the prescriptions without ever having seen or talked to any of the people ordering the drugs.

In 1999, Morrow lost his right to dispense controlled drugs for three years because he did not follow proper prescription procedures, Utah records show. He was also fined $1,000, but regained his right to prescribe controlled medications in 2002. His right to practice medicine was never taken away.

Federal agents bought drugs from the online pharmacies between 2008 and April 2010 without a prescription, the affidavits say. The pills were delivered within a day or two, and dozens of follow-up emails were sent encouraging the agents to purchase more drugs. Also in 2008, a correspondent for CNN’s Special Investigation’s Unit was able to obtain the antidepressant Prozac without a prescription from the accused pharmacies.

There are countless reasons to be cautious when ordering medications online, including the sale of altered drug formulations, and expired or counterfeit products. To be sure that you are getting your medication from a reputable source, it is best to visit a licensed brick and mortar pharmacy or use an online pharmacy that has been certified by the Verified Internet Pharmacy Practice Sites (VIPPS) program at legitscript.com.

If you or someone you know has been harmed by pharmaceutical drugs, contact the experienced team at Sullo & Sullo, LLP. Call us at 713.839.9026 or visit our website at www.sullolaw.com for a free legal consultation today.

DWI and No-Refusal Weekends in Texas

By Megan Breckenridge, Staff Writer
SULLO & SULLO, LLP

Home Criminal Defense Traffic Tickets Legal Articles

HOUSTON—In 2008, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported a total of 37,261 auto accident fatalities in the United States; 11,773 (32 percent) of which involved a driver whose blood alcohol content was above the legal limit. Perhaps even more disturbing are statistics that show Texas as the national leader in alcohol-related crashes, with 1,269 drunk driving deaths documented that year.

Given this information, it’s easy to see why alcohol and drug-related traffic offenses, commonly known as Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), are frequently prosecuted criminal offenses in Texas. If the alcohol concentration in a person's blood, breath or urine is .08 percent or higher, the person is considered intoxicated by law.

In some cases under Texas DWI law, the legal definition of intoxication is met even if a person's blood alcohol concentration is lower than .08 percent. Having alcohol, drugs or a controlled substance in one's body that causes loss of normal use of mental or physical faculties is also considered intoxication. If a person is operating a vehicle, vessel or even water skis in a public place, he or she is considered to be DWI, which is a Class B misdemeanor in Texas. Boating and operating an aircraft while intoxicated are also considered to be crimes.

The minimum amount of jail time in Texas for DWI is 72 hours, unless there is an open container of alcohol in the person's possession, in which case the jail time is at least six days. Consuming any amount of alcohol while operating a motor vehicle is also an offense in Texas.

In addition to jail time, a person who is convicted of DWI the first time will have his or her driver's license suspended for 90 days up to one year. Even if there is no conviction, the positive indication of alcohol from a blood, breath or urine test will result in automatic suspension of the person's driver's license. The option to complete a court-approved DWI education course within 180 days of conviction may be offered as a means of avoiding this suspension. A person who fails to complete such a program when sentenced to do so may lose his or her license. If the case presents unusual facts (i.e.—an accident, alcohol problem, bad driving record, etc.), additional conditions may be imposed. Most conditions are designed to address a problem that appears from the facts or alcohol/drug evaluation that is performed on the subject after conviction and include, but are not limited to, the installation of an ignition interlock device; alcohol treatment; an order to consume no alcohol; confinement; and restitution.

A DWI Second Offense is considered a Class A Misdemeanor, and requires the court to order, as a condition of release from jail on bond, the installation and maintenance of an ignition interlock device. This machine requires a breath sample before it will allow an individual to start his or her car, and periodic samples while driving to monitor and ensure sobriety. New technology has made the devices “user sensitive” so that another person cannot blow into the machine for the accused.

A DWI Third Offense (or greater) is considered a Third Degree Felony in Texas, and comes with a mandatory jail sentence of not less than two years nor more than ten years, along with many other stipulations and restrictions.

Refusing to submit to a blood, breath or urine test in Texas also carries penalties. If an officer has reason to believe that a person is driving while intoxicated, and the driver refuses to submit to a test, the person's driver's license will be automatically suspended for a minimum of 90 days if the person is 21 years of age or older, and for at least one year if the person is under 21. The period of license suspension increases with every subsequent test that shows an alcohol concentration above the legal limit, and with each time a person refuses to submit to alcohol testing. For example, if a person refuses to be tested for intoxication and there has been an alcohol or drug related conviction or license suspension within the previous five years, the person will lose his or her license automatically for one year. Under any circumstances, however, the person is entitled to a hearing.

In spite of these consequences, the number of DWI arrestees in Texas refusing to submit to a test has remained at roughly 50 percent. As a result, law enforcement agencies and prosecutors’ offices across the state have begun to use search warrants to obtain blood samples when suspects refuse to submit to a breathalyzer test, in a new program called “No-Refusal Weekends”. According to the Harris County District Attorney’s Office, the initiative aims to “ensure a breath or blood sample from every suspect pulled over for suspected DWI, full prosecution of these offenders, and, more importantly, a decrease in the number of fatalities over holidays.”

During no-refusal operations, which to date have been held during major holiday weekends, if a suspect is arrested on suspicion of DWI and refuses to submit to a breath or blood test, the arresting officer prepares an affidavit in support of a search warrant application. The affidavit must recite facts that demonstrate that the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect is under the influence, and that evidence of alcohol or drugs will be found in their blood. The officer then presents the affidavit to a judge who reviews if for probable cause. In practice, the police rarely appear in person to swear to the affidavit. Rather, the typical practice is for them to fax it or recite it over the phone to a judge who is “on call” for the operation. Once the warrant is approved, the arresting officer can obtain a blood sample without the suspect’s consent.

No-Refusal Weekends have been met with opposition from citizens claiming they are a violation of basic rights and the Constitutional ban on unreasonable search and seizure. Proponents, however, argue that not only will the program pull offenders from the streets, it may serve as a deterrent to those who previously thought they could side-step the law.

"If you or someone you know has had the misfortune of being involved in a drunk driving incident and need legal assistance, the experienced attorneys at Sullo & Sullo, LLP are here to help. Contact us at 713-839-9026 or visit our website at www.sullolaw.com to schedule your free consultation today."
-------------------------------------------------------------
Contact us today for a free legal evaluation at 713.839.9026 or visit our website at http://www.sullolaw.com/.
--------------
Best regards,
Sullo
Legal Attorneys Firm
Sullolaw.com - Sullo Sullo
Houston tx usa 77098
http://www.sullolaw.com/