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/

Texas Driver Responsibility Program under Fire

By Megan Breckenridge, Staff Writer
SULLO & SULLO, LLP

Home Criminal Defense Traffic Tickets Legal Articles

HOUSTON—it is common knowledge that drunken-driving laws in America vary from state-to-state, but in Texas, they often differ between counties. This “checkerboard” system of enforcement has recently come under fire, with local judges, lawmakers and upset residents calling for congruent reform and the elimination of hefty surcharges often imposed on top of criminal penalties.
Criminal Justice Committee Chairman John Whitmire, D-Houston, has taken special issue with the state’s Driver Responsibility Program (DRP), which includes a surcharge of $1000 annually for three years for first-time driving-while-intoxicated (DWI) offenders. Too often, motorists simply opt not to pay the fines, which Whitmire and law officers said means more people driving without licenses or insurance.
The DRP was created in 2003 as a funding tool for trauma care centers and transportation projects. The program established a system that assigns points to moving violations, and applies subsequent automatic surcharges to offenders.
Under the DRP:Points are accumulated for moving violation convictions. For any consecutive three-year period in which a driver accumulates 6 points, he or she is assessed a $100 annual surcharge that is imposed annually until such time as his or her point total drops below 6. Each additional point on a driver's record will cost an additional $25 a year;
Under the program, driving while intoxicated carries an automatic $1,000 annual surcharge for a first offense. Each subsequent conviction carries an additional $1,500 annual surcharge; Driving without a license carries a $150 penalty, plus a $100 annual surcharge, making the total violation $450. Driving with an invalid license would cost a driver $150, plus a $250 annual surcharge, making the total violation $900;
Texans caught driving without proof of insurance would be required to pay a $250 fee, plus an automatic annual surcharge of $250 for three years from the date of their conviction, making the total cost of the violation $1,000; and Should a driver commit one of these latter two violations again within that three years, they would be assessed an additional annual surcharge.
Critics of the program argue that many Texans affected by these automatic surcharges are first-time offenders, students, single parents or low-income families, who are faced the choice of either complying with the law or paying for their education, rent food or emergency expenses like car repairs or medical bills. Others simply opt not to pay, and as of April 2010, 1.2 million Texans owed the state more than $1 billion in unpaid surcharges.
For proponents of the DRP, whatever money has been collected through the program has been a godsend. Quoted in the July 2010 issue of Texas Medicine Magazine, Dr. Ronald Stuart, MD, chair of the Trauma Stystems Committee of the Governor’s EMS & Trauma Advisory Council (GETAC) said, “The expansion of Texas trauma centers under the DRP has led to improved coverage of timely access to care when people need it the most. What we’re talking about is access and quality of care…[which is] why preserving the DRP and other funding programs is important.”
Dr. Stewart said that most trauma physicians and trauma facility administrators are sympathetic to the challenges inherent in the DRP and are willing to work to improve the program. “We’re not opposed to making the system better. We believe that in spite of its problems, the DRP is, in general, a fair and equitable way to pay for uncompensated trauma care in Texas.”
Dr. Stewart’s opponents, however, couldn’t disagree more.With Texas’ varying DWI laws, Sen. Whitmire asserts prosecutors are recognizing that the surcharges imposed by the program are “a burden [defendants] can’t meet and they’re allowing them to plead to something other than DWI.” He voiced concern that the absence of a formal DWI charge would hide an individual’s first drunken-driving offense, allowing him to avoid enhanced penalties if he offends again.
In Harris County, for example, District Attorney Pat Lykos’ office allows defendants facing drunken driving charges for the first time to plead guilty to DWI with the option of completing a strictly probated program, after which the conviction can be wiped off their record. And in Bexar County, District Attorney Susan Reed dealt with a backlog of cases by allowing first-time DWI offenders to plead instead to a charge of “obstruction of a highway—intoxication”. Both options allow the accused to avoid the DRP-imposed surcharges.
Perhaps the only thing that parties on either side of the debate can agree on is that the DRP is not perfect, and as such, the Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee, headed by Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas, has been given the responsibility of vetting it before the 2011 legislative session. The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) is also working on new rules for the program to ease the surcharges for lower-income drivers.
Until such time that the existing surcharges are reduced or eliminated, being charged with DWI anywhere in Texas can have serious and life-changing consequences. If you or someone you know has been involved in a drunk driving incident, contact the experienced team of attorneys at Sullo & Sullo, LLP. Our lawyers understand how much is at stake in a DWI case and will fight for your rights. Call us at 713.839.9026 or visit our website at http://www.sullolaw.com/ for a free legal consultation today.

PROTECT YOURSELF FROM THIRD PARTY CAPTURE

By Megan Breckenridge, Staff Writer
SULLO & SULLO, LLP

Home Criminal Defense Traffic Tickets Legal Articles

HOUSTON—If you or someone close to you has been injured in an accident, you know how physically and emotionally traumatic the experience can be. It stands to reason then, that accident victims should be given time to recover and fully understand the ramifications of the accident before they are expected to negotiate personal injury compensation.

Unfortunately, insurance companies have begun to employ a settlement method called “third party capture” with alarming frequency, despite mounting criticism from consumers, legal experts and injury watchdogs. The practice involves contacting injured victims of accidents—people who would potentially make a claim for personal injury compensation—directly, and offering them a settlement before they have taken legal advice.

These offers are often far less than the amount of compensation the victim could have received if he or she had first consulted with an injury claims specialist.

Insurers defend the method, which they refer to as “third party assistance”, as a means of reducing unnecessary legal costs and enabling claimants to receive compensation more quickly than if they contact a legal representative. Consumer and claimant groups, however, argue that the practice puts undue pressure on victims to accept lower settlements, and to settle without considering all of their options.

In December 2009, the Financial Services Authority (FSA) concluded that third party capture was not inherently detrimental to claimants, but that there was a risk, in some cases, that they would settle for less than what they were entitled to.

The findings, published in a fact sheet, reminded insurers of their obligations to make sure unrepresented claimants were fully informed of their rights—including their right to independent legal advice—and that their interests were properly safeguarded.In response to the FSA’s release, the Association of British Insurers (ABI) published a voluntary code of practice on “third party assistance” and a consumer guide.

Under the code, unsolicited personal visits are banned, and insurers are only allowed to contact unrepresented claimants for the first time by telephone, text, email or letter. Phone calls are to be followed up in writing, and texts are limited to one message asking the claimant to call back. If there is no response, no further texts are to be sent.

The code also states that at each stage of the process, insurers must remind claimants of their right to seek independent legal advice and of the other options for pursuing their claim, such as through the court.In June 2010, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) responded with a warning to consumers to “Beware of the ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’,” referring to the ABI’s insurance guide. “[We have] been long concerned about a growing trend for the insurer of the person who caused the injury to make direct contact with the victim, offering to settle the compensation claim direct,” the APIL said in a press release.

“We have sent evidence to the FSA to illustrate occasions when insurers have quite clearly attempted to under-settle claims in these circumstances…[and] have also heard about quite shameful pressure to settle being brought to bear on vulnerable and injured people.”One of APIL’s key concerns is that most people know nothing about the compensation system, which makes it difficult for them to judge whether or not the compensation they are being offered is fair or correct. They also express concern about the part of this approach that involves people being “cold-called” by insurers, when they are at their most vulnerable.

The APIL recommends that injured parties seek independent advice about such key aspects of their case as medical reports, rehabilitation, and the level of compensation to be expected.

What is cited in the ABI’s guide as an “unnecessary” legal cost might make all the difference in putting someone’s life back on track after being sidelined by a needless injury.

If you or someone you know has been the victim of an accident and require independent legal advice to receive the compensation you deserve, contact the experienced team at Sullo & Sullo, LLP. Our lawyers understand how difficult it can be to recover from the emotional, physical and financial setbacks of a personal injury and are here to help. Call us at 713.839.9026 for a free legal consultation today.

High-profile Divorces

By Megan Breckenridge, Staff Writer
SULLO & SULLO, LLP

Home Criminal Defense Traffic Tickets Legal Articles

HOUSTON—We’ve all heard the sobering statistics about divorce rates in the United States, where the cost of dissolving a marriage is relatively low and the process simple. But for high-profile couples with piles of cash and material assets, parting ways can be a costly and complicated affair.Anyone with cable or Internet access knows the sordid details of Tiger Woods and Elin Nordegren’s split, which is rumored will soon be settled for a staggering $100 million. Amazingly, theirs will not be the most expensive A-list divorce to date. Here is a look some of the costliest celebrity divorces:
1. Mick Jagger and Jerry Hall.Estimated settlement: $15 to 25 million.The Rolling Stones’ front man and sexy supermodel met in 1977 and had two children together before tying the knot in a traditional Hindi wedding ceremony in Bali, Indonesia in 1990. Hall filed for divorce in 1999 after learning that Jagger had fathered a child with another woman. Jagger, worth an estimated $325 million at the time, successfully challenged the legality of the Balinese wedding and was granted an annulment. Hall walked away with only a fraction of his estate.
2. Michael and Diandra Douglas.Estimated settlement: $45 million.The couple met in 1977 at a Jimmy Carter inauguration party and wed six weeks later. During the course of their marriage, Michael became one of Hollywood’s top earning actors, starring in box office hits like Fatal Attraction, Wall Street and Basic Instinct. Amid rumors of the actor’s infidelities and alcohol abuse, the couple separated in 1998. Diandra was awarded an estimated $45 million in 2000, plus homes in Beverly Hills and Majorca. In June 2010, the couple returned to court to dispute Diandra’s claim to a portion of the proceeds from Michael’s upcoming Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps. If the film is ruled to be a spin-off of the original Wall Street, which Michael filmed while they were together, Diandra will be entitled to a share of his earnings per their divorce settlement.
3. James Cameron and Linda Hamilton.Estimated settlement: $50 million.The famed director wed the star of his first two Terminator movies in July 1997. Though their marriage lasted a mere 18 months, they conceived a daughter together during that time. Their divorce settled shortly after Titanic was released, and Cameron was forced to give Hamilton more than half of the film’s revenues.
4. Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills.Estimated settlement: $50 million.The Beatles rocker married the former model and charity campaigner in 2002, with McCartney reportedly shunning Mills’ offer of a prenuptial agreement. In 2006, the pair began bitter divorce proceedings, which garnered a great deal of press and were not resolved until March of 2008. They have a daughter together who, in addition to Mills’ nearly $50 million settlement, will receive over $44,000 per year until her 18th birthday.
5. Madonna and Guy Ritchie.Estimated settlement: $76 million.The Material Girl wed the British film director in 2000, two years after they met at a dinner party hosted by Sting and his wife Trudie Styler. The pair have two children together, Rocco, 8, and David, 3, who was adopted from Malawi. They share custody of the kids, and Madonna shared a large chunk of her estimated $450 million net worth with Ritchie when they settled their divorce for $76 million in 2008.
6. Steven Spielberg and Amy Irving.Estimated settlement: $100 million.Famed director Spielberg and up-and-coming actress Irving met in 1979, had a son, and later married in 1985. But by 1989 the passion between them had fizzled and the amicably parted ways, with Spielberg giving Irving a $100 million settlement to show there were no hard feelings.
7. Neil Diamond and Marcia Murphey.Estimated settlement: $150 million.Neil Diamond has known international signing success since the ‘60s, and during his career has sold more than one million records worldwide. When he met the woman who would share his life for 25 years, he was already married to his first wife. Apparently Diamond went out for cigarettes in November 1969 and never returned. Three weeks later he had divorced and married TV producer Marcia Murphey. In 1994, following rumors of extramarital affairs on Diamond’s part, Murphey filed for divorce citing “irreconcilable differences”. Their settlement was for $150 million, half his fortune, which the singer claims he gave her cheerfully. “She’s worth every penny,” he said.
8. Rupert and Anna Murdoch.Estimated settlement: $1.7 billion.One of the richest men in the world, Rupert Murdoch developed his worldwide media empire when he inherited his father’s Australian newspaper in 1952. He married Anna in the early ‘60s and they remained together for 32 years and had three children.
The pair split on good terms in 1998 but when Rupert forced Anna off the board of News Corporation, things turned ugly. Rupert finally agreed to give his wife $1.7 billion worth of his assets, $110 million of it in cash. 17 days later, Rupert married Wendi Dang, one of his employees.
As you can see, the higher the net-worth of the individuals involved, the messier the divorce proceedings may be. If you or someone you know is faced with the dissolution of a marriage, it pays to consult a professional about how best to protect your interests and assets. The lawyers at Sullo & Sullo, LLP understand the emotional and financial ramifications of divorce and are here to help. Contact us today for a free legal evaluation at 713.839.9026

Drug Violence in Mexico Spills Into U.S

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

HOUSTON—Although Mexico has long been a source of production and transit for illegal drugs, the country now finds itself embattled with powerful and well-financed drug cartels. An upsurge in drug-related violence can be traced to the end of 2006 when President Felipe Calderón launched an aggressive assault on drug trafficking organizations by deploying tens of thousands of federal police and soldiers to reign them in. But his initiative has been largely unsuccessful to date, and there is a rising chorus of voices on both sides of the border questioning the cost and fallout of the attack on the cartels.

Given its geographic location, Mexico has been used as a staging and transshipment point for narcotics, illegal immigrants and other contraband destined for U.S. markets from Mexico, South America and elsewhere for decades. During the 1980s and early 1990s, Colombia’s Pablo Escobar was the main exporter of cocaine and dealt with organized criminal networks all over the world. When enforcement efforts intensified in South Florida and the Caribbean, the Colombian organizations formed partnerships with Mexico-based traffickers to transport cocaine through Mexico into the United States.

These new allegiances flourished, since Mexico had long been a major source of heroin and cannabis and possessed an infrastructure that stood ready to serve the Colombia-based traffickers. At first, the Mexican gangs were paid in cash for their transport services, but in the late 1980s, a settlement was reached wherein they would be compensated in product. Payment was usually 35 to 50 percent of each cocaine shipment, which meant that organizations from Mexico became involved in distribution as well as transportation, and quickly morphed into formidable traffickers in their own right.

With the demise of Colombia’s Cali and Medellín cartels in the 1990s, Mexican gangs stepped up to dominate the wholesale illicit drug market in the United States. Arrests and deaths of key leaders in recent years have led to increasing violence as rival cartels fight for control of the trafficking routes into the U.S. Amid this continuous power struggle, gang leaders often attempt to use law enforcement to their benefit, either by bribing Mexican officials to take certain action against an opponent, or by leaking intelligence about a rival’s operations to the Mexican government or the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

There is also mounting evidence of corruption amid border security and law enforcement officers, with suspicions being raised about agencies on both sides of the border.

To many Mexicans, the rising count of gruesome drug-related murders is evidence that the government’s strategy to combat the cartels has failed.

Current estimates put the death toll at close to 23,000 since Calderón took office in December 2006, with numbers increasing exponentially each year.

The government insists that the majority of those killed in Mexico’s drug violence were involved in the narcotics trade. But a growing number of bystanders are dying in the crossfire, and Americans are among them.

Tania Lozoya, 15, of El Paso, Texas, was killed by a stray bullet at her Aunt’s house across the border in Ciudad Juárez in May 2009, after gunfire broke out when two men chased another man into the backyard of the residence.

In December, a California assistant school principal, Augustin Salcedo, was killed after he was abducted from a restaurant along with five other men while he and his wife were visiting her hometown of Gomex Palacio, in the northern state of Durango.

The motive for the mass abduction is still unknown. Other Americans appear to have been specifically targeted.

U.S. anti-kidnapping expert Felix Batista was abducted by gunmen in December 2008 in the northern city of Saltillo, where he had gone to advise local businessmen on how to avoid becoming victims of the country’s wave of kidnappings. He has not been found. And on March 13, 2010, gunmen believed to be linked to drug traffickers ahot a pregnant American consulate worker and her husband to death in Ciudad Juárez. The same gunmen also killed the husband of another consular employee and wounded their two young children.

Americans, from border state governors to military analysts in Washington, have begun to question whether the mounting violence presents a threat to their own national security and, to the outrage of many Mexicans, whether the state itself will crumble under the strain of the war.

The Obama Administration released a critical report, called the 2010 National Methamphetamine Threat Assessment by the National Drug Intelligence Center of the Justice Department, that portrays drug cartels as easily able to circumvent the Mexican government’s restrictions on the importing of chemicals used to manufacture meth, which has reached its highest purity and lowest price in the United States since 2005. Closer to home, the report also points to increased cooperation between Mexican drug trafficking organizations and U.S.-based street and prison gangs to distribute illegal substances. In many areas, American gangs have used their alliances with Mexican cartels to facilitate an expansion of their midlevel and retail drug operations into more rural and suburban areas.
Responding to a growing sense that Mexico’s military-led fight against drug traffickers is not gaining ground, the U.S. and Mexico set their joint counternarcotics strategy on a new course in March 2010 by refocusing their efforts on strengthening civilian law enforcement institutions and rebuilding communities crippled by poverty and crime.
Under the new $331 million plan, American and Mexican agencies will work together to refocus border enforcement efforts away from building a better wall to creating systems that would allow goods and people to be screened before they reach crossing points. The plan also provides support for Mexican programs intended to strengthen communities where socioeconomic hardships force many young people into crime.
Even with these new initiatives under way, the drug-related violence in Mexico shows no signs of dissipating. The U.S State Department has warned against nonessential travel along the U.S.-Mexico border, especially in the violent cities of Ciudad Juárez and Tijuana, and allowed consulate employees to evacuate their families for the foreseeable future. As even Calderón has conceded, “It’s a war.”With the growing prevalence of illicit substances in the United States by way of Mexico, you or
someone you know may have been impacted by a drug-related crime. The lawyers at Sullo & Sullo, LLP understand the serious ramifications of these charges and are here to help. Contact us today for a free legal evaluation at 713.839.9026

Health Care Reform And You: A Guide

By Megan Breckenridge, Staff Writer

SULLO & SULLO, LLP

Home | Criminal Defense | Traffic Tickets | Legal Articles

HOUSTON—On March 23, 2010, after more than a year of passionate debate, partisan politics and substantive policy discussions, President Obama signed his health care overhaul legislation into law. The House of Representatives passed the reform package, which was initially green-lighted by the Sentate, with only a slim margin of 219 to 212.

The bill is the most far-reaching legislation of its kind since the creation of the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and creates sweeping changes to the nation’s health care system. Most of the significant reforms will take years to implement, but many are already being put into place. The following is a comprehensive look at the package and its potential effects on you and your family:

Cost:

• The bill will cost $940 billion over ten years.

Deficit:

• The bill aims to reduce the deficit by $143 billion over the first ten years, and $1.2 trillion in the second ten years.

Coverage:

• Health insurance coverage will be expanded to 32 million Americans who are currently uninsured.

Health Insurance Exchanges:

• Uninsured and self-employed individuals will be able to purchase insurance through state-based exchanges with subsidies available to individuals and families with income between 133 percent and 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level* (FPL). *Note: The FPL for a family of four is $22,050.
• Separate exchanges will be created for small businesses to purchase coverage (effective 2014).
• Funding will be available to states to establish exchanges within one year of the bill’s enactment and until January 1, 2015.

Subsidies:

• Individuals and families who make between 100 and 400 percent of the FPL and would like to purchase their own health insurance on an exchange will be eligible for subsidies. They cannot be eligible for Medicare or Medicaid, and cannot be covered by an employer. Eligible buyers will receive premium credit cards, and there will be a cap for how much they are required to contribute to their premiums based on a sliding scale.

Funding The Plan:

• Medicare Payroll Tax on investment income: Beginning in 2012, the Medicare Payroll Tax will be expanded to include unearned income. There will be a 3.8 percent tax on investment income for individuals making more than $200,000 per year and families making more than $250,000 per year.
• Excise Tax: Starting in 2018, insurance companies will pay a 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” high-end insurance plans worth over $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. Dental and vision plans are exempt and will not be counted in the total cost of the plans.
• Tanning Tax: There will be a 10 percent tax on indoor tanning services.

Medicare:

• The bill will completely close the Medicare Part D donut hole by 2020, through the provision of a $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries who hit the gap in 2010, and a 50 percent discount on brand-name drugs in the donut hole beginning in 2011.
• Co-payments and deductibles for preventative services will be eliminated under the Medicare program beginning in 2011.
• The bill also includes $500 billion in Medicare cuts over the next decade.

Medicaid:

• Medicaid will be expanded to include 133 percent of the FPL.
• States will be required to expand Medicaid to include childless adults starting in 2014.
• The Federal Government will pay 100 percent of costs for covering newly eligible individuals through 2016.
• Illegal immigrants will not be eligible for Medicaid.

Insurance Reform:

• Insurance companies will be banned from dropping individuals from coverage if they become sick.
• Health plans will be prohibited from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. Beginning in 2014, this prohibition will apply to all persons.
• Insurance companies will be required to permit young people up to their 26^th birthday to remain on their parents’ policy, if the parents so choose.
• Insurance companies will be prohibited from placing lifetime caps on coverage.
• New plans will be tightly restricted in their use of annual limits to ensure access to needed care. Beginning in 2014, the use of any annual limits will be prohibited for all plans.
• New private plans will be required to cover preventative services with no co-payments and with preventative services being exempt from deductibles. Beginning in 2018, this requirement will apply to all plans.
• Customers purchasing new plans will have access to an effective internal and external appeals process to appeal decisions made by their health insurance provider.
• Beginning in 2011, plans in the individual and small group market will be required to spend at least 80 percent of premium dollars on medical services, and plans in the large group market will be required to spend 85 percent. Insurers that do not meet these thresholds must provide rebates to policyholders.
• Intermediate access to insurance for Americans who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition will be available through a temporary high-risk pool.
• New group health plans will be prohibited from establishing any eligibility rules for coverage that discriminate in favor of higher wage employees.
• Beginning in 2011, a long-term care insurance policy will be created, that will be financed by voluntary payroll deductions to provide benefits to adults who become functionally disabled.
• Aid will be provided to states in establishing offices of health insurance consumer assistance in order to help individuals with the filing of complaints and appeals.

Access To Care:

• The bill will provide new investment in training programs to increase the number of primary care doctors, nurses and public health professionals.
• Funding for Community Health Centers will be increased to allow for nearly a doubling of the number of patients seen by the centers over the next five years.

Abortion:

• Private and taxpayer health insurance premium funds will be segregated, and individuals will be required to pay for abortion coverage through two separate payments. (Private funds will have to be kept separate from federal and taxpayer funds).
• No health care plan will be required to offer abortion coverage. States will be permitted to pass legislation choosing to opt out of offering coverage through the exchange.

Individual Mandates:

• In 2014, everyone will be required to have health insurance or face a $695 annual fine. There will be exceptions made for some low-income individuals.

Employer Mandates:

• Employers with more than 50 employees will be required to provide health insurance or face an annual fine of $2000 per year, per worker, if any employee receives federal subsidies to purchase private health insurance. The fine will be applied to the total number of workers, with some allowances.
• Small businesses will receive tax credits to make employee coverage more affordable. Credits up to 35 percent of premiums will be immediately available for firms that choose to offer coverage, effective beginning for calendar year 2010. (Starting in 2014, the small business tax credits will cover 50 percent of premiums).
• Until the Exchanges become available in 2014, a temporary re-insurance program will be in place to help offset the costs of expensive health claims for employers that provide health benefits for retirees age 55-64. (Effective 90 days after the enactment of the law).

Illegal Immigrants:

• Illegal immigrants will not be allowed to purchase health insurance in exchanges, regardless of whether or not they can afford to pay the premiums themselves.